“We are digitizing the physical and ‘physicalizing’ the digital.”
~ Gabriel René, co-founder of VERSES, co-author of The Spatial Web, and reportedly the first person to have his “digital double” registered on a blockchain
Who needs the World Wide Web, when you can have the 3D version?
Part 7 of the Series, “Of Monkeys, Mice and Men: From Natural Bodies to Digitized Bots”
Spring has officially sprung on our humble homestead. We are actively planting our first round of organic seeds in fertile soil. Our gardens should soon be flowing abundantly with arugula, Parris Island romaine lettuce, French Breakfast radishes, Cherry Belle radishes, Bloomsdale spinach, Cascadia snap peas, Touchstone gold beets, and Early Wonder Tall Top beets. Patience is required as the seeds germinate and their roots take hold in the warming ground.
The techno-lords have also exercised patience over the past century. But no more. Their cravings seem to consume them, as they rush to achieve their end goals. They explain away the appearance of sudden change through two of their favorite concepts — Moore’s Law (computing power doubles roughly every 24 months) and its newer and speedier (albeit obscure) sibling, Koomey’s Law (computing power doubles roughly every 18 months). Additionally, as referenced in Part 1 of my series, they attribute the current expediency to a convenient pandemic scenario, which is referred to by foresight professionals as a black swan or wild card event. They brazenly desire to hijack Nature by utilizing her brilliant blueprint as a backbone, yet overlaying it with their environmentally and biologically embedded mechanical sensors, computerized circuits, and global positioning systems so as to create wind-up toy human automatons. Is this what we want for our children and grandchildren?
Two animal “totems” seem apropos to conceptualize for this essay — the serpent and the spider. Moving forward, it may help to imagine these two creatures within the context of cyber-physical transformation, each capable of inducing fear in people, yet, paradoxically, also exhibiting seductive qualities. I envision a crypto-crazed serpent shedding its blockchain skin, as it slithers its way through global industry and commerce (think container ships in canals; also see here on global container shipping and spatial networks), sector by sector, synergistically colluding with a cyber-savvy spider that is fervently occupied, weaving its strands of technological silk from one node to the next. The humans involved in the emergence of this cyber-biological ecosystem openly present their plans — mixing just enough “cautionary” sentiments, with a heavy dose of positivism, injected with a few sci-fi references for humorous allure. Just a reminder, the plan is for our physical bodies to be nodes in this automated and programmable cyber-physical convergence (referred to by the National Science Foundation and the National Nanotechnology Initiative, in 2017, as Nano-Bio-Info-Cognitive Convergence, or NBIC), littered with stealth “smart contracts” and pervasive “smart environments.” Have you given your consent to this engineered consummation?
Last week, Alison McDowell highlighted — via an online Twitter thread — a particularly potent element to the cybernetic plans of the elites — the Spatial Web. The elites prefer to view all the linking nodes, gears, and circuits from a bird’s-eye view. By surveying the natural landscape in its entirety, their engineers can identify all the nooks and crannies wherein they need to embed sensors and actuators in three-dimensional space for full spectrum dominance. Indeed, their aims reach far beyond the superficial layer of financial profits. In this September 2019 interview (transcript provided), Gabriel René, executive director of VERSES and a pioneer in the evolution of the Spatial Web, explains that whereas the World Wide Web (WWW) is based on Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), linking websites together on a flat computer screen, the Spatial Web is configured such that it “sits on top of that [WWW],” utilizing Hyperspace Transaction Protocol (HSTP) — to link people, spaces, and assets together in three-dimensional physical space.
As stated by the Spatial Web masterminds, the ultimate goal is to seamlessly (and permanently) integrate the physical, digital, and biological domains together into one universal digital infrastructure. They envision this new “living network” as one where the “Web becomes the World.” They seem ardently content with the depiction of this vision as a “mirrorworld,” invoking the pre-eminent conjurer of mirror worlds, Yale University computer engineer (and a leader, yet dissenting voice, in Artificial Intelligence) David Gelernter, author of the 1993 book, Mirror Worlds: Or: The Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox…How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean (see Endnote 1).
I’d like to circle back to the first post I wrote at POM in April 2020. At that time, I did not have much of the techno-babble under my belt, such as “The Internet of Bio-Nano Things” (IoBNT) and “The Spatial Web.” While I was beginning to hear buzz about 6G, I was still entrenched in actively resisting 5G. Little did I know plans for “6G Humanity” (and beyond), were already in the pipeline, with infrastructure being arranged behind the scenes. “Sentient World Simulation” (SWS), discussed in my April 2020 piece, ties directly to the Spatial Web, or Web 3.0. I believe that SWS was seamlessly rolled into Web 3.0. As noted by Gabriel René in his October 2019 Medium article, “An Introduction to the Spatial Web”: “In Web 3.0, we will not only create a ‘Digital Twin’ or soft copy of our world and everything in it, but a Smart Twin of everything, with its own unique ID, interaction rules, and verifiable history capable of being linked and synced to its physical counterpart, spatially.” René continued to describe the impending augmented reality paradigm: “Augmented World Expo’s founder Ori Inbar has suggested the term AR Cloud, a digital point cloud or mesh-like scaffolding of environments that allow us to project holograms into the world in ways that can be persistent and therefore experienced by multiple parties. Magic Leap has put forth the term Magicverse, a more playful version of a global digital twin that inspires visions of the fantastical.” Back in April 2020, when I cited the film, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” I think I was on the right track, as I had an intuitive sense of where these mixed reality obsessors were heading. Little did I know that I may have undersestimated their potential capabilities — I did not go far enough in my premise.
