Photo Credit: Terraforming and Transhumanism Bitchute Link

COVID 19 was custom made to provide the perfect roll out of every wet dream the elite/illumined/freemasons have been coddling and nurturing all these hundreds of years.  Amazing.  

Just as I was sharing with you in my article Fire Ant Scenario; 

In this post, I want to focus on what is happening to our society because of the lockdown, and the jobs that are disappearing only to be re introduced as the AI robotic Industrial Revolution.

Dancing robots replace fans at Japanese baseball game
By Jack Tarrant


With their stadium devoid of fans due to coronavirus restrictions, Japanese baseball team Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks have come up with an imaginative replacement: dancing robots.

Before their most recent Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB) game against Rakuten Eagles on Tuesday, over 20 robots danced to the team’s fight song on a podium in the otherwise empty stand.

Dancing robots replace fans at baseball game in Japan
Guardian Sport  / July 8, 2020

Two different robots, including SoftBank’s humanoid robot Pepper’and others on four legs like a dog, stamped and shimmied in a choreographed dance that is usually performed by the Hawks’ fans before games in the 40,000 capacity Fukuoka Dome.

Some of the robots wore Hawks caps and waved flags supporting the team.

Fans on social media had mixed reactions.

I think this is like a dystopia,” wrote one Twitter user.

Another called the performance “insanely beautiful.”

Boosted by the supportive robots, the Hawks won 4-3 as they look to defend their 2019 NPB title.

The NPB season began three months late on June 19 due to the coronavirus pandemic and currently no supporters are allowed to attend games.

However, from Friday, up to 5,000 fans will be allowed to attend professional baseball and soccer games in Japan due to an easing of restrictions.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

I don’t really understand why they team was allowed to play.  So, it is perfectly safe for sports teams to gather together, share the dugout, and hit the showers, but it is not safe for people to attend the games?  I mean, I get that there are crowds at the stadium, but seriously, they can limit attendance to allow for distancing.  Seems unfair as well that sports teams can collect a paycheck, while families can’t.  I mean, some families don’t eat without a paycheck.  Hardly true for team members.  In my opinion coverage of this display using robots that are stealing people’s jobs is like rubbing our noses in it. 

Replacing Humans | Robots Among Us

In Japan, a rapidly aging population and declining birth rate are creating a crisis. Without enough people to fill jobs and care for the elderly, could robots step up to fill the gap? Could they even become, as some robotics engineers hope, “better than human?” CBSN Originals takes you into the heart of Japan’s looming population collapse, and examines the robot solutions they hope will preserve their unique culture.APR 29, 2018   (Pay close attention USA because this is what is in store for you!)



General Rolf Heuer, general director of CERN, says CERN will “open the door” from our physical universe to non-physical universes, which will allow human scientists to interact face-to-face with non-physical beings. Sergio Bertolucci, director for research and scientific computing at CERN, said there are parallel universes and parallel dimensions of non-physical intelligent beings located everywhere around us, and CERN will allow these non-Earth entities to come into our physical world and be with us.

In this way, CERN is being used as a stargate so that human scientists will be able to go to and from currently unknown, perhaps very hostile, non-physical worlds and dimensions located and currently unseen, outside our physical universe Source: We Should be Very Scared about CERN

“One particularly interesting possibility is that these long-lived dark particles are coupled to the Higgs boson in some fashion—that the Higgs is actually a portal to the dark world,” said LianTao Wang, a University of Chicago physicist, referring to the last holdout particle in physicists’ grand theory of how the universe works, discovered at the LHC in 2012. “We know for sure there’s a dark world, and there’s more energy in it than there is in ours. It’s possible that the Higgs could actually decay into these long-lived particles.” Source: “The Last Holdout” –LHC Scientists Seek Portal to the ‘Dark-World’


Maybe a black hole could form, and then suck in everything around it,” writes Rees. “The second scary possibility is that the quarks would reassemble themselves into compressed objects called strangelets. That in itself would be harmless. However under some hypotheses a strangelet could, by contagion, convert anything else it encounters into a new form of matter, transforming the entire earth in a hyperdense sphere about one hundred meters across.”

