Jonathan Turley is a professor of law who submits an interesting article daily on his blog. In the article of Sept 24, 2021 he makes an argument with respect to free speech in relation to an article claiming that mRNA injections (the jab) are intended to further “transhumanism” by altering our genes in some way.
A quick search will give you several, somewhat sensational articles that make this argument. Turley argues against censorship of it, saying it’s “lunacy” but that bad ideas should not be censored because correcting them helps us further our understanding.
Below is my edited and embellished comment on his blog, in response:
This is an excellent defense of freedom of speech, but I have to take issue with just one part of the article: the claim that the idea of transhumanism is “lunacy” and “demonstrably false.” I’m not saying it’s true, but I want to ask how we know it’s untrue?
It’s not such a far-fetched idea: nano-technology has been under development for some time and it’s not implausible to say that nanites may have been injected into some human beings.
Yes it seems more like science fiction than fact, but my point is that it’s not “lunacy” to suggest it. There are actually military scientists working on developing transhumanism, and they’ve been doing so for some time.
For example, The Times of Israel reports that “Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) on gene-editing and mRNA therapeutics. DARPA is focused on developing emerging disruptive technologies to maintain a competitive edge over adversaries, including many ‘transhuman’ projects such as genetic engineering and soldier enhancement via robotics.”
The article states that Moderna has a contract with DARPA and that: “In the case of Moderna and mRNA therapeutics, DNA vaccines is considered a new paradigm that would disrupt the pharmaceutical industry. Its vision is to harness a new technology that synthesizes messenger RNA, or mRNA—which is an instruction manual in every living cell for creating protein—to prompt the human body to make its own medicine . . .
“Indeed, DARPA is also developing other forms of human enhancement in addition to gene editing. Already scientists are merging robotics with the human body in brain-to-computer interface (BCI), wherein individuals with physical injuries can regain their functions, and soldiers become smarter and more powerful through the fusing of their brain with machines.”
So while I don’t believe the mRNA Covid ‘vaccines’ (which are not true vaccines, but something else) have nano-tech in them, it should be added that the concept of transhumanism is not implausible inasmuch as it is being worked on right now.
So it’s not “lunacy” to raise this type of concern as a possibility. But it should be framed as a question to be explored, not as a truth to be asserted (unless there is definitive proof). For example: do Covid-19 injections have nanites in them? I would say that’s a serious question to be examine, and not so easily dismissed.
Futurists, such as Ray Kurzweil, advocate transhumanism. He has been an advisor to numerous governments and corporations. I believe there are serious plans for some sort of transhumanism in the offing, behind closed doors, with military and corporate support.
If there is one thing we should have learned about technology by now, it is that if it’s possible, technologists will try to do it – whether it be nuclear weapons, or cloning, or genetic experimentation.
As one technophile writes, “This gradual change from carbon-based organic human beings into transhumans consisting of more than 50% bionic and/ or machine parts will be the next step in human evolution.”
As it turns out, the inventor of mRNA technology, Robert Malone, has reservations about its use – not due to the possibility of “transhumanism” — but because it can result in ADE (antibody dependent enhancement), which is alleged to have caused the Delta variant.
The official “fact checkers” are frantic to tell us otherwise, but when several vaccinologists and epidemiologists say it could be so, and they’re risking their careers and reputations by going up against the entire pharmaceutical industry and mainstream media establishment for the sake of truth and public health by saying so, I tend to believe them over paid propagandists. I trust courage over other motives.
The dissident scientists have absolutely no self-interested incentive to speak out and many disincentive for doing so, yet they do anyway, in the spirt of scientific truth and the moral duty to tell it.
Furthermore, there is some evidence in the fact that ADE is an established phenomenon and the timing of the emergence of the Delta variant coincided with the clinical trial of the mRNA injections and later the roll-out in India (called Covaxxin), Dec. 2020. The variant is a response of the human cell to the mRNA spike protein technology, enabling SARs-Cov-2 to replicate.
This scientific article says that “data from the study of SARS-CoV and other respiratory viruses suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could exacerbate COVID-19 through antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).”
The Delta variant is said to be more contagious and harmful than the original disease. If that is so, and if the mRNA technology will continue to cause new and worse variants to emerge, requiring more ‘vaccines’ to respond to them, we are entering into a never-ending cycle of variants and injections.