That said, it has been nearly a year, and the learning curve has been steep (speaking for myself). Herein, while I would like to touch on the Spatial Web (AKA Web 3.0), and the role that the Internet of Bio-Nano Things (IoBNT) and global 6G deployment play within that overall structure . . . knowledge of the inner workings of these technologies is above my pay grade, and beyond the scope of this installment. Hence, my focus is on how these three elements relate to purported viruses and pandemics.
Accordingly, how do COVID and the new experimental injection technology platforms — integrated with nanotechnology — inform the endgame of the IoBNT and Web 3.0? To gain context, in Part 2 of my series, I mentioned that GSK (a global healthcare company that manufactures flu vaccines), expects to supply more than 50 million doses of its influenza vaccines to the US market in 2020-21, and will distribute more than 1 billion doses globally. I also explained that GSK reported that their flu vaccine already has an existing digital twin in the virtual cloud, and that this virtualization is necessary for scenario analyses. Relatedly, as I discussed in a previous installment, and as we have collectively observed, reports of influenza in the past year have been nearly nonexistent. In a July 2020 IEEE Access paper (funded by the U.S. Army Research Office), “6G and Beyond: The Future of Wireless Communications Systems,” IEEE Fellow, Ian F. Akyildiz, and his co-authors stated that “studies on influenza treatment can shed light on how the IoBNT could assist in future solution development. A critical step for treatment is the antiviral intervention, which blocks the intracellular signaling pathways to prevent influenza virus from replication.” Some readers may consider this a positive development, and other readers may be skeptical that any such intervention is possible given their premise that viruses do not exist (see Endnote 2). From my perspective, and after reading the July 2020 paper, I wonder if this technology was utilized in the past year, and if it could help explain the seeming disappearance of influenza (among other questionable factors).
The authors of the July 2020 report asserted that the proposed technology of 6G and beyond “will enable a plethora of applications in the consumer, military, industrial and medical fields, including transformative networking architectures designed to meet the scalability demands in future cyber-physical systems.” Significantly, they admitted that in March 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the frequency bands above 95 GHz for “research purposes.” Given the timing, and the potential deleterious health effects from shorter millimeter wavelengths, such as 95 GHz, we cannot discount the possibility of recent (and novel) illness being induced and/or aggravated by newly introduced frequencies (Perhaps Sally Fallon and Tom Cowan may have been on to something?).
Akyildiz and his colleagues explained that devices and transceivers used in the Internet of NanoThings (IoNT) are in the scale of nanometers, and thus, behave differently than classical wireless communication systems. To elaborate, the authors elucidate that each nano-thing is self-powered via piezoelectric energy harvesting, and therefore, will consume less energy to perform data processing and data storage, as well as enhancing nano-sensing capabilities that will be required to provide necessary communication. Within the paradigm of bio-nano-networks, nano-materials such as graphene and carbon nanotubes pair with encoded signals being carried by molecules, and utilize integrated plasmonic antennas that use Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) waves (as distinct from traditional antenna arrays and standard electromagnetic wavelengths). The authors went on to point out that the nano-sensors can sense “external force, gas molecules, and biological objects such as antigens and antibodies . . .”
Moving into the domain of IoBNT, which Akyildiz et al. claim was first introduced in 2015, they define the IoBNT as “a network of molecules which can communicate with each other. The types of molecular communications include artificial cells which act as . . . a bio-cyber interface which can convert molecular signals to electrical ones and transmit to external devices for further processing.” Akyildiz previously collaborated (in 2015) with three other researchers on a paper titled, “The Internet of Bio-NanoThings.” I presume this is what they refer to as the first introduction of the concept. In any case, in the 2015 paper, Akyildiz and his colleagues not only praised this new method of embedded bio-computing, they also put forth warnings: 1) The deployment of NanoThings can result in “unwanted effects” on health or pollution due to their electromagnetic radiation emissions; 2) The nano-materials may not be biocompatible; and 3) Bio-NanoThings could be used to access the human body and “either steal personal health-related information, or even create new diseases” (referred therein as bio-cyber terrorism). Never mind these critical cautions though, as proponents of this “game-changer technology” insist science will and must move forward with the IoBNT. I recommend readers take a look at the 2015 paper. My main takeaway from the paper can be revealed by two critical aspects of this intra-body sensing and actuation process (which was asserted within the body of the text and then repeated once again in the authors’ conclusion): 1) “the nanothings, thanks to their limited size, can be easily concealed, implanted, and scattered in the environment . . .”; and 2) “by combining nanotechnology with tools from synthetic biology . . . a cell can be effectively utilized as a substrate to realize a so-called BioNanoThing, through the control, reuse, and reengineering of biological cells’ functionalities . . .”
Related to the notion of biological embedded computing devices and engineering synthetic biological circuits, the IoBNT paper described that this process can manipulate genetic code, enabling genes to encode proteins that can be mechanistically activated or repressed. Lastly, in reference to the 2015 paper — and to return to my question regarding experimental injected medical devices, and how they may connect (literally) to the IoBNT — one key component in nanonetwork architecture is the need for bio-nanomotors that serve as propagation devices in the sensing and actuation protocol of a bio-cyber interface (see Figure 1 in the paper). One promising candidate for such bio-nanomotors are flagellar motors, which can be used for micro-actuation and power generation. Intriguingly, while not mentioned in any ingredient list per se, according to one Moderna patent for an mRNA injectable medical device applied to COVID (see p. 63-64), one of the the key adjuvants is Flagellin, which, in the case of the Moderna patent, is a flagellin polypeptide expressed by Salmonella bacteria. As explained in the Moderna patent, Flagellin is a protein “that polymerizes to form the flagella associated with bacterial motion.” See this 2014 paper in the Nano Convergence journal explaining how and why bacterial flagella are ideal for the application of bio-nanoelectronics. Has this ingredient been included in any iterations that were injected in the past few months?
