General information on legal regulations and the AZK rules can be found at the end of the presentation
Now we can turn to our first speakers from out of town.
I would like to tell you a brief back story.
In 2008, various Swiss media ran the headline "Conspiracy theorists fight biometric passports". That was us.
The Tagesanzeiger reported on this.
St. Galler Tagblatt wrote: "Such groups often behave unworldly and suffer from fear of persecution".
SRF -Rundschau added, "Sasek believes that the chip in the passport is only a first step. Sooner or
later, the chip would even be implanted under the skin".
Now, 17 years later, dear ones, Prof. Dr. Daniel Brody from the University of Okinawa in Japan will let us in on plans, practices
and processes that are even driving the transformation of the entire human being from a natural,
sovereign being into a synthetic and controlled form of life.
Not just a chip under the hand. He also initiates us into the mechanisms, methods and ways in which the human
being, the entire human being, is to be changed in its essence.
Nor will he leave us in the dark about what kind of people are working with which companies to implement
these horror visions, these horror plans and processes.
I say thank you, Prof. Broudy, for sharing your precious knowledge with humanity today at the 21st AZK.
But first a brief biography.
Prof. Daniel Brody, born in 1964 in the USA, has a doctorate in applied psycholinguistics and experience as an image analyst.
He lectures on topics ranging from communication theory of rhetoric to linguistic composition and rhetorical grammar.
Prof. Brody was Dean of the Graduate School of Intercultural Communication at Okinawa Christian University in Japan.
He is currently Professor of Applied Linguistics.
His research focuses on sounds, symbols, signs, images and colors and how these are used by power centers as tools to
shape knowledge and influence people's perceptions and emotions.
He is co-editor of "Propaganda in Focus", co-editor of "The Propaganda Model of Today, Filtering Perception and
Consciousness" and co-author of "Okinawa Under Occupation", McDonaldization and Resistance to Neoliberal Propaganda".
A selection of his scientific work can be found on ResearchGate, the global database for researchers from all areas of science.
Prof. Daniel Brody is an associate researcher in the Working Group on Propaganda and the Global War on Terror triggered by 9/11.
Prof. Dr. Broudy talks today about transhumanism and posthumanism.
Who is striving for this and where do we stand today in terms of development?
Wow, thank you very much for the invitation and the warm welcome!
And greetings from Japan.
How do you say: "Good morning"!
We say: Ohayo gozaimasu! Yoroshiku onegai shimasu! and "yoroshiku onegai shimasu", which means "Please be nice".
I don't know if there is an equivalent in German, but yes, thank you very much for the invitation.
I have been preparing to talk about transhumanism and posthumanism today.
So sometimes it gets a bit technical, but I've tried to make it appealing to a wide audience.
So if I may start with this headline. That's a pretty interesting headline:
"The artificial womb is coming soon!"
This is part of the biotech narrative that is now being heard around the world. And then, of course, the subtitle:
"Are we ready for their impact?"
Well, it looks like warfare to me.
More shock for everyone - typical of a kind of rhetorical blitzkrieg against our psyche.
It seems to me that the sheer audacity of this misanthropic headline raises even bigger questions.
Are these kinds of inhumane projects part of a larger movement of transhumanism?
Or could we even say posthumanism?
To find some answers, we need to turn to other related narratives.
Since the coronavirus story broke, for example, I have sometimes wondered what deep
insights we have really gained about the world.
Perhaps lies and deceptions are now as plentiful as oxygen, even when filtered through a medical mask.
As part of the intellectual self-defense I want to impart to the audience, I would like to
frame this talk with a piece of wisdom from Jesus:
"For by your own words you will be justified, and by your own words you will be condemned."
As a linguist, I believe that words are important.
They are not just sounds that come out of our mouths, but the most important signs of the state of our heart and mind.
I think this becomes clear when we take a closer look at some of the voices we hear from those pushing the transhumanist agenda.
Over the past five years, I have asked many people what they understand by transhumanism. And
most people don't know - even very educated people.
Some people confuse it with transgenderism and immediately start talking about preferred pronouns.
