See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/381233004

Bringing Transhumanism Down to Earth, Part 1: Military Intelligence

Operations Cloaked in the False Promise of Transcendence

Article · April 2024

CITATION READS

1 193

3 authors, including:

Daniel Broudy
Okinawa Christian University
55 PUBLICATIONS 208 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Broudy on 07 June 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

(“Decentralized Transhumanism” by Evynjct is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

LISSA JOHNSON | DANIEL BROUDY | DAVID A. HUGHES

Abstract: With the coordinated global release of the Covid-19 narrative in late 2019 and
the subsequent illogical demands of governments — allied with transnational
organisations and pharmaceutical giants — many people around the world began
questioning the hasty, unprecedented, and sweeping technological and technocratic
changes being made to societies in the name of a highly marketed “medical
emergency”. Despite new policies emanating from authorities to isolate, to mask, to
restrict all social contact, to accept without question unique experimental gene- and
nanoparticle-based injections, and to abide by novel and absurd social norms, many
people pushed back against the apparent tyranny. The more enthusiastic that
governments were in deleting civil rights, suppressing freedom of speech and due
process, the more that people sought to expose the story behind the mainstream
Covid-19 narrative. This article, the first in a series of four, considers that story as it
intersects with the trajectory of transhumanism. Here in Part 1 we examine how the
current uninterrupted global push for a total top-down alteration of humanity, of human
biology, of human emotions, and social relations, is grounded in a philosophy and
history of well-funded and highly efficient business and military operations framed as
necessarily rational and inevitable. We address the obfuscatory meanings of
transhumanism so far propagated, and begin uncovering transhumanism’s roots in the
military-intelligence complex, taking NASA and its purported demand for cyborgs in
space as our starting point. With a focus on primary sources and military-intelligence
material, we lay the foundations for the subsequent three articles in the series, which
offer an alternative way of understanding the current unfolding process aimed at
transforming human beings from natural and sovereign creatures to controlled
synthetic forms of life.
Introduction
In these times of great political, economic and societal uncertainty, we can be certain
of one thing. Communities across the globe are beset by all the insidious forces of
radical change that wo/men in power can dream up for the people they pretend to
speak for and rule. The forces of change rank in the command and control of a larger
war striving at every turn to camouflage the long-planned transition of humankind.
Everything is subject to capture in the programs of transformation for nationhood,
personhood, personal identity, agency, and sovereignty. Some people recognize the
tensions and the weapons deployed to bring about total captivity and change. Others
deny the evidence of the campaigns waged against them.

The difference between these extremes might be explained by the most contested
space in the present war — the struggle for the heart and mind. As Edward Bernays
reminds us, the mind must be continuously occupied, “every bit as much as an army
regiments the bodies of its soldiers”.[1] Fear and a deep sense of urgency, therefore,
must be engineered so the projected sacrifice of bodies will, in the final tally, be found
justified. So it is, also, with warnings issued to people today that we must be on edge
and ready to confront the threats posed to the environment by our own diseased
bodies, carbon footprints that must be reduced, poisoned ecosystems, and the
intelligent machines our self-proclaimed masters fund and deploy for our “salvation.”
The trans-human turn into a post-human world, populated by compliant cyborgs, is
claimed as an inevitable step in directed evolution. “Enhanced” humans, the
technocratic PR assures, will possess new superhuman abilities and will defeat their
own mortality with routine nano-upgrades.

How are we to contend with such antihuman operations conspiring against us? In the
words of Elon Musk, we must merge with machines to avoid becoming like
monkeys.[2] ’Futures’ strategist to the Rockefeller Foundation and Chinese
Department of Education, Michell Zappa,[3] similarly warns 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.[4] Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World
Economic Forum, the self-styled “International Organisation for Public-Private
Cooperation”,[5] likewise portends that the future of technological innovation, “doesn’t
change what you are doing — it changes you. If you take genetic editing, just as an
example, it’s you who are changed”.[6] He says technology will “in the end” lead to “a
fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities”.[7] The technological
determinist mindset behind all such pronouncements is designed to leave no room for
resistance or contestation.

Organised by transnational elites, the lockstep march of humanity into what has been
called the Bio-Nano Age, the Virtual Era,[8] or the Fourth Industrial Revolution,[9]
reflects the transhumanist aspiration toward a post-human future. The gradual,
inexorable march has been ongoing for decades, rooted in eugenic misanthropy while
packaged in false promises that man can transcend the limitations of the flesh and,
aided by new and novel technologies, live forever. The intellectual, physical, and
spiritual move for a transhumanist form of immortality is also grounded in a
socioeconomic transition that reduces humankind to hyper-rational “market actors
configured always … and everywhere as homo economicus”,[10] serving not human
welfare but monopoly capital’s bottom line. In other words, a billionaire class. As a
consequence, it further means that the new technocratic colonists, funding these
emerging markets in bodies, brains and bloodstreams, will seek control over all means
of human (re)production.

Given that the value of human data is morphing into a key commodity[11] and given that
the corporate “state must be involved in the [process of capital] accumulation, [by]
mystify[ing] its policies and call[ing] them something they are not, or … try[ing] to
conceal them”,[12] who better than state-corporate, “public private partnerships” to
manage the emerging market of trans-humans for the Internet of Things (IoT) and
Bodies (IoB)?[13] The movement finds at its centre the world’s wealthiest and most
influential actors, spanning all sectors of power: a transnational elite urging a host of
technological adulterations advertised as upgrades to biological lifeforms (humans,
animals, plants, and microorganisms).

How are we to recognise the key signs of this fundamental transformation? A vivid
image of an unfolding posthuman future is now coming into view in the wake of the
global push for total compliance with government-mandated injectable bio-nano gene
therapies. The Kavli Foundation, for example, ostensibly a grant-making body, has
partnered with key agencies in the expanding global network of “public private
partnerships” pushing gene-based nanotechnology and synthetic biology around the
world, including the US Military’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) and the Rockefeller Foundation. In addition to their interest in vaccines, all
three organizations are part of a White House-funded initiative known as “Brain
Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies” (BRAIN), including
projects in nanoscience, brain-machine interfaces, and bioengineering.[14,15] The
European Union also has its own Human Brain Project,[16] which it describes as “one
of the largest research projects in the world”, forming part of its Future and Emerging
Technologies initiative. The Project brings together 140 universities and institutions
across 11 countries to focus on artificial neural networks, neuromorphic computing, AI,
neurorobotics, and neuro-inspired technologies.

