How Humans are Tweaked to become "Hackable Animals" - Interview with Dr. Daniel Broudy

Sendungstext
herunterladen

PDF (.pdf)

Word (.docx)

08.03.2025 | www.kla.tv/36856

Interviewer: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. I am Vance Daniel Evermonde, your host on Kla.tv, the media network. And I'm thrilled to continue our deep dive into the thought-provoking research paper, “Cyborgs R Us - The Bio-Nano Panopticon of Injected Bodies?“, co-authored by Dr. Valerie Kyrie and Dr. Daniel Broudy. In our first discussion, we explored the ethical concerns surrounding bionanotechnology, its role in surveillance and its impact on privacy, autonomy and power dynamics. Today, we take the conversation further, examining digital surveillance, transhumanism, and the regulation of these emerging technologies. Once again, we are joined by Dr. Daniel Broudy, professor of applied linguistics at Okinawa Christian University, whose expertise sheds light on the intersection of language, media and control. So, welcome back, Dr. Broudy. Dr. Broudy: Thanks for having me. Interviewer: So, let us pick up where we left off two weeks ago. How does the paper challenge mainstream narratives about the development and deployment of advanced medical technologies during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic? But if it is okay, Dr. Broudy, before you start answering the questions, I would like to mention something about the two research papers that you co-authored with Dr. Valerie Kyrie. And I noticed that in your paper "Cyborgs R Us", on the first page, you said: “This essay extends the cross-disciplinary study undertaken in an earlier article titled 'Syllogistic Reasoning Demystifies Evidence of COVID -19 Vaccine Constituents''. Would you mind if it is possible for you to tell us a little bit about the difference between these two research papers? Dr. Broudy: Well, the first one is still just a reasoning, just simply relied on basic logic. We were assessing the public discourse, especially as it regards claims being made about bodies and brains and surveillance, you know, going under the skin, as it were. And we were also looking in the scientific literature to see what we can understand from these claims. So when I say the public discourse, I mean what you find, I suppose, mostly in social media commentary on the so-called elites who frequent the World Economic Forum and the World Government Forum and any number of forums where unelected leaders, thought leaders, and also politicians, gathered to work out how to fix… they claim how to fix the world's problems. So that first paper was simply an analysis of what we might learn, extract, extrapolate from all of these claims that were being made. And the second paper, was just a further deep dive into the white papers and to try to explore even more deeply the interconnections between the claimed necessity of these transhumanist interventions and how they're represented. And white papers and policy papers and so forth. So we were trying in the Cyborgs paper, to really tie up all of the loose ends and to really further it, further some of the connections we were seeing. And we use, you know, basic logic to bring these out, syllogistic. Interviewer (0:05:49): Great. So now we can continue with the question that I asked you earlier about: How does the research paper challenge the mainstream narratives about the development and deployment of advanced medical technologies during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic? Dr. Broudy: Well, one of our implicit aims in that paper was to coax readers into rejecting or at least maybe loosening the chains that constrain their necks or their vision, that limit their gaze on the images they attend to in the media. So we were thinking of Plato's cave. And of course, as you know, the prisoners in the cave had their gazes fixed upon the cave walls. And it seemed to us that so many people around the world have, in similar ways, their gazes fixed upon the mainstream media attending ever so closely to the so-called menace that was about to destroy them. And you probably recall too, that the prisoners in Plato's cave resisted coming into the light. You know, they resisted reports from their fellow prisoner who had seen the light and above the cave and tried to coax them to, you know, he had good news of what was going on above the surface. And his characterizations of what's appearing in the light were obviously rejected. And we thought that this would be a good conceptual way of trying to draw our readers out. So that paper urges readers to really broaden their perspectives to consider the facts of how medicine and nanotechnology and communications technologies, information science, you know, how they're merging and really fulfilling dual purposes that are spelled out in the literatures. So we saw this emergence of this new paradigm as a kind of digital chains that are constraining the vision, our vision. And these chains, of course, you can only discern them under various kinds of microscopes. And the permissible mainstream narrative is that problems with biomedical technologies used to confront COVID can only be understood