Clones & doubles (& synthetics & robotoids)

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ really? pray tell!

[sherlok]

^ I've come across a number of suspected "golems," actually.
The more I study the subject (especially Fritz Springmeier's
material) the more of them I spot.

Having worked in the movie biz has probably given me more
than my fair share of these people, but, as Fritz says, they
are in all walks of life.

These people aren't easy to describe and they don't exactly
walk up to you and tell you they're a mind controlled slave.
You have to pick up on their behavior and lifestyle.

Things to look for are multiple personality behavior, dissociation
(trance like states, staring into space), wide-eyed "manic"
expression, taking prescribed mood altering or psychiatric drugs,
extreme compulsive behaviors, extreme obsession with some movie
or TV show or character (Star Trek, Disneyana, Batman, Wizard of
Oz, etc.), occult involvement (especially if secretive), drug or alcohol
addiction, extreme eating disorders, strange scars or injuries or
other evidence of violence are some of the things to look for. And,
there are occupations that are always suspect: military/intelligence
(including their parents) Hollywood, law enforcement, and many
others.

Please note I didn't say that everyone who has one or more of
these characteristics is a mind control slave. It's a matter of
severity and connecting the dots with the whole of a person's
life, behavior and connections that can lead you to a suspected
victim of mind control. The more you know about the subject, the
better you will be in spotting these people.

One very briefly described example of mine:
There was the guy in the apartment next to mine who worked for
NASA who, at 3:00am, howled like a wolf at the top of his lungs
on his hands and knees and scampered around on all fours and
who punched a 1-foot hole through my front door with his fist
when I called the cops on him and who then threatened to kill
me in front of the Sheriff's deputies that I'd called out there
because of him.

And, that was just one of his personalities. The next day he
was as friendly as can be and had no apparent memory of any
of this and wanted to be my buddy. (I moved out instead.)

Obviously, he was crazy. But, it wasn't until later, after
studying up on the mind control scene that I put together all
the little hints in the guys behavior that caused me to
realize he must be a golem. The fact that he worked for NASA
was the biggest clue but there were more clues in his day to day
behavior. The police also seemed to know him and did nothing
when he threated to kill me in front of them (a felony).

Actually, the NASA guy was only one in a cast of weird characters
that the building's new owner started filling the place up with.

That was part of what caused me to connect the dots. Evidently
the new owner was using the place to house a number of these
people -- for what purpose I don't know. But the NASA guy wasn't
the only weirdo who moved in and, BTW, this was a very nice,
upper-middle-class neighborhood with million dollar homes, etc.

This sort of thing is a known part of the mind control scene.
Sometimes entire neighborhoods can be filled with illuminati
cult members, all involved with or victims of mind control.

But, I digress ...

Another thing I've noticed. When I spot someone in this category
I get a feeling of relief or I just feel better. It's like the clouds part
a bit and I feel better about my involvement with that person. It
just explains a lot.

Anyway, read Fritz's books (I still am) and you may just spot some
in your own life. They aren't all movie stars.

[faulconandsnowjob]

It's interesting that you mention Star Trek & occult involvement. I only want to mention that my personal feeling about Star Trek is that it is a fairly accurate representation of how things are w/ other space races, but perhaps you know something I don't?

I would also like to say that I am personally involved in the Occult. There are many misconceptions about it, but there is nothing inherently sinister about it. It can be quite handy, actually. For ex, it can be used to contact inter-dimensional beings. I suppose, the people who have used it for ill have given it a bad name.

[beatlies]

The golem is actually a fighter on the side of good, against evil,
in age-old Jewish lore and mythology. Sort of a friendly, helpful robot defending communities against murder and persecution.
A prototype of the superhero comic book defenders.

The first print story of the golem appeared in 1847 in Prague, Czechoslovakia. The golem does not seem to be a doppleganger.

