For more than a century, human beings have been thinking
about robots or some kind of machines that will rival our intelligence or even
surpass it. Nowadays, we have a name for this kind of intelligence; we call it
Artificial Intelligence. Whatever that is, and whatever it will accomplish
remains to be seen. What we need to do at this point is prepare the groundwork
that will help us define the word intelligence; be that Natural Intelligence
(NI) or Artificial Intelligence (AI).
We can begin the process by making an observation. We see
that all things natural change by a self-contained evolutionary process whereas
all things artificial change by the intervention of the Natural Intelligence.
That is, NI is autonomous whereas AI is dependent. For example, higher primates
evolve because the ability to do so is wired into their DNA. We make cars that
have evolved over time, but the changes they underwent came about because of
human intervention. At a lower level, birds evolve naturally but the nests they
make change because the birds become a different species and require a nest of
a different design.
In computer science, there exist subroutines that allow a
machine to learn and alter its performance, but this is not sufficient to call
them intelligent because the ability to learn is restricted to the content of
the subroutine which is neither visionary nor transcendental. For Natural
Intelligence to grow in a machine, the concept of unlimited curiosity will have
to be self-generated and codified into an algorithm that will alter itself
without human intervention. And this has not been observed as yet. Until it
happens, the best that we can have is something we may call Unnatural
Intelligence (UI).
The one thing that comes close to mimicking organic NI is
the computer virus. It latches onto an existing algorithm and works
autonomously like the cancer cell which metastasizes and disrupts the organism
that carries it. In this process, the virus blends with the algorithm it has
infested, creating a kind of proto-organism that keeps devolving (instead of
evolving) till the combination dies a gibberish death. Because we cannot call
this development NI or AI, we'll call it Unnatural Intelligence (UI) till
someone finds a better name for it.
What is surprising is that parallel to the computer virus
and the rise of the Unnatural Intelligence, there exists a similar phenomenon
outside the world of technology. We find it in the organisms we call
institutions. In effect, what differentiates one institution from another is
that each would have developed a culture of its own expressed by an internal
language that's proper to it. For example, the relationship between the
employees and the manager in two branches of the same bank could be defined by
two different words. One manager might be called 'drill sergeant,' the other
'fruitcake.' These would be two viruses that will most likely never grow to be
a danger to society at large.
However, new appellations are invented all the time
especially in this age of the social media. They help the culture evolve in a
positive or negative direction depending on your point of view. The concern is
that an appellation has the potential to take on a serious significance when
acting like a societal virus and begins to metastasize. Unchecked, it can
disrupt society the way that a computer virus devolves an algorithm.
In real life no one creates as many societal viruses as the
Jews who are the inheritors of the Yiddish culture; a veritable compendium of
insults and epithets. Whether a Jew speaks Yiddish or he doesn't, what often
happens is that growing in a Jewish milieu, he finds himself imbued with the
desire to reduce everyone he meets into an appellation, mostly an alienating
one; rarely an affectionate one.
In fact, this specialty of the Jewish culture had been the
secret weapon the Jews deployed to win over a good chunk of the American
intelligentsia. Being the land of the one-liner and that of the bumper sticker,
America
took to the one-word appellation of the Jews like a child takes to candy.
Taking full advantage of that situation in the promotion of
their political agenda, the Jews attached epithets like 'dictator' and
'terrorist,' to their enemies. All the while, they attributed to themselves
such appellations as 'democratic' and 'humane.' You'll find the latest of their
inventions in the New York Times editorial that came under the title: “Trump's
Approach to Syria Is No Way to Run a War,” published on April 5, 2018.
After listing the usual talking points pertaining to the
subject of Syria
–– as put out by the Jewish lobby –– the editors of the New York Times came to
the last sentence. They chose it to be a question that reads as follows: “How
does that serve American interests?” The term “American interest” being the
appellation in vogue these days. But how and why did it get there?
What happened is that the Jews abused the word democracy,
using it left and right to make Israel
look like something it isn't. This resulted in the two words Israel and
democracy devolving like a virus and the host algorithm deteriorating into
gibberish. This is when the Jews saw the need to find another appellation.
They came up with the idea of saying that anything America does to shield Israel from the consequences of its criminal
activities, can only be in the interest of America . This is why every Jew and
his sycophantic follower drop the appellation “American interest,” something
they do as often as a rhinoceros stricken with an out-of-control diarrhea
responds to nature's call.