In the context of this abrupt worldwide turn towards gene-based, bio-nano solutions to
purported social ills and emergencies, the following four-part series seeks to build
upon existing literatures by critically examining the underlying transhumanist trajectory
that drives such developments.[17-19] In particular, it aims to elucidate the role of the
military-intelligence complex in transhumanism, as part of an ongoing project to
transform humans for servitude in a new 'utopia' ruled and managed by the gurus,
sages, and supplicants of a presently unfolding technocracy.b

Defining Transhumanism

Casual talk of transhumanism in polite company may evoke curiosity or confusion. It

may engender in the imagination thoughts of armed survivalists trading rumours of
government plans to chip citizens like livestock. Exchanges may trigger vague
memories of popular tropes in pulp fiction or fantasy film, integrating trans-human
fascination with morbid entertainment and comic book superheroes who merge with
machines. It may recall the cinematic special effects of Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927)
where Maria's life force is transferred to a sheetmetal cyborg. Perhaps the many
approaches to treating transhumanism have been baked into layers of cultural
reproduction in order to create the appearance of some conflict between fringe
irrelevancy and utopian aspirations shared among elites. These ambiguities may be a
feature of social engineering through media and education to incite public indifference
and disengagement.

As a global project of control over (re)production and human beings, transhumanism

entails a constellation of theoretical, practical, and ideological strands, each of which
involves what appears to be a mixture of esoteric mythologies, empirical realities, and
media hype, infused with technological developments, political spin, tangible
circumstances, and the spectacle of unending public relations campaigns. Separating
the material reality of this well-funded global project from the confusing forms of
propaganda that support it can be complex and challenging.

Not least among the complications involved in defining transhumanism is that the
usual approach to defining the term acts, itself, as a propaganda device. Proponents of
transhumanism consistently define their project in evaluative and positive terms, as a
quest for augmented ‘evolution’, human ‘enhancement’ and the overcoming of human
‘limitations’. According to the Transhumanist Manifesto, which has been published by
NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency, transhumanism is:

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[20]

Humanity+, the source of the Transhumanist Manifesto, defines transhumanism with

reference to Max More, one of the pioneers of the movement, positioning
transhumanism as:

The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and
desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied
reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to
eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and
psychological capacities[21]

Such definitions and their are peppered with concepts connoting perfection,
betterment, greatness, and utopianism. Questions such as ‘Perfect for whom?’, ‘Better
on what grounds?’ ‘Enhanced according to what criteria?’ go unasked and unanswered.
NATO’s Science & Technology Organization, for instance, lists enhanced lethality as an
objective of human ‘enhancement’ technologies in the military-intelligence
domain.[22] Accordingly, without stipulating what terms such as ‘enhancement’ and
‘evolution’ mean, self-flattering platitudes at best, and lethal doublespeak at worst,
can be injected into the very meaning of ‘transhumanism’, with important perception-
management implications.

As we have discussed in our propaganda recipe focussed on 9/11 and Covid-19, a

tried and true propaganda tactic is to repeatedly pair a target word with positive or
negative associations. In experimental research, simply pairing a political candidate’s
name with subliminally presented positive or negative cue-words (e.g. miracle, hug,
funeral, rabies) is sufficient to influence outcomes such as candidate evaluations and
political attitudes. As a form of subliminal messaging and classical conditioning, the
repeated pairing of a propaganda target with an emotional association, or ‘affective
tag’, in this way triggers unconscious automatic emotional responses with powerful
perceptual and behavioural consequences , including for citizens’ voting patterns.

And so it is with defining ‘transhumanism’. By embedding vague terms denoting

beneficence and altruism into the very definition of the word, it acquires the power to
evoke the kinds of subliminal affective responses often associated with benign material
(trust, ease, equanimity, insouciance), while suppressing the responses associated
with threat (vigilance, caution, attentiveness, circumspection). Through repetition,
defining ‘transhumanism’ thusly turns it into a pacifying cue-word, capable of subtly
and subliminally subduing its audiences.

Importantly, the benevolent self-definition advanced by transhumanists has been taken

up and uncritically amplified more widely, by dictionaries, encyclopaedias,
journalists, and scholars, infecting virtually every effort to discuss the movement
more deeply. Consider, for instance, the definitions offered by Wikipedia and Google’s
Oxford Dictionary:

Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement which

advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and
making widely available sophisticated technologies - Wikipedia

The belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current
physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and
technology - Google’s Oxford Definition

Such mainstream approaches to defining and disseminating the popular meaning of

the term constrain analysis within the parameters of, say, “betterment” and
“enhancement”. In other words, the conceptual framework within which the definition
of transhumanism is propagated leads researchers nowhere outside the narrow
boundaries of technological upgrades, which subconsciously affect practically all
approaches to understanding the project beyond its claimed overt beneficence.

With these considerations in mind, rather than perpetuate the propaganda effect of an
acclamatory approach to defining terms, we offer a definition cleansed of dogma,
affective tagging and positive spin. Cognisant of the reality that ‘enhancement’ is in the
eye of the beholder, we define transhumanism as:
 A project to engineer human biology by technological means on a mass scale.

The technological means in question could involve genetic engineering, synthetic

biology, bioelectronics, and human-machine interfaces among others, encompassing
biotechnology, nanotechnology, and bio-nanotechnology. The reengineering of human
biology could occur directly or indirectly via transformations to the human habitat, such
as through engineered adulterations of the natural environment, atmosphere, air,
water, plant life, livestock, weapons, and pharmaceuticals.

Sanitising Atrocity by Definition?

In addition to the power of pacification, defining transhumanism as betterment leaves

the transhumanist movement open to questionable agendas. Were agendas such as
lethality and harm-doing to attach themselves systematically to ill-defined notions of
enhancement, the term transhumanism would double as a morally disengaging tool, by
sanitising atrocity under the rubric of ‘advancement’. As we wrote in Covid 19: Mass
Formation or Mass Atrocity:

Moral disengagement is a psychological process by which a specific event,

such as mass extermination, can be placed outside the boundaries of one’s
usual moral frame.[23, 24] A common device for achieving this is sanitizing
language.[25, 26] Wrapped in the balm of neutral and forgettable terms, harm
is rhetorically cleansed,[27] the reality fails to emotionally register, and
indifference is invoked.[28] Hence, the banality of evil. Just as sexually
assaulting victims with medical equipment was described as ‘ enhanced
interrogation’ in the War on Terror, so mass killing is disguised using anodyne-
sounding medical language for the War on Covid-19™.