Golem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Golem (disambiguation).
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008)

Rabbi Loew and golem.In Jewish folklore, a golem (גולם, sometimes, as in Yiddish, pronounced goilem) is an animated being created entirely from inanimate matter. In modern Hebrew the word golem literally means "cocoon", but can also mean "fool", "silly", or even "stupid". The name appears to derive from the word gelem (גלם), which means "raw material".[citation needed]

Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Origins of the word
1.2 Earliest stories
1.3 Owning and activating golems
1.4 The classic narrative
1.5 The hubris theme
1.6 The golem in European culture
1.6.1 The golem in the Czech Republic
2 In modern culture
3 Further reading



[edit] History

[edit] Origins of the word
The word golem is used in the Bible to refer to an embryonic or incomplete substance: Psalm 139:16 uses the word גלמי, meaning my unshaped form. The Mishnah uses the term for an uncultivated person ("Seven characteristics are in an uncultivated person, and seven in a learned one", Pirkei Avot 5:9). Similarly, golems are often used today in metaphor either as brainless lunks or as entities serving man under controlled conditions but hostile to him in others. Similarly, it is a Yiddish slang insult for someone who is clumsy or slow.


[edit] Earliest stories
The earliest stories of golems date to early Judaism. Adam is described in the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 38b) as initially created as a golem when his dust was "kneaded into a shapeless hunk". Like Adam, all golems are created from clay. They were a creation of those who were very holy and close to God. A very holy person was one who strove to approach God, and in that pursuit would gain some of God's wisdom and power. One of these powers was the creation of life. No matter how holy a person became, however, a being created by that person would be but a shadow of one created by God.

Early on, the notion developed that the main disability of the golem was its inability to speak. In Sanhedrin 65b, is the description of Rava creating a man (gavra). He sent him to Rav Zeira; Rav Zeira spoke to him, but he did not answer. Said Rav Zeira, "You were created by the magicians; return to your dust."


[edit] Owning and activating golems
Having a golem servant was seen as the ultimate symbol of wisdom and holiness, and there are many tales of golems connected to prominent rabbis throughout the Middle Ages.

Other attributes of the golem were gradually added over time. In many tales the Golem is inscribed with magic or religious words that keep it animated. Writing one of the names of God on its forehead, a slip of paper in its mouth, or enscribed on its body, or writing the word Emet (אמת,"truth" in the Hebrew language) on its forehead are examples of such words. By erasing the first letter aleph in Emet to form Met (מת, "dead" in Hebrew) the golem could be deactivated. Another way is by writing a specific incantation in the owner's blood on calfskin parchment, and placing it in the mouth. Removing the parchment will deactivate the golem. It is likely that this is the same incantation that the Rabbi recites in the classic narrative. Golems also need to rest on the Sabbath lest they go berserk.


[edit] The classic narrative

Clay Prague golem

The most famous golem narrative involves Judah Loew ben Bezalel the late 16th century chief rabbi of Prague known as the Maharal, who reportedly created a golem to defend the Prague ghetto from anti-Semitic attacks. This story of the Golem first appeared in print in 1847 in Galerie der Sippurim, a collection of Jewish tales published by Wolf Pascheles of Prague. In 1911 an account in Hebrew and Yiddish was published by Yudl Rosenberg in Lwow, supposedly based on the found diary of Rabbi Loew's son-in-law, who had helped create the golem; but the authenticity of this manuscript is in dispute.[citation needed]

Depending on the version of the legend, under Rudolf II the Holy Roman Emperor the Jews in Prague were to be either expelled or killed. To protect the Jewish community the rabbi constructed the Golem out of clay from the banks of the Vltava river and brought it to life through rituals and Hebrew incantations. As this golem grew it became increasingly violent, killing gentiles and spreading fear. A different story tells of the Golem falling in love, and when rejected, he became the violent monster as seen in most accounts. Some versions have the Golem eventually turning on its creator and perhaps even attacking other Jews.

