21st AZK - Prof. Dr. Daniel Broudy: Transhumanism and Posthumanism: Who’s Pushing for This and Where Do We Now Stand in Their Development?

Sendungstext
herunterladen

PDF (.pdf)

Word (.docx)

16.08.2025 | www.kla.tv/38578

[Ivo Sasek:] Now we may listen to our first speaker from abroad today. Back in 2008 several Swiss Media ran headlines like “Conspiracy theorists fight against Biometric Passports“, that was us. Tagesanzeiger reported about it. St. Galler Tagblatt wrote: “Often such groups behave unworldly and suffer from a persecution-complex.“ SRF-Rundschau wrote: “Sasek believes the chip in the passport is only the first step. Sooner or later the chip would be even implanted under the skin.“ And now, 17 years later, Prof. Daniel Broudy from Okinawa University in Japan will initiate us to plans, practice and processes that even promote the transformation of the entire human from a natural sovereign being into a synthetic and controlled form of life. Not only chip under the skin of your hand. He will furthermore introduce us into mechanisms, methods and ways how man is to be transformed in their essence. He will as well not leave us in ignorance about which kind of people in connection with which companies are working on the realization of these horror-plans and processes. Thank you, Prof. Broudy, that today, at the 21st AZK you share your valuable knowledge with the concerned humanity. But beforehand still a short Bio of yours. Prof. Dr. Daniel Broudy, born 1964 in the USA has a doctorate in applied psycho-linguistics and experience as an imagery analyst. Daniel Broudy lectures in areas ranging from communication theory to visual rethoric and from composition to rethorical grammar. Dr. Broady has served as Dean of the Graduate School of Intercultural Communication at Okinawa Christian University and is presently Professor of Applied Linguistics there. His research focuses on sounds, symbols, science, images and colours as tools used by centers of power to shape knowledge and influence human perception and emotion. He is co-editor of “Propaganda in Focus“, co-editor of “The Propaganda Model Today – Filtering Perception and Awareness“ and co-author of “Okinawa under Occupation: McDonaldization and Resistance to Neoliberal Propaganda“. Selections of his scholarly work can be found at Researchgate, an international data-base for scholars from many areas of science. Daniel is an Associate Researcher with the Working Group on propaganda and the 9/11 global „War on Terror“. Today Dr. Daniel Broudy is speaking on the topic: “Transhumanism and Posthumanism: Who is Pushing for This and Where Do We Now Stand in Their Development?“ Prof. Dr. Broudy: Wow thank you so much for the invitation and the warm welcome. And greetings from Japan. How should we say it „Guten Morgen“? We say: Ohayo gozaimasu! Yoroshiku onegai shimasu! and „yoroshiku onegai shimasu“ is kind of like „please be nice“. I don't know if there's an equivalent in German but so yeah thank you so much for the invitation. I prepared to talk today about transhumanism and post-humanism so it's slightly technical at times but I've tried to make it appealing to a wide audience. So, if I can begin with this headline here. Here's a quite interesting headline: „Artificial wombs are coming soon“ – This is the part of the biotech narrative that is now being heard around the world and the, of course, the subtitle: „Are we ready for their effects?“ Well, to me this looks kind of like warfare – more shock them all – typical of a kind of a rhetorical blitzkrieg on our psychological states. It seems to me the sheer audacity of the anti-human headline begs even larger questions, you know. Are these sorts of anti-human projects, are they part of some larger move in transhumanism? Or could we say even post-humanism? To locate some answers, we need to turn to other related narratives. Since the rollout of the coronavirus story – I think, for example, I've sometimes wondered what deep insights we've really learned about the world. Maybe lies and deceptions are now as abundant as oxygen, even when filtered through a medical mask. As part of the intellectual self-defense I'd like to help the audience construct, I want to frame this talk with some wisdom offered by Jesus. „For by your own words, will you be acquitted. And by your own words, will you be condemned“. As a linguist, I think words matter. They aren't merely sounds emanating from our mouths, but the key signs of the condition of our hearts and minds. I think this will become clear when we look more closely at some of the sounds we hear coming from those who push the transhumanist agenda. And I've asked many people over the past five years what they think transhumanism is. And most people, they don't know. Even extremely well-educated ones. Some people mistake it for transgenderism and immediately start talking about, you know, somebody's, you know, preferred pronouns. And when we imagine transhumanism, however, I think you can say it's definitely related on one hand to transgenderism. I'm reminded of an interview about a year ago, when the famous gatekeeper of the political establishment, Neil deGrasse Tyson, appeared on the podcast „Triggernometry“. He was in this kind of heated debate with the hosts. Well, I would say maybe instead, browbeating them, not really debating. And