In a related vein, throughout transhumanism’s strands, misanthropic, eugenicist and

even democidal goals are set alongside claims to pursue human enhancement for the
betterment of civilisation, human safety, security, and well-being. Consider the sort of
conflicted thinking needed both to communicate and to effectively obscure the
processes of total transformation of the human being, prepared for a technocratic
posthuman world:

… already today we have the technical ability to start redesigning humanity ...
The inorganic way, of linking humans to computers, brains to computers or
even creating completely non-organic entities, artificial intelligence —
perhaps even artificial consciousness — which is even a more radical change.
You can say that genetic engineering is just playing with the same bits and
pieces that evolution has played with for billions of years. This is something
completely new — to create really inorganic entities.[29]

Now humans are developing even bigger powers than ever before. We are
really acquiring divine powers of creation and destruction. We are really
upgrading humans into gods. We are acquiring, for instance, the power to re-
engineer life.[30]
 Fast forward to the early 21st century, and we just don’t need the vast majority
of the population … because the future is about developing more and more
sophisticated technology like artificial intelligence, bioengineering. Most
people don’t contribute anything to that, except for their data.[31]

The ultimate value of human beings will be just as consumers that will do
nothing useful at all …. However, you could have consumers which are not
humans, which are not conscious.[32]

If you’re not part of the revolution fast enough, then you’ll probably become
extinct.”[33]

In his 2018 presentation to the World Economic Forum and 2020 interview above, Yuval
Noah Harari, futurist, historian and frequent guest in 'elite' circles, perhaps the most
notorious academic commentator on transhumanism, exalts the purported power of
human ingenuity to supersede the natural pathways of evolution. Today’s leading
engineers and programmers, he claims, are able to upgrade, for the betterment of
human flourishing, human beings and their uninterrupted social, economic, and neural
connections to the global central nervous system — the Internet. The implication is that
humans, reengineered as inorganic entities with enhanced synthetic computer/brain
power, will enjoy new superhuman abilities to defeat mortality and live forever. Spoken
plainly in public, such talk is often portrayed, however, as lunatic and thus largely
confined to the periphery. The overt disdain for 'elite' proclamations such as these
passes as acceptable because most people appear to remain steadfast in their willful
blindness to the ongoing class warfare being waged against them.

In contrast, Harari’s other talks take a more sinister turn into eugenics and the
necessary reduction in value of human beings with inherent dignity and moral worth.
Similar contradictions run throughout transhumanism’s disquisitions. With the rise of
advanced robotics, machine learning and a future prospect of quantum computing,
most creatures produced by natural processes of biological procreation are
unnecessary to a world measured only by what is highly efficient and economically
expedient. It is hardly any wonder that the World Economic Forum stands at the centre
of this global programme in which the spheres of corporate power and influence have
fully merged with the state. If all this sounds eerily similar to some “friendly” form of
fascism, it just might be — a clear warning elaborated by Bertram Gross in 1980. “The
collection of information is now possible through increasingly sophisticated systems”,
he observed, “including the more ominous forms of remote electronic
surveillance”.[34]

Gross foresaw in this emerging order a beguiling sort of fascism in which “more
concentrated, unscrupulous, repressive, and militaristic control by a Big Business-Big
Government partnership [would] preserve the privileges of the ultra-rich, the corporate
overseers, and the brass in the military and civilian order”.[35] He pointed out that this
redesign of the social world is framed in public discourse as exceedingly “reasonable”
and inexorable because it is overtly friendly — to business — and, thus, part and parcel
of the logic of an efficient and ‘free’ market.
In an example of the market-friendly public discourse that sugar-coats
transhumanism, Nick Bostrom, a leading academic transhumanist who hails from what
is known as transhumanism’s ‘Oxford School’,[36] wrote in 2003:

Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually

over the past two decades. [Actually, the term itself was first proposed by
Julian Huxley in , reportedly to rebadge eugenics following WWII]. It promotes
an interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the
opportunities for enhancing the human condition and the human organism
opened up by the advancement of technology.[37]

Bostrom is co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association, an original signatory of

the Transhumanist Declaration of 1988,[38] and Founding Director of the Future of
Humanity Institute at Oxford University from 2005 to 2024. In a paper titled, 'Ethical
Issues for the 21st Century: Transhumanist Values,' he explains that:

Transhumanists view human nature as a work-in-progress, a half-baked

beginning that we can learn to remold in desirable ways. Current humanity
need not be the endpoint of evolution. Transhumanists hope that by
responsible use of science, technology, and other rational means we shall
eventually manage to become post-human, beings with vastly greater
capacities than present human beings have.[39]

By way of elaboration, Bostrom offers a vision of posthuman beings that reads like a
script for a new Disney fantasy film, entirely divorced from the weaponised reality of
human ‘enhancement’ R&D currently underway. Does Bostrom's seeming unspoken
embrace of social Darwinism serve to justify the belief that humans are no more than
lab rats to be used as subjects in experimental upgrades? In a paper titled, ‘Human
Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective’, he opines:

We can conceive of aesthetic and contemplative pleasures whose

blissfulness vastly exceeds what any human being has yet experienced. We
can imagine beings that reach a much greater level of personal development
and maturity than current human beings do, because they have the
opportunity to live for hundreds or thousands of years with full bodily and
psychic vigor. We can conceive of beings that are much smarter than us, that
can read books in seconds, that are much more brilliant philosophers than we
are, that can create artworks, which, even if we could understand them only
on the most superficial level, would strike us as wonderful masterpieces. We
can imagine love that is stronger, purer, and more secure than any human
being has yet harbored.[40]

As mere mortals observing Bostrom’s effusive speculation, we can’t help but ask: can
we? In human-machine hybrids? Love that is stronger and more pure than any human
being has yet harboured? Love — the quality that most decisively distinguishes human
beings from machines — will be “enhanced” by technology? How?

Bostrom’s fellow Oxford transhumanists and contemporary co-authors, Brian Earp,

Anders Sandberg and Julian Savulescu, have advanced a vision of technologically
enhanced love in The American Journal of Bioethics. The bioethicists and futurists
advocate manipulating the experience of love in pursuit of what they call “well suited
relationship bonds”.[41] It is striking, to say the very least, that the most powerful
human emotion that has motivated the highest forms of sacrifice, service, and culture
in history should be dressed up (or down) in such rhetorically banal terms. The key tool
that Earp et al. propose for achieving this objective is “anti-love biotechnology”. Is this
what Bostrom means by 'enhanced'?

Laying the blame on love for deviant scourges such as paedophilia, rape trauma and
domestic abuse (which is profoundly psychologically flawed), the authors look forward
to the prospect of a “love vaccine”, which would work to “prevent unwanted love”. Is
the anti-love injection akin to Huxley's Soma in Brave New World? They stress the
“urgency of the ethical project”, including finding a “cure for love”, arguing that “under
the right sort of conditions”, anti-love biotechnology could even be “morally required”.
Of course, this sort of rationalising of biotech interventions would make perfect sense
to minds occupied by the belief that humans are no more than economic machinery
whose basic functions must be regulated or replaced altogether by more robots. The
Oxford academics, whose transhumanist endeavours have as their base the power and
position of the oldest English-speaking university in the world, describe a future in
which “we may one day find ourselves with an array of pills, biochips, and
neuroceuticals that could successfully ‘treat’ problematic passions”.[42]

A second definitional approach to sanitising transhumanism is to pit it against a

devalued notion of unadulterated human beings. A report by the Science and
Technology Options Assessment group of the European Parliament, for example,
states: “Transhumanism is the idea that humankind can (and should) be perfected
beyond its present limits by the use of appropriate technologies. These views are
countered by a small but vocal group of conservatively minded opponents of human
enhancement”.[43]

Similarly, a 2020 report by the Center for Naval Analyses for the US Office to the Chief
of Naval Operations places opponents of transhumanism into one of two camps:
“bioconservatism” or “bioluddism”. According to the report:

Transhumanism describes a philosophy of transforming the human condition

to enhance both body and mind. In contrast, bioconservatism takes a
‘hesitant’ stance toward the merging of humans and technology, often with a
focus on the unnatural and uncertain ends of such merging. And bioluddism
(or neo-Luddism, for technology in general) rejects emerging biotechnology
and passively or actively opposes its effects on the environment, individuals,
and communities.[44]

An illustrative sentence reads: “Bioluddites oppose anti-love biotechnology”.

