The Vaccinated Human Body

In my reconstruction and discussion of Heidegger’s remark – in the course of the interview that he granted the German news magazine, Der Spiegel, in 1966 – that ‘Only a god can save us,’ it was shown that this issued from his conviction, that the ‘essence’ of modern technology (what he calls ‘technicity’) functions as a ‘framework’ within which every question and decision are formulated and made. He calls this ‘essence’ Gestell (‘posure,’ Enframing’), the fundamental organising power of which reduces everything in the world to a ‘standing-reserve,’ which means that its sole purpose is restricted to its usefulness or calculative utility. 

So, for example, even human beings are approached as ‘resources,’ which is made visible in renaming what used to be called ‘Personnel Departments’ in companies (and other organisations) as ‘Human Resources.’ Hence, the essence of technology, or Enframing,’ brings about the stripping of entities of their intrinsic meaning, transforming them into mere resources for use, instead of allowing them to be what they are – and arguably should be – according to their own being. 

Norman Melchert (The Great Conversation. A Historical Introduction to Philosophy, Mayfield Publishing Company, 1991, p. 576) provides an apt characterisation of the world under the dominance of the essence of modern technology where he writes:

In the age of enframing, where everything is understood as standing-reserve, there is no ‘room’ for God. (Or perhaps even God is thought of as ‘standing-reserve’, a kind of public utility that can be used to gain the satisfaction of one’s desires; one often gets this impression from the television evangelists.

The most obvious question that would probably arise for most readers is why Heidegger talks about the essence of technicity or technology, which he names Gestell, instead of simply referring to concrete instances of technology in the guise of technical devices, such as electric drills, saws, and vacuum cleaners, all of which are embodiments of Enframing. The answer has to do with the fact that Heidegger thinks ontologically about technicity, and not ontically.

Ontology being the discipline that addresses questions concerning the distinctive (or essential) being of beings – what makes them into what they are, in contradistinction with other beings or entities – the essence of technicity is what makes technology into what it is distinctively, and technical devices embody this essence paradigmatically. Insofar as an electric drill manifests Enframing as its technological essence, it allows the handyman or -woman, by using it, to draw on the standing reserve of stored electricity in a manner which optimalises its usefulness. 

To think about electric drills in relation to other similar or dissimilar tools comparatively as part of a collection of ‘technologies’ is to focus on them ontically, and no longer ontologically. The following excerpt from Heidegger’s ‘The question concerning technology’ (In The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Trans. William Lovitt, Garland Publishing Inc., New York, 1977, p. 14-15) clarifies what is at stake by contrasting an older way of benefiting technically from wind and water with its modern technological counterpart:

The revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging [Herausfordern], which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy that can be extracted and stored as such. But does this not hold true for the old windmill as well? No. Its sails do indeed turn in the wind; they are left entirely to the wind’s blowing. But the windmill does not unlock energy from the air currents in order to store it.

    In contrast, a tract of land is challenged into the putting out of coal and ore. The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district, the soil as a mineral deposit. The field that the peasant formerly cultivated and set in order [bestellte] appears differently than it did when to set in order still meant to take care of and to maintain. The work of the peasant does not challenge the soil of the field. In the sowing of the grain it places the seed in the keeping of the forces of growth and watches over its increase. But meanwhile even the cultivation of the field has come under the grip of another kind of setting-in-order, which sets upon [stellt] nature. It sets upon it in the sense of challenging it.

Agriculture is now the mechanized food industry. Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium, for example; uranium is set upon to yield atomic energy, which can be released either for destruction or for peaceful use.

In the extract quoted above one finds an insightful summary on Heidegger’s part, of how the essence of modern technology ‘works itself through’ every aspect of the world within which human beings live, focusing particularly on the earth or land (soil) to demonstrate how the earlier relationship people had with these has been upended and transformed by modern technology. His emphasis is on how, in comparison with an earlier, premodern dispensation – when humans worked ‘with’ nature to survive, instead of harnessing or ‘challenging’ it – under the dominance of Gestell, everything is commandeered, forcing it to yield to human demands.

