I Encountered a Tribe

As crises often do,

the past four years have occasioned a reconsideration of previously held assumptions about the world around me.  While deeply-rooted core beliefs have withstood this exercise, my perspective on Canada and my identity as a Canadian Citizen has been shaken by the events detailed on this website.  I have been able to develop a series of reasonable inferences from a fact-based contextual framework, in accord with the test criteria provided in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 75 at paragraphs 97-98.
 

At the most basic level, these past four years have taught me how this country is run.  This lesson has come about as a result of my experiences with various adjudicative agencies which have the power to change lives.  I have to admit that up until late 2021, I had labored under the assumption that I could judge a book by its cover, whereas the institutions “worked”, as is described on paper.  I held this assumption because up until that time, my life was relatively unperturbed, and I haven’t had much reason to reflect on the workings of institutions which, in seasons past, had very little to no impact on my day to day life experience.  Likewise, the opinions of the disinterested person are shaped by their experiences, their focus, and the environment they are exposed to.  As such, when the law of the land codifies a real material distinction between the three branches of government; the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, as rooted in an objective rules-based system that suggests adjudicative agencies can be trusted, I was satisfied in accepting that premise at face value.  The pages, links, and redacted materials on this website, however, uncover a very different and disruptive reality.  

The oft-cited test in R. v Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2 at paragraph 89 states;

“A miscarriage of justice may be found where anything happens in the course of a trial, including the appearance of unfairness, which is so serious that it shakes public confidence in the administration of justice: R. v. Cameron (1991), 1991 CanLII 7182 (ON CA), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 96 (Ont. C.A.) at 102; leave to appeal ref’d [1991] 3 S.C.R. x.”

As is expected to be clear, the murderous characteristics of the scandal this website details are well beyond the appearance of unfairness.
 

A systemic problem becomes apparent in view of a consistency across time and venue that leaves no room for alternative explanations.  A study at Yale Law (here), found that over one million bribes are paid into the United States judicial system on an annual basis, with a comparable amount paid into the Canadian judicial system per capita (approximately 200,000 bribes per year).  For the purposes of clarity, the dataset also includes police, regulators, and jury witnesses.  As significant as that metric is, it would be unreasonable to assume that ad-hoc corruption could adequately account for the characteristics that had manifested in the scandal this website details.  There would be too much room for error, and there is a reasonable expectation that among Canada’s three levels of court, a miscarriage of justice would be remedied.  Likewise, there are also whistleblowers and the media to consider, whereas notices are issued to the latter as part of a court appeal process. 

The patterns you see at the Litigation page, Guide page, and Affidavits inexorably require a mode of centralized stakeholder influence that can shape the conduct of adjudicative agencies in the public service to facilitate private interests.  Beyond an acutely obvious appearance of oppression and injustice, the litmus test involves measuring concrete events, documents, and behaviours against applicable case law.  An unjust concurrence and/or trend in obstructing access to justice in matters of serious impact likewise requires a manner of overarching stakeholder influence.  When public recourse avenues are aligned with the interests of perpetrators, there is very little hope a victim can have besides whistleblowers.  Isolated victims might be doomed absent an act of Divine intervention.  These characteristics are sufficient to question the current efficacy of Canada’s Constitutional heritage.

A number of different and compelling inflection points have converged in the past decade, and most certainly in recent years, that suggest that Canadians now live in a cosmetic democracy, or, as Warwick University political scientist Dr. Colin Crouch calls it, a state of post-democracy.  The term post-constitutional likewise applies.  In his year 2000 text titled Coping with Post-Democracy, he defined the term as follows;

"A post-democratic society is one that continues to have and to use all the institutions of democracy, but in which they increasingly become a formal shell.  The energy and innovative drive pass away from the democratic arena and into small circles of a politico-economic elite."

Also see "Five minutes with Colin Crouch". London School of Economics. 5 February 2013 (here).

A question of cosmetic democracy can be approached by way of beliefs, philosophical trends, demographics & culture, vetting systems, economics, technology, big business, and the United Nations agenda for sustainable development, inter alia, which I will treat in cursory detail. 