The Emperor begged Rabbi Loew to destroy the Golem, promising to stop the persecution of the Jews. To deactivate the Golem, the rabbi rubbed out the first letter of the word "emet" (truth or reality) from the creature's forehead leaving the Hebrew word "met", meaning death. The Emperor understood that the Golem's body, stored in the attic genizah of the Old New Synagogue, would be restored to life again if needed. Accordingly, the body of Rabbi Loew's golem still lies in the synagogue's attic, although some versions of the tale have the golem stolen from the genizah and entombed in a graveyard in Prague's Žižkov district where now the great Žižkovská tower stands.

The existence of a golem is sometimes a mixed blessing. Golems are not intelligent — if commanded to perform a task, they will take the instructions perfectly literally.

In some incarnations of the legend, the Maharal's Golem had superhuman powers to aid it in its tasks. These include invisibility, a heated touch, and the ability to use the Maharal's walking stick to summon spirits from the dead. This last power was often crucial, as the Golem could summon dead witnesses to testify in Prague courts.


[edit] The hubris theme
In many depictions golems are inherently perfectly obedient. However, in its earliest known modern form the story has Rabbi Eliyahu of Che©©m creating a golem that became enormous and uncooperative. In one version of this the rabbi had to resort to trickery to deactivate it, whereupon it crumbled upon its creator and crushed him. There is a similar hubris theme in Frankenstein, The Sorcerer's Apprentice and some golem-derived stories in popular culture. The theme also manifests itself in R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), Karel Čapek's 1921 play which coined the term robot; the novel was written in Prague and while Capek denied that he modeled the robot after the golem, there are many similarities in the plot.[1]


[edit] The golem in European culture
In the late 19th century the golem was adopted by mainstream European society. Most notably Gustav Meyrink's 1915 novel Der Golem based on the tales of the golem created by Judah Loew ben Bezalel. This book inspired a classic set of expressionistic silent movies, Paul Wegener's Golem series, of which The Golem: How He Came Into the World (also released as The Golem, 1920, USA 1921--the only surviving film of the trilogy) is especially famous. Another famous treatment from the same era is H. Leivick's 1921 Yiddish-language "dramatic poem in eight sections" The Golem. Also notable is Julien Duvivier's "Le Golem" (1936), a sequel to the Wegener film. Nobel prize winner Isaac Bashevis Singer also wrote a version of the legend.

These tales saw a dramatic change of the golem. The golem became a creation of overambitious and overreaching mystics, who would inevitably be punished for their blasphemy, as in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and the alchemical homunculus. The homunculus appears occasionally in the folklore of Eastern Europe as a construct made from natural materials such as dirt, roots, insects, feces, and other substances. In these stories the creature is revived through incantation and acts as a vehicle for the astrally projected mind of a sorcerer.

Dutch novelist, Harry Mulisch's 1999 novel, The Procedure is in part a modern re-interpretation of the Golem myth, starting with a 'historical' description of the kabbalistic experiment which results in a murderous female Golem.


[edit] The golem in the Czech Republic
The golem is a popular figure in the Czech Republic. There are several restaurants and other businesses named after him. Strongman René Richter goes by the nickname "Golem", and a Czech monster truck outfit calls itself the "Golem Team".[citation needed]

The golem had a main role in the 1951 Czech movie Císařův pekař a pekařův císař (released in the US as The Emperor and the Golem).

Composer Karel Svoboda finished his last musical based on the legend of Golem only two months before his suicide. This musical seems to be a flop due to an overcomplicated plot and a lack of musical ideas in songs.


[edit] In modern culture

[beatlies]

Revolution 9 (1968) at 1:48 is the start of a long stretch of the sounds of a
human infant cooing:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1G9wLGit4k&feature=related



Revolution 9 is modeled on Stockhausen's avant-garde musical piece "Hymnen"

On Sgt. Pepper cover Stockhausen is the face that becomes Adolph Hitler when
vertically mirrored; located just above the face of Mengele ("Dion")
and the white Tom Mix cowboy hat that becomes an egg.

[sherlok]

"Golem" is illuminati programmer slang for mind control slave. I used
the term because they use it. It has nothing whatever to do with
existing folklore or mythology. It's just a term they use.