It is striking, from Heidegger’s evocative description, how the integrity of the earth (and air) is shattered in the process: coal, nitrogen, and uranium, for example, are extracted from the lived totality with which it comprises a unity – something that comes into view, in a compelling manner, in Heidegger’s essay, ‘Building, Dwelling, Thinking,’ where he elaborates on what he calls the unified ‘Fourfold’ of Earth, Sky, Mortals, and Divinities, as essential values for a truly human life. 

Not everyone (to put it mildly) likes Heidegger’s ‘essentialist’ approach to technology, however. As the Italian thinker, Agostino Cera (2020, ‘Beyond the Empirical Turn: Elements for an Ontology of Engineering,’ Információs Társadalom XX, no. 4: 74–89) has shown, since Heidegger’s time, philosophers have executed what he terms a significant ‘ontophobic turn,’ with most individuals writing about technology shifting their focus away from (that is, ‘replacing’) what was central for Heidegger, namely the essence of technology as such. Referring to the so-called ‘empirical turn’ in the philosophy of technology (which resonates with the ‘ontophobic turn,’ or ‘fear of ontology’), which amounts to philosophers of technology no longer contemplating ‘technology,’ but ‘technologies’ instead, Cera writes about this ‘replacement’ that (2020: 82):

I agree with the idea that such a replacement means much more than a lexical change, but in my view this semantic surplus corresponds to our increasing inability to acknowledge technology as something in itself/as such. In particular, I consider the main outcome of this replacement/inability to be what I call Mr Wolfe Syndrome. This formula is inspired by Harvey Keitel’s famous character in Quentin Tarantino’s movie Pulp Fiction (1994). This character presents himself as someone who ‘solves problems.’ By using this expression, I am therefore referring to the gradual transformation of the philosophy of technology into a problem-solving activity or, better, to the fact that philosophers of technologies are today becoming (or aspiring to become) ‘guys who solve problems.’ 

For Cera, this amounts to nothing less than ‘an epistemic metamorphosis of the philosophy of technology and, more generally, of philosophy itself’ (p. 82), insofar as it transforms it from an ontological discipline to an ontic or ‘positive’ science. Furthermore, reducing the philosophy of technology to such a positive, problem-solving science, the important distinction between ‘question’ and ‘problem’ is eradicated, he points out. A problem has a solution, while a question evokes several – sometimes many – possible answers, if not more questions.

A philosophical question is therefore by its very nature a fundamental question, or Grundfrage, which is the kind of ontological question I (not being an ontophobe) am posing here regarding what I perceive to be the present manifestation of a novel phase in the development – or ‘appearance’ in a phenomenological sense – of technology (technicity). This brings us back to Heidegger.

Heidegger calls the human attitude, which allows and promotes a ‘letting be’ of things according to their irreducible being, Gelassenheit (also translated as ‘releasement’), which contrasts starkly with the reduction carried out by Gestell, insofar as the latter transforms things into resources for use on demand, or a ‘standing-reserve.’ Sadly, there appears to be precious little of this attitude left in the world today, although one may encounter it on the part of exceptional individuals (such as the Norwegian philosopher, Arne Naess, founder of ‘deep ecology’).

Towards the end of Part 1 it was also suggested that, today, we are witnessing unmistakable signs that technicity has already moved beyond the stage of Gestell, which concerned Heidegger sufficiently to elicit his belief that humanity can only be saved by ‘a god.’ I called the emergent new stage by various names, all of which imply that, instead of ‘framing’ things in the world – animate and inanimate – as Gestell does, it is predicated on pervading or saturating everything (a process that has already been underway for some time).

