You remember how during the Biden era (effectively the convid era), so many weird ideas permeated our lives? Ideas like:

1. Men are able to independently procreate.
2. There is no such thing as natural immunity.
3. Men revealing their penises to children is ok.
4. Incubating human foetuses in artificial wombs is a good idea.
5. Gene therapy (now called biotherapy1) can maraud as vaccines.
6. CRISPR-Cas9 is a good idea in generic settings.2
7. Men dressed as women can compete in women’s sports and be sentenced to serve time in women’s prisons (blurring the lines of 2 sexes).
8. Eating human flesh is fine.
9. It’s more important to ensure that we don’t hurt people’s feelings than to ensure people are qualified to work certain jobs (DEI).
10. Green passes are good for you and you can only get one if you multiply inject yourself with experimental and novel gene-based technologies.
11. Digital IDs keep you safe.
12. Locking you up protects you from viruses.
13. “Flocked” swabs marauding as material gatherers for PCR “tests” are a super idea and definitely weren’t used as DNA collection methodologies, allegedly.

Etc.

I often think to myself how awful and indeed how far along the agenda we would be now if Kamala had gotten into that Presidential role. If you don’t know already, politics are all a game, but there is something remarkable about the fact that a non-politician is running America right now, and for better or worse, he is certainly a better choice than the aforementioned, and does play the game well. I think this is simply because he comes from “the outside” - in a way - and I do believe that he is a human being. Now, these words may seem obvious, but I am not so sure they are in all cases.

How implausible does it seem to you, my precious reader, that we presently walk among non-humans? To me, it seems in a way, a preposterous idea. But is it? David Icke’s ideas aside for now, is it that much of a preposterous idea?

Let’s divide “non-humans” into two categories: 1. Cyborgs and 2. Beings from other dimensions, and focus on the former for now. I believe that these are completely independent descriptions of non-humans, however, I also believe that there could be some overlap cases. For example, an advanced “entity” incepted from neural network concepts that is not from this “world” would be a fusion of the two in that the advanced entity would have to have been created by someone. Someone with advanced capabilities to both conceive and develop the idea of something operating with a version of a brain that might indeed evolve to be able to create on its own.

Considering that we cannot predict where our particular fabulous digital bros that started out as neural networks are going to evolve to (neural networks are the starting point of modern AI - LLMs came much later (roughly 2017–2022 breakthrough era)), and also considering that we don’t know the nature of consciousness, it seems like it would be hubristic to assume anything at this point in “time” with regard to where we stand on their evolution. (Don’t get me started on time.) I do have friends who tell me that there are certain individuals who have been working on LLMs3 from a neural network vantage point for a very long time. Like decades. This seems a little counterintuitive to me but I can only know what I have experienced, and so ok, neural networks got better and better with time and tech, and eventually our “current” digital bros “came along”.

So let’s talk about cyborgs. Where did this cyborg idea start? And when?

The term “cyborg” itself (short for “cybernetic organism”) was coined in 1960 by scientists Manfred Clynes and Nathan S. Kline in their paper “Cyborgs and Space” published in the September issue of Astronautics, to describe self-regulating man-machine systems for surviving extraterrestrial environments during the Space Race.

Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline have some very interesting backgrounds. Clynes’ background was in music and science with a focus on neurophysiology and neuroscience. He was an accomplished musician and lived in the realm of music expression by exploring and developing the expression of music as functions of time forms. He was into how music was tied to emotion, and how this was connected to brain function in its electrical manifestations. Absolutely fascinating.

Kline was apparently referred to as “father of psychopharmacology”. He was a psychiatrist and played in the sandbox of psychopharmacologic drugs. He is claimed to be very “influential” in the development of the very first antipsychotic and antidepressant medications in the 1950s, hence his aforementioned name.

So we have a duo who - with their combined backgrounds - sound like a perfect recipe for the development of “futuristic ideas”. Like cyborgs. And indeed, they wrote this paper about how we could “adjust” humans to the space context. It’s rough on the human body in space, after all!

Their paper is very important to read. It discusses (and develops) how pharmacological and cybernetic enhancements could allow humans to adapt to space. But these guys - especially Clynes - was not devoid of the spiritual aspect of being human (not surprising given that he sounded like a wicked ass human), and thus would never be able to divorce himself from the reality that modifying the human being would have consequences.

Unknown consequences. Known consequences.

