by Patrick Wood
November 25, 2022
extracted from 'The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism'






We are actually hacking the software of life.

We think about it as an operating system.

So if you could actually change that,

if you could introduce a line of code,

or change a line of code,

it turns out it has

profound implications for everything.

Tal Zaks,

former Chief Medical Officer, Moderna


When I titled this book 'The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism,' I was not thinking of that pair of famous brothers who are, ironically, closely associated with these intertwined ideologies.


I'm referring, of course, to Aldous Huxley, who dramatically pictured technocracy in his 1932 book Brave New World, and Julian Huxley, who twenty-five years later introduced the word "transhumanism" to the English lexicon.

In his 1957 book New Bottles for New Wine, younger brother Julian wrote:

The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself - now just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in its entirety, as humanity.


We need a name for this new belief.

Perhaps transhumanism will serve: man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature. 1

Another twenty-five years would elapse before transhumanism became a viable movement.


The first modern transhumanists met formally in the early 1980s at the University of California, Los Angeles, and,

"quickly became the centre of transhumanist thinking."

Not surprisingly, transhumanism has since become one of the de facto ideologies of Silicon Valley. 2

Futurist Max More is considered the philosophical father of modern humanism.


In a 1994 essay, More refined the tenets of modern transhumanism in urgent, if not stark, terms:

No more gods, no more faith, no more timid holding back. Let us blast out of our old forms, our ignorance, our weaknesses and our mortality.


The future belongs to posthumanity. 3

In all of their speeches and literature, transhumanists have made it clear that they regard transhumanism as merely an interim state - a state that ultimately leads to posthumanism.


They call transhumanism the process and posthumanism the target. They envision machines, computers, and artificial intelligence eventually merging with man.


They predict that death will be eliminated when man's immortal state is achieved by uploading the content of the human brain into the "cloud."


There, they say, man will be reanimated either into another body or into an avatar or into the nose of a spaceship to travel the universe.

More, who holds a PhD in philosophy, has obviously rubbed shoulders with other academics and with scientists and computer engineers, which has allowed him to gain futuristic insights into newly emerging technologies.


In the aforementioned 1994 essay - yes, it was written nearly two decades ago - he anticipated:

The dawn of the new millennium will see the ability to use engineered viruses to alter the genetic structure of any cell, even adult, differentiated cells.


This will give us pervasive control over our physiology and morphology.


Molecular nanotechnology, an emerging and increasingly funded technology, should eventually give us practically complete control over the structure of matter, allowing us to build anything, perfectly, atom- by-atom.


We will be able to program the construction of physical objects (including our bodies) just as we now do with software.


The abolition of aging and most involuntary death will be one result. We have achieved two of the three alchemists' dreams: we have transmuted the elements and learned to fly.


Immortality is next. 4


Engineered viruses to alter genetic structure?


Complete control over the structure of matter?




Was this an early vision of the blending of Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information science and Cognitive science (NBIC) - the moon-shot rocket that would launch 'Humanity 2.0'...?

When this passage was written, its resemblance to science fiction novels and films caused most observers to laugh at early transhumanists like Max More.

Few are laughing now. In the intervening years, the transhumanist philosophy and the applied science of NBIC have been spreading like wildfire throughout the world's top academic institutions and emerging biotech companies.

Big Pharma has been visibly involved in transhumanism and NBIC since at least 1992, when the UN Convention on Biodiversity met in Rio de Janeiro.


By early 2020, enough progress had been made to spring the transhuman trap on all of humanity.

The trap took the form of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which Big Pharma and the biotech industry used as an opportunity to launch a revolutionary new "vaccine" technology based on messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA.

A little explanation is in order.


We are more familiar with DNA than with RNA, so let's start with DNA. Spelled out, DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, a substance found in all living organisms. It is a double-stranded set of base pairs (adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine), which is arranged in the shape of a twisted helix.


The ordering of base pairs is called a gene, and a collection of genes is called a chromosome. Human DNA consists of 23 pairs of chromosomes.

RNA is shorthand for ribonucleic acid, which is a single strand of DNA that contains the instructions needed to make proteins.


mRNA, or messenger RNA, delivers those blueprints to the ribosome for the construction and arrangement of the amino acid building blocks of each protein.