And if we imagine transhumanism, then we can say that on the one hand it is definitely related to transgenderism.
I remember an interview about a year ago when the famous gatekeeper of the political establishment, Neil
deGrasse Tyson , appeared on the "TRIGGERnometry" podcast.
There was a heated debate with the hosts.
I would rather say he intimidated them and didn't really debate them.
And Tyson applied the logical fallacy known as the tradition appeal to support and encourage the practice and normalization
of participation in women's sports by men with gender dysphoria.
He argued that we were in a transition phase. We would have to find out.
Well, it seems to me that this sentence contains an important insight about Tyson and his colleagues.
They verbalize perversions of logic with such naturalness that they sound like well-paid ideologues.
In the history of mankind, there have always been two genders.
Nowadays, new conceptual categories outside the male-female binary are being actively created from all sides.
The male and the female human being, as well as the autistic savant, are now placed on a continuum .
Regardless of their fundamental differences, these biological categories must converge down to the cellular level.
And perhaps we don't notice the move towards posthumanism because it's a larger reality-twisting campaign to
remove key words that denote important biological processes that are unique to women and men.
We have already written about this in detail in our four-part series on transhumanism on our website: "Propaganda in focus".
If you want to read it, just visit: propagandainfocus.com.
I believe the original definition of "gender" in the Oxford English Dictionary refers to the effort in descriptive
linguistics to create categories for subdividing the various pronouns that represent the two genders, masculine and feminine.
Just a quick side note on this:
Wherever English is the common language, it seems to have become perfectly acceptable today to try to erase these kinds of basic
conceptual categories, especially when they contain something like prototypical characteristics of
what women and men are and what they tend to do.
Of course, some languages, such as French and Spanish, have gender-specific nouns.
If I remember correctly, knife is a masculine noun.
Knife is a masculine noun and fork is a feminine noun.
Yes, I think I remember that correctly.
Perhaps it was John Money in the 1960s who first tried to separate the concepts of gender from linguistics and link them
to the emerging concepts of gender role and gender identity.
It does not seem particularly difficult to reshape society to adopt these new concepts.
Of course, it took a few decades, but today we are ready.
Perhaps it was in the 1960s, perhaps this was the historical point at which the increasing confusion about language and personality
and personal identity, sexuality and social roles began.
It seems to make sense. If you want to destroy human culture, healthy concepts of self, family, human reproduction, human
community, society, nation, you have to start by destroying language and separating shared meanings from empirical realities.
It takes massive and sustained propaganda campaigns to disrupt language and logical thinking.
It follows that we will participate in the destruction of ourselves.
The devaluation of language can turn everything upside down.
That's why, it seems to me, some people believe that men can menstruate and have children.
There is a profound yet simple insight in Genesis that is often either ignored or ridiculed that defines man as the image of God.
It states that both men and women were created in the image of God on earth.
Erasing these categories blurs our understanding of how God works through us humans as images.
You may recall the case in the recent past when a certain Joe Biden nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court could
not or would not define what a woman is during a hearing.
And because the basic conceptual category of woman was undermined, men could more easily occupy public spaces reserved for women.
This is the material manifestation of fundamentally twisted concepts.
It seems to me that we all witnessed the flawed logic of John Money's argument during these hearings.
The communication theorist Herbert Schiller described this process in detail and called it definition control.
A useful way to control people, the unpredictable beings that we are, is to control the definitions of key words and concepts.
When those at the top of the social, political, economic and ecclesiastical order can control definitions and enforce meanings
through language codes, coercion and new language norms, it is easy to exert greater control over thought, speech and behavior.
You will probably agree with that.
Think of Orwell's ideas about Newspeak:
"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is truth".
I will come back to the topic of "war is peace" a little later.
So the question is how we can achieve this, Schiller asked himself.
How do the people at the top of this order, this pyramid, manage to exercise this kind of control?
This is done through routine and easy access to what he called the information infrastructure.
Because they own the information, they can easily influence the meaning of a key term, label or definition through
easy access and we, the consuming public, take it all in.
What amazes me is the description given by the apostle Paul to this incredibly influential force at work
in the world: "the prince of the power of the air" .