To be clear, this definition, provided to the US Department of Defense, treats

safeguarding unadulterated humanity as a product of one of two things: political
orientation (bio-conservatism) or technological backwardness (bioluddism).
Titled Superhumans: Implications of Genetic Engineering and Human-Centered
Bioengineering, the report’s purpose was to provide the US Department of Defense
(DoD) with recommendations for navigating a future of “cyborgs” and genetically
engineered humans. The document alerts the reader that:

Biotechnology — specifically, the physical modification of biology with

technology — has a trajectory that goes beyond reversible “human-machine
teaming” and ends with cyborg-like possibilities of endless enhancements
and modifications. And genetic engineering, particularly with the accessibility
offered by CRISPR1 (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic
repeats) and related technologies, has a trajectory that promises smarter,
stronger, and ‘better’ humans from birth, heralding the advent of ‘homo
superior’.[45]

Having stigmatised those opposed to such developments as bioconservatives or

bioluddites, efforts to protect homo sapiens (including from birth) against a genetically
engineered takeover by “homo superior” — that is, the prospect of de facto human
extinction — are cast as politically and psychologically reactionary. By comparison,
transhumanism, and its posthuman, species-altering goals, are portrayed as the
evolved, rational, and progressive alternative.

Such equating of posthumanism and progressivism echoes a definition of the

‘transhuman’ put forth by transhumanist pioneer Max More in 1994:

[A transhuman is] someone in the transition stage from human to biologically,

neurologically and genetically posthuman. One who orients his/her thinking
towards the future to prepare for coming changes and who seeks out and
takes advantage of opportunities for self-advancement[46]

In reality, we contend, transhumanism is a product of powerful institutions, long

believed to serve the public interest, which have been captured by a transnational
regime of financiers and technocratic stakeholders who have worked hard to vanquish
all memory of the public commons and the sovereign rights inherent to each human
being. Freed from long-held universal moral imperatives, the global transhumanist
movement that nudges the masses to consume its wares also manipulates, patents,
and, in this present “third-wave marketization”[47] of the global economy,
commodifies the raw materials of life. It pretends to be not merely a master of mimicry
(biomimetics), but an omnipotent all-knowing creator of material substance. God-
level: “Divinity,” according to Harari, “is not far enough to describe what we are trying to
do.”[48]

Indeed, the charisma with which the industry of transhumanism is sweeping the world
is, in Martine Rothblatt's view, grounded in the ideology of transgenderism. Rothblatt
is a billionaire transgender and transhumanist activist who authored the book From
Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Form. The process of
transition, according to the Transhumanist ethos, necessitates the construction of
neologisms (beme), representing the “bio-electronic human” who has transcended the
citizen of an “information society” of the “flesh-and-blood human” but
 vitally relies upon vast portions of their life being stored and processed
electronically. Such people can be said to be “transbeman” – they transcend
both the human and the beman worlds. (2008)

The wealthy and influential Rothblatt got her start in satellite tracking systems following
a visit to a NASA tracking station in 1974, after which she worked for NASA in the
1980s, and served on the Space Studies Institute board of trustees. Alongside
transgenderism, Rothblatt promotes the use of nanotechnology in life extension,
cyrogenics, humanoid robots, and cyber-consciousness.

Accordingly, with its aspirations to outdo Divinity and to transcend the trap(pings) of
human flesh, transhumanism represents man’s hubris and degenerate belief in human
effort alone to intercede with total precision and success in all natural processes. It
involves attempts to engineer artificial evolutionary pathways that lead human beings
toward a state of departure from their present stage as the most highly evolved
creatures. Infused in this project is conceit beyond measure as wo/men in power
pretend to play the role of supernatural creator and arrogate to themselves the right to
control the sovereign will and desire of the human being to think, to feel, to act, and to
reproduce.

We make the case in this series of articles that, to this end, the persistent campaigns of
coerced injections of humankind with experimental gene therapies have served as key
signifiers of the transhumanist project, both to with man’s technocratic interventions
on the natural order, and to reengineer biology and merge humans with machines. All
as part of an organised and well-funded project to repurpose humans for use in some
imagined seamless synthesis of markets, societies, bodies, brains, bloodstreams,
battlefields and belief systems, guided by a singular manmade force of unparalleled
computational power.

Of course, all of this effort in trying to create and wield nearly omnipresent control over
unpredictable, dynamic, and interdependent biological systems necessitates the
application of immense “intelligence” — the sort that can operate with nearly unlimited
resources, brainpower and funding.

Transhumanism: Flight of Fancy or Military-intelligence Operation?

In the present age where public perception is tightly managed, censorship,

compartmentalisation, and erasure are prevalent. This is why certain primary source
materials need to be unearthed from archives and carefully examined.

As a case in point, buried in web pages archived on the Wayback Machine lies a record
that, on August 14 2001 the Chief Scientist from the NASA Langley Research Center,
Dennis Bushnell, gave a talk at a symposium organised by the National Defense
Industrial Association (NDIA), on what amounts to a military-intelligence roadmap
towards transhumanism.[49] Bushnell was, at the time, a 40-year NASA veteran and
remains NASA Langley Chief Scientist today. The presentation was titled ‘Future
Strategic Issues / Future Warfare’. It was intended as a “heads up” to NASA’s national
security partners on the future of technology as applies to both the military and society,
with a view towards the years 2025-2030. The second slide read, ‘The ‘Bots, Borgs, ‘&
Humans Welcome you to 2025 A.D”. The slides accompanying the presentation can be
found at an archived web page of the US DoD Technical Information Center (DTIC).

The talk’s stated purpose was to guide not only the Department of Defence (DoD)’s
military strategy but also military-intelligence procurement decisions, and R&D
planning. Its projections and predictions were derived from NASA’s “futures” work with
30+ other national security agencies, including DARPA, the CIA, the DIA, the US Army,
the Air Force, and numerous other national security bodies. As part of the talk’s
preamble, NASA-Langley stressed that the futuristic technologies it described were
“NO PIXIE DUST” (emphasis in original, slide 4). Clearly aware that the technologies
and concepts contained in the 113 slides would appear improbable to many audiences,
Bushnell explained that new technologies such as those he described often take 15+
years to produce, after which they remain “in inventory” for “40+ years”. Which, if true,
would place a 40+ year veteran and head of a national security scientific research
institute such as Dennis Bushnell in a prime position to know the status of classified
R&D coming down the ‘black science’ pike.