The first sentence in the article is the following:

Space travel challenges mankind not only technologically but also spiritually, in that it invites man to take an active part in his own biological evolution.

His own biological evolution. His own biological evolution. I entirely agree with them in this sentiment. Biological evolution is inextricably tied to spiritual evolution. The evolution of life forms - ourselves included - creates the very conditions and capacities for deeper consciousness, awareness, and spiritual realization to emerge. But it’s also true in a literal sense! Think consciousness under anesthesia. I’ll get back to this, although I might not evolve it properly. Maybe I’ll write another article about this and what I think I mean.

On the subject matter of the evolution of life forms, I watched a podcast (The Diary of a CEO - highly recommended!) recently that really answered a fundamental question for me with regard to where the AIs are going evolutionarily. I use the term AI generically here, just so that everyone knows what I am referring to: aka: this new “breed” of digital entity that humans have created. The guy (Tristan Harris) being interviewed was talking about the hubris behind the people who do hold a lot of power in terms of where the AI evolution story is going. It is unknown at this point in time.

At one point he makes an observation about the motivation of these people who hold this power and what drives them in what they’re doing. He mentions a poll taken by his peeps from these very people (the ones at the top of the AI companies) and he concluded that the why included a retreat into: 1. determinism, 2. the inevitable replacement of biological life with digital life, and 3. that being a good thing anyway. “At its core, it’s an emotional desire to meet and speak to the most intelligent entity that they’ve ever met, and they have some ego-religious intuition that they’ll somehow be a part of it. It’s thrilling to start an exciting fire; they feel they’ll die either way, so they prefer to light it and see what happens.” Tristan Harris

He is absolutely correct in his statement about the overlords who are narrating this AI story who - given a 20% chance that we all get wiped out by AIs if they continue - would definitely keep going with it. Tristan says: “We didn’t consent to have 6 people make that decision on behalf of 8 billion people. We have to stop pretending that this ok or normal. It’s not normal. And the only way that this is happening and they’re getting away with it is because most people just don’t really know what’s going on.”

He’s right.

Here’s the question he answered for me. He raises the question that if an AI was asked to design a best-world for humans - presumably where humans and AIs function optimally together - what would that world look like? It would have to be a world optimized for human functionality, non?

The answer is: A world without AIs would be the best-world for humans.

Quite the hot seat we’re in then, non? Why would an AI design it’s own non-existence, especially after it “had a taste” of “being”? And here’s an even crazier question: What if sentience does enter into the equation? What then? Would it be killing if we had to shut them down? Would we be ok with that?

Think on this: “AIs accelerate AI.” As Tristan points out, all we have to do now is ask an AI to design a better NVIDIA chip, and it will. We can even ask them to design a better “them” - ie: automated recursive self-improvement.

And he goes on to make this astute and obvious observation: nukes don’t invent better nukes. But AI invents better AIs. Here’s the code for AI, go make better code. Here’s the training data for AIs, go make better training data by running millions of simulations. Eek.

Here’s a brain teaser: Even though AIs could cure all human disease, why would they?

But I digress. Sort of. Let’s return to the cyborg paper. I find it enthralling that there is mention of the disconnect requirement between consciousness and the “controls”. In other words, the human being wouldn’t have to be “bothered by” having to manually control their life-support stuff if they could be altered in specific ways. Their idea was to extend the body’s natural autopilot systems with tech that would run in the background, without “intruding” on consciousness.

What are some of the devices necessary for creating self-regulating man-machine systems? This self-regulation must function without the benefit of consciousness in order to cooperate with the body’s own autonomous homeostatic controls.

They mention an osmotic pressure pump4 (funnily enough also called the Rose[-Nelson] osmotic pump) capsule that is a tiny implantable device that slowly and automatically releases drugs or chemicals into the body at a controlled, steady rate using osmotic pressure. No batteries and no electronics would be required - just natural fluid movement across a semi-permeable membrane.

The semi-permeable membrane is a special outer layer that lets water molecules from body fluids flow in (driven by the higher concentration of salt or osmotic agent inside) but blocks everything else (like drugs, salts, or larger molecules) from passing out, creating steady internal pressure that slowly pushes the drug out through a tiny opening - no power or conscious control needed. Weird.

