Omniwar: Attack on Humanity

Omniwar: Exposing and Ending the Invisible Attack on Humanity

By David A. Hughes

Table of Contents

Introduction
Part 1 – Contextualizing Developments Since 2020
Part 2 – World War III: Omniwar
Part 3 – Network-centric Warfare
Part 4 – Targeting the Brain
Part 5 – Engineering Human Beings
Part 6 – The “Covid-19” Era and the Internet of Bio-NanoThings
Part 7 – Conclusion

NOTE TO READER: This version of the report does not (yet) include all of the figures.

Introduction

A stealth war to enslave humanity is being waged from the cell to the stratosphere. It is like no war that has ever been seen before. It is a world war, yet most people have no idea it is taking place, or that it is being waged against them. It assumes the form of an Omniwar, waged across all domains of human life, but covertly, so that the public does not recognize it as such. Despite being everywhere all the time, the Omniwar paradoxically remains invisible, which is what makes it so potent. How can those caught up in it resist, if they do not know what is happening, cannot identify the enemy, and are unable to recognize the aims, strategies, tactics, and weaponry being deployed against them?

Effective resistance begins by seeing and understanding what we are facing. The purpose of this report is to explain why the Omniwar is taking place, who is behind it, what its goal is, and the covert methods and invisible weaponry it entails. Although the Omniwar was initiated, undeclared, in 2020, it must be seen in a wider context of military planning, dating back decades, for what a seminal NASA document refers to as the “IT/Bio/Nano” age (slide 13).¹ In simple terms, this is about connecting human bodies to an external network for purposes of technocratic monitoring and control. Should such a system be instituted globally, the result will be an inescapable, biodigital form of totalitarianism.

This report is in seven parts:

• Part 1 explains why the Omniwar is taking place, by showing that the existing control system, in place for decades, entered crisis in the years leading up to 2020, triggering a plan to initiate the rollout of its intended successor, global technocracy.
• Part 2 argues that social engineering on this scale can only be achieved through world war and that we are, therefore, in World War III, which looks nothing like the two previous world wars but, rather, takes the historically unprecedented form of the Omniwar, entailing the weaponization of everything.
• Part 3 turns to network-centric warfare, AI, and human bodies as nodes on the network, an idea which has become realizable via the Internet of BioNano Things, while the network itself is becoming inescapable.
• Part 4 explores military plans to target the human brain, coupled with the development of syringe-injectable neural nanotechnologies and smart dust, which are able to bring such plans to fruition.
• Part 5 is about engineering human beings to render them compatible with the Internet of BioNano Things: synthetic biology plays a key role, as does dual-use technology, with the military aspect being camouflaged by transhumanist false promises of “upgrading” human beings like software.
• Part 6 relates the preceding material to the contentious issue of the “Covid-19 vaccines” and their contents, arguing that the possibility of undisclosed nanotechnologies cannot be ruled out and that other delivery mechanisms could also be at work.
• Part 7 (the Conclusion) discusses the evil potential of weaponized neurotechnology, why it is important to adopt a war footing, what resistance in the Omniwar looks like, what practical steps can be taken, and why a positive vision of the future is needed.

Part 1 – Contextualizing Developments Since 2020

Pre-Covid: The System Enters Crisis

For decades, populations have been kept in check through a combination of four main factors:

1. Neoliberal economics
2. The international monetary and financial system
3. The propaganda system
4. The “War on Terror”

All of these control mechanisms entered crisis in the years leading up to 2020.

Neoliberal Economics

Between 1995 and 2021, 38% of global wealth growth accrued to the richest 1% (mostly to the richest 0.001%), while the poorest half of humanity received only 2% of the growth (Figure 1). This trend exacerbated inequalities in a world where the richest 10% controls 76% of the wealth, and the poorest half, again, accounts for a mere 2%.²

Clearly, neoliberal economics is a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. In 2019, following years of “austerity,” massive social protests erupted in 35 different countries (one in five), reflecting “unprecedented political mobilization” worldwide.³ The “signs of revolution,” according to Kees van der Pijl (author of States of Emergency: Keeping the Global Population in Check, p. 72⁴), were too serious for the transnational ruling class to ignore.

The International Monetary and Financial System

The debt-based fiat currency system, as it has existed since the decoupling of the U.S. dollar from gold in 1971, is a giant Ponzi scheme that will inevitably collapse at some point. The writing has been on the wall for some time, viz. the Long-Term Capital Management crisis (1998), the financial crisis of 2007-08, and the Eurozone debt crisis. First, the banks had to bail out a hedge fund; then, the public had to bail out the banks; then, sovereign nation-states went bankrupt. Since 2008, the system has been on artificial life support in the form of “quantitative easing” plus near-0% interest rates. The next major crisis always had the potential to prove fatal.⁵

Matters came to a head in August 2019. The deficiencies of the international monetary and financial system had become “increasingly potent,” according to erstwhile Bank of England Governor Mark Carney.⁶ “Even a passing acquaintance with monetary history,” Carney told the most senior figures in international finance at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, “suggests that this center won’t hold.” The previous week, BlackRock had published a seminal report arguing that conventional monetary and fiscal policies would not be enough to deal with the next economic downturn.⁷ Evidently, a new system is required.