through this lens of legacy bioscience. And if you think of, say, five years ago, and all the big pharma players were pitching the jabs as a kind of new technology, right? Which was really interesting. They were framing DNA as a kind of computer program that could be rewritten or manipulated to address this viral menace. So a great deal of energy nowadays is being expended on maintaining the public debate within these strict parameters of legacy bioscience. And if you say anything that doesn't square with the mRNA story, the narrative, then you become almost an immediate object of ridicule and contempt, especially by those who are supposedly pushing the boundaries of the public discussion. So, you know, the question that we've been asking: 'What can we infer from all this, from the literature and from all of this tension?' It seems to us that there is a war that's unfolding in science, you know, at least in its public face. On one side, you have legacy bioscience, sort of like guarding the boundaries of the debate. 'This is all about mRNA, nothing else, it's not about nanotechnology.' And on the other side, you have this emerging paradigm, the NBIC paradigm, which is sort of bumping up against legacy bioscience. You could probably draw similar patterns, parallels too, with legacy media. You know, the legacy media is now being undermined, its legitimacy is being severely undermined by new forms of media. Interviewer: Everybody is probably familiar with the legacy bioscience. I think this is the traditional science since over a century. And then, to be honest with you, I was surprised when I discovered the NBIC paradigm. How long is its history? When did it really start to emerge, this NBIC paradigm? Dr. Broudy: We think its emergence began in the early 2000s, at least. Interviewer: Oh, very recent. Dr. Broudy: Yeah, fairly. What, 25 years? I suppose in some respects, it could be seen as recent. I might have said this during our last discussion, that nanotechnology has been around, at least the concept, since the late 1950s. Interviewer: I mean, this will take us to the following question, Dr. Broudy. What parallels can be drawn between the panopticon metaphor and current practices in data collection and digital surveillance? Dr. Broudy: That's a good question. I'd like to point to George Woodcock. His 1944 essay "The Tyranny of the Clock". He foresaw how technology is something that we don't really think about today, timekeeping. And how these would serve the owners of the means of production. So, the clock kind of became the first machine of the machine age and enabled the owners to track and control the productive output of their workers to collect data on man's activities down to the very second, now microsecond. And this is kind of like the panopticon in which our activities could be monitored and checked, against standards of work that are imposed upon us. You might have seen Microsoft 2020/060606, that sort of technology, the implantable chip, as it were, that'll connect the slave owners to the slaves who can be monitored in real time. So, at least I thought about this, because of some of the things that Yuval Harari has been discussing in a number of his public talks, that surveillance will expand and go under the skin, which is peculiar, because, I think he said: 'Governments, corporations, they'll want to monitor not just what we do, but what we think and feel', which is very interesting, because he noted that our feelings and our emotions can be surveilled as well. So, I think he noted also that once you have surveillance under the skin, you can know that information because our emotions are biological phenomena, they're signals, and we have the means of surveilling them. Interviewer: Yes. Dr. Broudy: And he further added that he thought, it was likely that people could look back a hundred years from now and reflect on the present and say: 'This is the point at which surveillance went under the skin.' So, this is extremely, not just unusual, but it squares very much with what you find in the scholarly literature, the trade literature, the technologies that are being developed for this new paradigm. It's very real. It kind of reminds me of neoliberalism on steroids. I guess another way to think about it is a fully McDonaldized society. You know, we have the workers who are totally predictable, highly efficient. Their output can be quantified, calculated very easily because of their connections to the internet. And, of course, that all means highly controlled. So, that's how I would answer the question concerning this panopticon that appears to be fast emerging. Interviewer: Actually, I was thinking about Harari, when he mentioned that people could look back in 100 years and identify the coronavirus epidemic at the moment when the new regime of surveillance took over, especially surveillance under the skin, which I think is maybe the most important development of the 21st century. I have here a question about self-assembling structure, Dr. Broudy. I discovered on the net that you had five months ago a conversation with Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea and Dr. Young Mi Lee. And