These are: Pervasive Transhuman Agency, Transhuman Agentic Saturation, Optimal Digital Transformation, or Transformative Digital Protocol. Personally, I believe the first two are the most accurate, the reasons for which will become clear below. However, that the digital revolution we have been living through is central to this new phase of technicity is highlighted in the work of the late Bernard Stiegler. 

What is paradigmatic about this new phase of technicity? As philosophers of science (as well as some well-read individuals) would know, the popularisation of the term ‘paradigm’ (and ‘paradigmatic’) occurred in the wake of Thomas Kuhn’s publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1962), where he employed it to mean, broadly, the fundamental conception of, and beliefs concerning reality and knowledge underpinning a specific scientific or theoretical practice, as exemplified or manifested in a ‘concrete scientific achievement’ (p. 11), such as a boundary-shifting experiment.

In this foundational sense, there was a crucial difference between the paradigm on which Aristotelian-Ptolemaic science (or physics) was based (including the geocentric belief in the earth being stationary), and that which is behind Newtonian macro-mechanics (namely the heliocentric notion of the earth in motion). Moreover, such foundational paradigms are irreconcilable, or incommensurable, which is why Kuhn wrote that the transition from one scientific paradigm to another – that is, the switch of epistemic allegiance from one to the other by scientists – resembles a ‘conversion’ (p. 18-19) of sorts (a term that unmistakably resonates with a comparable religious phenomenon). 

Considering that the term, ‘paradigm’ is derived from the Late Latin paradigma (‘pattern, example,’ itself derived from Greek paradeigma – ‘pattern, model, example, precedent,’), it appears that the ‘concrete scientific achievement,’ for instance a crucial experiment which discloses the fundamental tenets of the theory or science in question, mentioned by Kuhn, functions as an ‘example’ setting the ‘pattern’ for scientific research in specific disciplines.

To ask the question concerning the paradigm in which the new phase of technicity is concretised – compared to Heidegger’s Gestell or Enframing, as model or paradigmatic example of which he adduces the hydroelectric power station on the river Rhine (in ‘The question concerning technology,’ referred to earlier) – is therefore precisely to ask what could legitimately be regarded as such an example or model. Keep in mind that, to be a model in this sense implies that the changed conception of ‘reality’ and knowledge should be demonstrably concretised in it. 

With these requirements in mind, two salient possibilities emerge as candidates for the paradigmatic embodiment of what is arguably a novel, transmogrified phase of technicity: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the vaccinated (human) body. How so? Both satisfy the descriptive criteria named earlier; to wit, Pervasive Transhuman Agency and Transhuman Agentic Saturation, insofar as all these descriptors apply to them, albeit not in the same manner. 

In the case of AI its transhuman character is obvious; it is beyond the human in terms of its inscrutable alterity (as I have argued at length before). It may justifiably be called agentic because it is increasingly apparent that it has agency, or can initiate events even where it is not built into constructions such as robotic skeletons or drones with the explicit purpose of carrying out certain ‘actions,’ whether these are pre-programmed or ‘autonomous.’ (I put ‘actions’ and ‘autonomous’ in scare quotes because these ‘performances’ are not the same as actions performed autonomously by humans, which arguably issue from certain volitional acts; that is, acts of free will.) 

Furthermore, although it may be claimed that AI has not attained saturation (yet), it demonstrably tends towards such saturation or pervasiveness, at least in what Manuel Castells calls the ‘space of flows,’ as shown by the fact that the internet is suffused by videos and texts that are of AI origin – sometimes acknowledged, and sometimes not. In the case of the latter it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern whether something is human- or AI-created.

The point is, however, that one can circumvent such AI-saturation, for example by avoiding the internet (using ‘dumb phones’ instead of smartphones, and by letting students write assignments or essays by hand, without access to the internet, for example), but paradoxically such evasions merely confirm the increasing ubiquity of AI in the current global communicational context. 