Consistent with Bushnell’s claims, Harvard science historian Peter Galison writes that
classified scientific research is “on the order of five to ten times larger than the open
literature that finds its way to our libraries.” Thus, it is “we in the open world [...] who
are living in a modest information booth facing outwards, our unseeing backs to a vast
and classified empire we barely know.”[50]

With the benefit of access to that vast classified empire, Bushnell, in his 2001
presentation, provided an overview of “ongoing worldwide technological revolutions” in
“IT/Bio/Nano” fields, which, according to slide 7, were taking place at
“triple/exponential” rates, with “changes occurring at scales of months (instead of
decades)”. The talk predicted that the underlying global explosion in technological
revolutions would see the advent of a new era for humanity, slated to commence in
2020. NASA Langley dubbed this new era the Bio/NANO Age (slide12). Why the year
2020 was chosen as the dawn of a new Bio/NANO era for humanity was not explained.
A Virtual Age, in contrast, was designated to commence at some unspecified time,
denoted by a question mark. That ultimate Virtual Age was to bring with it the
“robotization” of key developments from previous eras, and a shift from living life in
reality-based environments to existing in virtual ones.

On the road to the Virtual era, according to NASA Langley, the Bio/NANO Age would
subsist on “social and economic disruption”, just as the Industrial Age had subsisted
on raw materials and the Agricultural Age on farmlands (slide 107). Consider the
distinctions drawn to frame the major transitions: the new Age feeds on societies, the
livelihoods and bodies of human beings, while the preceding Ages fed on renewable
resources in the natural world. The technological landscapes of the Bio/NANO and
Virtual eras were to comprise genetic engineering of human beings prior to birth;
implantable electronics for monitoring, computing and brain stimulation; cyber and
artificial life; biocomputing; automatic/robotic “everything”; nanobots; smart dust; and
ubiquitous immersive holographic and virtual environments. These and other radical
societal transformations were anticipated to occur with the help of “’Trojan horse’
‘civilian’ systems” (slide 81) — consistent with the alleged rollout of military
technologies under the guise of ‘public health’ since 2020[51, 52, 53, 54] — and the
“surreptitious nano tagging (with microwave interrogation) of everything / everyone”
(slide 88).

In all, the document signposted key ways in which the path to transhumanism would be
paved by weaponry, including in civilian disguise, and arranged according to military-
intelligence designs, both in strategic and concrete (R&D and procurement) terms.
Despite the immense curiosity-value and potential social impact of the 113 slides,
however, they have received little to no attention in the civilian world, with a few
notable exceptions.[55]

Ten years later, in 2011, Bushnell told an audience of environmental scientists that “the
ongoing bio-revolutions in genomics and synthetic biology offer the very real possibility
of designer life forms including humanoids”.[56] One may wonder whether Mary Shelley
will be lionised, at some point, with a posthumous Nobel Prize for her conceptual
contributions to today's movements toward manmade monstrosities. These
revolutions, Bushnell noted, would form part of a technological future that audience
members should expect in their children’s and grandchildren’s lifetimes. He explained
that “via biomimetics they’ve nano-sectioned the neocortex, and they’re replicating it in
silicon, and they’re having great success”. In the interim, Bushnell warned that even
without silicon brains, in 2011 “the robots are taking the jobs. And the humans
increasingly can’t compete”. Going forward, with more advanced artificial intelligence,
“what people will do all day is not clear”. Is this project merely the conclusion to the
rapacious logic of central banking — to jettison humans from all areas of cultural,
economic and biological production?

“Humans are becoming cyborgs”, the NASA Langley Chief Scientist continued. “We
have put brain chips in about 10,000 people … DARPA is working on brain chips for
super soldiers. Fifteen, 20 years out if you don’t have all of these chips in you, you can’t
compete, particularly with the machines … [In fact] we are merging with machines.
There are some really massive effects of the IT/Bio/Nano quantum energetics tech
revolutions that are now double exponential … If you want to check where the frontier of
this kind of thinking is, read Ray Kurzweil”, who, Bushnell added with zest, is “right on
it!”[57]

In his book The Singularity (2005), Kurzweil describes a ‘2030 scenario’ consistent with
NASA-Langley’s Virtual Era, under which

Nanobot technology will provide fully immersive, totally convincing virtual

reality. Nanobots will take up positions in close physical proximity to every
inter-neuronal connection coming from our senses … Nanobots will be
capable of generating the neurological correlates of emotions, sexual
pleasure, and other derivatives of our sensory experience and mental
reactions … Nanobots will be introduced without surgery, through the
bloodstream and, if necessary, can all be directed to leave, so the process is
easily reversible. They are programmable, in that they can provide virtual
reality one minute and a variety of brain extensions the next.[58]

Fantasy? If Professor of Electrical Engineering and Cellular Biology at Florida

International University, Sakhrat Khizroev, is to be believed, his team had already
developed magnetoelectric nanoparticles in 2018 capable of being injected into the
bloodstream, “like the flu shot” (or ingested), and wirelessly guided to the brain. In
animal studies, the magnetoelectric nanoparticles could be wirelessly manoeuvred to
brain areas with single-neuron precision, and brought back out into the bloodstream
once their mission was complete. In a talk on the technology and the emerging field of
“technobiology” Khizroev said, “every day we are getting closer to the ultimate goal to
use [this technology] on people. And we hope within a couple of years we can do
that”.[59] The accompanying graphic read, ‘NANOPARTICLE - Unlimited Possibilities’.

Earlier in his career, when he was a straight-up electrical engineer and physicist, prior
to his incarnation as a “technobiologist”, Khizroev had conducted research funded by
the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Army Research Office, the Office of
Naval Research, and DARPA.[60, 61] For his part, Kurzweil is Director of Engineering
and “Principal Researcher + AI Visionary” at Google, which, in turn, was seed-funded
by the NSA and CIA[62] and continues to collaborate with US intelligence today.
Consistent with Kurzweil’s Singularity, by 2015 NASA Langley’s Dennis Bushnell was
describing the possibility of “uploading the brain into a machine, which would have
god-like [sic.] knowledge and would be connected to the emerging global sensor grid
and global mind.”[63] Bushnell goes on to cite Hans Moravec’s idea of morphing into
our “brain children” and becoming “human contaminated machines.” So, not only are
machines deified (”god-like”), but human beings are treated as contaminants — a
profoundly anti-humanist vision that is starkly at odds with the transhumanist mantra
of “bettering” humanity.