These digital infrastructure enthusiasts who may dream of an augmented reality universe regularly reference Ernest Cline’s book, Ready Player One, and his concept of “The Oasis” (see Endnote 3). Gabriel René publicly admits to using it as his inspiration. For those not familiar, see the movie trailer here. For context, an oversimplified summation is the story depicts a world where living in a virtual reality game, the OASIS (Ontologically Anthropocentric Sensory Immersive Simulation), is presumably better than real life.
Interestingly, this emerging Web 3.0, and its integral distributed ledger technology of blockchain, is being hailed by blockchain futurists, such as Gabriel René and his VERSES Labs partner, Dan Mapes (whose clients at his other venture, Cyberlab, include the UN and the Human Genome Project), as the means to connect ALL peer-to-peer networks into ONE interoperable whole — a Metaverse, if you will. (Watch Mapes here discussing VERSES and its recent COVID applications.) Anarcho-capitalists and libertarian-leaning folks claim blockchains to be decentralized networks that ostensibly will allow users to break free from the control of Big Tech and Big Government, thereby magically transferring power back to the people. They may be in for a rude awakening. Indeed, Van Jacobson reportedly was a key figure in building the current Internet (originally ARPAnet used for the military), and is said to have originated the idea of its upgraded version, Web 3.0, (see here at time-stamp 2:34). So, it seems, the writing is on the Spatial Web “smart” wall. Furthermore, if crypto-evangelists think blockchains can serve as tools of liberation, yet rail against health surveillance and vaccine passports as tools of enslavement, then how do they reconcile that some cryptocurrency and blockchain architects are deeply embedded in developing the interoperable platforms for immune passports (see here and here)? Additionally, do cryptocurrency users (who may think they are anonymous and sovereign in this virtual system) realize that each and every transaction they transpire leaves a virtual footprint that can be traced by those with the proper forensic skills — not to mention the more obvious concern of dotting their digital breadcrumbs for alphabet agencies (along with their supercomputers and AI) to track their movements along the serpent’s skin?
I acknowledge that blockchain promoters may wish to utilize the digital ecosystem for financial profit, but where is the evidence that it truly results in personal freedom — particularly when control algorithms already may supersede any human will and intuition? As I cautioned in July 2020 about Trojan horse technologies (including cryptocurrencies), will such notions contribute to propping up a cyber-physical scaffolding that will become ubiquitous in every sense of the word? As I mentioned above, the Spatial Web architects seem to have plans to merge together decentralized blockchains — perhaps akin to how independent organic food companies have been swallowed by food conglomerates. We have observed the same phenomenon with the media conglomerates. However, in this case, blockchain users may be contributing to not only building the future Spatial Web, but, rather, grooming it, as the serpent and spider avidly assemble and aggregate their data and user patterns via increasingly sophisticated machine learning protocols.
There is nothing down-to-earth about blockchain, digital identities, and digital currencies. I respectfully suggest that cryptocurrency patrons revisit the dubious origins of each of the various players, as well as their central banking collaborations, in the crypto realm (also see here). If so, they may not like what they see. Conceivably, returning to the land for authentic and environmentally friendly financial sustenance (i.e, to grow organic hemp, fruits, and vegetables that are not on a blockchain) could be more life-giving, rather than continuing to drive unsuspecting individuals further into digital chains of slavery, governed by potentially predatory AI, while also contributing to environmental pollution (including negative human health impacts). One main caution I perceive is that dopamine triggers may be a central impetus to becoming entangled with crypto trading. Lastly, and maybe most important to contemplate, is how does the exchange of any form of digital currency alchemically affect our energetic and spiritual bodies — our internal currency? Once hooked into the energy of digital monetary transactions, can consumers pull away from its centripetal force? I imagine it would be difficult to break free from the spider’s crypto vortex. What are your thoughts?
If we do not halt, or at the very least, temper the zeal of augmented reality builders (in addition to potentially naive, yet well-intentioned, cryptocurrency consumers), we may soon be living in a version of the Ready Player One “Oasis,” and I suspect it would be a Ready Player All existence. I, for one, do NOT consent to being a programmable node, to be tokenized, precision nudged (see here and here on precision nudging as presently applied to COVID vaccination adoption), data-mined, transacted — AND have my body activity harvested — in their futuristic storyline. I choose a natural means of interconnection and diversity, over omnipresent wireless networks, autonomous satellites, and datafied, gamified, and commodified homogeneity. I am an intrinsic asset of Nature. I embody salt-of-the-earth wholeness and vitality. I choose the Web of Life.
Will you allow the spell-binding serpent to enchant you with its digital blockchain finesse? Has the surreptitious spider tempted you into injecting its cybernetic venom into your biological form? This spider works its bio-engineering sorcery in countless ways. Are you seduced by the seemingly amusing and utopian fantasy being developed by a faceless Dark Lord of the Webs? Amidst this imperial colonization R&D project, who will ultimately reign over your body, mind, and spirit?
1) Gelernter’s book, Mirror Worlds, is beyond the scope of this essay; however, regular writers and commenters here at POM may be familiar with this name. You may find it curious that four years after writing his Mirror Worlds book, Gelernter wrote Drawing Life: Surviving the Unabomber, describing his experience as a bombing victim. Please see here for a Mathisian perspective. If further intrigued, and wondering why I perceive Gelernter and his family members (including his brother and father) pertinent to this discussion on digital biology, genetics, augmented reality, and militarized AI, I encourage you to read this 2015 National Review article by David Gelernter’s son, Josh Gelernter.