The Star Trek obsession is per Fritz Springmeier (as are obsessions
with many other fictional works). Fritz explains how these are used
in his books and interviews.

As I said, just because someone has some of these indicators it
doesn't mean they are mind control slaves. Not all Star Trek fans
are MC slaves and not all people interested in the occult are either.
I thought I made that clear but it bears repeating.

However, they have created millions of these slaves in all walks of
life. Odds are you have met some of them. They are designed to be
"undetectable" so you have to use your head in sniffing these
people out. It might be worth your while to do so.

[faulconandsnowjob]

I'm still wondering about how the Occult ties into mind control. Are they using it somehow to control people?

[sabrina]

Dec 23, 2008 15:58:46 GMT -5 @faulconandsnowjob said:

I'm still wondering about how the Occult ties into mind control. Are they using it somehow to control people?

Well the occult world originated much of the information of mind control. It was the cults of greece and egypt and others that took hallucinogens that brought people into altered states.

The priestly class learned that people went into altered states and could compartmentalize info, memories under trance and even see beyond the 3 dimensional veil.

It depends on how its used though, the governments used it to control people on a wide scale and also learned from generational cult families about MPD.

Much of the occult is psychology and understanding of science, chemistry and the human mind. It was a goal of magicians to create spells enchantments onto others which is really a form of mind control.

[sherlok]

Dec 23, 2008 15:58:46 GMT -5 @faulconandsnowjob said:

I'm still wondering about how the Occult ties into mind control. Are they using it somehow to control people?

Yes. The illuminati is a satanic or luciferian cult. A major part of their
mind control activities is often referred to as Satanic Ritual Abuse.

To quote one researcher:
"...they take a child at approximately three years of age and make
the child fast for several days, force the child to witness human
sacrifices, and to participate in a cannibalistic communion service. In
some instances, they physically abuse the child and then place he or
she in a cage or coffin to further the trauma. The child is sometimes
drowned in a baptismal ceremony and brought back to life. In the
process of all this blasphemy, the child's mind is reversed or
shattered into multiplicity. The act of sodomy is also performed to
open up the victim's "third eye" which is suppose to enhance psychic
ability. During this vial act, a demonic system called, "Legion" is
installed. In the King James Bible, Legion is refered to as an,
'unclean spirit'. This is systematically done to have complete control
over the child, like creating a programmed robot." Source.

Many other ritual-related abuses are also performed according to
survivors of this cult. Mind control slaves also regularly attend and
take part in sabbats throughout their lives to reinforce the programming.

[faulconandsnowjob]

^ But I still don't see what those horrible things have to do w/ the Occult. For ex, I don't see how sodomy would open up someone's third eye. Meditation would, & perhaps certain drugs, but not sodomy. Here is an excellent book on the Occult:

Yogi Ramacharaka - Fourteen Lessons in Yogi Philosophy and Oriental Occultism
www.scribd.com/doc/35104/Yogi-Ramacharaka-Fourteen-Lessions-in-Yogi-Philosophy-and-Oriental-Occultism-1903

[sherlok]

^ I think they're using a different definition for "occult" than you are.
They don't contemplate lotus blossoms. They're satanists. They
torture and eat people. They're not from around here.

[beatlies]

Regarding the official, contradictory gap-filled history and timeline of animal cloning, I'm starting to suspect that the REAL cloning attempts began shortly after WWII with a collaboration of US, British, Canadian and German Nazi doctors, continuing the work of the escaped and protected-Dr. Joseph's twin/reproduction experiments at Auschwitz, and his close colleague Dr. Otmar Verschuer, who was based in a Nazi eugenics lab in German-occupied Denmark. If they started in on human cloning attempts right away in the late 40s/early 50s, (with monkeys and apes, the other primates also) they would have discovered it is easier to clone primates (including humans, see above post on article about this human gene finding) than sheep or horses etc., as easy perhaps as cloning frogs, which had been done publicly and openly in 1952. Is this what David Bowie meant in the song "Quicksand" with its horrifying line "Himmler's sacred realm"?

