We are through the looking glass, now
What’s up, everyone? Spartacus, here, for a third Spartacast.
First, a minor clarification. When I stated in the previous Spartacast that no one under sixty should have the vaccine, due to the risk of death from the vaccine very likely exceeding that of the virus itself, it was intended to highlight the insanity of vaccinating small children with Moderna and Pfizer’s mRNA shots. It was not meant to imply the reverse, that people over sixty should have the shot. On the contrary, that’s exactly the geronticide I have been referring to.
The conspirators were exceptionally cruel to the elderly during this crisis. They shoved COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes during the early phases of the pandemic. Andrew Cuomo has blood on his hands, but he wasn’t charged with a crime for murdering the elderly in the state of New York. He was charged with a misdemeanor for groping. This really highlights the priorities of our criminal justice system when it prosecutes corrupt politicians.
Now that we’ve got that cleared up, I’d like to cover a fairly controversial aspect of all of this in great detail. That is, the transhumanism side of all of this.
I’ll be frank. The human body is a terrible place to host electronics of any kind. It is a corrosive environment. Electrodes shoved into it break down, become fouled, and/or are enclosed in scar tissue. This outlines the first challenge of any serious transhumanist project; the components for any “upgrades” must be biocompatible. They have to be made from chemically inert materials that do not readily oxidize or break down, and they can’t be made from anything toxic to the tissues.
Many common semiconductor materials are highly toxic. High concentrations of nanomaterials, such as cadmium selenide and gallium arsenide quantum dots, can potentially promote cytotoxic effects. In fact, there is a very real concern among some scientists that nanomaterials, such as graphene and carbon nanotubes, may act as highly toxic persistent environmental contaminants, similar to asbestos.
This is why, for years and years, scientists have been searching for alternative materials, like silicon and carbon allotropes with geometry that endows them with unique electrical, thermal, magnetic, or other properties at incredibly small scales, such as single-layer materials, nanotubes, nanowires, quantum dots, and so on. They’ve also discovered conductive polymers, like PEDOT:PSS (or poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate), as well as things such as using amyloid fibrils as self-assembling organic semiconductors, or as metal casts to make nanowires in vivo from metals already found inside the body.
Nanoparticles can also be functionalized and made to self-assemble into larger structures by doping them with organic compounds and peptides, taking advantage of receptor-ligand interactions, as well as hydrophilic or hydrophobic forces, and other fundamental interactions.
Living organisms are, ourselves, a perfect template for molecular nanotechnology. Our genes are stored as DNA, encoding thousands of different proteins that work with our somatic cells to perform all of the crucial functions of our bodies and the different types of tissue found in them. From the perspective of bionanotechnology, humans and other animals are basically a type of naturally occurring, self-replicating soft robot, composed of trillions of cells of a couple hundred different types, all clumped together and working in harmony to ensure the survival and propagation of the organism.
Old-school nanotechnology tended to focus on the miniaturization of classical machines. Gears, levers, pumps, turbines, propellers, and so on. What scientists quickly discovered is that this is a very impractical means of building nano-devices. It is much easier to emulate cellular biology, which makes use of fundamental forces.
Protein folding is a perfect example of a mechanical, well-regulated process found in nature that we take for granted. Protein synthesis and folding is happening in our bodies all the time. Our cells contain several types of organelles that facilitate the processing and breakdown of unneeded proteins into their constituent amino acids, as well as their reuse in synthesizing new proteins. DNA provides the template, which is transcribed into messenger RNA, which is synthesized into a protein by being translated by a ribosome. The codon sequence of the protein dictates its final geometry, once it separates from the ribosome.
All these little individual pieces, receptors, ligands, enzymes, membrane-bound proteins, and so on, fit together like LEGO, or K’NEX. They form pathways in the body that represent the relative rates of various chemical reactions, and resemble logic circuitry in their function. Many receptor-ligand interactions can be broken down into conditional statements. If p, then q. If there’s a steroid, then glucocorticoid receptors will be activated. If there’s a cannabinoid, then cannabinoid receptors will be activated. Almost any system in the body can be reasonably analyzed by chaining these conditional statements together, with the caveat that these are not binary, on-off events, but the relative rates of many, many different chemical reactions working in tandem.