Tyson deployed the logical fallacy known as the appeal to common practice to bolster the practice and the normalization of men with gender dysphoria to compete in women's sports. He argued that we're in a transitional period. We have to figure that out. Now, it seems to me this proposition represents an important insight about Tyson and his colleagues. They verbalize perversions of logic with such confidence that they sound like well-compensated ideologues. Throughout human history, there have always been two sexes. Nowadays, they're all actively creating new conceptual categories outside the male female binary. The human male and the human female, like the autistic savant, are now being placed on a continuum. And never mind their intrinsic differences, down to the cellular level, these biological categories must converge. And maybe we don't notice the move toward posthumanism because of the larger gaslighting campaign, the deletion of key words, denoting key biological processes peculiar to women and men. We've written about this quite a bit before in our four-part series on transhumanism in Propaganda in Focus. If you'd like to check it out, just visit Propaganda in Focus. I think the original definition in the Oxford English Dictionary of gender refers to work in descriptive linguistics to make categories for the divisions of various pronouns representing the two sexes, male and female. Just a quick side note, wherever English is the common currency in the world, it seems to me today that it's become perfectly acceptable to try to erase these kind of basic conceptual categories, especially when they contain like prototypical traits of what women are and men are and what they tend to do. Of course, some languages like French and Spanish have gendered nouns. If I recall correctly, knife is a masculine noun. And… No, knife is a, yeah, knife is a masculine noun and fork is a feminine noun. I think I've got that right. It might have been John Money in the 1960s, who was the first to try to separate concepts of gender from linguistics, and to try to connect these to emerging concepts of the, gender role and gender identity, it doesn't seem terribly difficult to re-engineer society to take on board these new concepts. Of course, you know, it has taken some decades, but here we are today. Maybe it was in the 1960s, maybe this was the historical point at which increasing confusion over language and personality and personal identity, sexuality, and social roles was born. It seems to make sense. If you want to destroy human beings, human culture, healthy concepts of self, of family, of human reproduction, human community, society, nation, you've got to begin by disrupting the language and to separate shared meanings from empirical realities. Massive and sustained propaganda campaigns are needed to disrupt the language and reasoning. It thus follows that we'll take part in disrupting ourselves. It is through the debasement of language that everything can be inverted. That's why, seems to me, some people believe that men can menstruate and have babies. There's a profound and yet. … simple insight in the book of Genesis, often either ignored or ridiculed, that defines humans as images of God. It claims that both male and female were made as a reflection of God on earth. Erase the category and you blur our understanding of how God works through us humans as image bearers. You might recall that time in the recent past when a certain Joe Biden, nominee to the US Supreme Court, either couldn't or wouldn't define what a woman is. And so with the basic conceptual category of woman undermined, men could more easily occupy public spaces reserved for women. Thus the material manifestation of fundamentally crooked concepts. It seems to me, during those confirmation hearings, this was the point at which we all witnessed the flawed logic of John Money's argument play out. Herbert Schiller, communications theorist, wrote about this process quite extensively, calling it definitional control. One useful way of controlling humans, the unpredictable creatures we are, is controlling the definitions of key words and concepts. If those at the top at the social, political, economic and ecclesiastical order can control the definitions, enforce the meanings through speech codes, coercion and new language norms it‘s easy to wield greater control over thought, speech and behaviour. You will probably agree. Think of Orwells Ideas about newspeak: war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is truth. I'll return to that one, „war is peace“, a little bit later. So the question is, how do we accomplish it, Schiller wondered. How do the people at the very top of this order, this pyramid, accomplish this sort of control? It is through routine and easy access to what he called the ‚informational infrastructure‘. You know, since they own it, easy access means they can easily influence the salience of a key concept, name, or definition, and we, the consuming public, ingest it all. What amazes me is the description that Paul the Apostle gave to this incredibly influential force at work in the world, „the prince of the power of the air“, what a curious name for a power center understood thousands of years ago before the airwaves became controlled, commodified, and made into the primary vehicle