PROGRESS HAS GROUND TO A HALT

The relentless march of progress is how the corporate world and the media measures the

success of society. The latest innovations and machinery are spoken of with an an air of

reverence and we are informed of how we will all benefit from the latest technology. But

who really benefits?

Progress has always been about automation, and automation always costs people jobs. It

can be summarized in one short sentence : less workers, more profit. When something is

described as a labor saving device this actually means a money saving device. They are

ways of increasing profits for the owners of the means of mass production. New

innovations always lead to redundancies and job obsolescence.

Ever since the dawn of industrialization there has been resistance to machinery of mass

production. Workers knew from the start that machinery would cost jobs, and it was

arguably mass production more than anything that led to increased poverty and crime in

industrialized societies. The media has always presented a picture of protesters as

backward thinking people that are against progress. The aim of such attacks was to

marginalize those who would stand in the way of extra profit. The media, after all, is

owned by the same capitalists who would replace  people with machinery, and who will, 

in time, replace everyone. But what will happen to capitalism then?

If technology gets to the point that all jobs will be done by machines there will be no

jobs for people. If there are no jobs then there are no wage earners and that means no

spending power. So even if goods are produced with no labor costs the machines that are

undoubtedly bought with bank loans will not pay for themselves so how are profits going

to be generated? Surely sooner or later the bubble has to burst. The western capitalist

economy's are running out of consumers. Where once they all produced goods which they

could sell to the emerging economy's they misjudged things  when they moved the means of production to

the emerging nations: they  shot themselves in the foot, so to speak. The emerging

countries learned by imitation.They learned quickly and did it more cheaply.

The western capitalist countries may well have no growth but the emerging markets in the

east have, and they are not subjected to stringent health and safety policies as in the

west. This leaves the work force in many countries with no rights, no pensions and slave

labor conditions that are taken advantage of by capitalists. The workers die young and

penniless so that companies like Gap can pay pennies for items that they sell for  over

inflated prices. They are greedy (not just Gap) and I hope that they all lose everything

in the economic revolution that is about to come.


I believe that the elites have always had the ulterior motive of replacing  people with

machinery. Even as far back as the late 18th century there were people like Herbert

Spencer, an academic and philosopher who read Darwin's "Origin of the Species" (a fairy

tale to rival those of the Bible) and he misunderstood Darwin's findings that species

adapt over time, the most suitable species to the environment would become the dominant

one with rivals dying out. He read it as meaning the fittest survived and adapted

the argument to people. By his way of thinking the Elite were so because they were

better people: better bred, more intelligent, etc. This is not borne out of actual

facts: the elite became so because their ancestors were prepared to lie, cheat, steal

and murder their way to the top of society. Not the survival of the fittest, but the

rise of the greedy, immoral : murderous people that think that they are above the law

and that the rest of us are all ill bred scum. Their tenet came to be known as social Darwinism, an

insult to Darwins work (not that I accept Darwins theory, I must confess.)

However the main thrust of the Eugenics movement came from a cousin of Darwins, Francis

Galton. He believed that humans should be selectively bred on the basis of character

traits, removing from the gene pool any aspects of humanity that he did not see as

necessary. This school of thought led to the onset of birth control (to stop the proles

reproducing), marriage restrictions on "breeding grounds" and segregation of groups on

ethnic and religious grounds which led to the rise of ghettos. Some countries have gone

even further, such as China with their one child policy and India and Israel that have

carried out forced sterilization on certain groups that are not to their elites' liking.

Nowadays abortion is readily available and even such movements as Hitlers racial purity

campaign are traceable back to this eugenicist thinking. This has been further endorsed

in the 20th century in the fields of literature and culture. Take Huxleys "Brave new

World" for example, which is hailed as a literary classic, warning of a scary future

built upon social engineering. But Huxley himself was a eugenicist. He gave lectures

where he spelled out to the audience that Brave New World was less a work of fiction and

more a blueprint for a future society where people are bred for specific purposes. His

brother Julian was also a eugenecist and was the first director of UNESCO, which should

tell us something about the real purpose of the UN.

Our elites, our ruling class appears to be ready to produce most of what they need with

little or no labor. There is also a growing body of Trans-humanists, those who wish to

augment people with technology and change the human host to be suited to certain

environments or tasks. It comes as no surprise then that creatures such as Kissenger

push for a new world order, a world with millions less people who will be disposed of

through wars, famine, inoculations, nuclear "accidents", weather manipulation and GM

foods. The onslaught against the majority of the worlds population is endless and I am

fairly certain that as we progress through this decade we will see the death rate across

the globe rise. That is, we will if anyone is allowed to report on it.