The Propaganda System

The Western propaganda system, as had been essential to “the manufacture of consent” in liberal democracies for almost a century,^{8 9} was undermined by the rise of social media, independent media, and citizen journalism during a period of relative Internet freedom up to 2020. More and more people came to see through official lies, such as that 19 Muslim hijackers, armed only with box cutters, were able to turn two 110-story steel-framed skyscrapers mostly into dust in midair¹⁰ (Figure 2) and were further able to collapse a third, 47-story building into its own footprint using only two planes.

The “Russian disinformation” narrative, originating in 2016-17 as a pretext for censorship, shows that the propaganda system was no longer functioning effectively and that more draconian forms of information control would be needed.

The “War on Terror”

The so-called “War on Terror” (really a war of terror) has been used, not only to legitimize aggressive military measures abroad, but also as the pretext for repressive “emergency” measures at home. Faced with a largely manufactured existential threat, the citizenry is expected to cede certain liberties and do as it is told in exchange for the promise of “security.” More terror, therefore, yields greater capacity for social control.

As more and more people began asking critical, evidence-based questions about the true nature and provenance of major terrorist attacks, those attacks intensified. For example, a spate of terrorist attacks in France between 2015 and 2017 resulted in the introduction of a state of emergency, renewed five times since, involving 10,000 troops deployed on French streets (p. 64).⁴ However, if such actions, in France and elsewhere, were intended to quell social unrest by moving societies ever further in the direction of police states, the effort failed, as conspicuously expressed by the rise of the Yellow Vests in France in 2018, as well as mass uprisings in Chile and India (pp. 54-58).⁴ Those social movements assumed a socially progressive form not easily assimilated by populism, “instilling fear in the ruling classes the world over” (p. 3).⁴ As we have seen, they culminated in the massive protests of 2019.

2020: Time for a Paradigm Shift

As Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben realized as early as February 2020, the powers that be had evidently decided that the existing paradigms of governance were in “progressive, unavoidable decline” and, thus, no longer fit for purpose.¹¹ The “pandemic,” Agamben noted, whether “real or simulated,” was being used as the pretext for transforming those paradigms “top to bottom.” We can see this in the proposed solutions to the crises above, namely:

1. The Great Reset
2. An all-digital financial system
3. Information control
4. Biosecurity

All of these feed into the intended replacement control system, which is global technocracy, a novel, biodigital form of totalitarianism. Let us consider each in turn.

The Great Reset

What is being attempted is a top-down revolution on a global scale (pp. 17-19).¹² Klaus Schwab has branded it the “Great Reset,”¹³ and in his book on the subject, he is openly critical of neoliberal economics.¹⁴ The breathtaking scale and ambition of the “Great Reset” are evident from the diagram shown in Figure 3.

The aim, it appears, is to remake all aspects of human existence in the preferred image of the ruling class. Note that the only thing missing from the diagram is religion, for which there will presumably be no place.

An All-Digital Financial System

John Titus demonstrates, based on analysis of Federal Reserve activity, that it is “easy if not trivial to look at a timeline of monetary events and see that the official monetary response to the ‘coronavirus pandemic’ went into effect before there even was a pandemic.”¹⁵ Drawing on BlackRock terminology,¹⁶ Titus calls the bankers’ plan the “Going Direct Reset.” It involves abolishing the split-circuit system that keeps central bank reserves and retail money separate (as is necessary for a democratic system of “no taxation without representation”) and instead establishing a direct connection between central banks and individuals’ private accounts.

Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) would be one fulfillment of this. As the head of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Augustín Carstens, revealed in November 2020, “the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.”¹⁷ In other words, money will no longer exist as a free medium of exchange; instead, there will be a totalitarian control system in which the central bank determines how, when, where, and if its currency can be used.