of mass communication today. Of course, not everyone has access to the airwaves, but if you do, and say something, that conflicts with the official political reality, then you're censored, or worse, you're canceled. The millions of miles of fiber optic cables, the satellite dishes, satellites, all the major corporate brands and channels of broadcast, and the means by which to frame the stories, bound debate, and make salient in the public consciousness what to think, how to think, and what to say, or not to say. This power, this ability to shape the most basic level of consciousness, is really in the hands of just a few. Hence the ignorance, seems to me, of transhumanism. Because we're naturally drawn to systems of power and authority as social creatures, we naturally turn, in this age of mass communication, to media and media personalities, whose roles are to fill our heads with the stories we crave as adults. It turns out, kind of interesting, the first communications networks were us forming in the womb, developing and beginning to perceive the voices of our mother. Research in developmental psychology shows that language regions in the brain, responsible for hearing, begin developing at about seven months' gestation. As the social network expands outside the mother-child dyad to family, and then to community and society, we find psychological liberation in asserting our own voices, as we break free from our mothers, and gravitate to other storytellers, who might confirm or challenge our values or biases. I just try to imagine, for a second, when the transhumanist plan comes to pass, and human mothers are cut out of the reproduction cycle, with synthetic babies being incubated and grown in synthetic wombs. This is no joke, it sounds patently absurd, but it's in the cards. They really do plan to dispossess humans of the desire and ability to procreate. This might also be why the engineered issue over gender is becoming more and more instrumental. Hardcore gaslighting is needed to bring women, actual females born of human mothers into the transhumanist plan of despising their own natural powers of reproduction. Now, what sorts of linguistic code do you think babies developed by the state will be exposed to in the man-made state-approved uterus? Notice now how women have been gaslighted over the past 10 years and conditioned to adopt new words for practices traditionally associated with females. I don't think we generally are prepared mentally to take on board the absolutely crazy idea being pushed by the centers of power regarding the transhumanist and post-humanist agendas. Lots of cultural conditioning is needed to implant unshakable, mistaken beliefs that human, biological, neurological, and intellectual processes are fundamentally flawed and in desperate need of state intervention and transformation through routine technological upgrades. Those pushing the agendas want a world populated by people injected and boosted in perpetuity and whose brains have been exposed to the experimental upgrades and rendered fully pliable. The sort of updating I'm referring to is really just code for the unspoken desire to live forever. As described in the Proteus monograph I talked about in a previous interview, the obedient to this regime will be sufficiently freaked, geeked and tweaked. That is enhanced to some extent but controlled. And this is where clever marketing and the power of the broadcasted image come into play. Maybe these are the primary reasons why transhumanism and the move to a post-human future don't really register in the collective consciousness of the general public. Now here's a bit of background. When I was in the military, working as an imagery analyst, we were often quite concerned about the quality of the imagery and how best to interpret the content. And so the tactics of the enemy would become more obvious to us. And sometimes the enemy would deploy camouflage so effectively, it became quite difficult for us to analyze and draw useful conclusions about what we were seeing. In other words, deception, camouflage, and cover are all elemental to the ways in which the enemy tricks and deceives. And fortunately for us, analysis never proceeds in a vacuum. We can also focus on understanding the picture, the imagery in light of the maps we have on hand, to help us see how the enemy is able to contrive various deceptions. And this focus is only one aspect of the complex picture we'd interpret in times of war. Yesterday we had really good maps, literally good cartographic representations of Earth. But today we have on hand lots of really good maps too, but in the form of government white papers, published policies, public lectures, scholarly articles and other communications that reveal so much about the transhumanist shift into a post-human world. Anyone interested in understanding who is pushing transhumanism can easily examine what I‘m calling maps here to conduct their own all-source analysis. As I'm sure everyone knows already, lots of fearless scientists and physicians describe the present age as global warfare, and the deadliest weapons effectively rendered unrecognizable. So I think we ought to do all we can to uncover and expose the weaponry. The question is, why do the weapons of this paradigm shift remain largely hidden? One reason, it seems to