Esteemed 20th century scholar Michel Foucault would argue that the contemporary zeitgeist in Canada has departed from the basis of law as defined in Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 267 at paragraph 37, which held that Canada is a country; "Founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”  It is thus understood that Canadian legal heritage recognizes a transcendental basis of law, morals, ethics, and objective truths.

Foucault observed in Power/Knowledge that in a postmodern hermeneutic, truth is subject to human consensus, and power is disseminated through networks and communities of like-minded stakeholders.  A postmodern hermeneutic rejects a transcendental basis of truth and the existence of absolutes, which ironically, would example an absolute in its own right.  A predominantly postmodern cultural hermeneutic has massive implications on Canada’s political and legal landscape, whereas it is directly antithetical to the Constitutional heritage as outlined in Ruffo.  The legacy institutional framework remains, albeit guided under the leadership of its ideological detractors.  As a minimum consideration, a postmodern judiciary would be more likely to align with the interests of like-minded and/or influential stakeholder communities, as opposed to upholding the Constitution when doing so would be problematic.  Foucault’s text supports Stéphane Sérafin and Kerry Sun’s observations in the National Post concerning a trending departure from Canada’s legal tradition (here).  They write; 

“In conjecturing that Canada’s legal heritage has little value, the chief justice strikes at the very heart of the rule of law and envisages an unchecked judicial power. It is ironic that his annual press conference, itself an innovation ostensibly designed to improve the public’s confidence in the judiciary, should have precisely the opposite effect.” 

Likewise, the Honourable Marshall Rothstein opined;

"I'm not sure that I would be comfortable thinking that judges should be advancing the law with a social agenda in mind. It seems to me that the social agenda is the agenda for Parliament and if Parliament wants to advance the law in social terms, that's their job."

Fundamentally, when the basis of law is decoupled from a transcendental basis such as described in Ruffo, it will invariably become subject to social darwinism, with the end result being an ideological caste system.  This provides an ideal environment for codependency among stakeholders and the facilitation of private interests.  The most basic example of this is the cancel-culture movement, which is little more than a manifestation of mob rule.
 

A prevailing cultural zeitgeist will work its way into an institutional framework over the course of time through discretionary vetting processes.  Examples of the same can be as simple as a discretionary hiring choice, the federal appointment of a lawyer to the judiciary, or the certification of an aspiring political candidate by a party capable of winning an election.  An immense amount of legitimate authority in Canada, if not all of it, is subject to discretionary filtration mechanisms such as this, to the extent that frameworks of stakeholder influence can be easily developed and maintained.  The same process enables post-democratic, and post-constitutional conditions.

Within a multi-stakeholder environment, elections can be authentic, but they are likely to be an inconsequential choice with respect to mid and long-term trajectory.  By means of discretionary vetting mechanisms, the appropriate allies are placed in stakeholder contention, regardless of party affiliation.  Whether it’s “Freaky Freeland”, “Carbon Tax Carney”, “Maple Syrup MAGA”, or a different candidate, the election outcome is inconsequential.  Irrespective of the same, the characteristics of globalization, technological advancement, AI, and economic practices would in due course preclude any reasonable consideration of traditional benchmarks, as was explored by the aforementioned Dr. Colin Crouch.

Sovereign states are a great idea as they counterbalance interests, but the challenge again involves networks of shared ideology applied in diverse jurisdictions.  To that end, any hint of the operation of clandestine networks in public institutions, as is the case in this scandal, must be aggressively sussed out and uprooted.  Rest assured, a cursory survey of the Canadian public would resolutely reject any form of transnational stakeholder influence, because people like knowing that they have control over their lives, and because they expect their Constitutional rights to be upheld and enforced when necessary with best efforts, 100% of the time.

Geography, technology, and demographics play a further role in influencing modalities of governance.  The earliest modality of human politics concerned geographical communities with basic social hierarchies.  With population growth, new groups branched off, either amicably or through conflict, and developed their own cultures in different geographical venues.  From primitive times until perhaps the last century, physical geography played an important role in social and ideological cohesion, and whereas, countries and/or peoples could be more readily distinguished based on their specific beliefs and traditions.