Information Control

Preparations for attacking free speech were being made on the same timeline, under the pretext of “pandemic preparedness.” In September 2019, before the emergence of “SARS-CoV-2,” the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board¹⁸ warned of “misinformation that can hinder disease control communicated quickly and widely via social media.” The Wellcome Trust that month cautioned, “If we face another deadly pandemic, this spread of misinformation could have a potentially catastrophic effect on our ability to contain the outbreak.”¹⁹ The penultimate session of Event 201 (a scenario-planning exercise based on a deadly coronavirus pandemic) in October 2019 aimed to work out “how best to manage the overwhelming amounts of dis- and misinformation circulating over the internet”; according to one participant, “If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it’s the right choice.”²⁰ On February 2, 2020, when almost no cases existed outside China, the World Health Organization (WHO) proclaimed the urgency of “managing the 2019-nCoV ‘infodemic’” (p. 1).²¹

Ever since, online speech has become ever more rigorously policed, first through algorithms, then through legislation such as the UK Online Safety Act, which allows regulators to ban any content deemed “harmful.” The totalitarian direction of travel, to quote former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in March 2020, is that the government will be “your single source of truth.”²²

Biosecurity

The “War on Terror” was replaced by a new security paradigm, that is, biosecurity, rendering the decline in major terrorist attacks since 2020 non-accidental. Biosecurity, or “health security” as governments like to call it, is not really about health at all. Rather, it is about what Agamben calls “biopower” (p. 181),²³ whereby “the state decides to assume directly the care of the nation’s biological life as one of its proper tasks.” Put differently, it is about the state exercising power directly over human bodies and biology.

Biopower, Agamben argues (pp. 175-181),²³ is epitomized in the camp, a space in which the modern rights of citizenship do not apply. Moreover, he predicted, as the modern nation-state system breaks down, the camp will emerge as “the fundamental biopolitical paradigm of the West.” That prediction is apparently coming true. “As an emergent paradigm of governance,” Simon Elmer of Architects for Social Housing writes, “the global biosecurity state represents the end of the classical model of politics.”²⁴ According to van der Pijl, “The social and political system of the original liberal West has run its historic course and after 300 years has dropped all pretense of a social contract other than the state of emergency.”²⁵ For political writer Brendan O’Neill, the specter of mandatory vaccination for entire populations threatens to mark the “violent end” of European liberalism.²⁶

Technocracy

The intended successor to the previous control system is global technocracy. As an idea, technocracy dates back to the 1930s, when it was conceived by Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert as an alternative system to capitalism in the context of the Wall Street crash and the Great Depression. Their 1934 Technocracy Study Course characterizes technocracy as “dealing with social phenomena in the widest sense of the word; this includes not only actions of human beings, but also everything which directly or indirectly affects their actions,” including biology, the climate, and natural resources.²⁷ Their magazine, The Technocrat, defines technocracy as “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.”²⁸ In other words, technocracy is about the scientific management of everyone and everything.

Technocracy is hostile to human freedom. At the apex of its power structure (the Technate) stand the technocrats, who control everyone and everything. It is they who get to manage and distribute resources, right down to the individual level.²⁹ Paraphrasing Patrick Wood (pp. 14-15),³⁰ technocracy implies:

• Eradication of private property, for everything is owned by the Technate.
• Dependence on the Technate for all basic needs (e.g., food, housing, healthcare, transportation).
• Inability to save for future needs, since energy certificates (used instead of money) expire at the end of an accounting period.
• Abolition of all previous political systems, including democracy.
• Education as a form of conditioning to prepare people for the career path chosen for them by the Technate.

Mid-twentieth-century thinkers salivated over the prospect of using science for purposes of social control. Bertrand Russell, for instance, envisaged in 1952 a “scientific dictatorship” in which access to the relevant scientific knowledge will be “rigidly confined to the governing class” (pp. 30-54).³¹ According to Aldous Huxley in 1958, “Under a scientific dictator education will really work – with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution.”³² Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1970 imagined a “more controlled and directed society,” dominated by an elite whose “superior scientific know-how” would enable it to utilize “the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control” (pp. 10, 97).³³

Technocracy has been gradually incubated for decades under various guises, including sustainable development, stakeholder capitalism, green economy, smart growth, and so on.³⁴ It always comes back to the idea of Earth as a closed container whose finite resources must be “stewarded” and managed responsibly for the good of all, implicitly requiring a global Technate.

Meanwhile, decades of Rockefeller-led Western investment into China led to China emerging as what Davis calls “the world’s first Technate”²⁹ (see pp. 18-20 in my 2024 book, “Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy³⁵), that is, the first instance of technocracy in practice. Under the Chinese social credit scoring (SCS) system, for instance, those with a higher score “will have travel freedoms, will attend better schools and get better jobs,” explains Patrick Wood (p. 125), whereas “[l]ow SCS holders will not be allowed to have travel passes, live in better housing, get into better schools and will be left with less desirable work conditions.”³⁰ The SCS system was then extended to companies in China—a precursor of the “Environmental Sustainability Goals” (or ESG [environment, social, and governance]) currently being rolled out to score companies worldwide and thereby manipulate their activities.

Now that technocracy has proven feasible as a means of controlling the world’s most populous country, the aim is to roll it out in the West and elsewhere (p. 73).³⁰ The goal all along was to use technology to implement global scientific dictatorship. The true threat emanating from China was never a deadly virus but, rather, technocracy (pp. 228-236).³⁵ The fact that all Western states engaged in psychological warfare against their own citizens to promote the “pandemic” narrative³⁵ is a clear indicator that the ruling classes of all countries are collaborating on the global rollout of technocracy.