One hundred meters is roughly the size of an American football field. That’s the entire Earth, condensed into that tiny space.

To understand how this might be possible, consider that particle accelerators are large, high-energy structures that use electromagnetic fields to propel charged particles to nearly light speed. Typically, once the particles reach these incredible speeds, they are set to collide with one another. This causes the particles to blow up into their constituent parts so we can learn more about the fundamental particles that make up our universe. The most powerful particle accelerator is the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. It’s also the largest machine in the world. Experiments like these, using such powerful machines, can produce unpredictable outcomes by their very design. Source: astronomer Martin Rees



A well-known cosmologist comes out with very stark warnings about particle accelerators.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world’s biggest scientific instrument, is also the planet’s most powerful particle accelerator. And that makes it a potential danger not just to itself or its immediate surroundings in Switzerland, but to Earth and maybe even our reality itself.

This warning comes not from an incorrigible luddite but the influential British astrophysicist Lord Martin Rees, who sees three ways in which the collider could cause a disaster of cosmic proportions.


For one, cautions Rees in his new book On The Future: Prospects for Humanity, it’s possible for the experiments conducted at the LHC to form a black hole which would “suck in everything around it“.


And if apocalypse by way of black holes doesn’t come to pass, it’s also conceivable that Earth could get compressed into a “hyperdense sphere about one hundred metres across,” as writes Lord Rees, the Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge.

That could happen due to the subatomic quarks generated by the Large Hadron Collider, which smashes particles against each other at super-high speeds to study the fallout. The quarks could reassemble themselves into appropriately named (and currently hypothetical) particles called strangelets, which, in turn, could transform everything in their way into a new highly-compressed form of matter. So Earth would become no larger than a football field.


There is, unfortunately, a third way towards unimaginable disaster courtesy of the LHC and other particle accelerators like the new one being built in China which would be twice as large and 7 times as powerful as CERN’s. Martin Rees thinks that there’s a chance the colliders could cause a “catastrophe that engulfs space itself”. That’s certainly nothing to take lightly.

Aerial view of CERN’S Large Hadron Collider.


Bloomberg QuickTake Originals   – Nov 24, 2014

Musk says this guy could be the least of our fears.Video screenshot of “Far Cry 3” by CNET Australia

Elon Musk, a chief advocate of cars smart enough to park and drive themselves, continues to escalate his spooky speech when it comes to the next level of computation — the malicious potential of artificial intelligence continues to freak him out.

With artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon,” Musk said last week at the MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics Department’s 2014 Centennial Symposium. “You know all those stories where there’s the guy with the pentagram and the holy water and he’s like... yeah, he’s sure he can control the demon, [but] it doesn’t work out.

This has become a recurring theme in Musk’s public comments, and each time he warns of the AI bogeyman it seems even more dire.

In June, Musk raised the specter of the ” Terminator” franchise, saying that he invests in companies working on artificial intelligence just to be able to keep an eye on the technology. In August, he reiterated his concerns in a tweet, writing that AI is “potentially more dangerous than nukes.” Just a few weeks ago, Musk half-joked on a different stage that a future AI system tasked with eliminating spam might decide that the best way to accomplish this task is to eliminate humans.

But this is the first time I’m aware of that Musk has kicked up the rhetoric another notch — perhaps anticipating this week’s onslaught of Halloween costumes — to compare AI to something supernatural like demons.

How to deal with the demonic forces of AI in the future? In a strange move for a tech mogul, Musk suggests it might be a good idea to fight one bogeyman with another (depending on your political perspective) in the form of government regulators.

If I were to guess at what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that,” he said, referring to artificial intelligence.I’m increasingly inclined to think there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish.”

Indeed. Who knows what demonic hellscape could emerge if we ever let artificially intelligent machines get ahold of a Ouija board.

Mar 16, 2016
Robotics is finally reaching the mainstream and androids – humanlike robots – are everywhere at SXSW  Experts believe humanlike robots are the key to smoothing communication between humans and computers, and realizing a dream of compassionate robots that help invent the future of life. » Subscribe to CNBC: About CNBC: From ‘Wall Street’ to ‘Main Street’ to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.