Once the protein is successfully created, the original mRNA strand simply dissolves. This is a never-ending process in the body. It generates the proteins necessary to sustain life.

This is obviously a very complex subject, and my description is not intended to be complete.

The new mRNA "vaccine" is created synthetically in a laboratory. When injected, this man-made mRNA bypasses your normal genetic processes and spoofs your normal cells into producing a different kind of protein called a "spike protein." Since spike proteins do not belong in your body, the idea is that your body will see them as foreign invaders and will build antibodies to attack, repel, and destroy them.


Theoretically, the antibodies are supposed to stick around until you are struck by a real virus - at which point they provide a defense against infection.

To quell growing public fear that mRNA injections might somehow affect our DNA, the mRNA injection manufacturers, scientists, the CDC, the FDA, and other health authorities all united in a vehement denial that any such thing could ever happen.


However, their denials were proven unfounded when, on February 22, 2022, a study was released by Lund University in Sweden, describing a process of "reverse transcription," whereby foreign mRNA can indeed find its way back into one's DNA.


According to the researchers:

Our study is the first in vitro study on the effect of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 on human liver cell line.


We present evidence on fast entry of BNT162b2 into the cells and subsequent intracellular reverse transcription of BNT162b2 mRNA into DNA. 5

When Transhumanism Met Technocracy

The 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which we mentioned above, was conducted simultaneously with the Agenda 21 Conference, whose full name was the UN Conference on Economic Development (UNCED).


Both were held in Rio de Janeiro, and both were sponsored by,

  • the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)

  • the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

  • the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

"Agenda 21" was shorthand for "the agenda for the 21st century."


Its raison d'être was sustainable development, a resource-based economic system virtually indistinguishable from the historic Technocracy, Inc. movement. 6


Both then and now, the UN has acted as the global agent spreading this contagious ideology around the world.

According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD):

Sustainable development has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is from Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report:

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." 7

The book the IISD mentioned, Our Common Future, was published in 1987 by the United Nations.


It became the blueprint for the Rio conference that the UN sponsored five years later. Its author was Gro Harlem Brundtland. Hence its handle, the Bruntlandt Report.


It was produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development (renamed the Brundtland Commission), which she chaired.

Lest you think Gro Brundtland a forgettable, bit-part player in this real-life drama, consider some of the other notable posts she has held:

  • Norway's Minister of the Environment (1974-1981)

  • first female, youngest, and three-term Prime Minister of Norway (1981, 1986-89, and 1990-96)

  • Director- General of the World Health Organization (1998-2003)

  • UN Special Envoy on Climate Change (2007-2010)

Throughout her career - first as a medical doctor, then as a politician, and finally as a so-called environmentalist, Brundtland has been a member of the Trilateral Commission.


Considering her cachet, it is fitting that the UN has hailed her as the "mother of sustainable development."


Nonetheless, given the fatal flaws in sustainable development, it is no wonder that her ideology has been turning the world upside down ever since it was adopted.

At the Rio conference, a question was proposed: What can be done to save the earth from the excessive development that has caused pollution, [supposed] global warming, rainforest depletion, and other harms [real or imagined], to the environment?

The answer proffered by the Brundtland Report? More development...!


Yes, more development will surely solve the problems that more development has already created.


Huh? How so...?

Apparently by erasing the destructive effects of the earlier development!

Notably, this further development can and must be accomplished only by the earlier developers - that is, by the very same actors whose greed has already wrecked habitats and plundered nations.

Believe it or not, Brundtland convinced the UN membership that this line of reasoning somehow made sense, and it was adopted as,

"the agenda for the 21st century" in 1992...

However, two genuine environmentalists who participated in the Agenda 21 conference, Pratap Chatterjee and Matthias Finger, saw through the smoke and mirrors.


In their book, The Earth Brokers, published two years later, they noted that,

"free trade and its promoters came to be seen as the solution to the global ecological crisis." 8

The Earth Brokers co-authors were explicit:

We argue that UNCED has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet, and its inhabitants.


We see how, as a result of UNCED, the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process. 9

Their prognostication could not have been more spot-on. Today, the rich are raking in new billions, the poor are literally living in tents, if not the gutter, and the entire planet - from its ecosystems to its social systems to its economic systems - is in tatters.

How did we get here? asked Chatterjee and Finger.