What a strange name for a center of power!
It was understood thousands of years ago, before airspace was controlled, commercialized and made
the most important tool of mass communication today.
Of course, not everyone has access to the airwaves.
But if you have it and say something that contradicts the official political reality, you are
censored or, worse still, taken out of circulation.
The millions of kilometers of fiber optic cable, the satellite dishes and satellites, all the big corporate brands and broadcast
channels and the means to shape the stories, limit the debates and anchor them in the public consciousness.
What to think, how to think and what to say or not say.
This power, this ability to shape the most basic level of consciousness, is actually in the hands of only a few.
It seems to me that this is where the ignorance about transhumanism comes from.
As social beings, we are naturally drawn to systems of power and authority, so in this age of mass communication, we
naturally turn to the media and media personalities whose job it is to fill our heads with the stories we crave as adults.
Interestingly, it turns out that the first communication networks were created in the womb as we
developed and began to perceive our mother's voice.
Research in developmental psychology shows that the language regions in the brain that are responsible for
hearing develop from the seventh month of pregnancy.
When the social network expands beyond the mother-child relationship to the family and then to the community and society,
we find a psychological liberation in raising our own voices.
When we break away from our mothers and are drawn to other storytellers who might
confirm or challenge our values or preconceptions.
I'm just trying to imagine for a moment that the transhumanist plan comes to fruition and human mothers are
removed from the reproductive cycle so that synthetic babies are incubated and bred in synthetic wombs.
This is not a joke, it sounds completely absurd, but it is foreseeable.
They are really planning to take away people's desire and ability to reproduce.
This could also be the reason why the constructed gender issue is being increasingly instrumentalized.
Hardcore reality-twisting campaigns are necessary to enlist women, real women born to human mothers, in the transhumanist
plan of disdaining their own natural reproductive powers.
What linguistic codes do you think the babies developed by the state will be exposed to in the man-made, state-sanctioned womb?
Now notice how women have been pressured and conditioned over the last 10 years to adopt new words
for practices traditionally associated with women.
I don't think we're generally mentally prepared to take on these absolutely insane ideas that are being pushed by the power
centers in terms of the transhumanist and posthumanist agendas.
It takes a lot of cultural conditioning to implant the unshakable misconception that human, biological, neurological and
intellectual processes are fundamentally flawed and in dire need of government intervention and
redesign through routine technological improvements.
Those pushing these plans want a world populated by people who are permanently injected and boosted and whose brains have been
subjected to experimental upgrades and made fully malleable.
The kind of upgrade I'm talking about is really just code for the unspoken desire to live forever.
As described in the Proteus monograph, which I talked about in an earlier Kla.tv interview, the obedient of this
regime are technically upgraded and yet kept under control.
This is improved to a certain extent, but controlled.
And this is where clever marketing and the power of the broadcast image come into play.
Perhaps these are the main reasons why transhumanism and the transition to a post-human future are not really
perceived in the collective consciousness of the general public.
Now a little background knowledge.
When I was an image analyst in the military, we were often very concerned about the quality of
the images and how best to interpret the content.
The enemy's tactics became increasingly clear to us.
And sometimes the enemy used his camouflage so effectively that it became quite difficult for us to
analyze what we saw and draw meaningful conclusions.
In other words, deception, camouflage and cover are elementary components of the methods used by the enemy to trick and deceive.
And fortunately for us, analysis never takes place in a vacuum.
We can also focus on understanding the image, the pictures, in the light of the cards available to us to
recognize how the enemy is able to invent various deceptions.
And this focus is only one aspect of the complex picture that we would interpret in wartime.
We used to have really good maps, literally good cartographic representations of the earth.
But today we also have a lot of really good cards at our fingertips, albeit in the form of government white papers,
published guidelines, public lectures, scientific articles and other news that reveal so much
about the transhumanist shift to a posthuman world.
Anyone who wants to understand who is pushing transhumanism can easily examine the maps I
mention here to do their own comprehensive analysis.
As I'm sure everyone knows, many fearless scientists and doctors describe today's age as a global warfare in which the
deadliest weapons have been rendered virtually unrecognizable.
