While I was traveling across the US giving speeches I often met unusual people. In Palm Springs, CA I met two DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) engineers after hearing them discussing something they were working on as I was sitting nearby. I interrupted them and asked a simple question: "Do you ever stop work on a project because of moral or ethical concerns?" They looked at me as if I were crazy and said "No." One told me that he wasn't ever concerned no matter what he was working on because that wasn't his job. Others were supposed to be thinking about ethics, not him. They both agreed that they would pursue any lead as far as they could without regard for consequences to life. Their complacency was chilling in light of the fact that they were working on weaponry and futuristic control of human beings.
"Situational ethics" is a term often used to describe the conundrum of something being alright in one context but not in another---for instance it is not acceptable to kill a person but if one is at war this is acceptable. But situational ethics is an excuse to create tension and uncertainty in children who are told that there is no 'right or wrong' just a consideration for the issue of the moment. Of course religion, with its rigid certainty that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' and other prohibitions is a roadblock to institutionalizing situational ethics in the human psyche. Nothing that declares that behavior is wrong regardless of the situation will fit with the new world of UN Agenda 21.
The video below highlights two computer hackers (funded by DARPA) working with a Wired Magazine reporter to remotely control his car while he is driving it. They can do this without the knowledge of the driver by hacking into the wireless system in the car. They can shut the car off, speed it up, freeze the brakes, lock the doors, operate or shut down any of the systems in the vehicle; they can kill the driver. This capability is known, and I believe, was known before the car was built. Many cars can be hacked this way: cars with On-Star can be shut off remotely, newer cars with wireless can be controlled remotely. Situational ethics.
Do you remember the Cash for Clunkers program through the Department of Motor Vehicles? All of those old cars---destroyed. What did they have in common? No wireless capability.
UN Agenda 21 is about inventory and control.
"Situational ethics" is a term often used to describe the conundrum of something being alright in one context but not in another---for instance it is not acceptable to kill a person but if one is at war this is acceptable. But situational ethics is an excuse to create tension and uncertainty in children who are told that there is no 'right or wrong' just a consideration for the issue of the moment. Of course religion, with its rigid certainty that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' and other prohibitions is a roadblock to institutionalizing situational ethics in the human psyche. Nothing that declares that behavior is wrong regardless of the situation will fit with the new world of UN Agenda 21.
The video below highlights two computer hackers (funded by DARPA) working with a Wired Magazine reporter to remotely control his car while he is driving it. They can do this without the knowledge of the driver by hacking into the wireless system in the car. They can shut the car off, speed it up, freeze the brakes, lock the doors, operate or shut down any of the systems in the vehicle; they can kill the driver. This capability is known, and I believe, was known before the car was built. Many cars can be hacked this way: cars with On-Star can be shut off remotely, newer cars with wireless can be controlled remotely. Situational ethics.
Do you remember the Cash for Clunkers program through the Department of Motor Vehicles? All of those old cars---destroyed. What did they have in common? No wireless capability.
UN Agenda 21 is about inventory and control.
RSS Feed
