|Tuesday, July 23, 2019
You are here: Home » Technology » Will technology be humanity’s ruin?

Will technology be humanity’s ruin? 


censorship

As presented in many Hollywood movies the technological race will also create a group of “drop-offs” that will be the growing field of new terrorism.

The emergence of new technologies without the anticipation of their effects on work, privacy or political and social relations generates technophobia, a fear of technologies that will be the trigger for a new wave of terrorism in the next two decades.

At least, that is the warning issued by Advisory Council on Terrorism and Propaganda of the European Center for the Fight against Terrorism, an organization from Europol, the not so old entity created to centralize policing all over the continent.

“Terrorism will be mainly motivated by technophobia,” experts conclude in an article published in the scientific journal The International Journal of Intelligence, Security and Public Affairs.

“Each wave of terrorism has a central trigger and the rejection of technology for its unintended effects will be the precipitator of the new one from 2040”, the article explains.

The first wave of terrorism, wrongfully and intentionally linked to anarchism, was followed by the anticolonialist, the extreme left and the jihadist. The next, according to the authors of the study, is the technophobe and will be generated in two decades.

The day “terrorism” will reign 

Anarchy does not mean what they think and you think it means. Its only meaning is lack of a centralized, all mighty entity barking orders to the whole. So, these experts’ premise is deadly wrong. Calling anti colonialists terrorists for wanting liberation from oppression would be like accepting that land slaves are terrorists for wanting economic freedom.

“It will be transversal because it will include followers of extreme right or left, atheists and believers. As the changes progress, nostalgic feelings for an idealized past will grow,” explains the study, that recalls that in the 19th century, Ludism, a movement of English craftsmen emerged as an opposition to the new machines that destroyed employment.

Writers of the study recall the most recent history of Theodore John Kaczynski, the American mathematician graduated from Harvard with a doctorate in Michigan known as the ‘Unabomber’, who allegedly sent bomb letters in protest against the consequences of technological development. “His neo-Luddite ideology was reflected in a manifesto about industrial society and its future. The comparison is preposterous at best. 

Nonetheless, experts and government officials are always quick to blame whole groups of people for the actions of the few. For example, lawful gun owners are always blamed for gun violence and calls for removing the Second Amendment are always heard from Leftists and the media. When a Trump follower insults someone with a different political preference, all Trump fans are deemed irreparably violent, racist and homophobic. 

The objectives, according to this terrorism expert, will be both the generators of new technologies and their users and will repeat a current pattern: the weapons they will use will be the same ones they fight against, as it happens with jihadism and the use of the Internet as a tool.

This is another form of guilty by association commonly used by “experts” and politicians. People who express opposition to the system are equalled to Jihadists, and their speech and actions labeled as terrorism. Their social accounts are banned, censored and ultimately closed, because their speech is “offensive”, “politically incorrect” in a world where words must be sanitized before seeing the day of light.

The study continues to warn that new generations of computer attacks and actions will take place against governments and large companies directly or through their users. The technological race will also create a group of “drop-offs” that will be the growth field of the new terrorism, adds the professor.

While “experts” label attacks on government or large corporations as terrorism, attacks by government and large technological companies against users is called national security. The pejorative “drop-offs” is assigned to those who are not happy and who fight against violations of privacy, spying, surveillance and constant abuses of power by Big Tech and government.

“There will be synergies between groups whose ideologies seem incompatible in principle but who believe that the path of awareness is not effective and resort to other methods,” experts say, though they believe that it is still possible to establish preventive measures.

In this sense, advisers on terrorism call for a prior reflection on the consequences of technological advances to alleviate adverse effects.

Remember how Internet emerged without the possibility of a “perverse use” or how social networks were born to put groups in contact but now have been splashed by the abuse of the very same companies that created them? These companies now own private data and use it or sell it to influence people or to interference in political campaigns.

“Currently, the concern for unwanted effects should be at the center of technological progress,” the study warns. “It will be transversal because it will include followers of extreme right or left to atheists and believers.”