It must be understood that the information age has, by and large, torpedoed a necessary reliance on geography.  Today, like-minded circles of influence are developed independent of geographical constraints.  Similarly, communities that are delineated on the basis of interests, beliefs, values, or otherwise are readily located with a few keystrokes.  While it would of course be problematic to dismiss the important role that geography continues to play, it is far less relevant now than in past centuries, and it is most certainly irrelevant in the development and sustainability of like-minded circles of influence.  Foucault’s observations on power and community under these conditions become much more compelling.  The idea of transnational frameworks of like-minded and stakeholders (ie., “families”), operating in a mode of stakeholder influence is in fact much more believable than a cosmetic left/right paradigm. 

WEF Advisor Dr. Yuval Noah Harari raised an important point concerning the advance of technology, in concert with its practical application, which likewise applies to business practices and our global economy.  He writes in the following article in the Atlantic (here);

“We tend to think about the conflict between democracy and dictatorship as a conflict between two different ethical systems, but it is actually a conflict between two different data-processing systems.  Democracy distributes the power to process information and make decisions among many people and institutions, whereas dictatorship concentrates information and power in one place.  [...]   However, artificial intelligence may soon swing the pendulum in the opposite direction.  AI makes it possible to process enormous amounts of information centrally.  In fact, it might make centralized systems far more efficient than diffuse systems, because machine learning works better when the machine has more information to analyze.”

I would buttress these comments with those located in my 4IR Portal page, and a few quotes at the Vaccine page.  Citizens need to understand the prevalence and imminence of biodigital convergence.  As is suggested by Dr. Klaus-Gerd Geissen in his revealing publication cited on the same 4IR page, it is likely that tremendous change will be introduced by way of disruptive events, alongside progressively advancing narratives and adaptations in culture.  One looming crisis involves the fractional reserve monetary system (ie., fiat money printing), which is mathematically impossible to remedy on its own merits.  The US Federal Reserve (the "FED"), a private entity which is about as federal as Federal Express, lends money to the US Government at interest.  Former US President John F. Kennedy had attempted to decouple the FED from the US monetary system through executive order 11110, shortly before he was assassinated.  He likewise spoke out against clandestine networks of influence, like the Freemasons, Skull and Bones, among others.

The United Nations/WEF Agreement presents another layer, as coupled with the UN 2030 Agenda National Strategy Canada had adopted in 2015.  The Government of Canada website describes its 2030 Agenda National Strategy as a “shared blueprint” with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development it was predicated on.  The text reads as follows:

“In September 2015, Canada and all United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (the 2030 Agenda), a shared blueprint for partnership, peace and prosperity for all people and the planet, now and into the future.  The 2030 Agenda focuses on the commitment to "leave no person behind.”

There appears to be no provision in any UN document that suggests that Canada, fundamentally, can expect to be an independent artificer of its policies in this emerging dynamic.  Likewise, this language does not suggest that the Canadian Government enjoys a discretionary position in adopting a buffet approach to the UN mandate; accepting good ideas and discarding others; regardless of Canada’s Constitution.  While the UN agenda does denote differences in regional characteristics, the mandate itself is unified, and assumes a shared reality between nations.  This blueprint outlines that Canadian Policy Development and Values are tethered to the guidance of a global governance body.  The Government of Canada's policy foresight engine, Policy Horizons Canada, is chaired by the WEF's former Head of Strategic Foresight, Kristel Van der Elst, who also currently serves as CEO of consulting firm The Global Foresight Group.

On June 19th 2019, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum (“WEF”) signed a Strategic Partnership Framework whose objective is to “jointly accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.  This document positions the WEF, guided by its founder Klaus Schwab, as an enablement vehicle of the same United Nations 2030 agenda.  By means of Canada’s shared blueprint in its own 2030 Agenda National Strategy, this positions a relationship between the WEF and the Government of Canada in the same capacity.  Hundreds of civil rights agencies had organized in protest.

Finally, the text at the UN website (here) is remarkable;
 

“In September 2019, the UN Secretary-General called on all sectors of society to mobilize for a decade of action on three levels: global action to secure greater leadership, more resources and smarter solutions for the Sustainable Development Goals; local action embedding the needed transitions in the policies, budgets, institutions and regulatory frameworks of governments, cities and local authorities; and people action, including by youth, civil society, the media, the private sector, unions, academia and other stakeholders, to generate an unstoppable movement pushing for the required transformations.”