me, is that corporate media are invested in hiding them and the damage they do. We refer to them as legacy media nowadays because their collapse is imminent and their legacy one of wanton disregard for human welfare. The other problem is that there's too much information. Since we're constantly on sensory overload, the energy costs of focusing and putting things in their proper perspectives and mental categories are too high. The images presented to us in media, for example, represent only a small slice of a really complex intelligence picture. If we want to understand a complex problem like transhumanism, we've got to turn to multiple sources and different areas of knowledge. You'd probably agree. Consider, for example, the visual messaging presented for public consumption in 2015 when Klaus Schwab, sitting on a talk show hosted by Charlie Rose, was discussing the key ID features of the unfolding fourth industrial revolution. I think the term given to this so-called revolution, again, is just clever code for transhumanism. It is couched, however, in a kind of hyper-rational sophistication, the definition controlled by concepts we ordinarily associate with natural human progress through technological development. Well, that sounds so positive. So, what's the point of using this kind of coded language? Well, if you think back 200 years ago, if the steam engine was a natural consequence of human innovation that fundamentally altered how we labored, we should, as the argument goes, be mentally prepared to accept all the new tools and techniques now invading markets, bodies, brains, and bloodstreams. Think, furthermore, about the visual representations in the Charlie Rose show. There's a dark background, suggesting simplicity and mystery and a kind of refined style. Two gentlemen are carrying on a seemingly reasonable conversation about an earth-shattering paradigm shift in society and economy. Charlie Rose poses a question to Schwab to prompt him to talk about this revolution, what's unique about it, and Schwab begins by contrasting it with the industrial revolution of the 1800s. Schwab says the new revolution doesn't change what you're doing, it changes you. Think of genetic editing, it is you who are changed. This mantra is repeated over the years in various rhetorical formulations by him and others. In the interview with Schwab, the calming effect on our emotions as we view this totally natural discussion between two men puts us at such ease that it hardly registers in our minds that some mysterious force, the so-called revolution is driving technologies into our bodies that will change us at the cellular level. Remember, he says that the revolution changes you. Your own agency, your sovereignty as a human being endowed with inalienable God-given rights is effectively erased by Schwab's declaration. Furthermore, the visual aspects of this apparently normal conversation muddle the auditory messaging. The technologies are being deployed to alter something as basic to our uniqueness as our genetic composition. Schwab's grammatical formulation is a perfect example of how language can be deployed to make profound political and technological impositions seem perfectly natural, like natural forces, like wind. And by making the quote-unquote fourth industrial revolution the grammatical subject that quote-unquote changes you, he completely erases who is driving the changes, what institutions are implementing them, whose interests do they serve, and what choices are being made by specific actors. Again we're at the level of parsing sentence grammar to understand how the people pushing the revolution see our blood cells, our vessels, and our neurological pathways as open and easily accessible sites of technological development. In Schwabs‘ description, this so-called revolution is cast as an autonomous force acting upon us, passive humans, rather than what it actually is. I think a coordinated program of technological implementation by identifiable corporations, governments, and international organizations. Seems to me a more honest characterization. Of what's happening is, might go something like: we are funding and implementing technologies that will radically upend human behavior, cognition, neurological functioning, social relations, privacy rights, and even buying and selling. This more accurate description would promptly raise questions about informed consent, democratic desirability and possibilities for resistance, both material and spiritual. C. Douglas Lummis discusses this process at length in his 1996 book „radical democracy“. He introduces readers to anti-democratic development, which he describes as the kind of development that destroys in the name of national security, or we might say today, the war on terror or overpopulation or carbon dioxide or whatever other fashionable abstraction are marked by elites for the global racket of protection or elimination. And within this ideology of development, Lummis says the power of the metaphor is that it gives the impression that projects being carried carried out under that ideology are natural, inevitable, and bring about the proper and predestined future of the entity being developed. This is quite profound. I think of the mad rush to destroy something in the name of some kind of developmental agenda, a policy, or a