That is why we should do everything we can to uncover and expose the weapons.
The question is: why do the weapons of this paradigm shift remain largely hidden?
One reason for this seems to me to be that the corporate media are keen to conceal them and the damage they do.
We refer to them today as "stock media" because their collapse is imminent and their
legacy is a willful disregard for human welfare.
The other problem is that there is too much information.
As we are constantly exposed to sensory overload, the energy costs of focusing and classifying things into the
right perspectives and mental categories are too high.
The images that are presented to us in the media, for example, represent only a small
part of a truly complex educational picture.
If we want to understand a complex problem like transhumanism, we have to draw on
several sources and different areas of knowledge.
You will probably agree.
Think, for example, of the visual messages presented to the public in 2015 when Klaus Schwab spoke on a talk
show hosted by Charlie Rose about the key identifying features of the emerging fourth industrial revolution.
I think the term used for this so-called revolution is again just clever code for transhumanism.
However, it is wrapped in a kind of hyper-rational sophistication whose definition is driven by concepts that we normally associate
with natural human progress through technological development.
That sounds so positive.
So why this kind of coded language?
Think back 200 years, when the steam engine was a natural consequence of human innovation
that fundamentally changed the way we work.
Then we should be mentally attuned to accepting all the new tools and techniques that are now entering the
markets and invading the bodies, brains and bloodstreams.
Think also of the visual representations in the Charlie Rose program.
A dark background suggests simplicity and mystery and a certain sophistication.
Two gentlemen are having a seemingly sensible conversation about a world-shattering paradigm shift in society and the economy.
Charlie Rose asks Schwab a question to get him to talk about this revolution, about what is unique about it.
And Schwab begins by comparing it with the industrial revolution around 1800.
Schwab says that the new revolution doesn't change what you do, it changes you.
"Think about genetic manipulation: it is you who is changing."
This mantra has been repeated in various rhetorical formulations by him and others over the years.
In the interview with Schwab, our minds are so calmed by the sight of this completely natural discussion between two men that
it barely enters our consciousness that a mysterious force, the so-called revolution, is introducing technologies
into our bodies that will change us on a cellular level.
Remember! He says that the revolution will change you.
Your own capacity to act, your sovereignty as a human being endowed with inalienable, God-given rights,
is effectively extinguished by Schwab's declaration.
In addition, the visual aspects of this seemingly normal conversation confuse the auditory messages.
The technologies are being used to change something as fundamentally unique as our genetic makeup.
Schwab's grammatical formulation is a perfect example of how language can be used to make far-reaching
political and technological impositions seem completely natural, like natural forces, like wind.
By making the "fourth industrial revolution" the grammatical subject that "changes" you, he completely ignores who is driving
the changes, which institutions are implementing them, whose interests they serve and
which decisions are made by certain actors.
You realize we are deep into the analysis of sentence grammar to understand that the people driving the revolution see our
blood cells, our blood vessels, and our neurological pathways as open and easily accessible sites of technological development.
In Schwabs' description, this so-called revolution is portrayed as an autonomous force that acts on us, the passive people.
In reality, however, the situation is different.
I think it's a coordinated program of technological implementation by identifiable companies,
governments and international organizations. The
seems to me to be a more honest characterization.
We finance and implement technologies that will radically change human behavior, cognition, neurological functions, social
relationships, privacy rights and even buying and selling.
This more detailed description would immediately raise questions:
What about informed consent?
Is this even democratically desirable? And what possibilities are there for resistance, both materially and spiritually?
Douglas Lummis discusses this process in detail in his 1996 book "Radical Democracy".
He introduces readers to the anti-democratic development, which he describes as a development
that destroys in the name of national security.
Today we might talk about the war on terror, or overpopulation, or carbon dioxide, or some other chic
abstaction that the elite fraudulently emphasizes as a target to be protected or fought against.
And within this ideology of development, according to Lummis, the power of metaphor is that it creates the impression that the
projects carried out within the framework of this ideology are natural and inevitable, bringing about the correct and
predetermined future of the target object to be developed.
