Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
The most effective tactics for invasion always start from the inside. It happened in Troy and it worked. Now, the same practice is being used by technocrats and its minions in the nano-tech and biotech worlds to change the nature of humanity. A massive effort is now underway not only to change what the biosphere looks like, but also to change what humanity looks like.
The trojan horse used to carry out this Troy-like invasion and re-engineering of the human race is a phenomenon that is familiar to millions of people around the world: Chemtrails. Until not too long ago, chemtrailing was thought of as a way to geo-engineer the planet, but spraying aerosolized materials into the lower atmosphere in order to limit the amount of sunlight that reaches the living areas of the planet is not the only purpose of Chemtrails. Researchers have discovered that the process of geo-engineering goes way beyond man-made planetary weather modification. What scientists and bioethicists are proposing is turning homo sapiens into human androids, not for the sake of progress, but to more easily control us.
In the last few weeks, articles have popped out in Medical Journals and media reports which address human extermination and engineering. In their proposals, scientists and academics talk about how humanity should deal with global warming and climate change. Among the “solutions” presented, they suggest after-birth abortions or infanticide, euthanasia, and more recently engineering the human body from the inside out. The latest article comes from S. Matthew Liao, a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University, who during an interview with the Atlantic talked about his vision to carry out “particular human modifications, or even human engineering generally, to introduce human engineering as one possible, partial solution to climate change.”
Previous to Mr. Liao’s interview, ethicists such and academics Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini called for the use of afterbirth abortion as a solution to avoid the burden of child bearing. The writers suggested that abortion should be considered even if a baby is born completely healthy. The base for such suggestions, according to them, is the thought that neither fetuses not new-born babies are persons, and that therefore, they don’t have the right to life. In their paper published in the Journal for Medical Ethics, both Minerva and Giubilini took the moral ground when advocating for Infanticide. They consider that since neither a fetus nor a new-born have the moral standing of a person, it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing his or her birth or from preventing the development or the potential of this being to become a fully developed person in the moral sense.
Read More: Homo Evolutis: The Demise of Humanity