All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Oct. 28, 2022 - The Charlie Kirk Show
33:10
The Permanent Emergency with Dr. Aaron Kheriaty
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Incredible Guest Introduction 00:02:06
Hey everybody, an entire hour with one of the smartest people I've had on the show in a while, Dr. Caridy, to talk about historicism, scientism, science, the mRNA vaccine, transhumanism, as more.
This is an episode worth listening to.
Trust me.
Text this to your friends.
It is eye-opening.
It's illuminating.
It makes sense.
If you want to come to AmericaFest, go to amfest.com.
That is amf.com, December 17, 18, 19, and 20 in Phoenix, Arizona.
It's going to be amazing.
A-M-F-E-S-T.com.
As always, you can email me your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com, and subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast.
Get involved with Turning PointUSA Today at tpusa.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.
Turning point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by the Loan Experts I Trust, Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage at andrewandTodd.com.
It's a very important topic we're about to talk about.
Our world has changed so dramatically over the last two and a half years.
It didn't have to be this way.
And people were so trusting our institutions.
It's just so unbelievable.
There's a new book out that we're going to talk about with a great author and great commentator, The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State by Dr. Aaron.
And Dr. Aaron, you're going to have to pronounce your last name because I don't want to butcher it.
So tell me, how do I pronounce your last name?
It's Kariati.
Kariati, got it.
All right.
Well, so Dr. Kariati, thank you for joining us.
Tell us about your new book.
The Biomedical Security State 00:03:42
So the new abnormal is about what was rolled out, the infrastructure that was rolled out during COVID.
But instead of just being a retrospect, what happened during the pandemic and what may have gone wrong in our public policy, it's really about the future.
It's about where what I call the biomedical security state is going in the future.
And what I mean by that term is the new development where we have a militarized public health that is conjoined to mechanisms of digital surveillance and control and the police powers of the state.
So one way to sort of crystallize that is to think about vaccine passports.
So the idea back in 2018, 2019 of having to show a QR code to get on a plane, get on a train, go to a restaurant, or return to your country of origin, a QR code demonstrating that you had done what you were told to do by very often unelected public health bureaucrats or people in some private HR department.
And that could include things like injecting yourself with a novel vaccine that was approved only for emergency use.
That would have seemed crazy prior to the pandemic.
But in the context of the pandemic, where there was this declared state of emergency where people were locked down for many months and told this is the only way back to a semblance of a normal life, you have to do this.
People were willing to go along with all kinds of novel mechanisms of surveillance, control, invasive and intrusive interventions, even on their own bodies, that got us used to many things that would have seemed crazy three years ago.
And for many of us, thank goodness, COVID is mostly in the rearview mirror.
But what this book is about is showing where these developments actually came from and how they're going to be deployed in the future.
We've kind of developed a new model of governance, Charlie, that requires that we jump from one emergency to the next, each time with executives like the president of the United States or governors of various states, invoking the need for emergency powers.
So many folks don't know, for example, that at the federal level, we're still operating under a state of emergency that's been renewed every 90 days to almost no media attention by the president and the secretary of HHS, Javier Becerra, a man with no public health experience who's a lawyer from California.
Well, under that federal state of emergency, the president gains an additional 128 extra constitutional powers to deal with the emergency.
So even though Joe Biden announced on 60 Minutes last month that the pandemic is over, we're still operating under a state of emergency at the federal level.
My home state of California is still operating under a state of emergency that gives Governor Newsom additional powers that he wouldn't otherwise have.
And you could see efforts already to try to reframe other issues, not just monkeypox and viruses, but issues like climate change are being reframed as public health issues.
And many people are describing climate change now as a public health crisis.
Serious proposals have been put forth by academics and politicians to use things like rolling lockdowns to deal with climate change.
So these things are not going away.
The Transhumanist Dream 00:04:37
And the new abnormal, my book, is an attempt to help people understand where did these things come from and how are they going to be deployed in the future in ways that will further compromise our freedoms.
Yeah.
So the name of the book is The New Abnormal, The Rise of the Biosecurity State.
And it's very well endorsed by some terrific people.
And so, you know, as we kind of look to see what's happening in the future, one of the topics I want to talk to you about is the transhumanist dream.
What is transhumanism and how does that connect with biomedical fascism?
Right.