They concluded:

Neither Brundtland, nor the secretariat, nor the governments drafted plans to examine the pitfalls of free trade and industrial development.


Instead, they wrote up a convention on how to 'develop' the use of biodiversity through patents and biotechnology. 10

Despite what UNCED purported to be, its true mission was to capture and capitalize on biodiversity for the sole sake of the biotechnology industry.


This fact was largely overlooked between 1992 and the Great Panic - misnamed pandemic - of 2020.


In the past two years, though, it has become impossible to ignore the fact that the global takeover has been, from the Rio conference on, orchestrated by elements of that very same biotechnology industry.



What Biodiversity Really Means

Transhumanism has been hiding in the shadows, coming to light in fits and starts, in both preaching and practice, ever since Julian Huxley first penned the word in his 1957 collection of essays.


As with anything new and especially anything occult, transhumanism is not easy to spot until we learn what to look for. At least that's how it was for me when I first heard of transhumanism several years ago.


After that, I began to see the transhumanist hand everywhere, starting with Brundtland's 1987 report, Our Common Future:

The diversity of species is necessary for the normal functioning of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole.


The genetic material in wild species contributes billions of dollars yearly to the world economy in the form of improved crop species, new drugs and medicines, and raw materials for industry. 11

The specific development of biodiversity can be found in her Chapter 6, Species and Ecosystems: Resources for Development, where she writes:

Species and their genetic materials promise to play an expanding role in development, and a powerful economic rationale is emerging to bolster the ethical, aesthetic, and scientific case for preserving them.


The genetic variability and germplasm material of species make contributions to agriculture, medicine, and industry worth many billions of dollars per year. [...]


If nations can ensure the survival of species, the world can look forward to new and improved foods, new drugs and medicines, and new raw materials for industry. 12

Further on, Brundtland opines:

Vast stocks of biological diversity are in danger of disappearing just as science is learning how to exploit genetic variability through the advances of genetic engineering. [...]


It would be grim irony indeed if just as new genetic engineering techniques begin to let us peer into life's diversity and use genes more efficiently to better human conditions, we looked and found this treasure sadly depleted. 13

Sure enough, The Earth Brokers authors found that Brundtland's written statements perfectly align with what they observed during the UNCED and Biodiversity Convention summit.


In their eyewitness testimony, they noted:

The convention implicitly equates the diversity of life - animals and plants - to the diversity of genetic codes, for which read genetic resources.


By doing so, diversity becomes something that modern science can manipulate. Finally, the convention promotes biotechnology as being 'essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.' 14

Leaving no room for doubt as to the UN's goal, they made this mind-blowing statement:

The main stake raised by the Biodiversity Convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity. [...]


[T]he major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries. 15

To further reinforce their bold claim, the authors added,

"[T]hey wrote up a convention on how to 'develop' the use of biodiversity through patents and biotechnology." 16

Note carefully - and I underscore this point with bold and italic and capital letters - that ownership and control over genes was not a side issue or a minor stake of the Biodiversity Convention:

It was the MAIN STAKE...!

Though the UNCED conference was expected to bridge the gaps between the North and South, it was soon apparent that everything was being totally dominated by the developed nations of the North.


As The Earth Brokers explained, all solutions were provided by,

"Western science, Western technology, Western information, Western training, Western money and Western institutions." 17

It Is Consistent Throughout UN Documents

Also in 1992, the same year as the UNCED conference, UNEP and IUCN published a book titled Global Biodiversity Strategy and subtitled Guidelines for Action to Save, Study, and Use Earth's Biotic Wealth Sustainably and Equitably. 18


Its themes, which matched the goals of the UNCED conference, were presented carefully in order to win the Third World's approval, cooperation, and participation.

For example, a royalty stream from all new anticipated revenue generated by the biotech companies was promised to the originating countries.


This point was clarified under the subhead, "Promote recognition of the value of local knowledge and genetic resources and affirm local peoples' rights," where concerns over Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are noted:

Any collection agreements should reflect the concepts of just compensation and accountability, and codes of conduct should apply to genetic resource collectors, anthropologists, or other researchers studying local peoples or local resource management.


In some cases, contracts may be needed to ensure the return of royalties or other benefits to local communities or individuals. 19

Global Biodiversity Strategy offered further reassurance to developing countries with this statement:

"Since biotechnology depends on biodiversity for its raw material, the value of genetic resources will grow with the industry." 20

Would you be shocked that the sustainability and equity promises made in the UNEP/IUCN book haven't been kept?


