By acting outside of the moral constraints of the human psyche, organisations and AI systems share the same flaw of potentially making inhumane decisions.

It is the start of a new cycle, and with that start we hold the optimism that things will be different this time. Cycles of time give us permission, psychologically, to put the past behind us and move into a new configuration. Now is the time the gyms get full with new memberships, and people make a concerted effort to make improvements in their lives and their bodies.

In this 2023 new beginning, it would be nice to believe that the extermination of humans via dangerous gene therapy injections is over, especially now it is coming out just how dangerous those shots really are. It would be comforting to believe that doctors and nurses have returned to their senses, and they will serve humanity as they once did, trying their utmost to preserve human life and reduce suffering (and never make another dance video).

The reality, however, will be more of the same as the system (whatever that is) tries to lock us down again and destroy our lives and our health. Watching this psychopathic mechanism continuing its devastation can be bewildering to many people, so bewildering, in fact, that most deny its existence and cling to fairy tales of benevolent leaders and caring health systems. There seems to be a disconnect between individual morality and normal human perspectives and that of corporations, organisations, and governing systems.

All these systems are represented, in the world, by humans that own, control or manage them. They have a human face. And this mistakenly humanises something that is decidedly not human. The fact is that collections of humans are outside the class of “human”. Collections of humans are not necessarily humane and certainly do not think like a human or take responsibility like a human.

Of course, I am being somewhat optimistic as to what a human actually is and what they are capable of. We all hear about the psychopaths and sociopaths in society that cause havoc, and it is very easy for us to use them as scapegoats for society's ills. But most humans are not pathological and do have a natural caring for other humans. Most humans are humane, unless they are lost in an inhumane society.

It is interesting in Orwell's 1984 that Big Brother is depicted as a human, staring out from a poster and intimidating society, when in fact the whole dystopia of 1984 is not personal and involves a system that is barbaric and controlling. When we come across systems like that, we automatically look for the “culprits” that somehow have imbued that system with their pathological personalities and emotions. Orwell supplied that person, but, by doing so, he actually obscured the dangers of the 1984 system by giving it a face — almost implying that without Big Brother such a system would never have coalesced.

In reality, individuals establish systems or organisations that become something other than human — they have a life of their own — and these systems and organisations end up controlling the very people who originally set them up. Humans have the divine spark that allows them to create, but the life form that most create is diabolical because they do not understand or appreciate complex systems, but rather focus entirely on realising some two-dimensional goal or purpose.

Take the United Nations as an example. Set up after World War II, the UN seemed like a great idea at the time. Creating a super-organisation or club of nation states, and using its assumed authority to ensure peace and security, sounds like a great idea. But that organisation, over time, has morphed into the “great enslaver” of humanity with its Agenda 21 and Agenda 30 plans to enslave humanity and give governments total control over all assets. This enslavement has been deemed necessary to “save the planet”, but then an awful lot of evil has justified itself with “higher goals”. And the thing about systems is that they tend to be ruthless in their pursuit of their goals, without any conscience or moral checking mechanism involved with most human beings.

That would “conscience” very much describes something you will only encounter in individual human beings, not organisations or collections of human beings. This is deeper than any moral relativism that we speak about today… humans know instinctively right from wrong in most situations, which is why most soldiers need to be conditioned to kill. Maybe this is what it means to be made in the image of God, that we have this potential to check immoral or amoral behaviour. Not only that, but the human psyche is a path to higher consciousness, and that is why the individual must be protected from the annihilating tendencies of the collective. For it is through the individual that humanity grows, not from “enlightened” coercion from the outside.

So we must be extra careful when setting up or dealing with organisations. We must realise that organisations can easily flip into abuse because they can intellectually redefine their goals without the checking mechanism found only at the individual level. This is how we end up with a World Health Organisation that promotes murderous policies and dangerous mRNA injections; how we end up with a World Economic Forum that promotes absolute poverty for everyone except for the elite; and how we have national governments that seem incapable of looking after the interests of their electorate. These organisations have a life of their own: they may have been set up for humanity, but they are pursuing their own agendas.