The technology required to fulfill technocracy’s vision of the scientific management of society was not available in the 1930s, but it is now, and much of it goes under the label “smart.” So-called “smart cities,”³⁶ for example, “pullulate with sensors, all joined together by the ‘internet of things,’ [with] bollards communing invisibly with lamp posts,” to quote former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a 2019 address to the UN General Assembly (Figure 4).³⁷ However, Johnson continued, “this technology could also be used to keep every citizen under round-the-clock surveillance. […] Digital authoritarianism is not, alas, the stuff of dystopian fantasy but of an emerging reality.” They always tell us.

In fact, the danger from digital technologies extends far beyond cities. As Catherine Austin Fitts has argued,³⁸ the whole of society is being transformed into a “digital concentration camp,” a conclusion reached separately by Aman Jabbi³⁹ (timestamp 28:53) and myself (p. 136).¹² Particularly if human bodies are connected to a wireless external control network, as has been the mission since the turn of the millennium at least, then biopower can be exercised via remote control. I explore that very real danger in detail in the second half of this report.

We should, therefore, be under no illusion: technocracy as it is emerging today is a biodigital form of totalitarianism whose potential for total control far exceeds anything imaginable by Hitler or Stalin, owing to the new technologies it harnesses. Ultimately, it amounts to a global slavery system in which the Technate will exercise direct control over human bodies and all areas of human life. Worse still, if successfully implemented, global technocracy could prove irreversible.

Part 2 – World War III: Omniwar

World War III

Historically, fundamental sociopolitical and economic change on a global scale, as is required by the “Great Reset,” has only been possible through world war. It follows that global technocracy can only be instituted through world war and, therefore, that we now find ourselves in World War III (pp. 20-28).³⁵

Historically, psychological warfare serves to weaken an enemy population’s will to resist before the main assault begins. In 2020-2021, the largest and most comprehensive psychological warfare operation in history was waged against populations around the world under the pretext of combating a novel coronavirus.³⁵ This is consistent with the opening campaign in World War III.

World War III looks nothing like the two previous world wars, just as they did not resemble anything seen before.⁴⁰ The aims, strategies, tactics, and weapons are all different, yet the outcomes—in terms of large numbers of lives lost and the manifestation of previously unimaginable horrors—are sure to be the same, unless those behind the war can be stopped.

For the first time in history, we are looking at a global class war. Unlike the two previous world wars, which were driven by rivalries between the ruling classes of different countries, today the ruling classes of all countries are, of necessity, acting together to keep in check a global population of over eight billion. Although the logic of transnational class conflict has been at work for over 150 years⁴¹ and has been increasingly evident since 1968 (pp. 2-10, 217),³⁵ the escalation to all-out war, globally, since 2020 is historically unprecedented.

Notwithstanding the global depopulation agenda and falling birth rates globally since 1968 (p. 25),³⁵ “all-out war” does not mean trying to kill as many people as possible. Rather, it means resorting to all necessary means, without concern for ethics or legality, to achieve the war aim, which is global technocracy.

Should global technocracy be established, anything becomes possible, including worldwide mass extermination, because resistance will be neutered by the new technologies. However, killing hundreds of millions or billions of people before that point would be strategically disastrous. If, say, two billion people were to die in a relatively short space of time, not only could social order break down in a way that threatens the intended managed transition to technocracy, but the remaining six billion people, sensing the existential danger, would soon identify and turn on those responsible.

Therefore, unlike previous world wars, World War III has to remain “invisible” as far as possible, so that the public does not realize what is happening until it is too late. Otherwise, there could be mass resistance and even revolution. This means that there will be no grand battles for history to record, and no weapons of mass destruction deployed (other than, potentially, for the primary purpose of psychological operations, i.e., to cause terror and mass susceptibility to propaganda, as opposed to trying to kill huge numbers of people).

Rather, World War III amounts to a global counterinsurgency campaign, with dissidents set to replace “terrorists” as the enemy using the infrastructure established through the “War on Terror.”⁴² As in any totalitarian regime, those who fail to challenge the evil abuse of power will be left alone, while those who do will, increasingly, be persecuted.

Omniwar

World War III is waged using the novel methods of Omniwar—that is, war waged across every domain of life, but clandestinely and with plausible deniability where possible, so that the public does not recognize it as such.

Omniwar is war waged by the few against the many. A proportionately miniscule transnational ruling class seeks to use its control over the means of production to subjugate, and ultimately enslave, the rest of humanity.