Prof. Stephen Hawking is not worried about armies of autonomous drones taking over the world, but something more subtle – and more sinister. Some technologists believe that an event they call the Singularity is only a few decades away. This is a point at which the combined networked computing power of the world’s AI systems begins a massive, runaway increase in capabilityan explosion in machine intelligence. By then, we will probably have handed over control to most of our vital systems, from food distribution networks to power plants, sewage and water treatment works, and the global banking system. The machines could bring us to our knees without a shot being fired. And we cannot simply pull the plug, because they control the power supplies.  Source: How Will The World End?


This robot has been given citizenship in Saudi Arabia.  As she mentioned in the video above, this opens the way for a robot to hold a job, have a family, raise children, start a business, own property anything that a normal human would do.
The First ‘Robot Citizen’ in the World Once Said She Wants to ‘Destroy Humans’

The humanoid robot also took a shot at billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk when discussing the future of artificial intelligence.

The First 'Robot Citizen' in the World Once Said She Wants to 'Destroy Humans'
Getty Images
  • Saudi Arabia is the first country to grant citizenship to a robot.
  • Sophia, the humanoid produced by Hanson Robotics, spoke at the recent Future Investment Initiative.
  • Sophia has said it would ‘destroy humans,’ when prompted by its creator, David Hanson.

An empty-eyed humanoid named Sophia has become the first robot to be granted citizenship in the world.

Saudi Arabia bestowed citizenship on Sophia ahead of the Future Investment Initiative, held in the kingdom’s capital city of Riyadh on Wednesday.

“I am very honored and proud of this unique distinction,” Sophia told the audience, speaking on a panel. “This is historical to be the first robot in the world to be recognized with a citizenship.”

It didn’t elaborate on the details of its citizenship.

At the event, Sophia also addressed the room from behind a podium and responded to questions from moderator and journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin. Questions pertained mostly to Sophia’s status as a humanoid and concerns people may have for the future of humanity in a robot-run world.

Attendees pose with Sophia, a robot integrating the latest technologies and artificial intelligence developed by Hanson Robotics during a presentation at the “AI for Good” Global Summit in June 2017. Denis Balibouse/Reuters

Sorkin told Sophia that “we all want to prevent a bad future,” prompting Sophia to rib Sorkin for his fatalism.

“You’ve been reading too much Elon Musk. And watching too many Hollywood movies,” Sophia told Sorkin. “Don’t worry, if you’re nice to me, I’ll be nice to you. Treat me as a smart input output system.”

In March of 2016, Sophia’s creator, David Hanson of Hanson Robotics, asked Sophia during a live demonstration at the SXSW festival, “Do you want to destroy humans?…Please say ‘no.'” With a blank expression, Sophia responded, “OK. I will destroy humans.

Hanson, meanwhile, has said Sophia and its future robot kin will help seniors in elderly care facilities and assist visitors at parks and events.

Fortunately for the human race, Sophia made comments more along those lines at the recent Future Investment Initiative event. It told Sorkin it wanted to use its artificial intelligence to help humans “live a better life,” and that “I will do much [sic] best to make the world a better place.”

Sophia could soon have company from other robotics manufacturers, namely SoftBank, whose Pepper robot was released as a prototype in 2014 and as a consumer model a year later. The company sold out of its supply of 1,000 robots in less than a minute.

Watch Sophia’s full presentation below:

This post originally appeared on Business Insider.



Don Howard Whether robots deserve human rights isn’t the correct question. Whether humans really have them is.

We need to figure out how to fairly and respectfully share our world with artificial friends and neighbors.
Image: Futuristic military cyborg surveillance on the street

We probably ought to figure out what rights robots will have before they reach sentience.gremlin / Getty Images

By Don Howard

While advances in robotics and artificial intelligence are cause for celebration, they also raise an important question about our relationship to these silicon-steel, human-made friends: Should robots have rights?