In the past few decades, a great deal of analytical and computational work has been put into studying these systems in the body and manipulating them for therapeutic purposes. This work has yielded results. Things like monoclonal antibodies targeting pathological processes in the body, along with other biologic drugs, have emerged in recent decades. Humira launched in 2002, and in 2017, it had over eighteen billion dollars in sales, globally. Biologics are a growing market. Sometimes, our reach exceeds our grasp, like with nucleic acid vaccines for COVID-19, the risks posed by the Spike protein’s toxic motifs, and the risk of immune reactions to cells expressing Spike. However, I digress.
Using bioreactors, it is possible to culture all sorts of advanced biological compounds, even synthetic proteins not found in nature. Scientists are already using data from protein folding simulations to try and generalize how proteins fold. Their hope is that one day, they can plug a value into an AI algorithm, ask it to produce a protein with a specific function, and then have it run through a bunch of simulations and spit out a gene sequence that they can turn into actual nucleic acids, culture in living cells, and test experimentally in the lab. This would be the holy grail of biologics development. It’s also easier said than done.
The problem is extremely computationally intensive. There’s a good reason why protein folding projects have been conducted using distributed computing platforms, with users donating clock cycles to projects like Folding@home for brownie points. It’s really hard. Or at least, it used to be. Thanks to Moore’s law, in silico molecular dynamics simulations are getting easier and easier with every passing year. They’re nowhere near being able to simulate a complete human body on a computer chip. Oh no. That’s decades and decades away, assuming Moore’s law holds out that long, which is dubious, to say the least.
They can simulate one or two proteins at a time. Each cell in the body has about forty-two million proteins, and each body contains trillions of cells, so you do the math. Simulating a protein is hard. Simulating an entire body on current hardware is almost laughable. What if you don’t have to simulate a body, though? What if you could approximate it, or, failing that, use a living person as a laboratory to test biologics? Well, if you’re Moderna or Pfizer, that probably sounds like a grand idea.
Anyway, moving on. As I was saying, earlier, there has been a lot of interest in recent years in producing nanotechnology that emulates biology. There are numerous reasons for this. For one thing, as I just described, living organisms provide an ideal template for how to build a self-replicating nanomachine. Our cells don’t need batteries or capacitors. They get their energy from mitochondria and the electron transport chain using oxygen to make ATP. That’s basically a naturally occurring fuel cell. Just add oxygen, glucose, and lipids. They have recycling centers, in the form of lysosomes, to break down unneeded material. They have a nucleus for storing and expressing genes, an endoplasmic reticulum and ribosomes for synthesizing proteins, a Golgi apparatus for purifying proteins, and so on, and so on.
Basically, this is a naturally occurring nanomachine, and our bodies are composed of trillions of them. The human body is such a complex system, we don’t even know how all of it works. Some pathways are basically treated like black boxes. Everyone working in immunology knows what the major histocompatibility complex is, but very few people actually know how the immune system distinguishes between self and non-self molecules, and there are so many variables involved, it’s easy to look at it and throw one’s hands up in frustration.
The point I’m trying to make here is that if we can analyze a system, we can reverse-engineer it. We are a very long way from fully analyzing the human body and every single thing that happens inside it, and yet, we are hubristic enough to believe we can surpass the brilliance of its engineering. A great deal of biotech research today, including military biotech research, is heavily involved in reverse-engineering biology. Not just human biology. All biology. Human, animal, plant, bacterial, viral, fungal. All of it. Like I mentioned in my discussions with Dr. Kevin McCairn, Ehud Gazit has been working on nanotech based on self-assembling amyloids. Charles Lieber has worked on blending silicon nanowires with living tissues to study the interiors of cells, and others are even studying how to use nanowires as tiny sensors to perform genetic and biochemical assays inside cells.
Nanoparticles can be doped with cell-penetrating peptides, lipids, and proteins to make them interact with cells as if they were just another feature of that cell, or to cause them to self-align or self-assemble into novel structures, forming lattices inside tissues to monitor or manipulate parts of someone’s body. Transplant organs could be engineered with such lattices already built into them, to monitor the health and function of the transplanted organ. Other papers describe things like plasmonic nanoantennas and nano finite state machines – smart dust, essentially – being introduced into the body, to monitor and manipulate tissues, to communicate with external devices as part of an Internet of Bodies, and so on.
With optogenetics, cells can be transfected with genetic material that codes for light-sensitive proteins, and stimulated by fiber-optics. With magnetogenetics, they were actually discussing using magnetic fields to open and close ion channels on the surfaces of cells by binding ferritin to them. That is, protein cages holding iron atoms, which are normally used by the body to sequester highly reactive iron.