So transhumanism is an idea, or it's probably better to say an ideology, maybe even a religious type ideology that's very influential among many of our elites, including powerful people in Silicon Valley, powerful people among the kind of global elites that gather at the World Economic Forum in Davos every year.
And the basic idea of transhumanism is that we should use science and technology not only to treat disease and to help people who are impaired by disease or disability to recover or to regain functionality, to return people to a normal level of human functioning.
But transhumanism says, no, we have to use science and technology, including especially biomedical technology, gene editing, and things like that, to go beyond human limits and to make people to enhance people, to make them bigger, faster, stronger, better than well.
And the ultimate transhumanist dream, which is really a kind of religious aspiration, is maybe we can use science and technology to make people potentially live forever.
To expand.
To be immortal, basically, right?
To basically be immortal.
It's this kind of religious eschatological dream that, You know, through science and technology, we'll be able to, for example, upload our brains onto some digital cloud and somehow live on the ether of the digital cloud indefinitely without our bodies.
So, there's this idea that we need to transcend our materiality, we need to transcend the limits of the human body.
And this relates to the other trends that I describe in the book because it requires that people accept intrusions and invasions on their privacy and into their body that they would otherwise be reluctant to do.
One of the other transhumanist dreams is the ability to control large populations through technological means.
So, I spent a lot of time in the book talking about what I think are the next steps in this, which are things like digital IDs tied to biometric data, not just iris scans and facial scans and fingerprints, but eventually moment-to-moment data that comes from implantable devices on your heart rate, your blood pressure, other signs of emotional reactions.
Central bank digital currencies that are tied into these biometric IDs will allow sort of not only moment-to-moment monitoring of where I am and what I'm doing and probably what I'm feeling, but also moment-to-moment monitoring of all my financial transactions.
And that allows an unprecedented level of sort of not just surveillance, but also nudges and eventually something more than nudges to control people's behavior.
So, behavioral control is a central part of the agenda that I try to describe and unpack in the book.
And basically, what we saw during COVID was a huge leap forward in terms of the kind of behavioral and biomedical controls that people were willing to accept under this state of emergency and out of fear of the virus and the pandemic.
And so, I worry that people have gotten used to things that now that we're coming out of the pandemic, we have to sort of step back and say, wait a minute, were these, first of all, were these things necessary to manage the pandemic?
Vaccines as Failed Experiments 00:06:28
Did they actually save lives?
Did things like lockdowns and vaccine mandates and vaccine passports actually accomplish the public health purposes for which they were instituted?
And my argument in the book is that no, they didn't, which suggests that they must have been instituted and maintained for other reasons.
And I think those reasons include, to a large extent, the desire of many state actors and many powerful private actors, including corporate interests, to have unprecedented access to not only behavioral data, but also behavioral controls.
Charlie Kirk here, look, I've told you about producer Andrew and how Relief Factor has really improved his life and relieved the pain in his knees and back.
Now, let me tell you about Yvonne in California.
She says this: Both my husband and I are in our 70s and so grateful to have found Relief Factor.
We've tried so many other solutions, but none of them have given us the freedom from aches and pains like Relief Factor.
I hear Yvonne, Relief Factor works for me too.
Relief Factor is a 100% drug-free solution developed by doctors based on scientific research to help your body attack the underlying inflammation causing you pain.
Three weeks from now, you could be doing the things you enjoy doing.
Your first step to becoming pain-free could be just to order the three-week quick start for only $19.95.
After trying Relief Factor, over half a million people have gone on to order more.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 8004 Relief to find out more about this offer.
That's relieffactor.com or call 8004 Relief.
Live your best life and feel the difference with Relief Factor.
So, Doctor, we're talking about mRNA gene-altering vaccines.
Is there some connection, or is it a bridge too far to say that gene-altering vaccines might be laying the groundwork for transhumanism?
Is all this stuff kind of together philosophically?
Walk us through it.
So, I don't think it's a bridge too far because we can ask the question, why was mRNA chosen as the preferred platform for the new vaccines?
One reason is it could be scaled up very quickly, but another reason is that there's strong interest in gene therapies and certainly legitimate uses for gene therapies in terms of treating illness and disease, but also a strong interest in gene therapies for so-called human enhancement, which if taken to the extreme will lead in the direction of transhumanism, which we talked about a moment ago.
There was a strong attempt to reassure people that the mRNA vaccines would not alter our DNA, our genome.
And I think that attempt to make the claim that that wouldn't happen was premature.