2) The issue of viruses repeatedly pops up in my writing, and some readers continue to negate my essays in toto based on the assumption that the material I present can only be true if “viruses” exist. On the contrary, if one is to accept, at the very least, that cellular debris (observed as nano-sized spherical-type vesicles) is emitted from a sick or dying cell, then one can concede that this means of molecular communication can (and will) be bio-electronically steered and altered (see here and here), thereby modifying the reaction of a physical body in time and space. I want to be clear, that when researchers semantically report on a “virus” and blocking signaling pathways of replication of said “virus,” we can logically deduce that they have the capabilities to detect and alter intracellular and extracellular signaling. Only by accepting that “viruses” and “infections” and “contagion” are best understood within a framework of network communication — involving sensors, propagation systems, transmitters, and receivers — can we attempt to begin to comprehend their future plans. I hope further challenges to the presented material will take this into consideration.
3) Incidentally, the author (and screenplay co-writer) of Ready Player One, Ernest Cline, is married to fellow writer, Cristin O’Keefe Aptowicz, whose brother, Kevin Aptowicz, Ph.D. is a physicist working in the research domains of hydrogels and light scattering of respiratory aerosols. Dr. Aptowicz has collaborated in NASA-funded research with renowned physicist Arjun G. Yodh, Ph.D., who served for 11 years as Director of the Laboratory for Research on the Structure of Matter (LRSM) at the University of Pennsylvania until 2020. Dr. Yodh holds multiple biotechnology patents, including carbon nanotubes as applied to oxygen and blood flow in the human body. It’s a small, small world — particularly in the sector of nanotechnology. Cristin’s sister, Caitlin Aptowicz Trasande has been involved in building the digital biotechnology future, serving in a management role at Nature Publishing Group, then as Head of Research at Digital Science, and more recently as Scientific Director of the Computational and Systems Biology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
P.S. I dedicate this installment to POM commenter, Rastus, in hopes that this answers some “Why” questions . . . 🙂
RE: The Spatial Web (Web 3.0)
“The Spatial Web and Web 3.0: What business leaders should know about the next era of computing” Deloitte Center for Integrated Research, 2020
“The Spatial Web Will Map Our 3D World—And Change Everything In the Process” Singularity Hub, Nov 16, 2018, by Peter H. Diamandis, MD “This digitization of life means that suddenly every piece of information can become spatial, every environment can be smarter by virtue of AI, and every data point about me and my assets—both virtual and physical—can be reliably stored, secured, enhanced, and monetized.”
“What is The Spatial Web and how it will transform the internet?” Mirror Review, by Mayur Shewale
“Why Web 3.0 Is The Next Logical Step,” January 2, 2021 (see 6 minute video above)
RE: Internet of Bio-NanoThings (IoBNT)
“WTF is Internet of Bio Nano Things (IoBNT) and How Secure is It? Hackernoon, January 30, 2021, by Sidra Zafar
“The scientists who are creating a bio-internet of things” MIT Technology Review, November 1, 2019
“Internet of Bio-Nano Things for health applications” (call for paper submissions) ITU Journal, April 2021
“Bio-Nano Things: Organically stimulated Bio-Cyber Interface architecture” (bio-electro virtual interface) International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 2018
“A Bio Internet of Things? Hold That Thought” RTInsights, December 6, 2019, by Joe McKendrick
“IoBNT to Delay the Beginning of Type-2 Diabetes Through Artificial Insulin Segregation” October 2018
“The Thing with E.coli: Highlighting Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Bacteria in IoT and HCI” (gamification of bacteria within IoBNT), May 2019
“The Internet of Bio-Nano Things” (see 15 minute presentation above), October 18, 2016
RE: 6G Deployment
“Key Drivers and Research for 6G Ubiquitous Wireless Intelligence” 6G Flagship, September 2019
“6G and Beyond: The Future of Wireless Communications Systems” IEEE Access (Funded by U.S. Army Research Office), July 2020, by Ian F. Akyildiz et al. (Pay particular attention to Figure 2)
38 thoughts on “Part 7: The Endgame ~ One Web to Rule Them All”
I am having a flashback that is imprecise, a movie or a book, wherein people were enslaved, but the researchers who worked on the means of enslavement were just other people, not from the ruling class. Maybe I dreamed it or am just now imagining it. Nonetheless, as you go through the names of the people who are enslaving us with this nanotechnology, I imagine they are like us, of us, and that members of the ruling classes, while possessed of excellent classical educations, are not creative enough to take us anywhere new. They habituate to ruling and thinking themselves cut from a different cloth. Names that come to mind are Prince Charles, Al Gore, Carolyn Kennedy, ass burger Bill Gates, Steve Forbes. These are crypto-leaders, people who if born in ordinary circumstances would be selling cars or insurance, or in Gates’s case, bagging groceries. They are not worthy of anything more than a note that they are very ordinary people who slid down the right birth canal.
The ruling classes cannot survive without fresh faces and innovations brought about by mining the commons. We have to power to stay free, but not the will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stephers, another tour-de-force! Aside from a freaky tingling up my spine, I do believe I am actually learning about this amorphous beast-system, thanks to your voluminous research. (Congrats on your POM anniversary too!) Like you, I reject these schemes outright, viscerally. Maybe that’s why I never liked space programs or sci-fi…too cold for me.
Had to comment on this: “…utilizing Hyperspace Transaction Protocol (HSTP) — to link people, spaces, and assets together in three-dimensional physical space. ” Umm…do they mean like the actual three-dimensional physical space that we already live in? The obsession with mirrors is creepy.
And yes, my skin crawled at this:
As explained in the Moderna patent, Flagellin is a protein “that polymerizes to form the flagella associated with bacterial motion.”
Is this now “swimming” in millions of vaxxed bodies? My guess is “yes!”