As I looked over all of this, I began to realize that the common conception of a cyborg as a guy with glowing red cameras for eyes and chrome arms and legs who can punch through brick walls was completely wrong. It’s comic book stuff. It has no bearing on reality at all. If someone were made into a cyborg using this technology, you wouldn’t be able to perceive any outward physical differences. The differences would be on the nano-scale, only visible under scanning electron microscopy.
You could do a lot of things with nano-sensors inside the body. You could have a nanosensor perform an assay, detect tumor markers, relay it through a series of nanoantennas, and have someone’s smart watch flash and tell them hey, you need to go see the doctor, right now. And that’s what people are honestly discussing, right now, at the highest levels, in both the healthcare sector and the military; the practicality and ethics of ideas like Wireless Body Area Networks, Intra-body Nano-networks, the Internet of Bodies, the Internet of Bio-Nano Things, and so on. If you go on the World Economic Forum or RAND Corporation’s sites, you’ll find numerous articles about the Internet of Bodies and about how we’re all going to have nanosensors implanted inside us. They can’t really seem to decide what terminology they want to use for it. They could just say cyborgs and most people would immediately understand.
What we’re talking about, here, is the hybridization of flesh and electronics, way down at the nano-scale. You can’t see it. Someone imbued with this sort of tech would look the same as anyone else, but they’re not the same. Their pulse, O2 saturation, blood glucose, complete blood count, and other vital statistics are all being monitored, and they can pull them up on their phone whenever they want—no need to reach for a meter and lancets, or do a blood draw. Basically, they’re a walking, talking laboratory. The tech to do this is almost here. We’re talking a matter of a decade or two.
I happen to have some issues with this technology. Some very, very serious issues. If you look up Jonathan Moreno, James Giordano, Charles Morgan, and Armin Krishnan, you will know that there is frank discussion in military think tanks and among bioethicists about the possibility of using neurobiological and genetic manipulation to affect human behavior. Not just monitoring people’s bodies to check on their health, but actual manipulation of the functions of various tissues.
Monitoring, on its own, has serious ethical concerns associated with it. People are entitled to the privacy of their health data. Giant corporations with giant data centers are not entitled to harvest that data and use it to serve targeted ads or decide people’s insurance rates. Imagine if you walked into GEICO, and the rep said “Well, your nanosensors are telling us that you read high on the biochemical predicates for impulsivity and risky behavior. We think you’re a speeding risk, so no, we won’t let you buy car insurance from us.”
Imagine if companies all just pooled and shared all of this body data. Imagine if national security agencies had access to it. Imagine the nonstop, constant privacy violation that would be. Imagine if you watched a political ad for some New World Order-approved candidate, and you frowned at the video and your stress levels went through the roof, and nanosensors detected the tension in your eyebrow muscles, the rise of cortisol in your blood, and the change in your neuronal firing patterns. Subsequently, a pop-up ad on your phone referred you to counseling services to bring your mind back in line with the needs of the Party.
This may seem preposterous to most people if they’re hearing all of this for the first time. And yet, that is exactly what reams and reams of white papers are describing, at this very moment; new and exciting ways to give every person on the planet a 24/7 rectal exam. Klaus Schwab and Yuval Noah Harari and their ilk are really excited about the prospects of this.
People are absolutely entitled to privacy. That’s kind of a foreign concept to the managerial elites, I know. They want to turn everything into a data point, so they can act on it, manipulate it, and use it to take their own warped and twisted funhouse-mirror idea of a utopia and impose it on all of us. They don’t think we’re entitled to privacy. They think it's an outdated concept. They want to put facial-recognition CCTV cameras on every street corner. The stark authoritarianism of their ideas is plainly evident to anyone who has ever engaged in any serious analysis of the managerial elites and their beliefs.
However, that just covers the ethical problems with monitoring people’s cells. It opens a completely different can of worms when we discuss things like two-way readout and stimulation of brain cells, or other cells and tissues in the body. That’s a whole ‘nother level of violation of the sanctity of people’s physical beings. Now, Jonathan Moreno has written about this, and it’s posted on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, but the weaponization of biotech and neurotech is just about the most obscene thing any sane individual can imagine, and there are very few legal barriers against it. The Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention forbid agents or toxins that incapacitate or kill. Militaries are developing neuroweapons, today, that fit neither the definition of killing nor incapacitating agents.
Fifth-Generation Warfare was based on information. Just ordinary people sharing information with each other. People outside the uniformed services. Civilians, like you and me. See how that works? They redefined talking as an act of warfare. Everything is an influence operation, now. Don’t you know that friend of yours on Twitter that you’ve known for a decade is a Russian asset? And that guy on Reddit you follow, he’s a PRC spy. A sort of hyper-paranoid, progressive Neo-McCarthyism has descended upon the ruling class, where they want to call you a terrorist if you so much as engender mistrust in the authorities.