That's pretty profound when you consider the mad rush to wreak destruction in the name of a development agenda,
policy or plan, or perhaps an investment or war game exercise.
Once the relatively powerful have rationalized humanity as superfluous, useless eaters who must be deprived of access to,
say, food, the necessary, life-sustaining animal protein, who emit harmful carbon dioxide, not to
mention its absolute necessity for life on earth.
Or see them as members of a huge and unwashed herd of pack animals that need to be inventoried, labeled and controlled.
Those who are not named in Schwab's description of the fourth industrial revolution practically admit their own
membership and worship of the global cult of transhumanism.
The usual rhetorical tactic used by Schwab serves to disguise the actor who prefers to remain hidden.
In critical discourse analysis, this technique is referred to as nominalization.
It is a rhetorical move that has an incredible ideological impact.
It makes an essentially political project, namely the transformation of human society through
technology, appear as an unavoidable historical force.
And again: It is just a code that expresses: "Resistance is futile".
You can't defend yourself against a revolution that happens naturally.
This speaks to my earlier point about Lummis and the anti-democratic trend.
Schwab's language excludes any possibility of people collectively deciding that they do not
want to be changed by these technologies at all.
The grammatical structure itself serves as a form of gentle coercion.
Another reason is that these technologies are presented as necessarily indispensable remedies for the common good.
They pretend to solve social problems that technocrats have always worked on.
So who is behind this global push?
If we ignore the most obvious, the most salient center of global power, the transnational central banking system, then among the
many government agencies, non-governmental organizations and corporate giants working together worldwide,
the most prominent players are known to most people.
We have pointed out in our research that the military-industrial complex, DARPA and
NASA should remain in focus for the time being.
Taking NASA's call for cyborgs, ostensibly for space exploration, this is clearly the logical starting point
for any study of the emerging transhumanist paradigm.
We have examined the plans and processes for transforming humans from a natural, sovereign being
into a more synthetic and controlled form of life.
Such an investigation is relatively easy, I think, if we consider how communication and the design of material structures
and architectures reflect the thinking of those in power to reshape the world and the human bodies that inhabit it.
Now pay attention to how the technical aspects of transhumanism are conceived and promoted to the public.
"In this project, we will develop and research concepts for an Internet of Bio-Nano-Things, or IoBNT for short.
Areas of application include individualized medicine and industrial applications in the micro range.
The IoBNT is designed to enable the monitoring and triggering of infections through a communication platform
between nanodevices in the human body and external gateways.
In this way, the IoBNT will support the transfer of data and control information between nanodevices and external computers."
If we think carefully about the question of why the social world is shaped the way it is, we
can begin to understand that it is an experiment.
The great engineers of society and the economy have already achieved a high degree of control over us, the
subjects, by controlling the mental framework in which we think and speak and interact socially and economically.
Think also of the big media systems that inculcate us with the "right" values and attitudes, the accepted ideas and ideologies.
We are definitely test subjects in an experiment.
Some of us are vaguely aware of this. Others are completely unaware.
We find many references in the technocrats' announcements.
Let's take this definition from the 'Transhumanist Manifesto', newly published by NASA:
"A worldview that strives for a quality of life that produces permanent 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 evolves with technology."
This view frames the transformation in optimistic terms, without giving any indication of who is financing the transformation
or who is developing the biotechnological organisms.
It acknowledges its own ideological roots. More nominalization again.
Like man, the world view strives for something; for a certain quality of life.
It shifts all responsibility onto an abstraction. Such as natural selection or some other blind
chance mechanism that has incredible creative power.
For those who dare to think otherwise, there are always the sheepdogs that keep the flock
orderly, obedient and moving in the right direction.
Elon Musk has warned that we need to merge with machines to avoid becoming like apes.
And Michell Zappa, future strategist for the Rockefeller Foundation and the Chinese Ministry of Education, similarly
argued in 2013 that humanity has no choice but to be dragged kicking and screaming to the precipice of a
future with gene therapy, artificial organs, synthetic blood and blood vessels and bio-electronic drugs.