What about the ‘vaccinated human body’ – is it at all comparable to AI in terms of saturation or pervasiveness insofar as it is paradigmatic of the current phase of technology (or technicity)? I believe that it is. Obviously, as paradigm, this does not mean, as some people would perhaps think, that such a level of vaccinatedness is completely pervasive in a literal sense, although there is evidence that the target on the part of the agencies driving ‘universal’ vaccination against Covid-19 was indeed the human population in its totality.

As paradigm, however, it represents not only the thing it literally names – the vaccinated human body – but far more than that, insofar as it functions as a kind of metonym, or ‘part for whole,’ where the ‘part’ gathers together in one figure all those diverse phenomena (the ‘whole’) that may be understood as tending towards a condition of technological, communicational, economic, financial, biotechnical, and chemical saturation, metonymically concretised in the ‘vaccinated human body’ (during the time of Covid). 

What makes ‘the vaccinated human body’ such an apposite candidate as paradigm of technology (technicity) in its current phase, namely ‘Pervasive Transhuman Agency?’ Perhaps a more detailed description of such paradigmatic biotechnical saturation, which is seldom (if ever) encountered in mainstream media – given the scrupulous censorship and criminalisation of dissent performed by the agencies promoting the further development of this technological stage – would illuminate its paradigmatic aptness. Referring to the brave whistleblower, bio-technical analyst Karen Kingston, Rhoda Wilson writes: 

Kingston is a biotech analyst with more than 20 years of experience. She has been reviewing research that has been conducted on Covid ‘vaccines’ over more than a decade. ‘I really want the truth to be understood and the evidence to be seen and evaluated,’ she told Adams.  So, during the interview, she discussed some of the patents she has found: in particular, quantum dots ‘because that’s the backbone technology and energy of this AI [artificial intelligence] bioweapon,’ she said. ‘It’s part biology and part technology…that’s always been the intention of Covid-19.’

Kingston’s work exposes the astonishing bio-technology that has gone into manufacturing the supposed coronavirus as well as the mRNA Covid ‘vaccines,’ which are no vaccines, but as she stresses, ‘bioweapons.’ Mike Adams, who conducted a revealing interview with Kingston, argues that what Kingston has brought to the attention of the public is anything but an unproven ‘conspiracy theory.’ On the contrary, all the elements of the ‘vaccines’ that she identified and discussed in the interview (including ‘magnetic hydrogels’ and ‘soft actuators’) are traceable in scientific literature.

More importantly, these have been assembled in the ‘vaccines,’ demonstrably with other than beneficial consequences. These elements are described in the scientific article reviews listed by Adams as having ‘properties of magnetic nanoparticles [which] enable their use as magnetomechanic remote actuators to control the behavior of the cells encapsulated within the hydrogels under the application of external magnetic fields,’ and ‘soft actuators with physical intelligence’ (respectively). 

Therefore, what Kingston has disclosed is that these ‘vaccine’-implanted ‘biosynthetic structures’ have the capacity to ‘transmit and receive digitized information, allowing such structures to “network” with each other, even as they reside inside host human bodies. Combined with external AI capabilities that are accelerated by 5G bandwidth speed and low latency, these networking structures can be weaponized against humanity.’ In the light of these disturbing revelations, Kingston has called for law enforcement to ‘seize all vaccine bioweapons in the USA,’ underscoring the seriousness of a situation caused by the development of nanoscale AI-‘bioweapons.’  

Nevertheless, despite her call, attempts to disseminate such bioweapons have continued, as she pointed out in a 2024 interview, where she commented on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ‘funding the creation of a highly debilitating immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that can be transmitted via an injection, or even via skin-to-skin contact during herpetic skin lesion breakouts.’ More importantly – and this bears directly on my claim regarding the present phase of technicity as ‘Pervasive Transhuman Agency,’ concretised in the paradigm of ‘the vaccinated human body’ – Kingston said that the aim of these NIH grants is to produce such a virus (as that mentioned above) ‘and aerosolise it, and also how can I make it make the entire immune system stand down so [the virus] can actually get into human cells.’

