RE nanobots: no doubt you've heard of the book "Prey" by Michael Crichton. No worries if you haven't read it - I've read it enough for both of us. Anyway, Charlie Rose interviewed him about the book in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LB1lDM28Ro
Nothing earthshaking, but glean from it what you will from a disinterested visionary. (Spoiler: the host is a bore, but redeems himself somewhat by asking a halfway useful question or two). Not a must see but whatever.
As you point out, there seems to be a lot of speculation and very little actual information about that very feasible technology. Isn't that a bit curious in itself? Now you have two paradigms about the fact blackout: 1) there are little or no facts and 2) there are facts you aren't allowed to know. Which is more likely?
And finally, this. These things may not exist now in some form (slim chance, imho), but it's highly likely that they will.
Way to go Joe, now you know why woke colleges exist. That is the extent of the professors knowledge, pretend we are smart and we will over charge you for the education you didn't get. And those students profess that mutilating themselves is a cure for their own stupidity. It, they, them are crazy!
Thank you for taking the time and effort to engage with our symposium and for writing a review.
There appears to be little hope of us agreeing about militarized bionanotechnology, despite the decades of relevant documentation discussed in the symposium. I infer that the primary purpose of the review is to close down any suggestion of classified military technology being deployed against the public.
As for the "harebrained theory that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by 'directed free-energy technology'—a.k.a. space lasers," I encourage readers to consult my Defence of Judy Wood: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce, which, among other things, rejects the "space laser" slur and demonstrates why Wood's work remains the most comprehensive, and important, forensic analysis of the destruction of the Twin Towers.
I was pretty sure you were disagreeing with the presenters and their material and suggesting people read other material that does not agree with their symposium. Please clarify what "other material" you are referring too. Thank you.
Even though Broudy did not mention nanobots in the symposium, you frame his contribution in those terms, ignoring his expert reply to the Ulrich critique which you cite (https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/109/331), before accusing him of “flattening the problems of our era to some World Economic Forum-centered conspiracy” – with rhetorical hints of “flat Earth” and “conspiracy theory” (two classic smears).
You use Johnson’s presentation on military transhumanism as a pretext for accusing us of “chas[ing] invisible Easter Bunnies down a rabbit hole to nowhere” and discrediting “real resistance,” while resorting to a cheap propaganda shot: “Don’t ya’ll worry about no mRNAs in them shots. It’s the nanner bots that’ll get’che!!” You even attempt to gaslight Johnson, who has a PhD on the psychological processes involved in manipulating reality-perception, by claiming that the nanobot narrative is all “in your head.”
Meanwhile, you presume to know more than Harvard science historian Peter Galison about the relative volume of classified research. Despite the abundant evidence of military intelligence literature cited in Johnson’s presentation, you naively endorse the health narrative that “two primary objectives of nanotech are to cure disease and reverse aging.” You refer to “military propagandists” who are “justifying their paychecks” despite producing “next to nothing,” apparently blind to the obvious likelihood that massive amounts of DoD funding over at least two decades – which you acknowledge shows “intent” – will produce tangible results.
As for my presentation, which I note is left until last despite coming first in the running order, and is the only presentation for which images are not presented, it remains basically unchallenged, minus an oblique reference to “chemtrail-borne nanos.” Instead, you choose to focus attention on the closing roundtable and my Defence of Judy Wood (https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce), which was praised by Catherine Austin Fitts.
Here, again, you resort to propagandistic idiocies and use of scare quotes intended to make Wood’s research appear ridiculous (indeed “absurd”). For example: “Is the ultimate objective for ‘the people’ to get their hands on this ‘free-energy technology’ so we can, I dunno, inject ourselves with life-extension serum or build space communes on Mars?”
Or again: “If top secret projects really are ‘twenty years ahead of anything we see today,’ there would be an unknown continent where flying cars buzz around AI-controlled cities running on cold fusion generators.” This is utter nonsense when one considers that the whole point of classified military technology is to oppress the population.