I think it was on Humanity United right now. So, the conversation was about self-assembling. So, I thought it was maybe a safe question to ask you. And so, the question is, this statement is massively interesting speaking of surveillance going under the skin. And COVID - we hear a lot of assembly, self-assembling nanobots that were administered through the vaccine or graphene-oxide or programmable particles that can be activated with some microwave frequency or a new vaccine. Do you know any deeper proven details on these topics you can inform us about? Dr. Broudy: Well, if you look at the literature, the scholarship, the trade literature as well, if you also look at the government white papers and policy papers and if you look at the microscopy studies, the imagery, you can begin to infer from all of these data points that what is being discovered in blood, not just of those who have been injected, but also really anyone, that this kind of technological imposition is at present emerging in real time as we speak. The studies that I've seen, they're ongoing, they have been ongoing for at least since 2021. Researchers around the world - Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Korea. Those are the ones that I'm aware of. Those research cohorts that I belong to wherein the doctors and electrical engineers share their work is quite astonishing, to put it mildly, to observe how the structures that they're discovering are sensitive to ambient energies like EMF or UV. So far as self-assembly, the observations that are being made appear to suggest that the literature that conceptionalizes the deployment in use of these new networks is emerging right now. So that’s what the discussions I have been a part of with Dr. Ana and a few other researchers, journalists, that is really the gist of the discussions that I've been a part of. Interviewer: Good. Thank you. Thank you so much. So next question, Dr. Broudy, is what safeguards, if any, are proposed to ensure that such technologies serve humanity rather than exploit or dehumanize individuals? Dr. Broudy: That's another good question. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Mae-Wan Ho. She was a bio-physicist and a geneticist. She warned about the tampering of DNA, the tampering with DNA that was starting to appear in the late 1990s and 2000s. I think many of her warnings have been largely ignored, concerning the dangers that are inherent in modifying the genes of organisms. So nobody in government - it seems to me, has paid much attention to the work she’s done, the arguments that she’s made - I think likely because the warnings - her warnings - that they likely don’t serve the interests of those in power. You have vested interests in the investments, in this so-called science. So far as I can tell - this sort of antiquated interest in “safeguards” has already been undermined by a, you know, this like the global, you know, the worldwide call for sustainable development - that code we've been hearing so much about over the past five years. Whatever technocratic practices and business, seems to me, it's square with whatever the giants of this age deem “sustainable” for development. Those are the things that are officially recognized and pursued so you can see any number of presentations at these global forums. And it seems to me also that the SDGs are maybe the most brilliant marketing campaign ever conceived. Interviewer: What do you mean? Dr. Broudy: Establishing a a kind of new technocratic global order. I think it's the most brilliant double speak I’ve ever heard. It's like the sort of development that sounds really nice and positive but which is entirely anti-democratic. You can see, for example, in the messaging in 2020 - no I’m sorry. Not in 2020, but in 2016, where “you'll own nothing and be happy”. Interviewer: Yeah, I remember this. Dr. Broudy: So that PR campaign, I thought was - you know, was not just brilliant, but necessary to start conditioning people for programs of dispossession. A colleague of mine, a friend, too, Dr. Douglas Lummis, wrote about this idea of anti-democratic development in one of his books, mid-'90s, called Radical Democracy. And so if you consider his thoughts, the only thing this sort of contemporary pursuit sustains in sustainable development is that the legacy, legacy global order will maintain its, you know, top-down control. Yeah, it seems to me full implementation of these SDGs will guarantee this kind of structure. It's dressed up in new language. It's no longer the stockholders, but the stakeholders. So I think, and many of my co-authors think that the language, getting the language just right to conceal, rather than reveal or be transparent about what's really afoot, the language is really necessary. Interviewer: Great. So now, if you do not mind, Dr. Broudy, I would like to move to the following question, and that is: How does the discussion of post-human futures align or challenge current trends in transhumanism and bioethics? Dr. Broudy: I think bioethics is really a code, clever code for the destruction of existing laws of informed consent. Interviewer: Can you explain this, because this attracted my