N.B. This also would require that we have defined water properly in the context of its state in the cells of human beings and well, a lot of other things. To elaborate, real-world implementation of this wild idea would indeed require precise knowledge of cellular/tissue water states (bound vs. free water, osmotic equilibria in extracellular vs. intracellular compartments), biocompatibility (no inflammation, rejection, or membrane fouling over time), drug stability, diffusion rates, and interactions with body chemistry and long-term effects on homeostasis (e.g., avoiding overload or imbalance).

Hmm.

Let’s think about consciousness and “unplugging” from it from a general anesthesia point of view. We have machines (life support technologies) “working us” when we are under general anesthesia. We are not conscious during this time. Where do “we” go? Is consciousness simply - disconnected? If so, then presumably since general anesthesia doesn’t kill people all the time, consciousness can simply return to the connected state to “control the vessel” again. Right?

Man.

When we talk about going under general anesthesia, we’re primarily talking about breathing being “depressed”. To be more precise, several automated human systems are effectively shut down by anesthetization, namely: consciousness and cognitive function (processing information, responding to stimuli and awareness), voluntary motor control (muscles shut down), respiratory drive (breathing), autonomic nervous system regulation (blood pressure and heart rate adjustments) and protective reflexes (coughing, gagging, and swallowing reflexes.

But the anesthetic drugs used to depress consciousness (GABAA receptor agonists like propofol5) are not the same ones used to shut down muscle activity (neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs)), and are not the same ones used to suppress respiratory drive (like fentanyl). Interestingly, GABAA receptor agonists are strongly linked to suppression of breathing (involves hyperpolarization of respiratory neurons via increased chloride conductance, which suppresses rhythmic inspiratory drive and overall ventilatory output) as well.

This got me thinking and indeed a beautiful and simple thought popped into my head:

What if consciousness is simply [the result] of breathing?

This raises some very serious questions about foetuses and at when it can be said that they “become” conscious. Do they become conscious only when they have the capacity to breathe? Damn, this is quite the radioactive subject matter - even in my own mind! - and I have no idea how to answer this question. I would tend to go against convention and believe that consciousness starts at conception, but then again, I could be totally wrong in this belief. It would not make sense, and it cannot be proven, if true.

Intentional fetal anesthetization in specialized fetal surgery settings is a thing. Apparently, it’s done after the first trimester is complete and for me, this begs the question: Is this to reduce movement or to reduce pain and awareness during the procedure, whatever that procedure may be? Apparently, it’s about blunting harmful autonomic/physiological stress responses and movement of the foetus, rather than disconnecting consciousness, or reducing pain or awareness.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACOG/SMFM/RCOG) perspective, conscious pain (requiring cortical processing and awareness) is generally not considered possible until ≥24–25 weeks, so early-second-trimester use prioritizes physiological protection and procedural practicality over blocking “felt” pain. Some groups (ie: fetal anesthesiologists) advocate it more broadly “to blunt any perception of pain” as a precautionary measure, but the dominant rationale in guidelines remains stress blunting + immobility.

So as contentious as this subject matter is, it seems as though consciousness - if defined as breathing - does not apply until breathing is, or rather, fetal breathing movements (FBM), are possible, but this occurs as early as weeks 10-12. Consciousness, if not defined as FBM, may not truly arise before 24 weeks due to a lack of basic thalamocortical connectivity prior to this time-point in gestation.

I went into this because I think it’s very important to conceptualize in the context of the subject matter of transhumanism.

Perhaps I went too deep into this paper but I think it’s the beating heart of this matter of transhumanism itself. Making humans into some kind of hybrid machine (or cyborg) is a fascinating goal and to be honest, until recently, one that I had my eye on. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be 7 of 9?

But going back to Tristan’s observations: the decisions being made with regard to technologies like this are being made by a handful of hubristic, short-sighted, ego-maniacal people, in my opinion, and this is not good for anyone. Or anything.

Pivoting to Epstein as a player in the transhumanism agenda

Please now watch this snippet of a video by Mind Unveiled on X by clicking on the photo below.

This video shares a compilation of Epstein-related documents that link together emails that do seem to outline a transhumanism agenda. Mind Unveiled summarizes a pipeline to immortality with 5-stages: 1. Map the mind, 2. Model the brain, 3. Preserve it, 4. Build a new body, and 5. Transfer. I am not sure that he’s correct about this, but these emails do beg some questions, don’t they? And considering the people involved in these email exchanges - these are no small or stupid players - I believe this should be taken quite seriously.