Back to the Future of 2020

While such developments may have seemed too far from reality in 2001 (and 2011 and
2015) for most commentators to entertain, in 2020 NASA Langley’s 2001 presentation
gained new salience as key prognostications began making their way into real life. In
2020, “social disruption”, which was slated by NASA Langley to replace the farmlands
of the Agricultural Age and the raw materials of the Industrial Age, descended right on
time for a 2020 commencement to a new Bio/NANO era, as listed on slide 12 of the
NASA document. The social disruption of 2020, moreover, powered, for the first time in
history, mass rollout of injectable gene-based BioNano technology (cf BioNTech
‘vaccines’), underpinned legally and logistically by the Military-Industrial Complex,
particularly the US DoD and the National Security Council (NSC).[64, 65, 66, 67, 68] In
the process, rapid mass transition to the “tele-everything” described in the NASA
Langley document (tele-medicine, tele-education, tele-commerce, tele-socialisation
etc, slide 16) came into being, laying a practical social pathway to the Virtual Age, in
which, “the world and society will shift even more to tele-everything”.[69]

At the same time, in the realms of public discourse, as life was imitating NASA Langley
slides, the WEF’s Klaus Schwab and Yuval Noah Harari began touting the arrival of
Bio/NANO Era developments under the auspices of a “Great Reset” and the “Fourth
Industrial Revolution”, [70, 71] both of which had been nurtured prior to 2020 and
hastened by the Great Disruption that was Covid-19. When asked about the
significance of Covid-19 to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Klaus Schwab said that
Covid-19 had “accelerated the ongoing Industrial Revolution” such that “the Fourth
Industrial Revolution is now a reality”.

Expanding upon that theme, on April 14, 2020 — a mere month after the World Health
Organization had declared Covid-19 a pandemic — Harari explained that, with the
arrival of Covid-19, we were seeing “a change in the nature of surveillance. Previously
surveillance was mainly above the skin. Now it’s going under the skin. Governments
want to know not just where we go or who we meet — above all they want to know what
is happening under our skin”.[72]

Harari also told The Late Late Show early in The Pandemic™, on 16 April 2020:

What’s happening now, it’s really a watershed in the history of surveillance.

First of all, we see mass surveillance systems entering and being adopted in
democratic countries, which previously resisted them. Secondly, we see the
 nature of surveillance changing from over the skin surveillance to under the
skin surveillance.[73]

By “under the skin surveillance” Harari in May 2020 that he meant not merely medical
measurements such as temperature or heart rate. Under the skin surveillance, he
stressed, would enable governments and corporations (if they can now be
distinguished from one another) to monitor not just what we do, but what we think and
feel, to the extent that the corporate state would “know me better than I know myself”.
He added that he thought it was likely that “people could look back in 100 years and
identify the Coronavirus epidemic as the moment when a new regime of surveillance
took over, especially surveillance under the skin. Which I think is maybe the most
important development of the 21st century”.[74] But what was Harari talking about? His
remarks were made in early 2020, when social distancing, masks and lockdowns were
the countermeasures du jour. What did those interventions, or the virus they
purportedly addressed, have to do with surveillance under the skin? It is hard to
disagree with Harari that had Covid-19 or its countermeasures somehow served as a
vehicle for covert mass deployment of subcutaneous surveillance technology, that
would indeed qualify as a defining, if ominous, 21st century development. But how
could such a thing have occurred? Did Harari know something we didn’t? About Covid
perhaps? Or the masks? Or the PCR tests? (See Part 3 for discussion of smart dust and
findings of undeclared materials on PCR swabs).

Social Engineers or Space Cadets?

It is certainly true that, of all US national security agencies, NASA’s remit begs the most
impossible feats of biology and science. Living without gravity and oxygen, or coping
with sensory deprivation are obvious examples. With such interplanetary objectives in
mind, it is perhaps understandable that the agency's interest in cyborgs dates to the
1960s. In a document titled ‘Engineering Man for Space: THE CYBORG STUDY’ (capitals
in original), NASA’s Office of Advanced Research and Technology received a report in
1963 on its ‘CYBORG Program’, whose aim was to “obtain the maximum integration of
man into a man-machine complex”.[75] Interestingly, this came only one year after the
CIA’s MKULTRA Subproject 119 (1962), which explored “techniques of activation of the
human organization by remote electronic means” but did not result in any device for
doing so.[76]

The rationale for NASA’s CYBORG Program — six decades ago — was to increase the
“efficiency and longevity of the life process on board space flights”.[77] In other words,
NASA’s space programme provided a rationale, or perhaps a pretext, for funding
research into areas that would otherwise be deemed too outlandish/immoral to fund,
i.e. cyborgs. Justifying incursions into otherwise unconscionable territory by appeals to
a valued collective purpose, it should be noted, is a common psychological tool for
sanitising atrocity.[78]

By 2021, NASA had taken its space rationale sufficiently far to establish an
international, interagency collaboration involving the Biomedical Advanced Research
and Development Authority (BARDA), the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, eight
international space agencies, a few universities, and a ‘not for profit’ group with
Google’s Eric Schmidt and billionaire transgender transhumanist activist Martine
Rothblatt on its board of trustees. That collaboration exploited the R&D opportunities
of an international space station hosting a microgravity laboratory, which was orbiting
the Earth every 90 minutes. In a set of slides on the initiative, titled ‘Bioengineering at
NASA: Towards an understanding of life in space’, a timeline depicting ‘Six Decades of
Space Biology Research’ marked the time point “now” with two words: “synthetic
biology”.[79] Earlier, in 2011, a report prepared jointly by NASA Langley and a private
government contractor summarised NASA’s R&D synergy with external bodies[80],
explicating its intended applications for synthetic biology. Those applications included
interactions with electronics such as a “synthetic bio-robot” which the report
described as “an autonomous robot resulting from the fusion of synthetic biology,
electronics, and cybernetics … This technology builds on the emerging field of synthetic
biology by using the principles of biomimicry to develop a micro-scale cyborg”.[81]

Additionally, the report listed “seamless human-computer interaction” involving a

“Brain Machine Interface (BMI): also known as brain-computer or neural interface”.
Such an interface, the document explained, “monitors the user’s neurons and
interprets his or her signals. This provides hands-free control of machinery and
software and access to information … [which] could be a very useful technology in
space environments”.[82] Thus, since its first Cyborg Program report, NASA’s rationale
for cyborg technologies appears to have experienced mission creep, from astronauts’
longevity in 1963 to convenience in 2011.

The 2011 report then described a simulated reality that would be “indistinguishable
from real experiences” and “so completely immersive” that the user would be unable
to tell the two experiences apart. The technologies that could achieve this state “would
work directly on the brain itself — blocking real sensory input and replacing it with
simulated input on the level of individual neurons”.[83] A moral line was thereby
crossed. Hypothetical space scenarios, probably useful to no one, had provided the
justification for the development of real-world technologies that could be used to hijack
individuals’ perception of reality.