MULTIPLYING ISSUES

January 8, 1998
NewsHour Transcript



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago physicist Richard Seed["D--k seed"?! who's writing this bad comedy script??] has announced that he is prepared to clone humans. But the announcement has been met with widespread condemnation. Is the scientific community ready for Dr. Seed? Margaret Warner speaks with two scientists about the ethics surrounding human cloning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A RealAudio version of this segment is available.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWSHOUR LINKS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 29, 1997
A year-end report on remarkable changes in reproductive technology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 5, 1997
First a sheep was cloned, then a monkey, but if President Clinton has his way a human isn't next.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 24, 1997:
Elizabeth Farnsworth leads a discussion of the science that lead to Dolly, the Scottish sheep cloned from another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 24, 1997:
Jim Lehrer discusses the ethics of cloning with a panel of bioethicists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 24, 1997:
A NewsHour background report on Dolly and cloning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of science
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTSIDE LINKS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, Scotland report on cloning sheep.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Genetics and Public Issues Program at The National Center for Genome Resources (NCGR) discusses cloning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Ethics and Social Issues in Gene Research at the Human Genome Project.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Browse the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics home page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARGARET WARNER: A Chicago physicist, Richard Seed, says he is ready to start work on cloning a human being. Cloning is an experimental process that has never been used on humans, but the possibility has been hotly debated ever since last February, when researchers in Scotland announced they had created a sheep named Dolly through cloning seven months earlier. Cloning is the process of creating an embryo from the DNA of a single animal. If carried to term, the embryo develops into an exact genetic double of that animal. Dolly's creator--Dr. Ian Wilmut--said he didn't intend the process to apply to humans.
"A jolly good story for a book or a film" may now become reality.


DR. IAN WILMUT, Scottish Scientist: It makes a jolly good story for a book or a film. It's the reason why there is such interest in this topic, but it's really fanciful and is not going to happen.

MARGARET WARNER: But scarcely 10 days after Wilmut's announcement, President Clinton banned federal funding for human cloning experiments in the United States, and he urged a voluntary moratorium on privately-funded experiments too.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Each human life is unique, born of a miracle that reaches beyond laboratory science. I believe we must respect this profound gift and resist the temptation to replicate ourselves.

MARGARET WARNER: In June, a national bioethics commission urged Congress to outlaw human cloning for now. The President endorsed the call. But though several bills have been introduced, Congress has not acted.

This week, Richard Seed told The Washington Post that he has doctors, and four infertile couples, ready to work with him. And he told National Public Radio that mankind shouldn't shrink from the prospect of cloning humans.

RICHARD SEED, NPR recording: God made man in his own image. God intended for man to become one with God. Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God.

MARGARET WARNER: Seed's proposal was widely condemned yesterday, drawing this response from the White House.

Widespread outrage over Dr. Seed's proposal to clone humans.


MIKE McCURRY, White House Spokesman: I think that the scientific community ought to make it clear to Dr. Seed, and I think the president would make it clear to Dr. Seed, that he has now elected to become irresponsible, unethical, and unprofessional should he pursue his course.

MARGARET WARNER: In Scotland, Dr. Wilmut reacted by saying the procedures he used to create Dolly, the sheep, weren't developed enough to use on humans.

DR. IAN WILMUT: I'd remind you that in these experiments so far, about one quarter of the lambs that were born alive died within a few days because they hadn't completed normal development. Now, what may be being suggested here is that copies of children would be being produced, and some of those would die soon after birth. So I think that for a clinician to be suggesting doing that is a quite appalling and sad thing for him to be suggesting.

MARGARET WARNER: But interviewed by ABC's Ted Koppel on Nightline last night, Seed said the time to proceed with human cloning is now.

TED KOPPEL: Theoretically, if you can find the money, within the next couple of years, you might be able to--

RICHARD SEED: My target is a year and a half.

TED KOPPEL: A year and a half to two years.