BTW, excellent caveat about virus model; this tech seems to go well beyond that…
Something tells me we cannot “vote” our way out of this, darnit! Your planting is the answer. As noted by ScottRC on an earlier thread, this “linear thinking” keeps tripping us up. Circling back to organic farming is the answer, if health is truly the goal. (could not resist the turn of phrase; Corn Pop made me do it)
Now you know why I only read your posts during the daytime. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
A gripping read, Stephers, and a compelling progression of information. We would only wish it to be Sci-Fi at best, rather than the planning of (real?) people and organizations….I did not know the concept of “energy harvesting” and connecting it to wearable devices. The following quote from the abstract of the following paper helped me out:
“energy harvesting (EH) is the disruptive technology that can pave the road towards the massive utilisation of wireless wearable sensors for patient self-monitoring and daily healthcare. Radio-frequency (RF) transmissions from commercial telecommunication networks represent reliable ambient energy that can be harvested as they are ubiquitous in urban and suburban areas. (which is one ‘good’ reason to push populations into “resilient” cities…my insertion) The state-of-the-art in RF EH for wearable biomedical sensors specifically targeting the global system of mobile 900/1800 cellular and 700 MHz digital terrestrial television networks as ambient RF energy sources are showcased.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4614035/
So besides the advantages (to them) of pushing ‘green’ cities, this technology also brings focus to the accelerated deployment of 5g, and the 6g that you highlight here. Plenty of RF always available to power those oh-so-crucial monitoring and delivery health devices that we’ve had implanted and/or wear.
A little more clarity here https://www.powerelectronicsnews.com/the-design-of-rf-energy-harvesting-for-ultra-low-power-devices%EF%BB%BF/, where we learn that “The fundamental units of an RF energy harvesting system are the antenna and rectifier circuit that allows converting RF power or alternating current (AC) into a DC signal. The implementation of this technology will help reduce battery dependency, which will ultimately have a positive impact on the environment.” It’s comforting to know that the welfare of the environment is getting priority here.
One more indication of the insistence these people have to make sure that ample RF is everywhere, all the time, with no dead spots, is this quote, which is also from the 2020 paper by Akyildiz et al., that you have referenced. (page 11 of pdf)
“Trade-off Between Dimensions and Energy Consumption: In terms of real-world applications, the Intelligent Environments are expected to be coated onto surfaces of interior walls and/or ceilings, and building facades, which require dimensions that can both fit specific installation areas and satisfy link requirements. Meanwhile, with more reflect array elements and RF chains built into the system, the energy consumption will also increase, due to the advanced signal processing circuitry. Therefore, how to achieve an economic solution to balance the overall dimension and energy consumption while serving users to its desired performance is a nontrivial issue.”
Maybe walls that bounce RF signals is what gives “resilient” cities their name. Must get those people into those cities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a Systems Engineer. In a nutshell, I “deal with complexity”. That’s my job, that’s my role.
Even YOU drive me to the brink with all this gobeldeygook!!
Just where the Hell do you get all of this!?!?!
I love it, even if it’s overwhelming at times 🙂
Yes, overwhelming!! 🙂
PS, I love It, and I love You.
Anyone who makes a sincere effort to understand “this world” is a friend in spirit and a friend in deed.
Rastus – I reciprocate the love . . . I think all of us here at POM (writers and commenters) are working collectively to understand “this world.” As long as we continue to work on ourselves as well, then I feel that we can do both in tandem – especially if we operate from a perspective that the world is a mirror of ourselves. I just don’t wish to see one more added layer of mirrors, to what already is so confounding and unexplored.
Hey Rastus. Tell me if you want me to write out a short-hand version! 🙂 I am happy to do so.
I’ve been engaging Alison a bit on Twitter over the blockchain question because I see it getting divisive between people who should be allies. I agree with crypto critics for the most part, but that’s not going to stop me from holding some as a long-term store of value while a controlled demolition of the dollar as reserve currency happens.
I don’t understand taking a purist stance against using crypto as a tool. I’ve also been using synchronicities as a tool and had a fascinating conversation with Jasun Horsely about the dangers of creating what he calls a “second matrix”.
while I get his warning, I’m following hunches and other people’s explorations, like Steve Kelly’s look at “wetiko”, which is leading to some very interesting insights. I appreciate warnings regarding risk, be it blockchain or existential detective work, but we all have choices to make regarding how we want to work with the new energies emerging.
Hey Travis. I have been “off-line” for the past two days, so I apologize for the delay in replying. I need to take healing “in-breaths” every once in a while. As it is, I typically spend about 6 hours/day on the laptop/smart-phone a day (give or take an hour) – too much for me to sustain physically, mentally, and emotionally.
I am glad I took time off, and this morning, I listened to your nearly two-hour discussion with Jasun. Not only did I find your discussion both timely and engaging, I felt enriched by listening pensively, and from beginning to end. I hope readers here may take the time to listen as well. I also read your fair and thoughtful post today with regard to the public dispute between Alison and Derrick. As you know, Alison is a dear friend of mine. I also know Derrick. I met him a couple times at the Free Your Mind conferences in Philly, and I have financially supported his work over the years (particularly his 5G documentary, in addition to purchasing his books, and even his t-shirts/merch), as well as mentioning in my writing at POM his efforts in freedom-aspiring directives. I have always thought of Derrick as a very well-meaning individual, and an incredible investigative researcher. I think his research/writing for Mint Press News in the past, and now, The Last American Vagabond, is top-notch. I truly hope Alison and Derrick can reconcile, even if just privately.
Interestingly, speaking of rifts within the community, Derrick was recently in a similar situation, in that he was publicly belittling the work of Tom Cowan on Twitter – in regards to the 5G causal/contributory theory of COVID. Derrick took some heat on that. Then Derrick received additional complaints, as he had given a platform to Dr. Mercola, who dismissed the work of Cowan/Kaufman as being meaningless, and Derrick did not challenge him. Fortunately, with some external urging, Derrick gave Cowan and Kaufman a very fair platform to rebut. I was very pleased to see that turn-around.