plan, or maybe some investment or wargaming exercise. Once those in relative power have rationalized humanity as excess useless eaters who must be dispossessed of access to, say, food, the necessary animal protein to sustain life, who emit harmful carbon dioxide, never mind its absolute necessity to life on earth, or who are members of a vast and unwashed herd of pack animals that must be inventoried, tagged and controlled. Those who go unnamed in Schwab's description of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are effectively admitting to their own membership and worship in the global cult of transhumanism. The common rhetorical tactic deployed by Schwab serves to obscure the agent who would rather remain concealed. Now, in critical discourse analysis, this technique is called nominalization. It's a rhetorical move that performs quite incredible ideological work. It makes what is essentially a political project, reshaping human society through technology, appear as an inevitable historical force. Again, it's just code. The linguistic equivalent of resistance is futile. You can't resist a revolution that's just happening naturally. This speaks to my earlier point about Lummis and anti-democratic development. Schwab's language forecloses the possibility that people might collectively decide that they don't want to be changed by these technologies at all. The grammatical structure itself serves as a form of soft coercion. Another reason is that these technologies are framed as necessarily essential remedies created for the common good. For social problems, technocrats have been forever working, they pretend to be solving. So, who's behind this global push? If we ignore the most obvious, the preeminent center of global power, the transnational central banking system, among the many government agencies, NGOs and corporate giants working in association with one another across the world, the standouts are familiar to most people. We've suggested this in our research that a sustained focus ought to remain for now on the military-industrial complex, DARPA, NASA. If you take NASA's purported demand for cyborgs in space exploration, it's clearly the logical starting point for any study of the emerging transhumanist paradigm. We examined the plans and processes for transforming humans from natural, sovereign creatures to more synthetic and controlled forms of life. As such an examination, I think, is relatively easy if we consider how communications and the design of material structures and architectures reflect the thinking of those in power, reshaping the world and the human bodies that inhabit it. Now take note of how the technical aspects of transhumanism are conceived and pitched to the public. „In this project, we will develop and investigate concepts for an Internet of Bio-Nano-Things system. Individualized medicine and microscale industrial applications are considered example applications. The IoBNT is tailored to enable the monitoring and triggering of infections through a communication platform between nanodevices in the human body and with external gateways. In this way, the IoBNT will support the transfer of data and the control information between nanodevices and external computers.“ When we think carefully about the question of why the social world is arranged in the way that it is, we can begin to understand how it is an experiment. The major engineers of society and economy have already achieved a high level of control over us, the subjects in the experiment, by controlling the mental frameworks within which we think and speak and interact socially and economically. Think about, too, the major media systems that inculcate the right values and attitudes, the approved ideas and ideologies. We are definitely subjects in an experiment. Some of us are vaguely aware of this. Others are completely disengaged. We can find many clues in the pronouncements of technocrats. Consider this definition from the Transhumanist Manifesto, republished by NASA. „A worldview that seeks a quality of life, that brings about perpetual progress, self-transformation, practical optimism, visionary solutions, and critical thinking: the transhuman. The transhuman is a biological technological organism. A transformation of the human species that continues to evolve with technology.“ This view frames the transformation in optimistic terms, absent any hint of who funds the transformation or who develops the biotechnological organisms. It confesses to its own ideological roots. Again, more nominalization. The world view, like a human being, seeks something. A certain quality of life. It superimposes all of the responsibility onto an abstraction. Like, for example, natural selection or some other blind mechanism of chance possessed of incredible creative power. For those who dare to think otherwise, there are always the sheepdogs, keeping the flock organized, obedient, and moving in the right direction. Elon Musk has warned that we must merge with machines to avoid becoming like monkeys. And Michell Zappa, future strategist in the Rockefeller Foundation and Chinese Department of Education, similarly argued in 2013 that humanity has no other option than to be dragged, kicking, and screaming to the precipice of a future involving gene therapy, artificial organs, synthetic blood, and