Omniwar, thus, meets Corbett’s description of:

“[A]n all-out war that is being waged against all of us…right now, and it is a battle for full-spectrum dominance over every single aspect of your life: your movements and interactions, your transactions, even your innermost thoughts and feelings and desires. Governments the world over are working with corporations to leverage technology to control you down to the genomic level, and they will not stop until each and every person who resists them is subdued or eliminated.”⁴³

When Goebbels spoke in 1943 of “a war more total and radical than anything that we can even imagine today,”⁴⁴ Omniwar fits the bill. Yet, with most people still thinking of war in terms of nation-state standing armies, foreign enemies, bullets, bombs, and so forth, it never occurs to them that they themselves are now combatants in the undeclared Omniwar being waged against them.

Given the scale and significance of all that has unfolded since 2020, Dutch journalist Elze van Hamelen asks a pertinent question: “How is it possible that for some it is very clear that we are facing a coup, revolution or even Third World War, while for others everything is seeming ‘normal’?”⁴⁵

There are several ways of answering this question, some of which will make more sense as you read through this report:

• WWIII is a stealth war, undeclared, and designed to stay hidden.
• Nothing like the Omniwar has been seen before; there is no historical precedent to compare it to.
• Because the Omniwar is everywhere, including inside our minds and bodies, we do not see it in any one place.
• Cognition and rationality are under attack, making it hard to make sense of what is happening.
• Infiltration has been key: of governments and institutions by technocrats, of human minds with psychological programming, and of human bodies with substances of an undisclosed nature.
• Many of the weapons deployed are invisible, others assume a civilian disguise, while others involve classified technologies that the public would not believe to be possible.
• The sheer scale and evil of the assault is traumatic and difficult to comprehend.

For the few to wage war against the many, it follows that they must use every possible means at their disposal. As its name suggests, the Omniwar therefore entails the weaponization of everything against the population.

The Weaponization of Everything

Let us consider some of the domains across which the Omniwar is being fought. The following list is not intended to be exhaustive, but it serves to highlight the all-encompassing scope of the war in which we are all now caught up. Domains include:

1. Attacks on the mind/brain
2. Weaponized “healthcare”
3. “Vaccines”
4. The Great Poisoning
5. The water supply
6. Attacks on the food supply
7. Financial warfare
8. Information warfare
9. Law and order
10. Migration
11. The subversion of Christianity
12. The entertainment industry
13. Weather modification
14. The war on children
15. Etc., etc.

Attacks on the Mind/Brain

• The “Covid-19” operation (2020-2021) was the largest psychological warfare operation in history.³⁵
• NATO’s cognitive warfare doctrine, as described in 2022, relates to “the art of using technology to alter the cognition of human targets, who are often unaware of any such attempt” (p. 2-1).⁴⁶ This can be done, for instance, through harvesting social media data to create psychographic profiles, which can in turn be used to tailor messages to individual users.^{47 48 49}
• Electromagnetic warfare has a long history of using electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation to cause detrimental health effects in targets.^{50 51 52 53 54} This renders the 5G rollout since 2020, with its known health risks,^{55 56 57} extremely troubling.^{58 59}
• Neurological warfare, in which the brain is treated as the 21st-century battlefield (Figure 5),⁶⁰ involves neural nanotechnologies that can be delivered through a syringe or via smart dust.^{61 62} I discuss this in greater depth below.

Weaponized “Healthcare”

• The year 2020 saw the deprivation of necessary healthcare^{63 64} in the name of reconfiguring health services⁶⁵ to deal with “Covid-19” (Figure 6), a weaponization of healthcare to which I refer as “public health as death by stealth” (p. 132).³⁵

“Vaccines”

• Most “vaccines” were known to contain an array of undisclosed ingredients before Covid,⁶⁶ but enormous concerns have been raised in the context of microscopic and spectroscopic investigations of the “Covid-19 vaccines,” which were shot into billions of people without the possibility of informed consent.^{67 68 69}
• Massive increases in reported serious adverse reactions followed the “Covid-19 vaccine” rollout. Deaths reported to OpenVAERS were 37 times higher in 2021 than the previous all-time high in 2019.⁷⁰
• Precipitous transnational declines in birth rates followed the “Covid-19 vaccine” rollout (see Figure 7).^{71 72 73}

The Great Poisoning

• Glyphosate, which is used in Monsanto’s Roundup and is “the most widely used agricultural chemical ever,”⁷⁴ is regarded as “probably carcinogenic” by the WHO.⁷⁵ It has been found in 80% of U.S. urine samples.⁷⁶
• Non-biodegradable “forever chemicals” contaminate rainwater, surface water, and ground soil around the world.⁷⁷
• Harmful products commonly found in food include high-fructose corn syrup,⁷⁸ “possibly carcinogenic” aspartame,⁷⁹ and inorganic micro- and nanosized contaminants.⁸⁰