You conclude: “I am not arguing that the vaxxbot theories floated by Johnson, Broudy, and Hughes are untrue. I am saying I don’t believe them.” This reminds me of how mainstream newspaper articles hit you with a misleading headline and misleading content for most of an article, only to come clean towards the end so that they cannot be sued. You are not actually claiming that anything we said is false. You are merely proffering subjective opinion, which really doesn’t count for very much, especially when measured against the massive volume of evidence we presented.
Therefore, I stand by my previous comments. The primary purpose of your review is to close down any suggestion of classified military technology being deployed against the public. After flattering to deceive in the open stages, in which you place your friendship with Patrick Wood first, the red thread of your critique, regarding Broudy, Johnson, and myself, is classified military technology and a propagandistic attempt to ridicule it, which is consistent with the Camp 2 platform for which you work.
I hope that is "careful" enough for you. If you delete this comment, I will simply repost this entire exchange on my Substack.
DearJoe I would like to suggest that you mightinteriewme, or participate in the Green Liberty Convention I October. I do not have the technical background but have addressed these issues in a systematic manner, and without falling back on a commitment to "conservative" values or other conditions for being part of the public discourse. Moreover this was part of my campaign in 2020 and 2024.
RE nanobots: no doubt you've heard of the book "Prey" by Michael Crichton. No worries if you haven't read it - I've read it enough for both of us. Anyway, Charlie Rose interviewed him about the book in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LB1lDM28Ro
Nothing earthshaking, but glean from it what you will from a disinterested visionary. (Spoiler: the host is a bore, but redeems himself somewhat by asking a halfway useful question or two). Not a must see but whatever.
As you point out, there seems to be a lot of speculation and very little actual information about that very feasible technology. Isn't that a bit curious in itself? Now you have two paradigms about the fact blackout: 1) there are little or no facts and 2) there are facts you aren't allowed to know. Which is more likely?
And finally, this. These things may not exist now in some form (slim chance, imho), but it's highly likely that they will.
I agree on all points. And I appreciate you reminding me to read "Prey." I really respect Crichton.
Keeping an open mind and an eye peeled.
Be sure to read it before it becomes passe. But you won't get much sleep.
Way to go Joe, now you know why woke colleges exist. That is the extent of the professors knowledge, pretend we are smart and we will over charge you for the education you didn't get. And those students profess that mutilating themselves is a cure for their own stupidity. It, they, them are crazy!
Thank you for taking the time and effort to engage with our symposium and for writing a review.
There appears to be little hope of us agreeing about militarized bionanotechnology, despite the decades of relevant documentation discussed in the symposium. I infer that the primary purpose of the review is to close down any suggestion of classified military technology being deployed against the public.
As for the "harebrained theory that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by 'directed free-energy technology'—a.k.a. space lasers," I encourage readers to consult my Defence of Judy Wood: https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce, which, among other things, rejects the "space laser" slur and demonstrates why Wood's work remains the most comprehensive, and important, forensic analysis of the destruction of the Twin Towers.
"I infer that the primary purpose of the review is to close down any suggestion of classified military technology being deployed against the public."
Yes, that's why I encouraged readers to look at your work carefully.
I infer you are not reading carefully.
Or maybe I am?
I, too, hope that readers look carefully at my Defence of Judy Wood, as well as the rest of my work, and decide for themselves.
If you were reading carefully, you wouldn't suggest I am trying to close down the conversation.
Which leads me to conclude you didn't read me carefully, and to suspect you don't read other material carefully.
Which dissuades me from taking you seriously.
So we're back to where we started before you chimed in.
Good job.
I was pretty sure you were disagreeing with the presenters and their material and suggesting people read other material that does not agree with their symposium. Please clarify what "other material" you are referring too. Thank you.
It is very clear from what I wrote and the multiple links provided to the symposium that I encourage people to look at it for themselves.
The "other material" refers to any info other than my article, which was apparently ignored.
Even though Broudy did not mention nanobots in the symposium, you frame his contribution in those terms, ignoring his expert reply to the Ulrich critique which you cite (https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/109/331), before accusing him of “flattening the problems of our era to some World Economic Forum-centered conspiracy” – with rhetorical hints of “flat Earth” and “conspiracy theory” (two classic smears).