Needless to highlight, this marks another stage in the sustained effort to saturate or pervade spaces occupied by humans with optimally transmissible, aerosolisable biotechnical-chemical materials of highly suspicious and questionable nature.   

From the above it should be abundantly apparent that the ‘vaccines’ permeate the bodies of their unwitting and trusting ‘receivers’ (pun intended). This is not all, however; the pervasiveness is exacerbated by the following. While most people rejected allegations, sometime after the rollout of Covid ‘vaccinations,’ that the ‘vaccinated’ were ‘shedding’ the spike protein that the vax manufactured in their bodies on others, it has since been confirmed that this is indeed the case. Moreover, this process seems to be continuing, judging by environmental scientist and lab science director, Mike Adams’s claim, that the Moderna mRNA ‘flu shot,’ currently being promoted by the FDA, is no exception. He writes:

Calling mRNA shots ‘vaccines’ is a deliberate lie. My research tells me they are gene-based weapon delivery systems wrapped in lipid nanoparticles that trick your cells into accepting alien instructions. ‘Unlike traditional vaccines that deliver killed or weakened viruses, this new generation of shots contains synthetic genetic instructions that command the body’s own cells to become viral protein factories’.

This is straight out of the transhumanist playbook. As Elana Freeland documents in her book [Geoengineered Transhumanism], ‘The Registry of Standard Biological Parts is made up of Lego-like BioBricks, short pieces of synthetic DNA that send and receive signals, initiating the transcription of DNA into synthetic messenger RNA.’ Once inside, the mRNA hijacks your ribosomes, forcing them to churn out non-human spike proteins — toxins your body was never designed to produce.

Just how systematic and thoroughgoing this pervasive technological intervention regarding the human body has been may be gathered from the terrifying list of so-called side effects (which are really intended effects) of the Pfizer mRNA vax, supposedly against Covid-19. I have been able to trace two websites where these (which were supplied in response to a request under the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ in the US) were listed – ‘were,’ because the first one has since been removed, probably by the globalists. 

The second is still there, however, and is not a reassuring, albeit informative read. What it confirms is the fact that these effects are the outcome of the nanoscale components of the vax having the capacity to cause destructive effects, and could possibly even – in the light of Kingston’s disclosure concerning their ‘AI-bioweapon’ status – have ‘agency,’ insofar as these components are said to be able to ‘transmit and receive digitized information’ from an external source.   

Having succeeded in the ‘vaccination’ of billions of people worldwide – albeit fewer than had been aimed for – the process of saturation is continuing through the ‘shedding’ which occurs in the wake of every mRNA ‘vaccination.’ The sooner people realise this, the sooner this scourge can be defeated. Unless they can overcome the ‘cognitive dissonance’ evoked when anyone alerts them to the fact that millions of people have died of the vax, and millions will still die in the coming years, this relentless decimation of the population will continue. Yet, it is allowed to continue because of the reluctance on the part of most people to believe it. The consequences of gullible populations accepting the vax are there for everyone to see. 

To mention only one reliable source of information on the continuing mortality in question, consider the information emerging from insurance companies: 

Executives at the largest insurance companies in the United States say they are ‘alarmed’ at the ‘sudden surge’ in deaths among fully jabbed young people.

According to an Oct. 26 report in InsuranceNewsNet, U.S. insurance executives are worried about the crippling payouts they are being forced to make due to the unprecedented number of young, healthy adults dropping dead following the jab rollout…

Edward Dowd, the former BlackRock fund manager who oversaw $14 billion in assets on Wall Street for the largest asset manager in the world, exposed the excess-death crisis in insurance-industry data in his December 2022 book, “‘Cause Unknown:’ The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022”…

Dowd said he believes the COVID-19 vaccines are causing widespread, otherwise inexplicable, excess deaths. ‘We don’t have proof. It’s our thesis,’ he said. But ‘if you have a brain in your head,’ the data are persuasive, he said. ‘Obviously I think it’s the vaccines.’