Just the opposite has happened...


Monsanto, for instance, developed and patented genetically modified crop seed then proceeded to force farmers to pay royalties for the use of the seeds - instead of giving them royalties from the revenues generated.


Headlines like,

"Monsanto Bullies Small Farmers," "Argentine farmers will pay royalties to seed companies," and "How Monsanto wrote and broke laws to enter India" became common.

Indeed, it is now obvious that publications like Global Biodiversity Strategy and UNEP's follow-up series of "Global Biodiversity Assessment" reports, first published in 1995, were written for one cynical purpose only:

to snag the signatures of the 196 or so nations of the world...

These nations didn't realize they were signing on to a fantasy.


The UN and its myriad NGOs have held them hostage to the treaties and agreements they've endorsed, regardless of the harm and pain inflicted by the treaties and agreements on those very same nations.


Game Change: The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

In the same way that Agenda 21 was updated by 2030 Agenda in 2015, the Global Biodiversity Convention is currently being refined by the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.


Working groups have been busy since 2020, creating the various elements that will go into the framework, which was expected to be completed sometime in late 2022.

Because biotechnology and genetic science have progressed so rapidly over the last twenty-five years, a previously used phrase,

"genetic resources," is now deemed unsuitable and it is being replaced with "digital sequence information on genetic resources" (DSR).

According to the National Human Genome Research Institute:

Sequencing DNA means determining the order of the four chemical building blocks - called "bases" - that make up the DNA molecule. The sequence tells scientists the kind of genetic information that is carried in a particular DNA segment.


For example, scientists can use sequence information to determine which stretches of DNA contain genes and which stretches carry regulatory instructions, turning genes on or off.


In addition, and importantly, sequence data can highlight changes in a gene that may cause disease.

In the DNA double helix, the four chemical bases always bond with the same partner to form "base pairs." Adenine (A) always pairs with thymine (T); cytosine (C) always pairs with guanine (G).


This pairing is the basis for the mechanism by which DNA molecules are copied when cells divide, and the pairing also underlies the methods by which most DNA sequencing experiments are done.


The human genome contains about 3 billion base pairs that spell out the instructions for making and maintaining a human being. 21

All life forms on earth have DNA that can be sequenced and fed into a computer for storage, retrieval, and analysis.


The National Human Genome Research Institute also envisions synthetic biology, where DNA would be reengineered in ways that do not occur in nature but that would somehow result in the "improvement" and "well-being" of the environment.

According to the "Report of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post- 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework on its Third Meeting (Part I)," held August 23-September 3, 2021:

[The working group] recognizes,

  • the intrinsic relation between genetic resources and digital sequence information on genetic resources, as well as the scope of bioinformatic tools in the design and creation of new digital sequence information on genetic resources elements that are created artificially


  • that digital sequence information on genetic resources are not genetic resources as defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)


  • that access to and utilization of digital sequence information on genetic resources is useful for research relating to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, food security, health and other important sectors, including commercial applications resulting in commercial products 2

Interestingly, another item in the same report notes that,

"any approach to address digital sequence information on genetic resources should provide for the special status of pathogens of pandemic potential." 23

It could be argued that any changes made by the working group - in words, in definitions, in meanings, in approaches taken - are minor in the scheme of things.


But such an assertion is easily rebutted.


Consider that the phrase "digital sequence information on genetic resources" is used 167 times in all 167 pages of this document.

Clearly, the report reflects a sea change.


Clearly, it constitutes a major doctrine.


Clearly, it affords the biotech industry a superlative opportunity to meddle with all life systems on earth, using the transparent excuse of making them more "sustainable."

You may still be wondering:

Why would genetic scientists want digital access to the DNA structure of all living things on earth?

The answer:

Genetic scientists believe that all DNA has the potential to be transplantable between species and subspecies:

A transgenic, or genetically modified, organism is one that has been altered through recombinant DNA technology, which involves either the combining of DNA from different genomes or the insertion of foreign DNA into a genome. 24

This cited paper concludes:

The entire biotechnology industry is based upon the ability to add new genes to cells, plants, and animals.