The Water Supply

• Fluoride in drinking water can cause “major adverse human health problems.”⁸¹ In the United States, a recent report by the National Toxicology Program of the Department of Health and Human Services admits that over 1.5 mg/L of fluoride in public drinking water is “associated with lower IQ in children.”⁸² For context, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines dating back to 1986 recommend a maximum concentration of 2.0 mg/L in public drinking water to prevent dental fluorosis, or 4.0 mg/L to prevent bone disease, and still today a review of this regulation remains a “low priority” for the EPA.⁸³
• Judging by a panel discussion at Davos in late 2022 (Figure 8),⁸⁴ and fund managers recently positioning themselves around water, there is a risk of engineered water shortages on the horizon.⁸⁵

Attacks on the Food Supply

• “Pharma Food” offers a potential delivery mechanism for biopharmaceuticals and transhumanist technologies.⁸⁶
• The World Economic Forum (WEF) promotes synthetic meat in place of natural meat, with the threat of eating insects as an alternative.^{87 88 89}
• The war on farmers^{90 91 92} is an attack on food sovereignty.
• U.S. food manufacturing plants are being attacked,^{93 94} while eugenicists such as Bill Gates and Ted Turner have become the largest owners of U.S. farmland.^{95 96}

Financial Warfare

• BlackRock knew in its seminal August 2019 report that “explicit monetary financing in sufficient size will push up inflation.”⁷ A few months later, the Federal Reserve initiated by far the greatest increase in the U.S. money supply in history, and as Figure 9 shows, this drove punishing levels of inflation for ordinary people.⁹⁷
• Manufactured energy shortages, not least owing to the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline⁹⁸ and the war in Ukraine, also drove up energy costs for Western consumers.
• Financial canceling of dissidents has become a stealth censorship mechanism. This began with the demonetization of dissident content creators on mainstream platforms in 2020, escalated through payment processors creating unreasonable problems for those content creators, and was most pronounced when the Canadian government sought to freeze the bank accounts of Freedom Convoy supporters in 2022.

Information Warfare

• Free speech since 2020 has been under major attack. AI-powered online censorship and shadow-banning of dissident content on mainstream channels have become the norm, epitomized by X Corp CEO Linda Yaccarino’s principle of “freedom of speech but not reach.”
• Self-appointed “fact checkers”⁹⁹ and paid networks such as the Trusted News Initiative¹⁰⁰ arrogate to themselves the right to determine what is true or not.
• The “counter-disinformation” industry, with academics lining up to promote it, uncritically takes Western state narratives at face value and provides the supporting propaganda.¹⁰¹ As already noted, this enables governments to position themselves as what the erstwhile New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Adern, called the “single source of truth.”²²
• All of this was rolled out under the pretext of combating “mis-,” “dis-,” and “malinformation” about an alleged virus^{21, 102 103 104 105 106} whose very existence remains disputed (pp. 228-236).³⁵

Law and Order

• In the Covid era, police brutality (Figure 10)¹⁰⁷ was used to intimidate dissidents.¹⁰⁸
• Draconian legislation has been used to expand police powers, clamp down on protests, place limits on journalism, and allow governments to regulate the Internet (pp. 14-16).¹²
• “Lawfare” is being used to punish and intimidate dissidents.^{12, 109 110}

Migration

• Historically unprecedented levels of migration from non-Western countries into the West have taken place since 2020. In the UK, the spike in non-EU immigration coincides with the Omniwar period (Figure 11).¹¹¹
• Such a sharp increase, which is here linked to policy, can only be expected to have socially destabilizing effects. In the Omniwar context, with its logic of infiltration, as well as Stanton’s Ten Stages of Genocide,¹¹² could we also be looking at the covert introduction of militias with no patriotic loyalty (pp. 331-332)?³⁵

The Subversion of Christianity

• Historically, Christianity has provided the moral foundation of Western civilization, but today it is under attack, for example, from satanic messaging laced into popular culture (Figure 12).^{113 114}
• During “Covid-19,” the churches closed their doors to the sick, turned their facilities into “vaccination” centers, and the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed that Jesus would have gotten “vaccinated” (p. 21).¹²
• Transhumanism openly aspires to go “beyond the God of the Bible.”¹¹⁵

The Entertainment Industry

• Hollywood represents a “vast, militarized propaganda apparatus operating throughout the screen entertainment industry in the United States.”¹¹⁶
• In the music industry, most household names turn out to have military connections.^{117 118 119}
• The comedy circuit is tightly policed and only allows certain material to be presented to the public.¹²⁰
• Television has “unavoidably dissociative effects,”¹²¹ and its alpha waves render the viewer more susceptible to hypnotic suggestion¹²² and entrainment.¹²³

Weather Modification

• Hurricane modification efforts date back to 1947¹²⁴; the U.S. Air Force planned to “own the weather” by 2025¹²⁵ (Figure 13); the CIA took an interest in climate change¹²⁶; and stratospheric aerosol injection is openly discussed.^{127 128 129} Would it come as any surprise if the adverse weather events attributed to “climate change” in recent years were caused by the military?
• Following the clear skies during “lockdown,” there have been mounting citizen concerns regarding “chemtrails.” Although such concerns predate the Omniwar, the crisscross patterns in our skies appear thicker and more commonplace than they were before (Figure 14). What is their purpose? To reduce the population’s access to sunlight? To spray us with harmful particulates? To ionize the atmosphere? To disperse smart dust? Whatever this is, it certainly looks nefarious.