I have elaborated somewhat on the correlation between the paradigmatic ‘vaccinated human body’ and observed, if not recorded mortality rates that can be ascribed to the widely administered (albeit not completely pervasive) vax, to emphasise that the current stage of technicity – Pervasive Transhuman Agency – is nothing inconsequential or innocuous. On the contrary; anyone who is sufficiently courageous to face the currently available evidence of the frightening toll that the vax has already exacted in the guise of destroyed human lives would have to confront scientific studies (published in reputable journals) such as the one where the following abstract is encountered:   

The CDC denies that COVID-19 injections from Pfizer, Moderna, or Novavax can cause magnetism, even at the site of the injection. The CDC claims that the three ferromagnetic metals consisting of iron, cobalt, and nickel, and the rare earth chemicals used in magnets cerium, hafnium, lanthanum, gadolinium, and erbium are not in the US approved injectables. However, a 2024 study using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), detected all these and many other undeclared elements in lots of Pfizer, Moderna, and five other brands of COVID-19 injectables. By contrast with the CDC denials, James Giordano, who has become Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), has argued since 2018 that the human brain is the battleground for DARPA’s ‘disruptive technologies’ of warfare using magnetic nanoparticles delivered ‘intranasally, intravenously, or intraorally’ all without surgery to achieve ‘mind-control’ by adjusting the frequencies, power, and directionality of the electromagnetic forces. The science of magnetofection is little known but has been under development for decades. We explain it here and ask, could militarized experimentation with magnetic nanoparticles be involved in causing the documented outcomes of proteinaceous clotting, cardio-vascular conditions, strokes, new autoimmune diseases, unprecedented rapidly developing ‘prion diseases,’ ‘turbo’ cancers, and sudden deaths many of these occurring in otherwise young and healthy recipients of the experimental COVID-19 injectables? The research discussed in this paper implies that an affirmative answer cannot be ruled out. 

Those people who are still in denial about the undeniable would find it extremely difficult to dismiss scientific findings such as the one quoted above, of which there are already a considerable number. (Perhaps it might help if they peruse the list of [side]effects of the Pfizer mRNA jab, referred to earlier.) One should not overlook the fact either, that these findings reinforce the argument in this article, that the new phase of technicity – which is aptly captured in the paradigms of ‘AI’ and particularly of ‘the vaccinated human body’ (which may be construed as subsuming ‘AI’ under its ambit) – is decisively characterised by the optimisation of Pervasive Transhuman Agency at several levels. This is graphically outlined in a disturbing article by Maryam Henein, where she writes:

The wireless future is here. The model ostensibly turns human beings, via nano-implants, into antennas that can transmit information. They’re turning human beings into quasi-machines. Under this transhumanist agenda, the idea is to place nanotech inside our bodies [so that] we can communicate in real-time with the Smart Grid powered by way of  5G…

It’s called the ‘internet of bodies’ (IoB) or the ‘nanotech of things,’ (NToT), and it connects with the Internet of Things (IOT). One way this is accomplished is to embed graphene-made sensors into fabrics. Another is to implant or ingest the nanotech matter into the body, creating an internal technology platform…

While globalists aim to vaccinate the world and watch as our fellow man turns into ‘Magneto Man,’ evidence indicates that Big Harma, aided and abetted by VERY sick Rockefeller hospitals, are injecting us with nanoparticles meant to respond to signals while – oops – changing our very nature and DNA…   

Henein’s article confirms what one learns from Karen Kingston, referred to earlier, and the information one gleans from her work further suggests that, far from being a ‘conspiracy theory,’ it contributes to the noticeably growing phenomenon of ‘conspiracy realism.’ Given the signs that a new, arguably more devastating kind of technology (technicity) than the kind he was familiar with is in the process of asserting itself pervasively today, it seems safe to say that, had Heidegger been alive today, he would undoubtedly have reiterated his portentous remark: ‘Only a god can save us.’