Next on NASA’s technological agenda was “Super Humans”. NASA’s super humans are
based on:

Physical Interfaces includ[ing] physical and neural interfaces that

augment human capabilities, such as exo-skeletons and infrared vision
…. [Said] neural infrared vision interfaces hard-wire visual sensing
capabilities directly into the nervous system. The ability to see in
different parts of the spectrum could be valuable for space
operations.[84]

And while this may represent just one small step for a cyborg astronaut, it is a giant step
for human kind. It betrays a vision of homo superior whereby the ‘super human’ is not
the transcendent creative genius of academic transhumanists’ tomes, but one whose
perceptions of reality are externally defined and managed for them, in line with their
manufacturers’ requirements.

In short, with space exploration serving as the overarching rationale, it might make
sense that NASA is simply seeking to create what Dennis Bushnell has called
“extremophiles” for space, or cyborgs designed to thrive in extreme environments.
However, Bushnell has proposed extremophiles not merely for space. He has also
advanced them as a response to “climate change”. [85] In his 2011 talk to the Blue
Tech Water Innovation Forum Bushnell mooted modifying humans to “take the heat”.
He said:

We have ongoing studies of extremophiles… plus the ongoing

revolution in genomics and synthetic biology, that proffers the very real
possibility of designer life forms, including humanoids, capable of
thriving in whatever mess we make of the planet.

That is, the intended end-use of extremophiles appears to be closer to home than outer
space. Which is consistent with Bushnell’s 2001 presentation to national security
industry partners, in which cyborg technology was predicted to underpin new Ages for
humanity. New Ages, moreover, that were cast not primarily in terms of space flight or
even climate change, but more standard national security fare, such as combat,
surveillance, and war. Including “PSYWAR” [86], along with new forms of attack
encompassing beam weaponry (slides 45 and 103) and aerosolised mechanical micro-
dust that bores into its victims’ lungs (slide 43). Not to forget the “surreptitious nano
tagging (with microwave interrogation) of everything/everyone” [italics added] for
“identification and status info” (slides 41 and 88).

Which only begs more questions: Even if creating extremophiles for space were the true
purpose of NASA’s cyborg programs, why is NASA predicting new Ages of humanity and
BioNano warfare? Why is it heralding the surreptitious nano tagging of everything and
everyone? With microwave interrogation? For identification and status info? Whose
info? What status? Why?

To answer these and other questions, in Part 2, drawing chiefly on officially

authenticated and formally distributed military-intelligence primary source documents,
we explore the evidence of designs plotted out for transhumanism in military-
intelligence “futures” materials, which relate to the strategic vision of the national
security world beyond NASA, for both the military and the civilian sector.

References to Part 1

[1] Bernays, E. 2005/1928. Propaganda, New York: Ig Publishing.

[2] Holley, P. 2018. To avoid becoming like monkeys, humans must merge with machines.
Washington Post. [Website]

[3] Singularity University, Portugal 2023. Michell Zappa. [Website]

[4] Rockefeller Foundation 2013. Dreaming the Future of Health For the Next 100 years. White
paper from the Global Health Summit Beijing China. [Website]

[5] World Economic Forum. 2023. About Klaus Schwab. [Website]

[6] PBS 2015. Charlie Rose 2015-11-13: Dexter Filkins on ISIS’s control over western Iraq; Klaus
Schwab on the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos; “Shelter”, (From 10m 35s). Internet
Archive. [Website]

[7] Schwab, K. 2019. World Economic Founder Klaus Schwab on the Fourth Industrial
Revolution. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, YouTube. [Website]

[8] Bushnell, D. 2001. Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]. Presentation to The
4th Annual Testing and Training for Readiness Symposium & Exhibition: Emerging
Challenges, Opportunities and Requirements, National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA),
13-16 August 2001. NASA Langley Research Center. Internet Archive. [Website]

[9] World Economic Forum. 2016. The Fourth Industrial Revolution – at a glance. [Website]

[10] Brown, W. 2015. Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone
Books. [Website]

[11] Ionkov, L., and Settlemeyer, B. 2021. DNA: The Ultimate Data Storage Solution. Scientific
American. [Journal]

[12] O’Connor, J. 2002/1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers, 6.

[13] Lupi, G. 2021. Internet of Bodies: Our Connected Future. Rand Corporation. [Website]

[14] Kavli Foundation. 2013. The Kavli Foundation and University Partners commit $100 million
to Brain Research. Kavli Institute for Brain Science. [Website]

[15] Kavli Foundation. 2014. Brain Initiative Press Conference. [Website]

[16] Welcome to the Human Brain Project. 2023. [Website]

[17] Allen, J. 2023. Dark Aeon. Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity. New York, NY:
Skyhorse Publishing. [Website]

[18] Freeland, E. 2021. Geoengineered Transhumanism: How the Environment Has Been
Weaponized by Chemtrails, Electromagnetics, & Nanotechnology for Synthetic Biology.
Olympia, WA: Last Word Books. [Website]

[19] Wood, P. 2022. The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism. Mesa, AZ: Coherent
Publishing, LLC. [Website]

[20] Humanity+. 2024. The Transhumanist Manifesto. [Website]

[21] Humanity+. 2024. Transhumanist FAQ. [Website]

[22] Reding, D.F., and Eaton, J. Science & Technology Trends: 2020-2040 - Exploring the S&T
Edge. Office of the Chief Scientist, NATO Science & Technology Organization, NATO
Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium. [Website]

[23] Bandura, A. 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 193–209. [Journal]

[24] Opotow, S. 1990. Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues.
Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 1-20. [Journal]

[25] Bandura, A. 2002. Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal
of Moral Education. Vol.31, No. 2, pp. 101-119. [Journal]

[26] Cohen, S. 2001. States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. Oxford UK:
Blackwell Publishers. [Website]

[27] Poole, S. 2007. Unspeak: How Words Become Weapons, How Weapons Become a
Message, and How That Message Becomes Reality. New York: Grove Atlantic

[28] Passini, S. 2017. From the banality of evil to the complicity of indifference: The effects on
intergroup relationships. New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 33-40 [Journal]

[29] Harari, Y.N. 2018. Will the Future be Human? World Economic Forum, YouTube. [Website]

[30] Harari, Y.N. 2020. Yuval Noah Harari in Conversation with Sara Pascoe. Yuval Noah Harari,
YouTube. [Website]

[31] Harari, Y.N. 2022. We Just Don't Need the Vast Majority of the Population. TED The
Interview. TED, YouTube. [Website]

[32] Harari, Y.N. 2016. The Future of Humanity - with Yuval Noah Harari. The Royal Institution,
YouTube. [Website]

[33] Harari, Y.N. 2015. Yurval Noah Harari and Daniel Kahneman Interview. Kolektif Kitap,
YouTube. [Website]

[34] Gross, B. 1980. Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America. Boston, MA: South
End Press, 149.

[35] ibid., 167

[36] Corby, P.M. 2019. The Hope and Despair of Human Bioenhancement: A Virtual Dialogue
Between the Oxford Transhumanists and Joseph Ratzinger. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick
Publications.