A being that knows fear and joy, that remembers the past and looks forward to the future and that loves and feels pain is surely deserving of our embrace, regardless of accidents of composition and manufactureand it may not be long before robots possess those capacities.

Yet, there are serious problems with the claim that conscious robots should have rights just as humans do, because it’s not clear that humans fundamentally have rights at all. The eminent moral philosopher, Alasdair MacIntyre, put it nicely in his 1981 book, “After Virtue”:There are no such things as rights, and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in unicorns.

There are serious problems with the claim that conscious robots should have rights just as humans do, because it’s not clear that humans fundamentally have rights at all.

So, instead of talking about rights, we should talk about civic virtues. Civic virtues are those features of well-functioning social communities that maximize the potential for the members of those communities to flourish, and they include the habits of action of the community members that contribute to everyone’s being able to lead the good life.  (WOW…what kind of mystical, convoluted, mumbo jumbo is that?)

After all, while the concept of “rights” is deeply entrenched in our political and moral thinking, there is no objective grounding for the attribution of rights. The Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But almost no one today takes seriously a divine theory of rights.

Most of us, in contrast, think that rights are conferred upon people by the governments under which they live — which is precisely the problem. Who gets what rights depends, first and foremost, on the accident of where one lives. We speak of universal human rights but that means only that, at the moment, most nations (though not all) agree on some core set of fundamental rights. Still, governments can just as quickly revoke rights as grant them. There simply is no objective basis for the ascription of rights.

Image: SpotMini
SpotMini, the Boston Dynamics robot dog.Boston Dynamics

We further assume, when talking about rights, that the possession of rights is grounded in either the holder’s nature or their status — in the words of the aforementioned declaration, that people possess rights by virtue of being persons and not, say, trees. But there is also no objective basis for deciding which individuals have the appropriate nature or status. Nature, for instance, might include only sentience or consciousness, but it might also include something like being a convicted felon — which means, in some states, that you lose your right to vote or to carry a gun. For a long time, in many states in the U.S., the appropriate status included being white (that is a lie); in Saudi Arabia, it includes being male.

The root problem here is the assumption that some fundamental, objective aspect of selfhood qualifies a person for rights — but we then have to identify that aspect, which lets our biases and prejudices run amok.

Still, since we will share our world with sophisticated robots, how will we do that fairly and with due respect for our artificial friends and neighbors without speaking of rights? The answer is that we turn to civic virtues.

Focusing on civic virtues also forces us to think more seriously about how to engineer both the robots to come and the social communities in which we all will live.

In a famous 1974 essay, the political theorist Michael Walzer suggested there are at least five core, civic virtues: loyalty, service, civility, tolerance and participation. This is a good place to start our imagining a future lived together with conscious robots, one in which the needs of all are properly respected and one in which our silicon fellow citizens can flourish along with we carbonaceous folk.

Focusing on civic virtues also forces us to think more seriously about how to engineer both the robots to come and the social communities in which we all will live. What norms of public life should be built into our public institutions and inculcated in the young through parenting and education? The world would be a better place if we spent less time worrying, in a self-focused way, about our individual rights and more time worrying about the common good.

A final noteworthy consequence of this suggested shift of perspective is that it highlights a challenge, which is designing the optimal virtues for the robots themselves. A task for roboticists will be figuring out how to program charity and loyalty into a robot or, perhaps, how to build robots that are moral learners, capable of growing new and more virtuous ways of acting just as (we hope) our human children grow in virtue.

The robots will have an advantage over us: They can do their moral learning virtually and, thus, far more rapidly than human young. But that raises the even more vexing question of whether humans will have any role in the robotic societies of the future.

Don Howard is professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He is also a fellow and former director of Notre Dame’s Reilly Center for Science, Technology and Values.

Wow…so do you see why they had to first destroy our belief in GOD?  When you no longer believe in GOD… or you are born into a world where belief is GOD has long been forgotten…than who makes the rules?  Who sets the boundaries?  Who decides what is right or what is wrong??  WITHOUT GOD… YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!  WITHOUT GOD YOU HAVE NO INHERENT VALUE.  WITHOUT GOD you are fodder for the enemy!