Rise of the Machines 

Instead of preparing society for the drastic changes that technology will bring, so-called experts limit themselves to say that what they call Industry 4.0 will “destroy many jobs, but also create others.” 

Little is mentioned about how the current and future workforce needs new training and recycling and how many companies, due to the age of their employees, are not interested in preparing them for what is coming.

Mechanization is going to leave many people in the ditch. Either there is a will to find an exit or society will have to carry them. Mechanization is a mistake that does not take it into account.

YouTube has recently joined other social platforms to eliminate alleged supremacist, discriminatory, holocaust denying, etc, etc speech. They limit recommendations towards “harmful misinformation”, such as, for example, those promoting “absurd miracle cures” for serious diseases or that explain that the Earth is flat. Censorship by Youtube is not new, but the pace is accelerating. 

Conclusions of the Study vs. Reality

The study published in the scientific journal The International Journal of Intelligence, Security and Public Affairs is entitled Terrorist Dystopias and tries to indicate what will be the predominant cause that will motivate the terrorist conflict in the year 2040. 

The first conclusion is what is called the theory of collective action applied to the emergence of terrorist groups and emphasizes four key propitiatory elements:

1. Dissatisfaction and social discontent: The more you grow, certain segments will sympathize with terrorist groups.

2. Ideologies that justify the use of violence and articulate social discontent by providing explanations to their causes, identifying enemies and proposing lines of action.

3. Ability to organize and maintain a viable terrorist structure capable of operating in hostile environments.

4. Political opportunity that is nourished by alliances, a favorable social climate and triggers that accelerate the violent radicalization of certain sectors of society.

In this last point, the study sets up the scenarios supposedly analyzed in the research. So-called experts discern the possible emergence of new causes of discontent, old and new ideologies that try to legitimize terrorism, new instruments to facilitate the action of clandestine organizations and political opportunities that increase the resort to radical tactics:

  1. inequality, 
  2. structural unemployment, 
  3. climate change, 
  4. the emergence of city-states and new technologies that will combine to increase political instability and will be the perfect medium for the growth and expansion of radicalisms.

What these experts are doing is “setting up” an outcome that is only inevitable if humanity believes it and if people bend their knees to false prophets. They are setting humans up to become the dystopian society that the all mighty technocrats want. 

They are equalling dissatisfaction and protesting it with terrorism. They are associating social discontent with radicalism. They are labeling free and open organization to protest inequality and oppression as terrorist structures. They are warning against public alliances between groups to fight government and Big Tech oppression because, according to them, that is a sign of radicalization. 

There is another twist to this apparently oncoming reality told by “experts”. Advanced technology is highly concentrated in the hands of very few people. The greatest technological advances are enjoyed by the masses only decades later after they have been achieved. 

Large conglomerates, due to their economic and political power, have enjoyed and tuned up tech novelties for years by the time technological, medical, chemical and other advancements are made public and accessible to the masses and they only release them if they are sure the result will be mass serfdom.

What these experts warn about is nothing else than what has been happening in the world of technology for decades, or perhaps even longer. 

The notion that terrorism will be performed by “drop-offs” because of their inability to access technology sounds a lot like the plot of many Hollywood movies that have prepared humans for a future where the rich and powerful live in carefully guarded gated communities, while most of us live in squallers. 

Maybe it won’t be terrorism after all. Maybe, it will be survival labeled as terrorism to justify extermination against a number of “undesirable” groups of people left behind by the purveyors of truth and virtue.

Many people like you read and support The Real Agenda News’ independent, journalism than ever before. Different from other news organisations, we keep our journalism accessible to all.

The Real Agenda News is independent. Our journalism is free from commercial, religious or political bias. No one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. Editorial independence is what makes our journalism different at a time when factual, honest reporting is lacking elsewhere.

In exchange for this, we simply ask that you read, like and share all articles. This support enables us to keep working as we do.

About the author: Luis R. Miranda

Luis Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda News. His career spans over 20 years and almost every form of news media. He writes about environmentalism, geopolitics, globalisation, health, corporate control of government, immigration and banking cartels. Luis has worked as a news reporter, On-air personality for Live news programs, script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news.

Add a Comment