attention, like when I hear about bioethics, it's like to do the right things. But then when you mentioned the destruction of the Existing laws of informed consent, can you explain a little bit about this? Dr. Broudy: Sure. Well, if I think about my own experiences, when I was doing my doctoral studies, it took a year to pass the ethics committee for experiment on human subjects. And if you recall these, well at least we were told the story that there is a completely new category of "vaccines" that have been developed at warp speed, in a handful of months. Ordinarily, the time it takes for a new vaccine to come online is about 10 years. So, you can easily infer that this is part of a large experiment. I would say, first and foremost, the psychological experiment, and, of course, a biological experiment. But psychological in that the kind of urgency and coercion that was thrust upon people, served to almost completely erase, a collective memory of the idea or the laws of informed consent. So yeah, transhumanism, it seems to me, is merely the transition period in which technologies are being deployed in bodies and bloodstreams and into brains to recreate man in the image of man. With all of man's vaunted and clever technologies, you know. Interviewer: Kind of enhanced, you mean? Dr. Broudy: "Enhanced", yeah. Maybe the last time we talked, I referenced, you know, the move or the conceptualization of the new human being or new classes of human beings, you know, the freaked, the tweaked and the geeked, which appear to be among us now. So you can see that in action today. I've seen some news reports in 2020, documenting that craze to be all, I guess it would be tweaked. You know, get your implant and then get a free donut or. . . Interviewer: Or have a free beer, I guess. Dr. Broudy: Yeah. So in our series on this topic here, you know, we define transhumanism merely as a project to engineer humanity or human biology by technological means on a mass scale. So this way, the owners of the means of production will have, seems to us, solidified control. Interviewer: Yes, I just wanted to make clear about the distinction between transhumanism and post-humanism. So if I understand you correctly transhumanism, it's a transition period and post-humanism will be the next phase after transhumanism will finish. Is there a timetable for this transhumanism? Like, will it continue for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years? And post-humanism, when is it going to come? Dr. Broudy: Well, lots of people who ask the question turn to Ray Kurzweil and others as well who are avowed transhumanists. 2030 seems to be a year that many transhumanists are pushing for, which I think is related to the singularity. You know, so quantum computing, of course, is necessary, working out all the bugs for quantum computing to enable AI to manage what's left of humanity. So I keep hearing 2030 as a year that is a pivotal year for achieving singularity. Nothing far away. Interviewer: Yeah. Wow. It's scary, to be honest with you. And, you know, I have questions of hope. What role should public discourse and regulatory frameworks play in addressing the potential risks and benefits of bio-nanotechnology? Dr. Broudy: I think if we can pretend at least that governments are genuinely interested in the health and welfare of their citizens, then we'd expect policies that encourage free and open public discourse and free and open scientific debate. Transparency still is the watchword. And I would say scientific curiosity, curiosities that are encouraged and pursued, that would be the opposite, of course of what we've been observing over the past five years, with the closing in, the destruction of open dialogue, especially on these so-called social networking services. Lots of interesting ironies with the names of social and networking and service. Interviewer: Yes, indeed. And I have the last question and probably the most interesting question I have to ask you personally. And since you are in psycholinguistics, so I think you can answer this question, and that is: Could insights be provided into the psychological and behavioral characteristics of individuals classified as crypto rulers to evaluate or predict their competencies and potential actions in the future? Dr. Broudy: Well, first maybe we could at least for this discussion, agree on the idea or a sort of working definition of the crypto ruler. Peter Phillips talks about them as “the giants”, the transnational giants of this age, which are the, you know ”the elites”. It seems to me. Let me go back first. It seems to me that, considering that definition, it seems to me that materialism, it contains an internal contradiction that can't be resolved, namely if material existence can be explained by no more than, you know, cosmic change. If there's no chance of accidental coming together of atoms, then no subjective moral claims about the empirical world can logically be justified. We just can't ground them in anything logical. And materialism, it seems, too, that it lets everyone off the moral hook. If not negates it completely. It negates morality because it can't ground any moral claim in an