vasculature, and bioelectronic drugs. So, if we are witnessing a transformation as described by Schwab, Musk, Gates, Harari, and the other major technocrats and guru it's, I think, natural to ask, where are we now? All of these so-called upgrades I've so far discussed raise the question about what it means to even be human. If DNA, for example, is the code of life, what does it mean for human life that the genetic code can be tampered with? That governments are funding the research and development of technologies to undertake this kind of work? This from Moderna advertisement as the rollout of the mRNA technology was appearing. So, quite astonishing. Are we, in fact, entering a post-human world? If so, what does post-human even mean? Is it theoretical? Practical? A philosophical post-humanism has been around for decades, in the writings of all the major cultural theorists who declare humanism, as understood during the Enlightenment, as over. Post-humanism is also understood today in terms of technological post-humanism, an area that interests me, which can be observed in efforts to change the social, psychological, or physical composition and behaviors of humans through technological upgrades: in genetic engineering or neuro-cybernetic augmentation. How can we know this to be so? Well, Pfizer, for example, announced in 2015 its partnership with Bar-Ilan University, to gain a better understanding of DNA nanorobots for drug delivery. The press release tells us explicitly that the strategic move sees, quote, nanorobots turn from science fiction to applied solutions, unquote. So the references to robots operating at the cellular level can mean legacy bioscience is imploding, or being replaced. It can mean synthetic biology is integrating with natural biology and new forms of research and development, and of human existence are coming to the fore. In a 2015 paper titled „The Internet of Bio-Nano-Things“, Ian Akyildiz, a pioneer of the IoBNT & colleagues, writes about this quote unquote paradigm shift taking place in communication and in network engineering. They note that: „working at the level of nanotechnology, it is possible to create objects based on the control, reuse, modification, and re-engineering of biological cells. This new net based on living cells and organisms forms the foundation of many novel applications in the military, healthcare, and security fields where nano things can be easily concealed, implanted, scattered in the environment, where they can cooperatively perform sensing, actuation, processing, and networking.“ In November 2019, Anthony Fauci spoke about healthcare applications of this new technology, this nanotechnology known as self-assembling nanoparticles embedded in quote, universal influenza vaccines as a novel method of provoking an immune response. Again, that's November of 2019. Six days later, the very first report of a puzzling new strain of influenza came out of Wuhan, China. What's the connection? Well, it seems to come into a better focus a few years later in a 2023 lecture given by Akyildiz, who points out that: „the Bio-nanoscale machines behind the IOBNT are for injecting into the body, and that's going really well with these COVID-vaccines. It's going that direction. These mRNAs are nothing other than small scale, nano scale machines. They're programmed, and they're injected.“ We've written extensively about all these apparent applications, but what's most fascinating are the levels of denial as such a paradigm shift is upon us. The R&D (research and development) has been ongoing for decades. Researchers hardly ever analyze a physical system, in its original form. Rather, they build a model that attempts to approximate the behavior they believe they're observing in the system. And by analyzing the behavior of the model, they hope they can predict the behavior of the actual system. You know, we construct models because natural dynamic systems are typically too complex to serve as sites of practical and precise analysis. Now, all the fallacious talk in scientific circles of the human body as a machine, the brain as a computer, DNA as software, and vaccines as updates to the software, reflect the poor conceptual modeling of the human being as a justifiable site of experimentation and upgrade. The reductive and mechanistic thinking that dominates the minds of the trans-humanist technocrats is now proven to be fundamentally flawed. With a massive global cover-up of harms and deaths due to the past five years of experimental pharmaceutical application, I wonder if we're now seeing the complex and dynamic system we know as human bodies, brains, and bloodstreams, break down. Have all the transhumanist models of a truly post-human future already broken down? I can't imagine how the truth about this technocratic war on humanity can remain hidden much longer. As they say, truth finds a way. [Applaus] Thanks so much! Ivo Sasek: Wow, what a great start. Thank you, Dr. Broudy, Prof. Broudy. That was powerful. Now we have a basis for the day and we will hear more in this direction, but first we move towards relaxing and taking a new breath, we’ll have to listen to this presentation several times to go to the full depth of it. Thank you, again, very much!

from -

Sources/Links: Website of Prof. Dr. Daniel Broudy: https://propagandainfocus.com/