Does the mRNA vaccine alter our genome?
The accurate answer to that question is we don't know yet.
The reason I say that is there was an in vivo study of cells in a laboratory that came out a few months ago showing that the mRNA basically was transcribed and created fragments of genetic material that were then reinserted into the genome of human liver cells in a laboratory.
So, the next experiment that needs to be done is to see if that happens in vivo in an actual human body.
So, do we know that that's happening in the human body?
No, we don't, but we have some preliminary evidence that suggests it may be happening because we saw it happen in a laboratory.
I'm not suggesting that was the intended consequence of these genetic vaccines.
I don't think it was the intended consequence, but it's certainly a sign that this technology is very powerful.
There's a lot about it that we don't understand, and there's a lot of work that still needs to be done to make sure that any therapeutics derived from technologies that have either utilized their genetic machinery, like the mRNA vaccines, or have the potential to alter our genes, that that be very, very carefully studied.
And that we have a robust public conversation about how and when these things should be deployed, especially deployed on a mass scale for entire populations.
And what really happened in 2021 with a mass vaccination campaign is that we ran the largest human trial, the largest experiment on human beings ever done in the history of the world.
And as more and more data comes out about the fact that efficacy of these vaccines was only very short-term, hence the need for frequent boosters.
And now, as more and more information is coming out about potential safety problems and adverse effects of these vaccines, I think it's not too much to say that this is an experiment that by and large failed.
This is an experiment that we certainly should learn some lessons from so that we don't rush novel products to market again under the guise of an emergency or during a state in which people are panicked and afraid and in a rush to fix the problem, that we still need to maintain our bearings and our wits.
We still need to conduct very rigorous studies before we deploy something like a novel gene therapy on such a mass scale.
But this has normalized the idea of injecting mRNA-based products.
And this is another issue that I discuss in the book because this technology is powerful not only for potentially healing diseases, but for potential applications of so-called human enhancement.
And that can take us down some really ethically problematic places if we're not careful.
The end of the year is right around the corner, and it's time for you to consider a change in your investment plan.
Scientism and Ideological Control 00:14:54
This is Charlie Kirk, and I strongly recommend you go right now and see my friends at PAX to review your investments.
They are the one firm I know that focuses on biblical, responsible investing and does not force you to invest in companies that literally attack Christian values.
If we want religious liberty in our country, we have to stop investing in companies that are trying to suppress our freedoms.
I love PAX Financial.
They manage some of my money.
I trust them.
And that's why before the end of the year, you need to text the word Charlie to the number 74868.
That's Charlie to 74868.
And someone with PAX Financial Group will connect you right away.
So take out your phone, text the word Charlie to 74868.
I trust them with my money, and I think you should trust them with your money.
That is the word Charlie to 74868.
They're a great operation.
Check them out today.
I want to get into another one of the questions here where you talk about follow the scientism.
So, Doctor, science used to be about the discovery of the natural world and to use any breakthroughs to be able to help human beings flourish.
Now it seems as if post-1920s, especially post-Darwin and eugenics philosophy really set in, it's about using science to dominate nature, whether it be via abortions, interventions, changing children from a young age.
Can you talk about that?
Yeah.
So you're absolutely right.
Science is a method or a process.
It's a way of investigating the world that requires that you remain open to new information, that you question every hypothesis.
If you put a group of real scientists together in a room, Charlie, what they're going to do is they're going to debate, they're going to argue, they're going to discuss, you know, what's the meaning of this study?
What about the methods of that study?
What does the research as a whole on this particular topic show?
What is the upshot?
Science is totally incompatible with censorship, with the shutting down of debate or the sidelining of contrary ideas or contrary hypotheses.
But what we saw advancing during the pandemic, and you were absolutely right when you mentioned that this ideology goes back to 19th century German philosophy.
So it's been with us for a while, but we saw it really rear its ugly head during the pandemic that scientism, which we have to distinguish from science as a method for investigating the natural world.
Scientism is an ideology that says a couple of things.
One, science is the only valid form of knowledge.
So it claims a monopoly on all knowledge, not just on scientific findings.
And so ideas that come from ethics, from philosophy, from religion, from other areas of human experience are excluded from rational conversation or from public discussion.
And this is why scientism is intrinsically totalitarian.
Because what do all totalitarian societies do?