Astute observers will note that each component that Canadians have traditionally understood to be free and independent, including the media, are positioned in the text in a cooperative stakeholder capacity with a unified agenda.  I would likewise reference the media depiction at the bottom of the Guide page, whereas the trend is not reasonably expected to involve just one umbrella corporation.  In accord with the foregoing observation, the WEF/UN mandate suggests that a framework of transnational interests can be expected to leverage Canada’s legitimate authorities to advance project-specific goals, while otherwise maintaining an appearance of normalcy.  These goals include biodigital convergence as an enablement mechanism to achieve goals that might otherwise be impossible within the timetables proposed.  Big tech lacks patience, technology advances faster than regulatory practices, and human exploitation has no shortage of precedents.

Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects persons against unjustified intrusions on their privacy interests (Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145 at 159; R. v. Gomboc, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 211 at paragraphs 17, 75).  The values underlying the privacy interest protected by section 8 are dignity, integrity and autonomy (R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281 at page 292).  Section 8 protects a sphere of individual autonomy within which people have the right “to be let alone” and on which the state cannot intrude without permission (R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11 at paragraph 38).

If an inference of stakeholder influence in the public service were to be rejected, I would return to the original comments in this article.  One would need to rely on a competing inference that could explain what happened in the courts, with police, and with other stakeholders in the public service in my case, over the past four years, as measured against the applicable legal tests and rudimentary ethics.  In reviewing the redacted materials and legal tests, trained and untrained eyes alike will quickly realize the issue is not a matter of idiosyncrasy.  It is nothing less than state-sponsored murder in the service of a project interest. 
 

Legitimate Authorities as Enablement Mechanisms 

Within the context of this article, it is essential to repeat the importance of foundational beliefs as the overarching enablement mechanism, as Foucault had recognized.  In keeping with the principle in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551, 2004 SCC 47 at paragraph 41, the scope of the exercise is concerned with the impact our contemporary cultural zeitgeist (by and large) has on the basis of law, and the utility of agencies in the public service.  Citizens need to understand that the legal landscape has changed in lockstep with culture.

The founding principles of the Constitution are diametrically opposed to postmodern assumptions, which maintain that truth is the product of human artifice (and by extension, the basis of ethics, morals, and law).  Thus, prevailing assumptions are expected to (and do) inform the political will, and likewise, will shape the purpose, character, and utility of the institutional fabric.  At risk of repetition, I would direct readers to the bottom section of the Litigation page, as it explores the social and belief-centric components at stake, and the ideological trends which have been imposed in mid-level Canadian bureaucracies, and most notably public (and private) school curriculum.  

It is belief that provides the basis for unconstitutional programs by CSIS and/or other actors concerning 4IR, which are couched under narratives of progress.  Transhumanism, which Dr. Giesen's article positions as the “predominant ideology” of the contemporary powers that be, is built upon a postmodern foundation.  A postmodern metaphysics, if that were possible, might be comparable to the ancient philosophy of atomism (ie., Democritus), which ascribes to no truth beyond the material universe.  WEF Advisor Dr. Yuval Noah Harari’s writings might be the most eloquent contemporary analogue.  A transhumanist would propose biodigital convergence and/or radical alterations to the human genome as a pathway to developing safe spaces and better living conditions, albeit at the expense of privacy.  Policy Horizons Canada has suggested the same ad nauseam, alongside a series of technology executives.

Values Concern the Effects, but Beliefs Inform the Method

As Dr. Giesen suggests, powerful commercial interests and deep-seated ideological preferences are positioned to ensure that the same agenda is pushed forward absent any discernible democratic process.  Significant and disruptive change invariably occurs by way of manufactured crises in the absence of democratic referendum.  Again, postmodernists understand their detractors to be obstacles, because they believe there is no overarching principle of truth beyond human consensus.  While cursory conflicts can be reasonably worked out, fruitful dialogue requires the existence of a mutually-respected overarching truth, principle, or law when the contention concerns deeply held values, dreams, and interests.  That is why decisions and advances concerning 4IR and biodigital convergence will never be democratic in nature.  Citizens must understand that this is our world now.  It’s not about values; it’s about beliefs.  Values are shaped by beliefs.