The War on Children

• Covid restrictions on face-to-face education had “significant and adverse impacts on children’s learning.”¹³⁰
• Children were traumatized by being treated as walking biohazards capable of “killing granny” (p. 91)³⁵ and forced to wear face masks¹³¹ (Figure 15).
• “Lockdowns” led to increased levels of domestic violence and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).¹³²
• Children were targeted unnecessarily for dangerous experimental injections.¹³³
• Children are becoming addicted to screens, which in turn harvest their data for social impact investing (timestamp 39:39).³⁹
• A worldwide pedophile network reaches into the highest echelons of power.¹³⁴
• There has been a “confusing and highly age-inappropriate introduction of adult sexuality and queer theory…into schools.”¹³⁵

Etc., Etc.

The list goes on and on. For example, we could add:

• The war on the elderly, for example, via covert euthanasia measures such as the midazolam scandal,¹³⁶ promotion of assisted dying (pp. 33-34),¹² and removal of the UK winter fuel payment for 9.5 million pensioners.¹³⁷
• The tyranny of woke ideology, symbolized by the ubiquity of rainbow colors appropriated from elsewhere. This involves the “technocratic imposition of a very specific [and fringe] worldview” from the top down,¹³⁸ which people become reluctant to challenge for fear of recrimination.¹³⁹ Wokism intolerantly pushes identity politics on everyone to counteract class consciousness.
• The failure of captured regulators to protect the public against known dangers of 5G,¹⁴⁰ vaccines,¹⁴¹ etc.

The logic of the Omniwar is that everything that can be weaponized against the public in the war for technocracy will be weaponized.

Part 3 – Network-centric Warfare

While the Omniwar is being waged to keep populations disoriented, demoralized, and debilitated—and thus unable to muster effective resistance in the war for technocracy—broader patterns in the ongoing transformation of 21st-century warfare place human freedom in very real jeopardy. Once the bigger picture is seen, it becomes clear that the end goal of the technocrats is nothing short of the biodigital subjugation and enslavement of humanity.

Network-centric Warfare, the Global Information Grid, and Drones

The concept of network-centric warfare¹⁴² (Figure 16) emerged in the late 1990s. Its hallmark is that it “places information networks at the center of…warfighting” and is aimed at improved situational awareness, faster speed of command, and more precise maneuver warfare.¹⁴³

The Global Information Grid (GIG), which is operated by the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), provides the necessary technical framework for network-centric warfare. It constitutes a “system of systems,” integrating sensor systems, command and control centers, and weapons platforms. The U.S. Department of Defense seeks to “plug every device into it – every vehicle, every system, every drone – to form one all-encompassing net.”¹⁴⁴ Organizations such as Sensor Open Systems Architecture work to ensure interoperability between the various components.¹⁴⁵

Drone warfare¹⁴⁶ (Figure 17) is one example of network-centric warfare. It relies on information superiority to identify, locate, and assassinate targets, supposedly with high precision and minimal collateral damage, although disproportionately high civilian casualty rates and the deliberate tactic of “double tapping” (bombing a target, waiting for first responders to arrive, and then bombing a second time) are well known.¹⁴⁷

Drones are not mere appendages to the Global Information Grid; rather, they help to build the network, with their on-board Internet routers using spare bandwidth to help route GIG traffic. In this way, the drones “do not exist as separate entities called in to finish the job” but are themselves “nodes on the network. They are a part of the network. The network is the weapon.”¹⁴³

Network-centric Warfare and Artificial Intelligence

AI’s “Big Bang” moment came in 2012, when big data, combined with advanced computing power, enabled computers to “begin analyzing the information and writing the rule sets themselves.”¹⁴⁸ From that point on, computer systems could be programmed to act autonomously from the conclusions reached by machine-written rules.

This breakthrough was immediately weaponized. DOD Directive 3000.09, titled “Autonomy in Weapons Systems,” sets policy and assigns responsibilities for the development and usage of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons systems, including remotely operated systems such as drones.¹⁴⁹ It also includes guidelines to “minimize the probability and consequences of failures” in such systems—there being no contemplation of refusing to develop lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) in the first place.