RICHARD SEED: For a 60--for a two month pregnancy in a human female.

TED KOPPEL: And you think that's a good idea?

RICHARD SEED: I think it's a wonderful idea.

TED KOPPEL: For which reasons--and then we'll take a break--just cite the reasons for me and then we'll come back and analyze them.

RICHARD SEED: All the reasons I named. The treatment of fertility, for the advancement of science, for the advancement of technology, for the advancement of humankind, all of those wonderful reasons.

TED KOPPEL: All right, we'll talk about--

RICHARD SEED: I think, I wonder, I think that little baby clones are wonderful.

MARGARET WARNER: Seed also said he was determined to proceed, despite the risk of defects.

RICHARD SEED: All the chromosomal and defect problems that you can name you are never going to find them in animals; you've got to do humans.

TED KOPPEL: What you're telling me is, if in the course of your experiments the first or the second or the third of these experiments turns out to be flawed, you will destroy the embryo.

RICHARD SEED: Yes. I certainly will eliminate the embryo. And with the informed consent of the couple involved, and I don't approve of abortion, but sometimes we do things we don't approve of.

MARGARET WARNER: If Congress does ban human cloning in the United States, Seed said, he will take his work abroad.

Two scientists debate the ethics of human cloning.


MARGARET WARNER: Joining us now is Thomas Murray, a bioethicist at Case Western University in Cleveland and a member of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission; and Lee Silver, a molecular biologist and professor of genetics at Princeton University. His new book is Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World.

Tom Murray, what do you think of what Mr. Seed is proposing?

THOMAS MURRAY, National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Hello, Margaret. First of all, I think his science is no better than his theology, given what I've just heard. I think it's a terrible idea. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission recommended in June that there be a federal law prohibiting any efforts at human cloning for a period of years. We suggested three to five years at a minimum until we can find out whether or not this--whether or not the risks that would be posed to the child, who might be created by this technique, or to the women who would carry those children, to see whether those risks would, in fact, be conscionable.

MARGARET WARNER: And Lee Silver, this was the reaction among many in the medical and scientific community. Do you share it?

Human cloning will occur "...even if the government is against it, even if scientists are against it, even if ethicists are against it, if there are people willing to pay money."


LEE SILVER, Princeton University: Yes, I do. I don't think we should take Dr. Seed seriously. I don't think that anybody--any physician that was ethical in any way--would go about proceeding down the cloning path until they were absolutely convinced that the procedure was not going to cause harm to the child that came out of the procedure. I think the reason that people got so up in arms about Dr. Seed's announcement is because they realized for the first time that cloning might proceed even if the government is against it, even if scientists are against it, even if ethicists are against it, if there are people willing to pay money. I think they will be able to find other people willing to satisfy their desire.

MARGARET WARNER: And do you think that's a good idea?

LEE SILVER: Well, I don't think cloning is so bad if the procedure is--we're able to get it to the point where it is effective and where it doesn't cause any birth defects. I think if a child is born healthy and happy and it's loved by its parents, I don't think it matters how that child began its development.

MARGARET WARNER: But you're saying that you think it's right now still too risky, we're not at that point yet?

LEE SILVER: It's certainly premature. I think it's going to be 10 years, I would say, before we reach the point where this can be done without causing birth defects.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Murray, tell me your view of the risks and how far the medical and scientific community is away from this even being feasible.

THOMAS MURRAY: Dr. Wilmut and his colleagues published a paper just last month in the journal "Science," and in that paper they reported a couple of very interesting results, one of which was that 46 percent of all the lambs created by a less radical technique, they cloned by using fetal DNA, not adult DNA.