As scientists discover important new proteins and genes, these technologies will continue to form the foundation of future generations of discoveries and medical advances. 25

Vaccine makers like Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna use proprietary recombinant "recipes" for creating their respective mRNA "vaccines."


They are not about to release the details.




NBIC technology has become the Holy Grail of transhumanism.


The ability to manipulate the basic building blocks of life means that "the future belongs to posthumanity," to reiterate Max More's point.

The problem is that transhumanists did not ask us if this is the future we want.


Had they done so, we would have dismantled their NBIC playground and kicked them back into their metaphysical dream world.

Our feelings echo the sentiments of a reputable scholar, who understands transhumanism well enough to suggest that,

"transhumanists are just about the last group I'd like to see live forever." 26

Sentiments aside, several conclusions can be drawn from this chapter's discussion of transhumanism.

  1. Transhumanists regard DNA as something to be exploited and manipulated. Disregarding individual sovereignty and nature's design, they experiment with ways to use DNA more efficiently than it is used in its original state.

  2. When transhumanists refer to "biodiversity," they really mean "genetic resources."

  3. "Genetic resources," in turn, refers to genetic material that is to be owned, exploited, and controlled through genetic engineering performed by the biotech industry.

  4. UNCED and Agenda 21 were largely smokescreens to obscure the reality of conclusions #1 through #3.

  5. The Third World is being set up to be plundered yet again - this time in the name of sustainable development and biodiversity. The plunderers' prize is genetic engineering and ownership of the resulting genetically engineered products.

  6. Biodiversity is not about preserving species but is, rather, using species as the source of raw materials for the biotech industry, whose mission is to sequence the DNA of all living entities on earth.

  7. After being digitally sequenced, these living things are placed in a globally accessible database, are recognized as a global common asset, and are made available for "licensing" by biotech firms.

Technocracy was crystallized in 1932 but has philosophical roots as far back as the early 1800s.

Transhumanism came to the fore in the early 1980s but has roots dating back to the recorded beginning of mankind:

"You will certainly not die," the serpent said to the woman.


"God knows that when you eat fruit from that tree, you will know things you have never known before.


Like God, you will be able to tell the difference between good and evil."

Genesis 3:4-5 NIRV

Neither of these ideologies had actionable strategies until the advent of advanced technology.


Now both of them are using that technology to transform the earth and the beings who dare to live on it...




  1. Huxley, Julian. New Bottles for New Wine. (London: Chatto & Windus, 1957). Page 17.

  2. Piesing, Mark. "Silicon Valley's 'suicide pill' for mankind." UnHerd. August 20, 2018.

  3. More, Max. "On Becoming Posthuman." Free Inquiry. The Free Library. September 22, 1994. Accessed August 20, 2022.

  4. More.

  5. Aldén, Markus et al. "Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line." Current Issues in Molecular Biology. MDPI. (Lund, Sweden: Lund University, 2022).

  6. Wood, Patrick M. Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. (Coherent Publishing, 2015).

  7. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

  8. Chatterjee, Prabat and Matthias Finger. The Earth Brokers: Power, Politics and World Development (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 1994). Page 40.

  9. Chatterjee and Finger. Page 40.


  10. Chatterjee and Finger. Ibid.

  11. The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED): Chairman Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice-Chairman Mansour Khalid et al. Our Common Future. (Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press, 1987). Page 13.

  12. WCED. Page 147.

  13. WCED. Pages 149-150.

  14. WCED. Page 42.

  15. WCED. Page 43.

  16. WCED. Page 171.

  17. WCED. Page 50.

  18. World Resources Institute (WRI), World Conservation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Global Biodiversity Strategy: Policy-Makers' Guide. (Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute, 1992). Page 1.

  19. WRI, IUCN, UNEP. Page 94.

  20. WRI, IUCN, UNEP. Page 43.

  21. National Human Genome Research Institute. NIH. "DNA Sequencing Fact Sheet."

  22. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Convention on Biological Diversity. "Annex V, Report of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework on its Third Meeting (Part I)." Aug. 23-Sept. 3, 2021. Pages 161-162.

  23. UNEP. Page 162.

  24. Pray, Leslie. "Recombinant DNA technology and transgenic animals." Nature Education 1(1):51. 2008.


  25. Pray.

  26. Fukuyama, Francis. "Transhumanism." Foreign Policy. October 23, 2009.