by Jon Rappoport
March 15, 2012
from JonRappoport Website




I saw one in a dream once, but this is a little different.


My dream was probably brought on by tequila plus an active imagination, but here we have the vision of a professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University, S. Matthew Liao. He'd like to see it happen in the waking world.


Catch The Atlantic article by Ross Andersen, published March 12, 2012, and, Paul Watson's excellent coverage at


Prof. Liao announced his new paper (with co-authors Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache, both of Oxford), entitled 'Human Engineering and Climate Change,' on his blog on March 9th, 2012.


The Atlantic interviewed Prof. Liao, who is so concerned about global warming (not a flicker of doubt about the science behind it, it's settled, move along) that he wants to engineer humans so they'll have a diminished impact on the environment.


Don't worry, the professor wants to save you and me and everyone, and it's all good.


Here are his recommendations:

  • A drug that will make humans hate meat because the sight of it brings on nausea. (Reduce the cow population, cut down on warming.)


  • Implant pre-screened embryos in wombs that will develop into significantly smaller-than-average adults. (Diminished carbon footprint.)


  • Drug-induced enhancement of empathy and altruism. (Enlightened people will "serve the Earth.")


  • Engineering humans with cat's eyes! (see in the dark, cut down on - those new mercury-laden - light bulbs.)

I'd be interested in knowing what drugs Professor Liao is on. I fear, however, he's completely sober.


According to Liao, at least one pharmaceutical rep is quite interested in his suggestions. I'm sure he's right.


In the last few years, academics have been writing and speaking much more boldly about plans to experiment on the human race. The other day I described a recent paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics that advocates the right to kill babies (for any reason), since they aren't fully formed persons yet. (Read the full paper, "After-birth Abortion: Why should the Baby Live?").


It's called "after birth abortion."


I'm quite serious. Then we have the wonderful proposal, backed by Japanese research, to dump lithium in water supplies as a mood-stabilizer.


At any rate, the real story here is the lack of outrage in the press, academia, and the public. Apparently, people are now conditioned to so much vicarious horror and bizarreness they just shrug.


And the massive increase in various kinds of plastic surgery has opened the floodgates to "whatever you can get away with."


If the means were available to replace the usual brand of eyes with cat's eyes, do you get the feeling thousands of people would step up and sign on the dotted line?

"I used to be afraid to drive at night, but now I don't even turn my headlights on."

Professor Liao, when prompted by the interviewer to compare an anticipated new "empathy drug" with the effects of Prozac, blithely admires the analogy.


Somehow, he doesn't seem to know about the horrendous adverse effects of Prozac (such as suicide and homicide - see Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac, by Dr. Peter Breggin.)


Look for a great deal more of this academic clap-trap to emerge from our great centers of learning. The hustlers are on the move. They may be trying to get their faces in magazines and earn promotions, but they're really serving the explicit elite agenda of population control.


They're softening up the masses for greater and greater biological, chemical, and genetic mandates—characterized as genuine breakthroughs and logical extensions of what is already being practiced.


In their smooth fashion, they're implying that those who are against such programs are merely phobic about science and technology; throwbacks and Luddites who just can't stand progress, who don't want to rescue the human species.


Movies spin endless scenarios about humans merged with machines. What's a little thing like cat's eyes?


Especially, if like birth control, government insurance plans would cover it.


Professor Liao has prepared another paper for publication, in the journal Bioethics. It's titled, "Parental Love Pills: Some Ethical Considerations."


He imagines a pill could be devised that would enable a parent to love his/her child more. Liao concludes that this pill would allow the parent to give "authentic" love (as as opposed to a mere drug-induced or "narcissistic" substitute.)


Having dubiously cleared that hurdle, Liao goes on to write the following:

"It may even be morally incumbent on us to do so [take the pill] if no other means of inducing parental love are effective."

Staggering. "Morally incumbent." In the long run, that's one layer away from "enforceable."


But Liao, in the present-day drug culture, would find many, many adherents. They already take drugs because they want to go to sleep, wake up, feel happy, avoid the necessity of thinking, dampen their anger and outrage, become more aggressive. Why not, therefore, take a drug so they love their children?


Even if, contrary to Liao's assurances, that emotion is a function of a chemical.

"Daddy, do you really love me or is it just that pill you keep taking? Why do you have to take the pill? I don't like it."

And once more, Liao displays his ignorance of the reality of pharmaceutical damage.


Every year, in the US, FDA-approved medicines kill 106,000 people, like clockwork. (Dr. Barbara Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000 - "Is US Health really the best in the World?")


This love drug of his would have no adverse effects?

"Mr. Smith, it's good that you ‘love' your son now, but I have to tell you the tests show your liver is coming to resemble an old shoe."

At, Max Miller writes:

"In 2009, Dutch researchers at the University of Amsterdam tested the effects of beta-blockers… on minimizing fear responses.


They artificially created fearful memories in subjects by showing them unnerving pictures of spiders coupled with small electric shocks. A day later, half of the subjects were given beta-blockers and again shown the pictures of the spiders.


The fear response they had exhibited a day before was gone…"

Putting aside concerns such as adverse effects of the drugs, the potential usefulness of bad memories, the unintended deletion of other memories, and the use of these drugs as sheer mind control, the core question is:

Is chemical deletion a good thing? Does it help and strengthen the individual, or does it weaken him?

And if we dig deeper still and consider all the experiments mentioned in this article, what view of the individual does it represent?


I'll tell you. It represents the individual as a mechanical object to be manipulated.


And if this view is accepted, then anything is possible, any experiment can be carried out. There are no moral or even legal repercussions. We're back in Nazi Germany, albeit with "a softer touch."


See below Scott Nobel's film 'Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century':





Social Engineering In The 20th Century





Softer, in part, because people are stepping forward to volunteer.


People, for example, want their memories deleted. And their handlers are acting in a kindly fashion. And the human race is being CHANGED, step by step... This is the hidden fact.


This is what all this experimentation is obscuring and covering over with its invasive "science."




FORGETTING THIS is the real amnesia besetting the human race. It is the trance that is the Matrix.


Waking up is the task. Using his power to the fullest is the work of the individual.