MARGARET WARNER: This was not Dolly but another--

THOMAS MURRAY: Right. It was somewhat simpler than Dolly. Forty-six percent of those lambs died in the perinatal period; that is, either late in the pregnancy, or shortly after birth. That's a horrendous, a horrendous rate. And I think anybody who would attempt to do that with humans would be--that would be--I hope it would be criminal actually. Also, another fact from that research is of the pregnancies that actually delivered, none of them engaged in spontaneous labor, so they had to actually go in and induce labor. What that tells me is that something--this is far from a natural process, and there are many, many technical and scientific details to be worked out before you could even consider doing this in a human. That's the first level of concern. The second level of concern the Commission also paid attention. We didn't think in 90 days we could do justice to it so we did want to sponsor and encourage a broad national debate. And that has to do with what the moral and social meaning of creating children by cloning would have for us as Americans.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying, in other words, that as far you're concerned, it's not just an issue of when, or when it's scientifically feasible, but there's a fundamental issue as to whether we should even be pursuing this?

THOMAS MURRAY: I think we should be doing the research with animals, absolutely, and I think we should be doing much of the research that goes on with cloning human tissues and cells. That's all morally, I think, quite acceptable, and--

MARGARET WARNER: And explain--

THOMAS MURRAY: --that's praiseworthy.

MARGARET WARNER: And just to explain the difference, what you're saying is, it's one thing to be talking about cloning human tissue to help fight disease; it's another thing to clone for the purpose of making a baby.

THOMAS MURRAY: To make a child, absolutely. That's a key distinction there. I think even if and when--and it's a big if--if and when we get to the point where we say that the technology to create a human child by cloning is safe, we'd still have some very important moral questions to address.

MARGARET WARNER: Like?

A healthy practice or a "massive display of narcissism?"


THOMAS MURRAY: Like, what is it--why would people want to clone a child? Who--would they be cloning themselves, would they be cloning some stranger? People talk about cloning Michael Jordan. Well, even if you did clone Michael Jordan, you might not get a great basketball player. It would be someone with presumably similar physical abilities but might completely lack the competitive drive that Michael Jordan has. So people might be very disappointed if they had really expected this person to be a successful and wealthy NBA star and now they're not. We need to ask about whether cloning of human beings wouldn't be just a kind of massive display of narcissism, whether it wouldn't be the ultimate form of a kind of false self-love. And if that's going to be largely the use that's made of it, then I'm not sure that as a society we want to encourage that kind of use. We need to at least investigate those kinds of questions, ask what values people think are being promoted by creation of children by cloning, and ask whether, in fact, those are values we as a people want to endorse because they either support what we think is good about family life, or they are destructive of it.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Silver, do you agree with the commission Mr. Murray was on that really we should have at least a temporary ban on human cloning experiments until these ethical and moral issues can be aired and discussed?

LEE SILVER: Well, I don't think--I think the ethical issues will be aired. I don't think we will ever reach a consensus in the same way we've never reached a consensus on the abortion issue. There are going to be people who don't like cloning for what I consider to be spiritual reasons mostly, and then there are going to be people who do want to use this technology. I think what it's important to understand is that there's a very powerful drive that human beings have to want to have biological children, and there are certain people who are unable to have biological children due to infertility, and those people can spend large amounts of money using infertility treatments like in vitro fertilization, for example. They'll spend up to $100,000 to have a child that way. Cloning will be just one more technology that will allow certain kinds of infertile people to have their own children. They don't want to have anybody else's children; they want to have their own children. And I just don't see that as being so bad. It's important to realize, of course, that cloning is not going to be the same as the progenitor. It's simply going to be a later born identical twin. It's going to have its own life, and I don't see what is so terrible about that.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Murray, yesterday when this news came out, some Republican leaders in Congress said they were going to act on your recommendation; they were going to try to push through a ban on this. Do you think such a ban is feasible? Can you stop science and medicine with government action?

THOMAS MURRAY: Can you stop it? I mean, can you stop a renegade from running off and doing it? I think the answer is no because the technology itself is not that overly expensive and one can get ahold of it if you really want to. To get someone--a scientist who is good enough with the techniques and knowledgeable enough about how to do it, that would be much harder because I think all the relevant scientific associations have said you shouldn't do this, you should observe a voluntary ban. So I think it will be difficult. People may attempt it, I think. We're very unlikely to see any successful attempts. The fact that some people might try to evade a ban has never been a good reason to not have a ban. I mean, we have--we say it's wrong to beat children to death or to immerse a baby in scalding water. Some people do that, but we still think it's right to have a ban on those practices.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Silver, you were--

"Well, I don't see what's wrong with wanting to have a child that is biologically related to you that is happy and healthy and loved by its parents."