More specifically, with regard to your comment about the use of cryptocurrency . . . I am in no position to judge the use/consumption of crypto. I think it comes down to a very personal decision. We may have to ask ourselves if we are partaking in the new currency scheme (acknowledging the traditional paper/coin system is also a scheme) as a matter of survival, or out of other motives. And we may want to ask ourselves what are the potential consequences. As long as there is time for self-reflection (i.e., does my participation feed my soul, or am I giving away my energy/loosh to something else; does my participation define my identity; does my participation feed my ego or some compulsion; does my participation fill some type of void) in the process, then whatever choice someone makes is right for that person.
While I have not partaken in the cryptocurrency system, I most certainly can NOT claim to be a purist, as I engage willingly online on platforms such as Odysee (on blockchain). I don’t like being on that platform, as it does feel odd and incoherent to me, and I do not understand their whole token system. I do not wish to play in that game. But I registered a few weeks ago, simply to gain access to some interviews with Cowan and Kaufman. If I have to go to Odysee to gain that information, then so be it. I fully acknowledge that by doing so, I am in some small part propping up the system I rail against. I see my writing here at POM, and even my Twitter activity, as feeding the digital beast. As long as I am creating material online, I have to be accountable to the fact that I am informing the machine with every word I type. So I continually check myself, as I have one foot in, and one foot out of the system. This tends to be the way I have chosen to navigate through this current existence. Again, I am no purist, but I simply see my participation on a spectrum. I perceive myself to be around a 4 (if extreme digital consumerism is a 10). I dabble in Netflix as a social activity with family, and I engage in some online “voyeurism,” as I take some time most days to “troll” through Twitter – mostly to gain access to timely articles that I consider pertinent. I do not use Facebook.
With all that said, my roots are more grounded in nature these days, primarily with my outdoor animal companions and soaking up the spring sun – and sometimes helping (though not enough) my husband with our vegetable growing. I strive to preserve what is still analog and can be held tangibly in my hands, and felt in real-time beneath my feet. For me, it’s all about finding a balance, and I am still a WORK-IN-PROGRESS in this regard.
Lastly, to evoke some of what you discussed with Jasun . . .I am in full agreement with him (and to paraphrase Jasun) that we need to shift away from the ensnares from the external world, and return to the “inner kingdom” of the Self. This is echoed somewhat in a piece I wrote here in June 2020 https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/06/19/covid-19-a-new-superimposed-reality-part-2-moving-forward/ – mentioning the trap of the ouroborus, in chasing all the breadcrumbs that reality (or the predatory elites) lays down, keeping us in a mad feedback loop. My friend, Matt McKinley, of Quantum of Conscience, is constantly emphasizing this notion, as these forensic efforts seem to keep us from the most crucial matter at hand – understanding and actualizing ourselves, in addition to developing and maintaining close and meaningful relationships individual-to-individual, and in small intimate groups.
I really like where Jasun is heading with his new direction, and I concur that we need to make every effort to pull away from CULTure and the hyperreality/simulacrum, and back to our innate version of reality – thereby, attaining greater holistic meaning and truly feeding our souls/spirit. Jasun is much more articulate than I am attempting here (He has such a poetic way with words.), but I think you get my drift.
Travis, I sincerely value the work you are doing. I love that you dabble in metaphysics and explore topics that may seem more “out there.” As I said, I thoroughly enjoyed your conversation with Jasun. I think your writing (though fairly new to me in the past few months) is optimistic, sensible, and keen; and I appreciate that you seem flexible in your opinions, while still remaining consistent and true to yourself. Those are rare qualities.
Another amazing hard look into the latest modes of “extractive industry.” The accumulation of wealth (capital) remains the prime metaphor for all this “innovation.” The military remains a prime funding source, always looking for more weapons to keep the slaves on the plantation/reservation. And the bankers, well what can we say about the bankers that hasn’t already been said. Nothing, and I mean nothing, happens at global scale that isn’t an element of a control strategy originating at the City of London with the Crown’s approval.
Human capital has always been an investment opportunity for the trillionaires in charge. We hold all the power but cannot “see.” Only we, as individuals, can move the evolution of consciousness forward, leaving these power-hungry rulers with no human capital to extract. The power resides within each and every one of us. Do not consent. Reconnect with nature, which is within, not “out there somewhere.” Easier said than done, but considering the alternative presented above by Stephers, what have you/we got to lose?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the response, I’m feeling kind shitty for the post now. I got some feedback about where I’m being unfairly assumptive about Alison’s motivations for removing her Odysee account, so I need to spend some time reflecting on what is motivating me beside the frustration of seeing how these things have divided the “truth” movement for so many years.
If I’m being totally honest I’m partly reacting out of jealousy that Alison has been given platforms on some of the podcasts I’m trying to get on in order to bring attention to what is happening in Missoula where I’m trying to understand the spectrum of synchronistic influence I am exploring. This exploration, if one isn’t doing the internal work to find personal balance, can make you nuts, which you clearly get since you know when to check out and recharge.
Travis, maybe you can speak privately with Alison about her motives. Personally, I have spoken to Alison in the past week, but we did not discuss her Odysee account, nor the issue with Derrick. In fact, she was quite surprised by my post. We were simpatico. The point I was making in my comment above is that Derrick had previously contributed to “division” within the community – when it came to Cowan and Mercola, including the virus vs. no virus debate. This issue pops up often within the “truther” community. We are not all on the same page, and probably never will be. On my end, I just happened to have come off viewing some of the RE: Union Summit 2021, comprised of a bunch of great folks who are holistic-minded, yet exhibit a strong confluence of a decentralized blockchain/crypto mindset. From my perspective, it is eerily reminiscent to 5 years ago, when I saw 95 percent of my “tribe” (I use that term very loosely) morph into Trumpers/QAnoners, viewing Trump as some savior. They were hypnotically hooked, in my opinion. I just feel like I am now seeing what is left of my “tribe” (I would say the more organic/holistic/anarchist types) converging with the digital system in a way that seems like a trap (at least in the long-term). It feels too savior-istic (I just made up this word) and evangelical to me, regardless of any cyber-physical/controlled opp implications.