Take for example the case of Gibraltar, the nation with highest percentage of Covid jabs in the world (2 shots to 85% of the populace by April 9, 2021. Despite this, the fourth wave/Delta variant hit the nation in July.
The same thing happened to Israel and numerous other highly vaccinated nations. These injections do not provide immunity. They only diminish the severity of symptoms, but at the expense of the risk of “adverse events.”
Over time, the Big Pharma remedy will cost taxpayers tens of trillions of dollars – though the media tends to the point to the economic cost of hospitalizing the unvaccinated instead. Why do they promote that story and not the former?
And alarmingly, the vaccine campaign is eradicating human freedoms as we speak, in blatant violation of human rights. It is imposing permanent medical tyranny on us through mandates and passports.
Some people don’t mind that right now, but it is a slippery slope to ever greater restrictions on liberties that eventually will make most people – including the vaccinated – far more miserable.
The alterative, in which we allow natural herd immunity to take place and/or used more benign drugs (such as Ivermectin), would be seem far preferable.
There is much criticism of Sweden’s preference for that approach in the media, but over time it may well pay off for them, even if the short-term cost in lives is higher, because natural immunity confers many times greater protection than Covid vaccines.
As one commentator notes, some people “seem to have forgotten the ultimate goal of the public campaign for people to receive vaccination against Covid-19. It’s not to be vaccinated; it’s to have immunity. People with natural immunity — i.e., people whose immune systems have faced Covid-19 and won — don’t need a vaccine.”
Or is it the case that this was never really about disease control? If it’s about Big Pharma profit and imposing state authoritarianism, then the jab is a really a means to those ends.
What’s going on now is destined to change us for the worse, both physically and psychologically. And in that more abstract sense, transhumanism is already real: our modern technologies have already altered our evolution, not necessarily for the better.
For example, we live longer than our ancestors, and more comfortably, but at a high cost. Human beings are less fit, on the whole, are subjected to toxins, and are said to have ‘nature deficit disorder.’ Industrial civilization and modern medicine are a trade-off.
Freud, in The Future of an Illusion, says that civilization itself is a compromise between freedom and security. Right now a shift is occurring in which we end up being less free for the illusion of more security.
In other words, it will never end unless there is a mass movement against medical tyranny. Until then, the unvaccinated will be the convenient scapegoats for this lasting misery, not Big Pharma or the pundits and propagandists and corrupt lawmakers pushing it on us.
Better yet, we should never have been subjected to the results of gain-of-function research to begin with! I fear it was designed for this nefarious purpose, to impose global authoritarianism.
As much as I want to believe otherwise, the evidence of lies and cover-ups and dictatorial orders from the state indicate that tyranny is not the unfortunate by-product of Covid-19 and supposed remedies to it; it is the intended result.
If this had ever really been about a disease, other and better means would have been promoted to remedy it than draconian lockdowns, suppression of alterative treatments, censorship, and mandatory vaccine campaigns — all of which stink of corruption.
The more that powerful entitles try to suppress this hypothesis, the more credibility it seems to have.
Strangely though, some people prefer tyranny to liberty. A film called The Inner Circle (1991) about the USSR, illustrates this, as does Orwell’s 1984, based on the USSR.
And today in Russia and Eastern Europe, you will find many older people who are nostalgic for the USSR, during which time they had easy jobs and free housing – though many will also admit that no family was untouched by the loss of a family member to Stalin’s purges.
The censoriousness of Big Tech is worrisome and harmful. Let the people use their own reason to decide. Kant, in “What is Enlightenment? “argue that we ought to question all authorities who would presume to think for us.
To use our own reason, we need full access to multiple perspectives. Let the marketplace of ideas determine the truth, not some anonymous presumptuous censor who considers himself morally superior but is more often than not operating within a narrow ideological worldview which he wishes to impose the rest of us by force.
As for new technologies, we ought to be wary of them and apply what’s called “the ethics of technology” (e.g., the work of Ian Barbour, Ursula Franklin, George Grant’ questioning of the phrase “the computer does not impose on us the ways that it should be used”, Jerry Mander‘s arguments against television, Theodore Roszak, Martin Heidegger, Lawrence Schmidt, et al) to evaluate them. [the subject of a forthcoming essay here]