LEE SILVER: Well, I don't see what's wrong with wanting to have a child that is biologically related to you that is happy and healthy and loved by its parents. And I think what it'll happen is if there is a ban placed on this technology in the United States, clinics will open up in other countries, perhaps in the Caribbean, perhaps in Mexico, because there's a lot of money to be made. And even though it's true that the societies have rejected the use of this technology, there are thousands of scientists and physicians out there who know how to do in-vitro fertilization, who know how to do--use glass needles to do the kinds of manipulations that have to be done, and some of them are going to be tempted to do it. And they're doing it--

THOMAS MURRAY: Lee, there is an expression that hard cases make bad law. I think rare cases can make bad public policy. There are many, many options that couples have even today who want to have a child; either with a biological link with them, or not, and I understand that it can be extremely painful if you really want to have a child.

LEE SILVER: Well, I mean, the question is why--

THOMAS MURRAY: Cloning is going to be the--

LEE SILVER: But I don't understand why you--

THOMAS MURRAY: --treatment of choice for an exceedingly few number of people.

LEE SILVER: Why--I agree with you--it's not going to be very many people, even if this technology becomes safe and efficient, we're talking about a small number of people that will want to use it. It's not going to have any effect on society at large; that's certainly true. But why deny this technology to a couple where both members of the couple are unable to produce gametes? They can't produce sperm or egg; they want to have a biological child. Why not allow them to use this technology to have a biological child?

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Mr. Silver and Mr. Murray, I'm sorry. We have to leave it there. Thank you both very much.

[lostworld]

Dec 23, 2008 0:21:43 GMT -5 sherlok said:

^ I've come across a number of suspected "golems," actually.
The more I study the subject (especially Fritz Springmeier's
material) the more of them I spot.

This was very interesting Sherlok. I know what you're talking about. I have some suspects around me too...

Fritz also talks about the illuminati "leftovers" which I'm sure you know all about. Persons who wasn't qualified to reach the higher levels within the illuminati. They were no good as politicians etc. There is supposedly a whole stalker program.
Anybody who thinks of Mark Chapman?

Here is the link:
www.forgenerations.net/documents/vol2-maybe.pdf
It begins on page 25.

"How do the Illuminati get rid of their leftovers, the children their bloodlines have that aren’t going to amount to
a great deal? In terms of mind-control, the male children that are the programming leftovers, the ones that are
not really fit to make into politicians, doctors and lawyers, will be made into stalkers, according to an ex-
Illuminati programmer, who worked in this area of programming, the ratio of men to women that are
programmed for stalking is about 90% to 10%. Why discuss how the Illuminati makes stalkers? First, many
people doubt that there is a controlled conspiracy by the Illuminati to control the world, because in their limited
understanding they think that there are too many uncontrollable people around for the world to be controlled.
They don’t realize that a large share of those crazy people were intentionally created by the Illuminati. The
Illuminati programmers and handlers during the 40’s through the 60’s, according to insiders, had specific quotas
on how many people to have go crazy so that the mental institutions (which were used for programming) could
maintain their government financing."

"The Illuminati need their people seeded at all levels of society, at the gutter level
as well as in palaces. This is where the stalkers, their leftover children used for programming are handy. Many
of these stalkers had secret Illuminati lineages that are hidden via adoption. As one ex-Illuminati member said,
"They are the weak links." The Illuminati must have dependable people everywhere, even in the gutter and
prisons."

[sherlok]

^ Yes, thanks.

Here's some more info on stalkers you might like:
rense.com/general84/howintel.htm

[artemis]

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL THOSE TRUTHSEEKERS ON THIS FORUM EITHER! ALL BEST!