That’s not hyperbole. It’s the actual language the DHS uses. If you undermine the CDC, or the FBI, or the DHS, or any other federal agency, by stating that they’re a bunch of politically motivated, treasonous little weasels undermining America’s national sovereignty and helping the New World Order take us over, it doesn’t matter how true that statement is. The DHS wants to define you as a terrorist and segregate you from society.
Now, here’s the thing. Sixth-Generation Warfare won’t be based on information. It will be based on cognitive warfare. That is, altering the sources of information, such that the second and third-order effects of that information will change. When America wants a Russian general to massacre a village and cause a scene, they’ll slip something into his drink to make him irrationally angry and bloodthirsty. When China wants America weakened, they’ll dump nanoparticles in a reservoir somewhere, and people will drink them, and they’ll cross their blood-brain barrier and slowly give them dementia. Do you see how this works, yet? Civilians are the primary targets of this new form of warfare.
It’s not even warfare at all. Not in the sense of armies clashing on a battlefield in a strictly defined, ritualistic sort of way. No, this is just governments bullying and manipulating ordinary people.
Governments don’t like it when people talk about this new paradigm of cognitive warfare. It has been rather deliberately kept out of the mainstream media. The coverage doesn’t exist. There’s a very good reason for that. Human beings, as rational agents, don’t tend to like it when our agency is stripped from us. We don’t like it when people even suggest doing such a thing. It has been very difficult for me to raise awareness on this issue, because cognitive warfare is such an evil and outlandish concept on the very face of it, most people don’t even want to think it exists.
And yet, policymakers are sitting around, wondering at new forms of “bloodless” warfare, where neuroweapons replace propaganda and can be used to soften a country up before invasion; first, heightening aggression and turning citizens against their own governments, and then, reversing them into docility, pacifying the populace to prevent an insurgency against an occupying force. They speculate on the consequences of enemy spies using neuroweapons on our leaders, or our spies doing the same to the leaders of rival powers. Imagine if you had the power to turn an enemy nation’s scientists and managerial caste into drooling, impulsive idiots by disabling their higher cognitive abilities. You could collapse a country with this stuff.
Many potential mechanisms have been discussed, such as using DREADDs, or designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs, nanoparticles, toxins and viruses that target the brain, and so on. The paradigm of neurowarfare is not limited to one specific agent. Many agents can be used to disable the brains of an adversarial nation. A neurotropic virus is a perfect example of a neurowarfare agent. SARS-CoV-2 is definitely neurotropic and amyloidogenic and may promote tauopathies and persistent microglial activation in the brain. Some people who recovered from severe COVID-19 had persistent cognitive deficits and “brain fog” months later. That’s a neuroweapon.
A nanoparticle capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier and causing persistent neuroinflammation in an area of interest in the brain is another example of a neuroweapon. Some of these nanoparticles could become persistent contaminants and taint soil and groundwater, if used for military purposes to manipulate a civilian population.
Some genes have been associated with specific forms of behavior, such as aggression, or paranoia, or bigotry, or religiosity. What if the ruling class had the ability to replace those genes in someone’s offspring without them even realizing it, using gene editing or the like, so that their children grow up to express views more acceptable to the State?
Biotech is being seriously investigated as a means of broad social control on a global scale. This isn’t just to achieve military objectives. This is the redefinition of basic sociopolitical activity on this planet as something subject to unprecedented, clandestine military action, using a novel paradigm that has seen very little coverage in the media.
This is the story of the century. There should be dozens of investigative journalists digging into the implications of the neuroweapon paradigm and the capacity of modern bionanotechnology to strip human agency and privacy rights away. Where are they? I can’t be the only one who’s seeing this and is shocked by the implications.
The New World Order want to have people’s bodies monitored and manipulated, to make sure they’re incapable of dissent, to manipulate their systems of value, their agency and autonomy, and so on. I mean, none of this is new, even. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote frankly about the intentions of the Overclass fifty years ago, to manipulate people’s minds and bodies and create a controlled serf caste. This stuff has been decades in the making. They were seriously considering it before the technology to do it even existed. And yet, very few people are speaking out on any of this.
This matter needs to be brought up, constantly, with friends and family, until people finally understand that—hey—this isn’t science fiction. This is reality. They’re really doing this to us.
This article and audio are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/