The quotes at the bottom of the 4IR page by persons and agencies of influence discuss genome editing and privacy-killing BCI technologies with a casual and terrifying candor.  This is because for the postmodern author, these methods may occasion a means to develop a utopian reality that was not possible in past centuries.  It might be tempting to blame the shortcomings of socialism on a flawed human nature, and the difficulties various population groups have had in fostering a sustainable unity.  Per Former Y-Combinator CEO Geoff Ralston;

“The very nature of the human race is about to change.  This change will be radical and rapid beyond anything in our species’ history.  A chapter of our story just ended and the next chapter has begun.  [...]  CRISPR techniques are getting better and better.  More accurate.  More predictable. Cheaper.  And we are learning more and more about the genetic code (partially thanks to our ability, now using CRISPR, to see what happens when we poke out one gene and replace it with another).  The trends are unstoppable and the conclusion unavoidable: in the not very distant future we will be able to program most any animal in most any way we wish, including human beings.  [...]  What will stop people from attempting to drive desirable characteristics into a population?  What will stop a government from mandating those changes in their population?  And what will competing governments then choose to do?"

A December 2021 DND article discusses BCI with an unsettling ease:

“The issue is not only that technology is evolving faster than regulatory frameworks but the exacerbation with differences in ethical, moral, and legal perspectives across nations in regard to human enhancement and augmentation.  [...]  It will be the role of local government to facilitate ongoing discourse and engagement reaching across state and society.”

Finally, from the desk of the Policy Horizons Canada Director:
 

“In the coming years, biodigital technologies could be woven into our lives in the way that digital technologies are now.  Biological and digital systems are converging, and could change the way we work, live, and even evolve as a species.  More than a technological change, this biodigital convergence may transform the way we understand ourselves and cause us to redefine what we consider human or natural.”

Such imminent topics might be too disruptive or scary for the average Citizen to digest, whereas they are not raised in the media or other disseminative venues. 

A well-informed and unbiased thinking person might conclude, based on the information available, that a cluster of cosmetic democracies guided by a transnational framework of influence bent on technocracy is much more likely than not.  Conversely, there is not much basis anymore to suggest a centuries-old diffuse institutional framework predicated on a transcendental basis of law can be expected to function today under the auspices of a ruling class comprised of transhumanist technocrats.  The consensus does appear to be an AI-driven biodigital convergence.  Today’s politics are a cosmetic interim solution while the appropriate chess pieces continue to be moved.  The ultimate cultural divide is not a false left/right paradigm; it will be sophisticated technocracy vs. a Constitutional autodetermination.  This distinction invites deep-seated questions concerning the meaning and purpose of life, and humanity has a strong tendency to shape its environment.  Arguments that suggest we must sacrifice privacy to create safe spaces are antagonistic to the very essence of human life and potential.  While opinions may differ, the technologies we have today will invariably force a head-to-head conflict, as the utility of an AI-driven society is directly proportional to its available datasets.  This invites an immediate challenge for a Citizen's Constitutional rights (Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, Supra).  I did not create the universe, I cannot escape the law of entropy, I believe in God, and I require autonomy.  Thus, I would side with the Constitution.  Massive commercial interests paired with a small but influential ideological caste gripped by fear and uncertainty are situated in the technocracy tent.  Inalienable human rights require ascription to a transcendental basis of law, else they are little more than arbitrary social constructs that can change rapidly.  The CAF mentioned that the conflicts of the future (and present) will concern "hearts and minds" (here).  Comments like that highlight the CAF's emerging role as a domestic social engineering agent, as was contemplated by former Major General Daniel Gosselin (here).

This underscores the public and national importance of addressing a scandal such as the one detailed on this website.  Only one victim is required, but Sheridan et al., 2020 contains a massive data set.  Should a framework of perpetrators be exposed and dismantled, one would reasonably expect there might be a domino effect that can immensely help other victims, and preclude worse things from happening in the future.  Brainwave-reading 4IR technologies can be used within task-specific and case-specific parameters to fight crime and expose the truth in the face of efforts to conceal and/or destroy conventional evidence.  Overarching or systemic applications of privacy-killing 4IR must be vigorously opposed by an informed public.  To those who have oppressed me and continue to do so, I refuse to be your scapegoat.