This clinical trial (to study “allergic reactions” to the Moderna/Pfizer “vaccines”) was announced today: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-begins-study-allergic-reactions-moderna-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccines.
One of the chief investigators is James R. Baker, MD, Director of the Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine and the Biological Sciences (MNIMBS).
According to his bio: “Dr. Baker was appointed Director of the newly organized Center for Biologic Nanotechnology at the University of Michigan in July of 1998. In May, 2001, Dr. Baker was named the Co-Director of the Center for Biomedical Engineering in the School of Engineering. In June of 2001 Dr. Baker was inaugurated as the first recipient of the Ruth Dow Doan Endowed Professorship in Biologic Nanotechnology. Because Dr. Baker has distinguished himself as both a national and an international leader in the field of biologic nanotechnology, in October of 2001 he was named as the first recipient of the U-M Dean’s Innovation Award. In August, 2002, he was appointed Director of Research in the newly created Michigan Bioterrorism and Health Preparedness Research and Training Center in the University’s School of Public Health. In June, 2003, he was appointed to serve as a member of the newly formed Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group (N-TAG) of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) to the Executive Office of the President of the United States. In September, 2004, Dr. Baker was named as one of the three editors of the National Nanotechnology Initiatives’ research directives. He is a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and is the only physician on this important Office of Science and Technology Policy committee. Dr. Baker presently serves as Co-Chair of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology’s Vaccines and Biological Threats Committee. He also serves as a board member representing the University of Michigan on the Region V Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases (the Great Lakes Regional Centers of Excellence). He is a 14-year veteran of service in the U.S. Military, 12 of which were on active duty, including service during Operation Desert Storm.”
Dr. Baker’s bio continued: “Dr. Baker has over 25 years experience in basic biologic research, concentrating in immunology and host defense . . . He has become an internationally recognized expert in nanotechnology, nanomolecular materials in biomedical applications, and the emerging field of nanomedicine. He has given plenary lectures at most of the major nanotechnology conferences, has testified before Congress on nanotechnology, and has spoken about his research at a number of international meetings, corporations, and universities. He has been funded by a series of grants from NIAID, DARPA and the NCI. Recently he has been involved in work concerning gene transfer and drug delivery. These studies have produced new vector systems for gene transfer using dendritic polymers, which have the potential to revolutionize pharmaceutical therapy. Dr. Baker’s work with synthetic lipid and polymeric nanostructures has resulted in the development of a new class of antimicrobial agents with activity against bacteria, spores, fungi and viruses. These projects have led to two start-up biotechnology companies, NanoBio Corporation and Avidimer Therapeutics, located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dr. Baker serves as the Chief Scientific Officer of these Corporations . . . Under his leadership, the MNIMBS will merge academic expertise and institutional resources across the university to develop and market applications for nanotechnology in medicine, the biological sciences, and the environment.”
It is my opinion that this clinical trial is studying the biocompatibility/health impact (which they are referring to as “allergic reactions”) of the implanted nanotech. Semantics aside, I mentioned the National Nanotechnology Initiative (a directive in which Dr. Baker has been involved) at the beginning of this post, and it is my position that they want to achieve as much biocompatibility as they possibly can – to ensure that this nanotech gets implanted (and stays implanted) for their future plans. While I do consider this technology a weapon (sometimes lethal) in many regards, I still suggest that it is not intended to cause mass mortality. Rather, the scientism priests may likely concede that there could be some collateral damage (deaths mainly among the weakest/oldest), as they continue to tweak the technology (i.e., enhancing biocompatibility) for long-term cyber-physical applications.
The Global Business Network, Part II – http://mileswmathis.com/gbn2.pdf
Coronavirus and nanotechnology:
HPM – Thanks for posting these three links. Coincidentally, I was digging further into the lipid nanoparticles (also covered briefly in the MM guest post that you linked above), just as I got an email notification of your comments. On my end, I am looking into what I see could be a connection between these lipid nano carriers (in the “vaccines”) and the potential for them to offer the means for self-assembly of lipid micelles, forming (or transforming?) into microscopic-sized worm-like micelles/smart material filaments (see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFRKl8zkz-w, with summary slide at around the 53 minute time-stamp) – which is potentially what people may be observing on the COVID swabs and face masks (see here https://www.bitchute.com/video/Jr8A9N0Ewdzj/). Essentially, while the black filaments that may be observed (and are responsive to external stimuli) are microscopic, it seems they may be constructed via information from the initial nanoparticle injection/embedding (which are too small to be detected via microscopes). It’s still early days as I investigate this further. I had originally considered that the reports of these filaments on swabs and masks were contrived hoaxes to confuse and cover up real info on Morgellons and induced illness via synthetic biology/nanotech (and I asserted this to OregonMatt in email exchanges), but these newer reports/observations seem to be legitimate. Henceforth, I am willing to change my mind on this phenomenon – either way. As I said, I am just now starting to dig deeper into the material (no pun intended). Personally, I have not directly observed these micro-sized black filaments/fibers, but I do have personal experience with red polymer-like fibers that were ejected from my dog (from lesions on his body) a number of years ago. I can only assume that was Morgellons, but I have no definitive proof.
You are the most welcome, as always! (Vous etes le bienvenus, que toujours!)