The totalitarian ideology, whether it's Marxism or Nazism or scientism for that matter, claims a monopoly on knowledge.
It claims a monopoly on what counts as rational.
That's so true.
Right.
So, so the Marxist ideologue doesn't actually have a conversation with people who disagree with him.
He says, well, you don't understand the dialectical movement of history.
You don't read Hegel.
Yeah, you probably.
Yeah, you haven't read Hegel.
You're just, you know, this is bourgeois consciousness or for the Nazis.
This is Jew consciousness.
So we're going to exclude you from the realm of rational conversation and just steamroll you rather than actually having an open dialogue conversation debate of our ideas on their own merits.
Well, this is exactly what scientism does as well.
And once you've set things up that way, then it's scientism is a tool for the exercise of power, right?
Because if I'm a governor or another elected official who's telling my constituents we have to follow the experts or follow the science, right?
I can pick which experts I tap and which ones are supposedly representing science and thereby have a monopoly on knowledge and then work to censor or to sideline or to steamroll any dissident scientists or even just dissident citizens who say,
well, look, what Dr. Fauci said on TV last month completely contradicts what he said on TV this month.
And so I may not be a scientist, but I can spot a logical contradiction, right?
I can see when a particular conclusion doesn't follow from the premises that you've laid out.
I'm in possession of rationality and common sense.
But no, that's excluded because you lack the expertise or you're not part of the in-crowd that's establishing what's true and what's not true.
So this is a very bad setup because all knowledge and all truth and all science becomes instrumentalized, right?
It's used as a tool of power rather than as a method for adjudicating and finding the truth.
In fact, the whole idea of truth really doesn't have a place when you're talking about scientism.
Scientism is about power.
Why is that?
It's not about truth.
First of all, the last five minutes are probably some of the most important five minutes we've had in our program around this topic.
So we're going to clip that.
I hope everyone was listening carefully.
I was actually taking notes.
I wasn't ignoring you because you said three things that were really beautifully stated.
Scientism believes science is the only form of knowledge and it dismisses philosophy, ethics, you know, metaphysical, you know, pondering, you know, the idea of wonder or goodness or truth or beauty.
Scientism is necessarily totalitarian and then science becomes a tool of oppressing people.
Three very important points there, well summarized.
But you just said, and it would be, people would think it's the opposite, though.
If we're investigating the natural world, wouldn't that mean we're trying to pursue truth?
Why does truth then have no place?
It doesn't seem to fit.
So again, that's a great question.
Let me unpack that a little bit further.
Again, people confuse science and scientism, right?
So science is, yes, let's investigate the natural world.
And I'm all in favor of that.
I've loved science from my youth.
I'm a physician.
I rely upon science every day in my clinical practice of medicine.
And I spent much of my life studying science to get where I am.
So, science, yes, scientism, no.
Again, scientism claims a monopoly on knowledge.
And it's the totalitarian conception of science, which is not about an open-ended search for truth and following the evidence wherever it leads.
It's about using science or the veneer of science as a tool for ideological control.
And let me explain a little bit more how this works.
If you go back to Marxist ideology, Marxist ideology denied that we all participate in a shared rationality that would allow us to argue and debate and pursue the truth, which is outside of us, which is objective.
Scientism does the same thing by claiming a monopoly on knowledge, by claiming that we have the truth and you're not allowed to question what we say, right?
I, in my person, represent the science, capital T, capital S, right?
I am instrumentalizing knowledge.
What I mean by that is knowledge is not the pursuit of truth.
It's the exercise of power.
So Lenin was being a perfectly consistent Marxist.
He wasn't making some exaggerated sort of quip when somebody asked him the question: what is ethics in terms of this communist revolution?
What is good and what is evil?
And Lenin's response was: good is whatever serves the goals of the revolution, right?
Which is exactly how that ideology works.
All knowledge is useful if it leads to a certain end.
And any knowledge that might dissuade people from pursuing that end is automatically defined as not legitimate, right?
And this is, again, what happened with the scientism, not the science, but scientism that we saw operating during the pandemic.
Let me give you a concrete example.
What happened with public health during the pandemic was not public health officials saying, okay, let's look at a constantly evolving body of research and science and what we're learning about this virus and present information accurately to the public in a nuanced way so that people can make wise decisions for their health.
That's not what they did.
That's what they should have done, but that's not what they did.