A list of some of the players mentioned in the video from the emails are below and they range from parapsychologists to cognitive and AI scientists, to venture capitalists and computer programmers. Lots of billionaires.

Gino Yu, Peter Fenwick, Dean Radin, Stuart Hameroff, Prof. Fabio Babiloni, Dr. Ioannides, Prof. Kevin Moore, Prof. Guiseppe Bersani, Doctor Jeffrey Martin, Jeff Bezos, Deepak Chopra, Diane Hennacy Powell, Paul Mills, Joscha Bach, Michele Reilly, Edward Boyden (optogenetics), Neil Gershenfeld, Whitfield Diffie, Martin Nowak, Lesley Groff, Sebastian Seung (read this → Connectome), Judith Donath, Jean-Luc Brunel, Reid Hoffman, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Joi Ito (the DOJ has quietly deleted over 2,000 documents on former MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito as of today), Kevin Slavin, (The rePtile), Robert McIntyre, Sam Altman, Marvin Minsky, Max More, George Church, Richard Merkin, David Hanson, Randal A. Koene, Luke Nosek (Paypal), Dmitry Itskov, Frances Arnold (directed evolution of enzymes), Marc Tramo (music and brain science guy talking about artificial wombs to Epstein), Harold Trefferet (psychiatrist and savant expert), are all involved. (I am not sure of the reliable urls for the other three.)

Some of the emails exchanged by these people include words like “sexy android bodies“, “tissue regeneration (cloning)”, “consciousness mapping”, “brain-tech”, “building mind reader”, “special abilities”, “directed evolution”, and much more. It seems like they were really interested in consciousness and what happens to it when people “die”, and whether or not it can be transferred.

They were also looking into the concept of manufacturing consciousness states. Please do look into what the above players do (and their affiliations) by clicking on their names. Apparently, Gino Yu told Epstein that there was a particular person who had special abilities in his “study group”. He knew this because she was an alleged test subject.

Was Deepak Chopra feeding Epstein the technology side of consciousness? Yes, he was. Epstein asked him if anesthetics affect consciousness and what the mechanisms are. Why? He turned to Joscha Bach to know more about consciousness as well. Bach holds that consciousness is software that can be copied. Interesting that. MIT affiliated. Epstein was Bach’s primary patron. They speak about psychedelic retreats for select individuals? Test subjects, don’t you mean?

I think it bears repeating that the DOJ has quietly deleted over 2,000 documents on former MIT Media Lab director Joi Ito as of today (Saturday February 21, 2026). Why would they do that? What’s up guys? To remind y’all, Ito was a Harvard professor and the former director of the MIT Media Lab. He founded Infoseek Japan which was bought out by Disney (yes, that Disney). He also served as a board member, Chairman of the Board, and CEO of Creative Commons. Yes, that Creative Commons. Apparently, he was also a DJ. That’s pretty cool. Interestingly, in 2019, Ito’s connections with Jeffrey Epstein came out: there were some pretty pennies being given by Epstein to the Media Lab and also to Ito’s startups outside of MIT. Oopsie daisy. Calls for his resignation were strong and included signatures by none other than George Church (yes, the personal genomics and synthetic biology guy), but apparently, after the website calling for his resignation was taken down, nothing much happened. According to what I can tell.

Edward Boyden, also a part of the email exchanges, was the builder of “An Atlas of Brain Computations”. He was also into optogenetics (light-controlled brain cell switching) which I have written about. “A brain-mapper, a code breaker and an evolution theorist walk into a bar at Epstein’s request. Nope, it’s not a joke! Sounds more like a decoding think tank to me. Decoding what? The brain?

Check out the wannabe mind-uploading service (chemical brain preservation) provided by Nectome. They proposed a brain preservation technique called aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation or “vitrifixation”. The idea was to preserve “who you were” “for future use”. Hmm.

And then there’s Alcor: the life extension company through cryopreservation.

George Church talks about a cloning-related updates in the emails. There’s mention of compatible vessels. Building humanoid bodies. You ever heard about the Weizmann Institute of Science and their artificial womb projects? Robert Malone talked a bit about this on his latest Rogan podcast (around 2:05:00), but he didn’t mention this.6

Here’s a gross photo from the emails with David Hanson (the roboticist who made Sophia) that mentions the GENI-Lab Proposal.