So if we are witnessing the kind of change described by Schwab, Musk, Gates, Harari and the other great technocrats and
gurus, then I think it's only natural to ask: where are we now?
All of these so-called upgrades that I have discussed so far raise the question of what it means to be human at all.
For example, if DNA is the code of life, what does it mean for human life that the genetic code can be manipulated?
That governments fund the research and development of technologies to do this kind of work?
This from the Moderna advertisement when the introduction of mRNA technology was announced...
So, pretty amazing. Are we really at the beginning of a post-human world?
If so, what does "posthuman" even mean? Is it theoretical? Practical?
For decades, there has been a philosophical posthumanism that can be found in the writings of all the great
cultural theorists who declare humanism, as it was understood during the Enlightenment, to be over.
Today, posthumanism is also understood in the sense of technological posthumanism.
This is an area that interests me and is reflected in efforts to change the social, psychological or physical make-up
and behavior of humans through technological improvements:
In genetic engineering or neuro-cybernetic augmentation.
How do we know that this is the case?
For example, in 2015 Pfizer announced a partnership with Bar-Ilan University to gain a better
understanding of DNA nanorobots for drug delivery.
The press release explicitly states "that this strategic step will turn nanorobots from
science fiction into an applied solution".
So the references to robots working at the cellular level may mean that the old life science is imploding or being replaced.
It may mean that synthetic biology merges with natural biology and new forms of research and
development and human existence come to the fore.
In a 2015 publication entitled "The Internet of Bio-Nano Things", Ian Akyildiz , a pioneer of IoBNT, and his
colleagues write about this paradigm shift that is taking place in communication and network technology.
They state: "At the nanotechnology level, it is possible to create objects based on the control, reuse,
modification and re-engineering of biological cells.
This new network, based on living cells and organisms, forms the basis for many novel applications in the military, healthcare and
security sectors, where nano-things can be easily hidden, implanted and dispersed in the environment,
where they can cooperatively perform detection, control, processing and networking."
In November 2019, Anthony Fauci spoke about applications of this new technology in healthcare, this nanotechnology
known as self-assembling nanoparticles, "universal flu vaccines as a novel way to trigger an immune response".
That was in November 2019.
Six days later, the very first report of a mysterious new flu strain came from Wuhan, China.
What is the connection?
A few years later, in 2023, in a lecture by Akyildiz, the topic appears in a better focus.
He points out that: "The nano-sized bio-machines behind IoBNT are designed to be injected into the body.
And that works very well with these COVID vaccines. It's going in that direction.
These mRNAs are nothing more than small machines on a nanoscale. They are programmed and injected."
We have written extensively about all of these obvious applications, but what is most fascinating is the
extent of denial of such a paradigm shift that is upon us.
Research and development has been going on for decades.
Researchers hardly ever analyze a physical system in its original form.
Rather, they build a model that approximates the behavior they believe they observe in the system.
And by analyzing the behavior of the model, they hope to be able to predict the behavior of the actual system.
You know, we construct models because natural dynamic systems are usually too complex to serve
as a setting for practical and precise analysis.
All the misleading talk in scientific circles about the human body as a machine, the brain as a computer, DNA as software, and
vaccines as updates to the software reflects the flawed conceptual modeling of the human as a
defensible site for experimentation and armament.
The reductive and mechanistic thinking that prevails in the minds of transhumanist
technocrats has now proven to be fundamentally flawed.
Given the massive global cover-up of harm and deaths resulting from the experimental use of drugs over the last five
years, I wonder if the complex and dynamic system we know as human bodies, brains and bloodstreams is now breaking down.
Have all transhumanist models for a truly posthuman future already collapsed?
I can't imagine how the truth about this technocratic war against humanity can remain hidden for much longer.
As the saying goes: the truth finds a way.
Wow, what an introduction. Thank you, Doctor Broudy, Doctor Professor Broudy. That was tremendous.
Now we have a basis for the day. We will hear more in this direction.
But for now, we are moving in the direction of breathing a sigh of relief.
We will have to watch this lecture many more times before we really understand the depth of what he has touched on here.
Thanks again for everything.