If anyone is interested, my guesstimate at this time is that the black filaments being observed in the masks and/or swabs are graphene fibers that are being used in “smart textiles”: “Graphene Fibers with Predetermined Deformation as Moisture‐Triggered Actuators and Robots”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.201304358. Perhaps the graphene fibers begin at nano-size, and then can grow (or be externally induced to grow, and maybe even self-replicate) to microscopic size? To emphasize, if these fibers/filaments are being observed with a digital microscope, they are NOT nano (at least no longer nano-size particles), and therefore, cannot be carbon nanotubes, which has also been speculated by some.
It has already been reported that these disposable masks contain graphene, and are potentially toxic. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/health-canada-issues-recall-disposable-masks-1.5974867
Here is more on graphene in smart textiles: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-graphene-potential-smart-textiles.html. From my understanding of graphene as applied to smart textiles, I can only surmise that these disposable face masks embedded with graphene should be labeled as “wearable electronic devices.”
“Microbiome-Gut-Brain Axis as a Biomolecular Communication Network for the Internet of Bio-NanoThings”: https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10114169.
Clyde Lewis on the Metaverse (Sept 2, 2021): https://groundzeromedia.org/9-2-21-digital-kingdom-come-w-chris-and-sheree-geo/.
“The metaverse is just one more way that science wants to create its own version of nature, its own universe and its own hyper real world.”
This is a superb (follow-up) discussion (from October 6, 2021) between Alison McDowell and Bonnie Faulkner of Guns and Butter, “Blockchain Keys Unlock a Murky Metaverse – What You Don’t Know About Digital Twins Could Hurt You”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsqMXifHj5s.
Around the 50-minute timestamp, Alison explains: “They’re trying to digitally twin the world, and that’s all part of the machine learning and the pattern recognition, and the predictive profiling . . . All of this information becomes aggregated and weighted . . . and used to inform the algorithms to make future predictions . . . like reinforced learning . . . What we’re moving into now is the ability of artificial intelligence systems to start to learn from unstructured data . . . Now, once everything is on blockchain, it will be much easier because that allows the data to be structured and organized, in a way that is much more efficiently consumed by the algorithms . . . Right now there is a whole lot of unstructured data out there, but it’s still learning . . . it’s learning through these reinforcement systems.”
From the company, Occult Capital, whose motto is Ensuring a moral and ethical Web3 future.
“The blockchain-focused metaverse of the future will transform humanity . . . And we don’t think that is an exaggeration. We are in the midst of the greatest technological, social, and financial transition in the history of the world. We envision a world, in 30 years, where humans are connected (plugged in) to a blockchain-focused metaverse . . . Our lives will exist in this blockchain metadata. It probably won’t be ‘Bitcoin’ or ‘Ethereum’. But blockchain and metaverse tech will revolutionize life.”
A comprehensive 4-part series (and 1-hour intimate discussion) on the digital-imprisoning blockchain: “Catherine Austin Fitts & Corey Lynn Discuss Vaccine ID Passports and Global Control” (October 20, 2021) https://www.coreysdigs.com/health-science/catherine-austin-fitts-corey-lynn-discuss-vaccine-id-passports-and-global-control/. While lengthy, it is well worth the time to review in detail.
A crucial and comprehensive conversation with Alison McDowell . ..
“The Metaverse and Digital Twins with Alison Mcdowell [sic]”
NOVEMBER 04, 2021 MATRIX ASSASSINS
SEASON 1 EPISODE 29
From October 2021, “INTERNET OF NANOTHINGS (IoNT) – A CONCISE REVIEW OF ITS HEALTHCARE APPLICATIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE IN PANDEMICS”
On p. 13 ~
4. FUTURE PERSPECTIVE OF IoNT
The Internet of Nano Things Market was valued at USD 1,761.57 million in 2020 and is expected to reach USD 11,148.62 million by 2026, register a CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 35.08% over the forecast period (2021 – 2026). During the COVID-19 pandemic, this IoNT technology has shown very encouraging results dealing with this disease. IoT technology during this pandemic has proven its usefulness in assisting patients, healthcare providers, and authorities.
Many smartphone applications have been developed and some works are in progress for the healthcare domain, and some of them have been used in response to COVID-19, namely nCapp, DetectaChem, Stop Corona, Social Monitoring, Civitas, StayHomeSafe, AarogyaSetu, TraceTogether, Hamagen, Coalition, BeAware Bahrain, eRouska. Autonomous/Driverless vehicle technology, Smart city, Electrical Grid Industry are some of the fields which are the future research areas to ameliorate the IoNT technology .
Some of the top companies in IoT and IoNT industries listed are Siemens AG, Juniper Networks Inc., Qualcomm Inc., Alertmedia, Schneider Electric SE, Cisco Systems Inc., IBM Corp. and Intel Corp.
This article came by way of POM commenter, Alan . . .
“Researchers Develop Wireless Networks That Allow Brain Circuits to Be Controlled Remotely Through the Internet”
November 29, 2021
A new system that combines neural implants with the internet of things can remotely control the brain circuits of numerous animals across the globe simultaneously and independently via the web.
A multidisciplinary team of researchers at KAIST, Washington University in St. Louis, and the University of Colorado, Boulder, created a wireless ecosystem with its own wireless implantable devices and Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure to enable high-throughput neuroscience experiments over the internet. This innovative technology could enable scientists to manipulate the brains of animals from anywhere around the world.
See the embedded graphic (in the link above) of the Cloud linking brains all across the world. Stunningly revealing.
Link to the study: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59d1e07303596e6dea3235d2/t/61a0147488290a71e4732819/1637881003811/42.+IoTN_nBME+2021.pdf.
Following is a link to the website belonging to one of the lead researchers on the referenced study, Jae-Woong Jeong: https://www.jeongresearch.org/research.