I Encountered a Tribe

I use the term “tribe” loosely in referring to the aforementioned treatment of transnational networks of influence.  Other terms such as “family” are likely adopted by others.  In keeping with Foucault’s observations, incremental discretionary vetting processes over a prolonged period, built on a bedrock of postmodern assumptions and decadent living, has fostered today’s reality. 

The characteristics of a tribe shape its goals, intentions, and methods, and vice versa.  I again refer to the scope and characteristics of this scandal which have generated this reflection, the quotations cited above, and those in the Testimony and 4IR Portal pages.  In today’s world, it would be unrealistic to assume any meaningful boundaries exist between sovereign states, the private and public sectors, various political parties, and various professions, as it relates to the ability of cohesive influential networks to execute their intentions. 

Is a Robust Project Interest Sufficient to Execute the Scandal?

It is, though the cohesion/enablement factor is the outlier, and remains the big question.  History is suffused with examples of ideological overreach, but the degree of stakeholder cohesion involved in this scandal is uncanny.  Likewise, the manner of conduct involved would require an absolute moral bankruptcy on the part of the stakeholders in these agencies.  What happened in relation to the public service agencies involved and courts evades any semblance of normalcy bias to the threshold of outrage, and the applicable legal tests prove that.  It invites consideration of the subject matter raised at the BCI page and Testimony.  I likewise consider the behaviour outliers involved in my case, as is detailed on the same BCI page.  UN Resolutions A/HRC/RES/51/3 + A/HRC/57/61, Sheridan et al., 2020, and the Gosselin Reports concerning the CAF add further substance, among many other data points, some of which are cited at the Guide page.  Finally, the quotes and research concerning 4IR must be considered.  The influence of external cognitive liberty factors is far more likely than not.   

Technology capable of connecting a human nervous system to the internet was first promulgated by Kevin Warwick in 1998.  It is widely held that nanoscale GQD (graphene quantum dots) can interface remotely with wireless networks.  A public health scandal cannot be ruled out, and it would align with a postmodern approach to sustainability, as Huxley had commented.  UN Resolution A/HRC/57/61 is expressly clear concerning the prevalence and efficacy of cognitive liberty crime.  The following quotes are cited through the 4IR Portal with links.

"We have never seen such perfect, but scary, fibrils as these ones from the amyloid-producing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and pieces thereof.  The fibrils starting from the full-sized spike protein branched out like limbs on a body. Amyloids don't usually branch out like that. We believe that it is due to the characteristics of the spike protein", says Per Hammarström, professor at the Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology (IFM) at Linköping University.
- News-Medical.net

“In the past 6 months we have observed unusual structures in the blood of some of our clients since the administration of the various Covid 19 vaccines. These artifacts observed under darkfield microscope are very unusual in nature.  Dr. Diane and I have been working in this field for more than 20 years and have never witnessed such unusual artifacts in the live blood.  [...]  The clots we are seeing in Long COVID are not normal clots. They contain large anomalous amyloid deposits. They are not normal clots. They are aggregated blood cells which have been transformed into aggregated fibrils!”
- Qwest 4 Health, BC Canada

“Microsoft's patent alludes to the possibility of coupling nanotechnology with vaccinated individuals, effectively turning them into antennas or transmitters. This intriguing concept raises questions about the extent of integration between technology and the human body, blurring the line between biological and technological systems.”
- Keith Brown, Satellite Technician via Linkedin

"We present here our research on the presence of graphene in covid vaccines. We have carried out a random screening of graphene-like nanoparticles visible at the optical microscopy in seven random samples of vials from four different trademarks, coupling images with their spectral signatures of RAMAN vibration.  By this technique, called micro-RAMAN, we have been able to determine the presence of graphene in these samples, after screening more than 110 objects selected for their graphene-like appearance under optical microscopy.”
- Dr. Pablo Campra, Almeria University

“Judge Rickcola Brinton had been seeking a review of an October 2023 ruling by Chief Justice Michael Wood in his capacity as chair of the province’s judicial council.  [...]  Brinton filed the complaint in June 2023 alleging judicial misconduct by Williams, whose term as provincial court chief judge ended in August of that year. Her complaint said Williams applied undue pressure for her to disclose her mRNA covid-19 vaccination status and that the former provincial chief judge improperly contacted Brinton’s physician to obtain medical details related to a subsequent short-term leave.”
- Keith Doucette, The Canadian Press
 

Are Transhumanist Stakeholders Enlightened?