You use Johnson’s presentation on military transhumanism as a pretext for accusing us of “chas[ing] invisible Easter Bunnies down a rabbit hole to nowhere” and discrediting “real resistance,” while resorting to a cheap propaganda shot: “Don’t ya’ll worry about no mRNAs in them shots. It’s the nanner bots that’ll get’che!!” You even attempt to gaslight Johnson, who has a PhD on the psychological processes involved in manipulating reality-perception, by claiming that the nanobot narrative is all “in your head.”
Meanwhile, you presume to know more than Harvard science historian Peter Galison about the relative volume of classified research. Despite the abundant evidence of military intelligence literature cited in Johnson’s presentation, you naively endorse the health narrative that “two primary objectives of nanotech are to cure disease and reverse aging.” You refer to “military propagandists” who are “justifying their paychecks” despite producing “next to nothing,” apparently blind to the obvious likelihood that massive amounts of DoD funding over at least two decades – which you acknowledge shows “intent” – will produce tangible results.
As for my presentation, which I note is left until last despite coming first in the running order, and is the only presentation for which images are not presented, it remains basically unchallenged, minus an oblique reference to “chemtrail-borne nanos.” Instead, you choose to focus attention on the closing roundtable and my Defence of Judy Wood (https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce), which was praised by Catherine Austin Fitts.
Here, again, you resort to propagandistic idiocies and use of scare quotes intended to make Wood’s research appear ridiculous (indeed “absurd”). For example: “Is the ultimate objective for ‘the people’ to get their hands on this ‘free-energy technology’ so we can, I dunno, inject ourselves with life-extension serum or build space communes on Mars?”
Or again: “If top secret projects really are ‘twenty years ahead of anything we see today,’ there would be an unknown continent where flying cars buzz around AI-controlled cities running on cold fusion generators.” This is utter nonsense when one considers that the whole point of classified military technology is to oppress the population.
You conclude: “I am not arguing that the vaxxbot theories floated by Johnson, Broudy, and Hughes are untrue. I am saying I don’t believe them.” This reminds me of how mainstream newspaper articles hit you with a misleading headline and misleading content for most of an article, only to come clean towards the end so that they cannot be sued. You are not actually claiming that anything we said is false. You are merely proffering subjective opinion, which really doesn’t count for very much, especially when measured against the massive volume of evidence we presented.
Therefore, I stand by my previous comments. The primary purpose of your review is to close down any suggestion of classified military technology being deployed against the public. After flattering to deceive in the open stages, in which you place your friendship with Patrick Wood first, the red thread of your critique, regarding Broudy, Johnson, and myself, is classified military technology and a propagandistic attempt to ridicule it, which is consistent with the Camp 2 platform for which you work.
I hope that is "careful" enough for you. If you delete this comment, I will simply repost this entire exchange on my Substack.
I am not going to delete your comment.
You have all the rope in the world here.
No one is trying to silence you.
I would prefer to ignore you, but here we are, together, on the internet.
It is a real pleasure.
"rope" - implying (intellectual) suicide. Hard to see "pleasure" of any kind.
You need to understand that your loquacious, basically pointless response is why I don't take you people seriously.
You are basically crying in public.
I am not shutting your clickbait conversation down. Fuck, I literally sent you more clicks.
So stop whining, dude.
I don't buy your extraordinary claims. It's as simple as that.
"You people"? Where have I heard that before?
"crying," "whining," "clickbait."
Is that really the extent of your argument? Mere propaganda terms? Nothing of intellectual substance?
No one cares whether or not you "buy" my claims. All that matters is the truth.
DearJoe I would like to suggest that you mightinteriewme, or participate in the Green Liberty Convention I October. I do not have the technical background but have addressed these issues in a systematic manner, and without falling back on a commitment to "conservative" values or other conditions for being part of the public discourse. Moreover this was part of my campaign in 2020 and 2024.
As the lyrics suggest.
Machines have no conscious
And repeated into the Outro.
End of Line
NM156
https://youtu.be/ORYeVuKYUrI