Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas
December 11, 2012
- Author:
- Scott D de Hart, Joseph P. Farrell
- Publisher:
- Feral House (10/30/2012)
The ultimate question is no longer “who am I” or “why am I here.” These questions were answered in the earliest civilizations by philosophers and priests. Today we live in an age of such rapid advances in technology and science that the ultimate question must be rephrased: what shall we be? This book investigates what may become of human civilization, who is setting the agenda for a trans-humanistic civilization, and why .
The modern Victor Frankenstein holds a high political office, carries diplomatic immunity, and is most likely funded by the largest corporations worldwide. His method is ancient: alchemy. His fraternities are well known and their secrets are well kept, but his goal of times past and present is the same; he dares to become as god, genetically manipulating the seeds of the earth, the beasts on the fields, and to claim legal ownership over humanity by re-creating it in his own image. This is no fairy tale, science fiction, or conspiracy theory … it simply is!
Transhumanism, a Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas by Dr.’s. Joseph P. Farrell and Scott D. de Hart lifts the veil from the macabre transhumanistic monster being assembled and exposes the hidden history and agenda that has set humanity on a collision course for the Apocalypse.
Joseph P. Farrell, PhD, is the author of the best-selling Genes, Giants, Monsters, and Men: The Surviving Elites of the Cosmic War and Their Hidden Agenda.
Comments (8)
by carmel M Toussaint
The First Amendment covers the freedom of speech, press etc and I can see why this book has found his way in this website.I have not read this book and I wonder if I will. I have never seen such a negativity.A dissenting opinion about the future of our species can certainly be expressed in a way without invoking a conspiracy including the participation of our R&D elite,government..I must stop here.
by Mr.X
“The ultimate question is no longer “who am I” or “why am I here.” These questions were answered in the earliest civilizations by philosophers and priests.”
If one is content with ANY answer, this is right.
Priest:
A:Guess my name!?
P:bla bla bla.
A:Seriously..
P: Kill him, he’s a heretic!
I hope my word choice may be forgiven, but I sometimes wonder how it must feel to be dumb enough to actually believe stuff like this.
It is the paper-back equivalent of trash-tv, I guess.
by Mr.X
*Priest: I know everything
by B.J. Murphy
What an awful mishmash of anti-science religiosity and conspiracy theorism! Why on Earth would KurzweilAI even remotely hint this book’s existence?
by Gabriel
I have to admit – the synopsis does sound weird….like someone who has an very anti-transhumanist, or possibly even anti-science….it’s hard to describe, but it sounds like you basically summed it up — it’s a fearful conservative mishmash.
At least, that’s what it sounds like since I haven’t read it…maybe it does have understandable critiques like the sort Bill Mckibbin had during his interviews with Ray Kurzweil…or maybe it’s just a fear-driven piece of work from someone who didn’t do their research. I guess readers will see for themselves.
by Editor
The same reason we posted The Unabomber’s Manifesto, http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-unabomber-s-manifesto. One can’t deal with irrational luddites unless one understands them. But I understand that some may feel threatened by them and prefer to keep it hidden.
by Gabriel
No no, it’s not that I feel threatened by them – that’s silly. The curious thing is, even when augmentations and the like start becoming mainstream and tensions boil….I have a feeling that things are not going to be as crazy as many dystoptian scenarios say they will. Oh sure, many will argue that such things are anti-human, unnatural etc….but only the truly truly radical would resort to real violence; whether because they are willfully blind to the benefits, or they still think the only solution is murder. Either way, I feel the majority who disagree will still respectfully allow other people to do what they want with their bodies (and they should be given the same), no matter how passionate they get.
The only people I fear are people like Ted Kaczynski who would actually resort to real violence to prove their point — he had his critiques, that were intelligent and made sense to a certain degree…but they were ultimately overshadowed by his intolerable methods; it makes me feel he was, in some sense, a tragic figure. I’m happy and feel it’s rational to say that, among the many dissenters who would disagree with these related technologies, that only an extreme minority would stoop to his level.
We should be willing to let everyone an ear and respect their choice; it’s only people like Ted that I’m really afraid of, since if someone is willing to physically threaten, then it’s unlikely to convince them of anything anyway.
by Iamblichus
I’m confused by your comments. I know one of the authors very well and the other by correspondence. Neither are anti-science and both are transhumanists. Both think that transhumanism is both inevitable and is a much older idea. The question is more of what it’s going to amount to philosophically. It doesn’t sound like you have read the book and have misunderstood the book’s aim and import.