The fact that “Bioethics” is even an officially acknowledged field of study is shocking enough on its own. At least in the way these “bioethicist” maniacs have decided to officially characterize it as. Who THE FUCK do these slimballs think they are proposing(and likely secretly implementing) insane practices like this? The fact that there are people sitting around and brainstorming the different ways they might be able to implement actual physical mind control applications as a way of soliciting compliance and forwarding the agenda of the State makes me want to throw the fuck up and then sob quietly in the corner.

The moment you hear them exclaim that their measures are all in the name of public health and safety then you know there is something nefarious behind their motivations. Officials in Australia love to cite “Public Safety” as their justification for railroading so many Australians into complying with their illegal and asinine mandates. Let’s get something straight, a Karen vocalizing the phrase “public safety trumps that[the law & your rights]” does not suddenly grant them authorization to cancel the inherent legal protections granted to you. There is no “Public Safety Clause” within any of the legal language of Australia’s or America’s Constitutions to speak of, even though the bureaucrat alphabet gangs(agencies) will try to act like there is.

So publications like this are just more verification as to just how anti-human and batshit crazy the Academic post-modern left has become. I really shouldn’t be saying “has become” because this really isn’t new rhetoric at all. This reminded me of when Zbigniew Brzezinski said that the Government should be adding certain chemicals to the water supply that would act to directly affect the cognition and attitudes of the population in a way that would be more conducive to bending public sentiment towards the will of State. A much simpler way of putting it is that he wanted to use chemical mind control agents on an unsuspecting American public in order to further his Marxist takeover agenda by essentially chemically lobotomizing it. For all we know they have likely already implemented some kind of mind control protocol and my guess is that it’s been recently used to Zombify the sheeple into accepting Covaids as a bona-fide public health threat that requires them to go out and take an experimental gene therapy as a measure of protection. I refuse to believe that it’s just the mainstream media propaganda machine that’s responsible for all this inexplicable compliance with tyranny that we’ve been seeing. There is just no way that THAT many people could fall for such a low quality ruse without some kind of external force putting its hands on the scale.

Reminds me of the final scene in “Dune” where Paul exclaims, “[sic]don’t you dare try using your powers on me! Go to that place you dare not look and you’ll find me staring right back at you“. Lol. Those of us who remain mentally strong should be able to render their onslaught of mind manipulation tools and technologies completely useless. At least that’s what I like to tell myself. I’m sure if they really wanted to they could take complete control of my brain and get me to start thinking and acting in whatever ways they want me to and I wouldn’t even know what had happened. All I can say is that I do not consent. Though judging by how hard they’ve been spraying us with Chemtrails over the past few decades, I don’t think “consent” is a word that’s within the purview of anyone in charge of that despicable operation.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.12496

Abstract

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

This guy is out of his mind. Notice how he uses the Superman villain Lex Luther as the featured image for his article. So they are protecting and saving the world by using Lex Luther to poison the population with mood-altering chemicals without their knowledge? How fucking righteous of them to do that for us. Thanks Libtard Globalist swine! What the fuck would we do without you here looking out for humanity?

Michael Cook – Michael Cook edits BioEdge, a bioethics newsletter, and MercatorNet, an on-line magazine whose focus is human dignity. He writes from Sydney, Australia.

Source: https://bioedge.org/enhancement/protecting-the-world-through-moral-bioenhancement/

Protecting the world through moral bioenhancement

bioedge.org

It should be compulsory but secret, argues an American bioethicist

The co-existence of large numbers of Very Bad Hombres and readily available means of mass destruction is seen by a number of bioethicists as a grave threat to the future of humanity. About a decade ago, some of them began to speculate about whether it might be possible to create a world of order, peace and virtue through what they termed “moral enhancement” or “moral bioenhancement”. The idea was to make people altruistic and pacific by spiking the water supply, vaccinating them or adding agents to air conditioning systems in public buildings.

Whether this is feasible or not is still unknown, although some chemicals show promise. In the meantime, bioethicists are busy discussing the whys and wherefores. The stakes are not trivial. As they see it, with nuclear weapons, biological weapons and, more recently, the threat of hostile artificial intelligence, on the horizon, humanity lives under a sword of Damocles.

The latest contribution to the swelling volume of literature on the topic comes in an early on-line article in Bioethics by Parker Crutchfield, of Western Michigan University medical school. Assuming that this is the situation, he asks, should moral enhancement be compulsory? And if it were to be compulsory, should it be kept secret from the population? He answers Yes to both questions.

Crutchfield contends that the whole population should be inoculated against evil because a single bad hombre can do immense harm:

Where it used to require an extraordinarily coordinated effort to cause ultimate harm, now, or in the near future, it only takes one person. Thus, moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory for everyone.

Of course, this assertion comes with some caveats – that moral bioenhancement is actually cost-effective, will prevent “ultimate harm” and is safe. But we need to acknowledge that a voluntary system will simply not work:

I’m skeptical [he writes] that voluntary moral bioenhancement is up to the task. People who volunteer for moral bioenhancement are not those about whom we should be most worried: It’s those who have no interest in being better people that should worry us.

Assuming that these conditions are met, should the population be informed that they have been morally bioenhanced? Given the stubborn resistance to relatively inconsequential “enhancements” such as a measles vaccine or fluoridated water, it is likely that compulsory moral bioenhancement would face stiff opposition.

… if the moral bioenhancement program were overt, inevitably some people would refuse or otherwise fail to receive the intervention. Because the program is compulsory, however, policies would be required to compel such people to undergo the intervention. These policies would take the form of isolation (e.g., preventing dissenters from fully participating in society), taxes or fees as penalties, or, in severe cases, imprisonment. All of these methods of compulsion restrict liberties.

On balance, therefore, with due respect to the values esteemed by a democratic society, covert moral bioenhancement will be necessary, Crutchfield argues. And apart from transparency, it supports liberal values:

A covert program better promotes equality, because by keeping the program covert to everyone, the program ensures that all participants are treated equally. It is totally impartial.

In an age of aggressive media investigations and whistleblowers, it might hard to keep such a program under cover. But Crutchfield says that this does not impugn his reasoning:

Keeping a covert program covert would be a challenging obstacle. But just because it would be a challenging obstacle doesn’t mean that my argument is unsound.

Creative commons
https://www.bioedge.org/images/2008images/FB_lex_luther.jpg
enhancement
moral bioenhancement

Michael Cook edits BioEdge, a bioethics newsletter, and MercatorNet, an on-line magazine whose focus is human dignity. He writes from Sydney, Australia.

Latest posts by Michael Cook (see all)

• How long can you put off seeing the doctor because of lockdowns? – December 3, 2021
• House of Lords debates assisted suicide—again – October 28, 2021
• Spanish government tries to restrict conscientious objection – October 28, 2021