absolute objective truth. So the materialists cannot justify logically why, for example, murder or the abortion of a newborn near death or what is it, what was the political term that they used for aborting a baby, newly born. Terminating? Well, terminating, yeah, that's, I'll think of the, it was in the 1990s that this was debated, a new, it was a new term for murder, but dressed up in abortion rights code. And of course you have the clandestine destruction of fertility in men and women to reduce populations, right? So the materialist can't really object to these as abhorrent because there's no outside objective moral framework that he or she can point to. So on the other hand theism puts moral demands on people because it recognizes God has made the material and the immaterial, the unseen world. And so God, we're told, has laid down these moral laws that we ought to obey so as to thrive. I'm not sure clearly how to clearly discern between the difference between crypto ruler and giant. So let's just go with Peter Phillips' idea of what the giant is. These, you know, transnational elites who rule. Both appear to have given themselves over to the belief that money or the pursuit of money, the pursuit of power represent man's ultimate meaning. And I think this is, this is sad because it neglects the intrinsic value that human beings are endowed with by their birth. I was having a conversation about this very topic last night with a long-time friend who is heavily invested in cryptocurrency and I asked him, where does the value of this cryptocurrency, so -called, where does it come from? And he admittedly gave me the same answer as anyone else would give to those heavily invested in the fiat system where hard currency rules. I've argued about this before. If we think that there's nothing more to our existence than what we can see and calculate and measure and observe materially, then it seems reasonable that we would give our lives up in pursuit of money and in pursuit of power. But I would argue the opposite. I would argue in agreement, actually, with people that, it's human beings who say that human beings, give worth and value to money. So that is the genesis of real value. It's the human being and not the token that we pursue and sometimes commit crimes to acquire, to amass, to hoard. If we can somehow change people's understanding or their thoughts about the value that they put into this token, then I think we stand a chance of you know, create, creating a much better world that respects all life. Interviewer: Yes. Indeed. Indeed. So I would like to give you the concluding remarks. What would you like to leave for our viewers as a message of hope that, as we talked a lot about, you know, basically we are being surrounded by a web that is closing in and we have the image of, you know, Is there a way out? Is there a way out? I'm just a simple person, and what can I do? So to this type of viewers, what would you like to leave as a message of hope? Dr. Broudy: Well, I put all my hope in God. Yes. It's a, yeah, it seems, I think that my answer would seem maybe flippant. I hope it doesn't, genuinely. I've talked to many people over the past five years when this insanity, this madness has began to unfold. Systems of coercion and Christians, so -called Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, atheists, the whole gamut. And the ideas that people have about their meaning and purpose seem nowadays to be much clearer. The times appear to have crystallized people's sense of meaning and purpose, and they're asking the really big questions, what does this all mean, and where are we going? And I would. . . urge anyone, no matter what your belief is about your purpose as a human being, that you take time to reflect on your own humanity and the humanity of your neighbour and learn how to love human beings more than you love your pursuit of filthy lucre. Interviewer: Beautifully said, Dr. Broudy. Thank you so much for this great interview. Dr. Broudy: Thank you so much for the invitation, I appreciate that. Interviewer: You're welcome, you are welcome. Thank you so much.

from dw

Sources/Links: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362694274_Cyborgs_R_Us_The_Bio-Nano_Panopticon_of_Injected_Bodies
https://propagandainfocus.com/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Broudy
The Allegory of the Cave https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/seyer/files/plato_republic_514b-518d_allegory-of-the-cave.pdf
DNA as computer code metaphor https://youtu.be/AHB2bLILAvM?t=36
The Nano-Info-Bio-Cogno revolution https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1-4020-4107-1
George Woodcook 'The Tyranny of the Clock' https://files.libcom.org/files/TheTyrannyoftheClock.pdf
Microsoft Patent WO20200606060 https://patentscope2.wipo.int/search/en/WO2020060606
Yuval Harari - surveillance will go under the skin https://youtu.be/o5RbjyicHTU?t=42
Mae-Wan Ho 'Living with the Fluid Genome' https://www.amazon.co.jp/Living-Fluid-Genome-Inside-Science/dp/0954492307
Douglas Lummis 'Radical Democracy' https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Democracy-C-Douglas-Lummis/dp/0801484510/