In a sense, organisations were the forebears of artificial intelligence or AI, being information processing systems that are not morally restrained by standard human psychology. But with AI, the complexity of the organisation can be so vast that they really seem sentient and independent. Whether this is true “intelligence” is just an exercise in semantics, and does not really mean anything. When Turing came up with his AI test, it was equating intelligence with what a system could get away with pretending to be a human. But, again, we see this insistence of putting human faces on alien systems to make them seem more benign as humans generally act within certain moral constraints.

AI systems, however, are not equivalent to humans and do not process information in the same way that humans do. You can dress it up and put lipstick on the robot's face, but the bottom line is that we have an information processing machine that is not “holistic” or “self-correcting” as the human psyche is, and one that therefore has no capacity for higher consciousness. If you are trying to win a chess game, AI is the way to go and it will propose some novel but devastating winning moves. But if you are deciding the best way forward in a “pandemic” situation, it is better to make that decision at the human level so that a more empathetic solution is implemented.

The problem here is that, as Big Pharma has wheedled and bribed its way into the heart of government health decision-making processes, policy made in response to “pandemics” is independent of any sense of conscience. This is how mRNA injections can continue to be pushed despite knowing that they present more dangers than the disease they are supposedly “vaccinating” against. A normal human can see this issue very clearly and very quickly, and it becomes very obvious that mass murder is being promoted. But an organisation, as well as AI systems, is blind to morality and pushes for “solutions” that may not in most people's interest.

This is actually the primary problem with AI. When systems make decisions, they are making it from a non-human perspective, one that may can seem horrific for a human being but which may make “logical” sense from the wider perspective. So the medical system might decide, in its infinite but one-dimensional processing, that it is best to give dangerous mRNA shots to the human race to “thin the herd” and reduce population, thus making for a more viable future for all of humanity (that remains). This would be considered in the interest of humanity. What is the problem?

The problem is that any approach focusing only on end-goals can all too easily become inhumane. You will see this in any societal revolution: the murderous means used to overthrow abusive leaders or ruling classes end up being used on everyone. Everyone suffers. But an organisation or AI system might be so focused on goals, rather than the means of arriving at those goals, that it ends up promoting an inhumane solution. This is because organisations and AI systems do not feel empathy… they do not have a human body and cannot relate to how humans might feel faced with the policies and diktats they are proposing. For them, the best solution is the best solution, and any other considerations only reduce the chance of “success”.

And the other issue with organisations is that nobody takes responsibility for its overall behaviour. When Big Pharma markets murderous mRNA shots, the doctors and nurses working for those organisations promoting and facilitating those shots feel little guilt. As Jung wrote, “The bigger the crowd, the more negligible the individual,” and so individuals in these situations sleep surprisingly well, no matter how many children or babies they might have murdered “doing their job”. This is why those working at concentration camps felt little guilt — they felt insulated by the system of which they were a tiny part. And this is why the Nuremberg code of ethics makes it very clear that “doing your job” or “following orders” can offer no mitigation of abuse and murder.

So as we go forward into a new world of AI and organisation-led decision-making processes, it is important to learn that lessons of that can happen when that decision making is not tethered to a human psyche. We must be distrustful of global “solution” organisations because those organisations have no conscience and will mass-murder at the drop of a hat if it is seen to be in alignment with their goals. AI is an organisation on steroids, and AI will produce novel solutions that might, at first, seem beneficial in outcome. But if any decision-making process is system or silicon-based, it will potentially turn abusive.

Today, we are in the grip of globalist organisations that are using green agendas to morph human society into something inhumane (but, supposedly, “sustainable”). And as that inhumanity takes over society, we watch the fabric of community torn apart as decisions are made by systems that have no investment in humanity, or in what it is to be human. Facing a fabricated world crisis that points a finger at humans makes us ashamed to be human, to be a part of the over-population ruining this planet. And humans that are ashamed of being human act in very inhumane ways… you just have to witness the inhumanity of eco-zealots and vaccine-promoters.

It is time we took the “human face” off both organisations and AI systems to make it obvious that they are alien to humanity and that they do not have the empathy required to make kind and just choices. We should see globalist organisations such as the UN, WEF, and WHO more akin to computer viruses that will try to destroy humanity for their own ends. We must stop thinking that collections of human beings retain their morality, and regard with suspicion any decision made by organisations or AI systems.

This is not to say that decisions made by humans may not be equally immoral, but there is a greater chance that a higher level of empathy will be involved in the process.