What public health officials did instead is they decided in advance, what is the behavior that we want everyone to engage in, whether it's wearing a mask or locking down or staying six feet apart or a needle in every arm.
And then they said, let's present only the information that we think will move people in the direction of that behavior.
And let's sideline, silence, not mention, or even actively censor any information that might undermine that behavioral outcome, right?
So the first way that I said, what we should have done, give accurate information, let people make informed decisions for their own health and the health of their children, that was, that would have been following the science, right?
But following the scientism was, let's decide the behavioral outcome in advance that we want to achieve.
And then let's basically engage in, if you think about what I described, it's exercises in propaganda, right?
That's what propaganda is.
Only present information that will be conducive to this behavioral outcome and sideline any information that might undermine it.
Let's engage in propaganda to get that outcome.
That's the instrumental use of knowledge.
That's the totalitarian conception of science, which is a distortion of the scientific enterprise in order to exercise behavioral control over large populations.
That's really well said.
Doctor, there's so many different topics we could talk about here.
Let's talk about kind of one of the Orwellian ones.
On page 134, you have a whole section on biosecurity Newspeak, which is actually changing the language of how we're able to label things, which obviously words are vessels for truth.
Tell us why that's so important.
So, Newspeak comes from George Orwell's novel 1984.
And those who have read the novel may remember that basically the totalitarian regime described in that famous dystopian work of fiction developed a whole dictionary of the English language that was designed to distort the truth rather than to convey the truth and to confuse thinking, make it almost impossible for people to think clearly through the manipulation of language.
And so, what I do in that section of the book is I go through some of the recent developments during the pandemic and the distortions of language that were deployed, again,
not as words are supposed to be deployed as a vehicle for conveying accurate information or for helping people to understand the truth of what's happening, but instead for making it harder for people to think clearly about things like our pandemic policies or to think clearly about legal issues in terms of what rights were being taken away from Americans during the pandemic because of some of the policies that were advanced.
And so, what I try to do in that section is to help people to be aware of some of the buzzwords that have been recently introduced and the ways in which these cloud our thinking and confuse us.
And also to point out that those effects and those results are not accidental, that none of this was done by accident.
It's not that our journalists or people in control of media messaging or our public health authorities that were conveying messages to the public during the pandemic.
It's not that they were just sort of sloppy with grammar and didn't understand how to communicate clearly.
It was a deliberate effort in many cases to make it harder for people to really understand what was going on.
And this kind of abuse of language, when it starts occurring on a widespread scale in society, is never a good sign.
Because again, if you go back to what we talked about in the last section about some of the underlying totalitarian tendencies, those always begin with efforts to confuse and to misuse and to abuse language in order to achieve a particular purpose.
And I've used this word, Charlie, totalitarian a couple of times.
And some of our listeners might think, well, Dr. Cariati, those concerns are overblown.
I mean, we still live in a democratic republic.
We're relatively free.
Why are you talking about this in terms of totalitarianism?
And what I want to make clear is that by totalitarian, I don't mean that we live in a society with concentration camps or secret police, you know, men in jack boots or even mass surveillance, although that is becoming an issue in our society as well, which I talk about in the book.
But Eric Voglund, the great political theorist who studied 20th century totalitarianism, said the central feature of all totalitarianisms is not concentration camps or secret police or mass surveillance.
The central feature of all totalitarianisms is the inability to ask certain questions.
Keeping Totalitarianism in Check 00:01:22
That's right.
The forbidding of questions, which we saw in spades during the pandemic.
Totalitarianism wants to control.
wants to control people not just externally.
That's what dictators do.
Dictators control you externally through fear, fear of punishment, fear of being jailed if you say the wrong thing.
Totalitarian societies ultimately aim at controlling your thinking.
That's right.
Such that dissident ideas, dissident thoughts, questions about what's going on in the regime no longer occur to you.
And that's an even worse form of slavery because you've internalized the ideology.
As Orwell wrote, he said, the only way to keep a thought from the big brother or the regime is to first keep it from yourself.
That's right.
Exactly.
Exactly.
That's right.
Orwell understood this stuff so well.
He saw it when he went to Spain.
He saw what could happen.
Doctor, we're out of time.
Thank you so much.
Deeply appreciate it.
Awesome.
And check out his book.
It's really great.
The new abnormal, the rise of the biomedical security state.
Thank you, doctor.
Thanks, Charlie.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thank you so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.
Export Selection