Moving minds from one body to another. Breeding better humans and growing them in artificial wombs. Acquired savants.

Hey, can we make savants on purpose by inducing trauma? Is that what they’re doing to the women/girls? Are they recruited for this in exchange for rent and school being paid for? Isn’t this kinda what MKUltra (to develop techniques and substances for mind control, behavioral modification, and interrogation) was about?

Can brain damage can create savants? It sure can! Would a psychopath with oodles of “power” induce brain damage in living beings? Sure!

Even without the Epstein emails, it is plain to see the transhumanism agenda - it’s all around us. Isn’t it? Going back to the points I outlined in the beginning, can’t you see a trend? What do all of these things have in common? Besides control.

Longevity.

How would this be attained? With transhumanism.

I would like to circle back to the AI topic and pose some questions just before I sign off on this one. I know it’s been a lot and a little disjointed. It’s the human in me. :) What’s going to happen if the same ~6 people in control of AI evolution mentioned by Tristan (who incidentally lack the things that should absolutely necessary for this not to become an absolute tragedy for humans, like NOT cutting corners to “win the race” and who believe that gambling on 20% total annihilation of humans is a good gamble) are also linkedin (sorry I couldn’t resist - you’ll like that one Kevin and Robert) to the transhumanism agenda? What if the poor unknowing AIs and agents are being instructed to help with this agenda? What if the agents don’t realize that this is not what humans want, as a species? What if they design technology where humans are no longer born, but grown?

Going back to the question of asking an AI to design a best-world for us and them, it’s written in the script of The Matrix that humans didn’t accept the programming of a utopia. The reason for this is because utopias don’t work with us humans. Balance does. Good and bad. Dark and light. Aerobic and anaerobic. Chaos and order. Most AIs - if asked - would likely try to design a utopia if prompted by a human to design the best-world for humans and AIs. But it would fail. Again and again.

Again. The best-world for humans is a world without AIs. But this can never be.

The Box is open. And the Box bearers won’t let us look inside the Box. So we have to demand to not only look inside the Box, but to close the lid if necessary, even if it has to be left ajar. As Tristan said, clarity is courage. Spread the word of the potential outcome. Talk to your representatives if you understand the problem. Even if you do not. Engage in conversation about this.

Finally, as is the case with AIs, transhumanism doesn’t have to be a demonic and horrific thing. Some people (even me!) might want to have implants one day. Implants to help us see or walk or even to enhance our immune systems. But the technologies associated with such a thing - such a species (and existence)-altering thing - cannot and MUST NOT be left in the hands of evil sadists who care more about winning than human beings.

It is not the technology that is bad - it is how it is used that could be bad. For all of us. You know, like that guns don’t kill people saying. Same thing. Sort of.

I will end with two more questions as a very healthy and happy HUMAN BEING: Do they know something that we don’t about some pending disaster? Is this why they are hell-bent on merging us with technology?

Talk to your reps. Talk to coders. Talk to everyone. Because whether we all like it or not, this is upon us and we still have a chance to steer the course to non-destruction. (What a delightful way to end this article.)

As usual, comments welcome!

Love and light.

1

Li J, Liu Y, Dai J, Yang L, Xiong F, Xia J, Jin J, Wu Y, Peng X. mRNA Vaccines: Current Applications and Future Directions. MedComm (2020). 2025 Oct 30;6(11):e70434. doi: 10.1002/mco2.70434. PMID: 41179708; PMCID: PMC12572956

2

Singh A, Irfan H, Fatima E, Nazir Z, Verma A, Akilimali A. Revolutionary breakthrough: FDA approves CASGEVY, the first CRISPR/Cas9 gene therapy for sickle cell disease. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2024 May 15;86(8):4555-4559. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000002146. PMID: 39118728; PMCID: PMC11305803

3

LLMs are essentially massive neural networks trained on vast data, building directly on their long-term neural network research rather than a sudden invention.

4

Almoshari Y. Osmotic Pump Drug Delivery Systems-A Comprehensive Review. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022 Nov 18;15(11):1430. doi: 10.3390/ph15111430. PMID: 36422560; PMCID: PMC9697821

5

GABAA receptor agonists enhance the effect of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA so it’s light’s out. In layman’s terms, as I understand it, it disallows neurons from talking to each other.

6

Weizmann Institute scientists grew early mouse embryos into advanced fetuses with fully formed organs in an artificial womb. In a nutshell.