[37] Bostrom, N. 2003. Human genetic enhancement: A transhumanist perspective. Journal of

Value Inquiry, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 493-506. [Journal]

[38] Corby, P.M. 2019. op. cit.[Journal]

[39] Bostrom, N. 2005. Ethical Issues for the Twenty-first Century: Transhumanist Ethics.
Philosophy Documentation Center. [Website]

[40] Bostrom, N. 2003. op. cit. [Journal]

[41] Earp, B.D., Wudarczyk, O.A., Sandberg, A., and Savulescu, J. 2013. If I could just stop loving
you: Anti-love biotechnology and the ethics of a chemical breakup. The American Journal of
Bioethics, Vol. 13, No. 11, pp. 3-17. [Journal]

[42] ibid.

[43] Schuijff, M., Smits, M., Coenen, C., Hennen, L., and Rader, M. 2009. A European Approach
to Human Ehancement.Background Document for the European Parliament Science and
Technology Options Assessment (STOA) Workshop, 24 February, 2009. European Technology
Assessment Group. [Website]

[44] Broyles, D.A. 2020. Superhumans: Implications of Genetic Engineering and Human-
Centered Bioengineering. Center for Naval Analyses, Arlington, Virginia. Sponsored by the
Office to the Chief of Naval Operations. [Website]

[45] ibid.

[46] More, M. 1994. Technological self-transformation: Expanding personal extropy. Extropy,

Vol. 4, No. 2, p.7. Internet Archive. [Website]

[47] Burawoy, M. 2007. The future of sociology. Sociological Bulletin. [Journal]

[48] Harari, Y. 2017. Yuval Noah Harari Gives A Brief History Of Tomorrow. GBH Forum Network.
YouTube. [Website]

[49] Bushnell, D. 2001. op. cit. [Website]

[50] Galison, P. 2004. Removing knowledge. Critical Inquiry, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 229-243.
[Journal]

[51] Webb, W. 2020. Operation Warp Speed is using a CIA-linked contractor to keep Covid-19
vaccine contracts secret. Unlimited Hangout. [Website]

[52] Lerman, D. 2022. Government’s national security arm took charge during the Covid
response. Brownstone Institute. [Website]

[53] Latypova, S. 2022. The role of the US DoD (and their co-investors) in "Covid
Countermeasures" enterprise. Due Dilligence and Art. Substack. [Website]

[54] Latypova, S. 2023. Proof that the vaccines were a military-backed countermeasure.
Brownstone Institute. [Website]

[55] Bermas, J. 2021. Transhumanism and Population Control from the Horse’s Mouth! Jason
Bermas, YouTube. [Website]
[56] Bushnell, D. 2011. BlueTech Forum 2011 - Keynote Presentation: Dennis Bushnell, Chief
Scientist, NASA Langley. Blue Tech Research, YouTube. [Website]

[57] ibid.

[58] Kurzweil, R. 2005. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. London:
Duckworth Overlook, p.317.

[59] Khizroev, S. 2018. Meet Technobiology’s Wireless Messenger: The Nanoparticle. TedX
Talks, YouTube. [Website]

[60] Khizroev, S, Chomko, R., Hijazi, Y., and Amos, N. (2004). Three-dimensional Magnetic
Recording Device. Final progress report of a research project sponsored by the Air Force Office
of Scientific Research. [Website]

[61] Litvinov, D., Roscamp, T.A., Klemmer, T., Wu, M., Howards, K., and Khizroev, S. 2001.
Co/Pd Multilayer Based Recording Layers for Perpendicular Media. Symposium T of
Applications of Ferromagnetic and Optical Materials, Storage and Magnetoelectronics,
supported in part by the Army Research Office grant no. DAAD 19-00-1-0421, and the Office of
Naval Research/DARPA grant no. N00014-01-1-0734. Materials Research Society. [Website]

[62] Ahmed, N. 2015. How the CIA made Google: Inside the secret network behind mass
surveillance, endless war, and Skynet, Part 1. Medium. [Website]

[63] Bushnell, D. 2015. Thoughts on Major Existential Societal Issues and Their Prospective
Solutions. Professional Pilot. Queensmith Communications Corporation, p. 58. [Website]

[64] Webb, W. 2020. op. cit. [Website]

[65] Lerman, D. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[66] Latypova, S. 2022. op. cit. [Website]

[67] Latypova, S. 2023. op. cit. [Website]

[68] Baletti, B. 2023. Government contracts with COVID vaccine makers let Federal agencies
bypass normal regulatory process, FOIA documents show. The Defender. Children’s Health
Defense. [Website]

[69] Bushnell, D. 2015. op. cit. [Website]

[70] Schwab, K., & Mallery, T. 2020. COVID-19: The Great Reset. Geneva, Switzerland: Forum
Publishing.

[71] World Economic Forum. 2019. Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network. World
Economic Forum, YouTube. [Website]

[72] Harari, Y.N. 2020. Yuval Noah Harari In Conversation With Rahul Kanwal. India Today,
YouTube. [Website]
 [73] Harari, Y.N. 2020. Yuval Noah Harari on COVID-19’s Impact on Humankind. The Late Late
Show with James Corden, YouTube. [Website]

[74] Harari, Y.N. 2020. Coronavirus: Yuval Noah Harari, Philosopher and Historian, on the
Legacy of Covid-19. BBC HARDtalk, YouTube. [Website]

[75] Driscoll, R.W. 1963. Engineering Man for Space: The Cyborg Study. Final report to NASA
Office of Advanced Research and Technology (OART). United Aircraft Corporate Systems
Center, p.81. [Website]

[76] Miyamoto, K. 2018. The CIA MKULTRA subproject 119 was their initial electromagnetic
program, though not yielding any substantial methodologies. Available at SSRN. [Website]

[77] Driscoll, R.W. 1963. op. cit.. p.71. [Website]

[78] Zsolnai, L. 2016. Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves, by
Albert Bandura. New York: Macmillan. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 426-429.
[Journal]

[79] Carnell, L. 2021. Bioengineering at NASA: Towards an Understanding of Life in Space. NASA
Space Life and Physical Sciences Research and Applications (SLPSRA) Division, p.2. [Website]

[80] Hay, J., Mullins, C., Graham, R., Williams-Byrd, J., Reeves, J.D. 2011. Innovative
Technologies for Human Exploration: Opportunities for Partnerships and Leveraging Novel
Technologies External to NASA. The Tauri Group and NASA Langley Research Center. [Website]

[81] ibid., p.8.

[82] ibid., p.10.

[83] ibid., p.11.

[84] ibid., p.11.

[85] Bushnell, D. 2011. op. cit. [Website]

[86] Bushnell, D. 2001. op. cit., pp.55, 72, 81, 90, 93, 98, 103 & 104. [Website]

View publication stats