We observe in the quotes that a relentless and hardwired push into 4IR is coupled with an unhinged expression of postmodern assumptions, beliefs, and values.  I would again quote Dr. Klaus-Gerd Giesen in his recent work; Transhumanism as the Dominant Ideology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution:

“Transhumanist thought can be broken down into three main premises, each with an eminently political intent: Human beings in their ‘natural’ state are obsolete and ought to be enhanced by technology, which then becomes a means of artificially extending the hominization process. Thus, transhumanism sweeps human taxonomy into the political arena. An observation by Michel Foucault, written in 1976, comes to mind: ‘What might be called a society’s threshold of modernity has been reached when the life of the species is wagered on its own political strategies. [. . .] Modern man is an animal whose politics places his existence as a living being in question.’ In other words, transhumanists believe we have a duty to replace the category of human with a new creature, a post-sapiens sapiens.”

Dr. Giesen continues in the text;

“If government agencies and international organizations — including the Council of Europe — are heavily involved in the infrastructure underpinning ideological dissemination, it is even less surprising to see that the Silicon Valley elite also ascribe to and promote transhumanist ideology. The same goes for the countless start-up entrepreneurs who gravitate toward these ideas. Carrying great weight in the societal debate are the unprecedented sums invested by, among others, the billionaires Elon Musk (one of Musk’s companies, Neuralink, aims to harness efforts toward the development of superintelligent cyborgs), Peter Diamandis, and Peter Thiel — not to mention the inescapable GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft), well aware that their commercial interests in the high-tech space are directly at stake. These tech giants have already poured staggering amounts of money into the Fourth Industrial Revolution and are currently spending equally eye-watering amounts on political lobbying and social engineering initiatives.”  [...]   There is every reason to fear that the world will launch into the fourth industrial revolution without too much debate over what is waiting in the wings: the global political project that is transhumanism.  Today, it is as if the metamorphosis, via the “NBIC Great Convergence,” to a posthuman being, technologically enhanced and fully integrated with the machine, were already written in stone.”

Finally, at the conclusion of his publication;

“This is not an equal struggle. The societal debate has barely begun, and the dice are loaded. Transhumanist ideology is driven by certain factions within the state and, above all, by mighty multinational corporations that, it is fair to say, have the most to gain from seeing the NBIC revolution unfold without a hitch. In this respect, transhumanism is already a dominant ideology, as it crushes all other ideological positions regarding technological change — particularly those of humanists of all stripes and subscribers to “deep ecology” — under the sheer weight of money.”

For clarity, NBIC is an acronym for Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology, and Cognitive Science.

Transhumanists seek to develop a utopia that strives against the basic tenets of natural law.  They see human nature as the last remaining obstacle to enabling a sustainable harmony, and the overcoming of the same as a new era.  They reject the inherent limitations imposed by natural law, and the ethical constraints these demand.  This is due to the fact that they are unwilling to recognize the supremacy of God (Ruffo v. Conseil de la magistrature, Supra) and find some solace in that, despite religious edifices that are aligned with various jurisdictions in a relationship of codependency.  Science advances do not displace ontological questions, but they often serve to highlight them (here).  Likewise, postmodernity did not evolve past a 3,000 year philosophical tradition; it had simply abandoned its object (Jürgen Habermas, inter alia).  Hardcore transhumanists are not enlightened.  They are a tribe of selfish, ego-driven children with new toys that have begun to step on toes. 

Enlightened social constructs and sustainability models can never be built upon a foundation of bloodshed.  The very idea of compromised legitimate authority is heinous to the point of atrocity.  It can never remain hidden indefinitely, and Citizens are gradually identifying a transnational social engineering effort that the UN alludes to in a previously-cited article.  One victim is enough to demonstrate overarching characteristics, just as one wrong note can ruin an entire symphony.  Yet, Sheridan et al., 2020 began with a metric involving twenty million online citations alleging sophisticated state-sponsored crime, and concluded that there is a serious trend to address.