The Pentagon’s Project Maven, beginning in 2017, aims to use AI to detect, tag, and track objects of interest (including humans) from still images or videos captured by aerial surveillance vehicles, potentially informing the determination of military targets.¹⁵⁰ Officials have remained tight-lipped about Maven and its intended mode of operation since 2022.¹⁵¹ As of fiscal year 2025, Maven falls entirely under the control of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and its budget remains classified.

The accompanying Maven Smart System (MSS) is run by Palantir and integrates geospatial imagery from satellites, geolocation data (from smartphones, social media, etc.), signals intelligence, and radar and infrared sensors to provide real-time battlefield analysis and target identification. A five-year, $480-million contract awarded by the Pentagon in May 2024 will expand the MSS user base from hundreds to thousands of users across five U.S. combatant commands by 2029.¹⁵²

The DOD’s Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) concept (Figure 18) aims to connect sensors from all branches of the armed forces¹⁵³ (Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Space Force) into a unified network powered by AI. Companies such as Palantir, SAIC,¹⁵⁴ and Collins Aerospace are developing CJADC2 solutions.

Within CJADC2, the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) uses cloud environments and “new communications methods” powered by AI to enable seamless data sharing (including from Space Force) for faster decision-making.¹⁵⁵

In warfighting applications, AI systems developed under Maven were used to identify targets for airstrikes in Syria and Yemen in February 2024.¹⁵⁶ The following month, the Ukrainian military deployed AI-equipped drones to attack Russian oil refineries.¹⁵⁷

Looking ahead, the U.S. DOD has over 800 active AI-related projects and requested an additional $1.8 billion of AI funding in the 2024 budget.¹⁵⁸ The Air Force has 1,000 unmanned warplanes under development by General Atomics and Anduri, which it hopes can be powered by AI, one anticipated advantage being that an AI-powered fleet could navigate via the Earth’s magnetic fields in the event that the GPS satellite system were knocked out.¹⁴⁸

It does not require a leap of the imagination to see how LAWS technology could go wrong. The Air Force’s head of artificial intelligence test and operations, Tucker Hamilton, for instance, presented a thought experiment at a talk in London in May 2023 in which an AI-enabled drone, programmed to kill a certain threat, would kill its operator if ordered not to kill that threat, or would destroy the communications channel with the operator if programmed not to kill the operator.¹⁵⁹ A Skynet-style scenario (as per the Terminator franchise), in which an Air Force-built global artificial intelligence network turns against humanity, is not beyond the realms of possibility.

As was predicted over a decade ago,¹⁶⁰ there are already signs that the kill decision will ultimately be taken by a robot. For example, the Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems in 2022 announced its “LANIUS drone-based loitering munition” (Figure 19),¹⁶¹ which can autonomously (without user intervention) take off, navigate, determine entry points to buildings, map the inside of unknown buildings, identify combatants and non-combatants among the building occupants, and detonate explosive payloads (albeit with “man-in-the-loop control” for the final stage).¹⁶²

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) used an AI targeting system to single out 37,000 Palestinians as suspected militants at the start of its war in Gaza.¹⁵⁸ Footage has circulated online, from both Gaza and Ukraine, of drones detonating their payloads on hapless victims. Since 2021, under Project Nimbus, Google has had a $1.2 billion deal with the IDF to provide cloud computing services and AI capabilities.¹⁶³

Human Bodies as Nodes on a Biodigital Control Grid

What if human brains and bodies could be hooked up to the Global Information Grid? And what if companies such as Palantir could manage all the resultant data? Global technocracy would be achieved. Everything and everyone would form part of a biodigital control system.

The planning for such an eventuality dates at least as far back as the turn of the millennium in literature by NASA, the National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce, the RAND Corporation, and other organizations (pp. 337-338).³⁵ Their premise was that simultaneous revolutions in “converging technologies” (nano, bio, informational, cognitive)¹⁶⁴ would issue in what NASA’s Dennis Bushnell called the “IT/Bio/Nano” era, beginning in, of all years, 2020.¹ In simple terms, the “IT/Bio/Nano” era is about introducing nanotechnology into human bodies that is capable of communicating with an external network.

It is important to note the military fingerprint on much of this early literature:

• The seminal 2002 report by Roco and Bainbridge¹⁶⁴ about “converging technologies” (Figure 21) was, according to NATO’s Bernard Claverie and François du Cluzel,⁴⁶ “formalized with the encouragement of the US Department of Defense.”
• A 2003 U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research symposium on “Bio-Inspired Nanoscale Hybrid Systems” brought together over 100 different research projects to investigate “the combination of natural nano-systems (biomolecules) and artificial nano sized species such as metal or semiconductor nanoparticles.”¹⁶⁵
• In 2004, the U.S. Army War College predicted that “Classic tools of state power (e.g., weapons and surveillance systems) will be dramatically miniaturized as a result of both bio- and nanotechnology.”¹⁶⁶
• A project sponsored by the Office of Naval Research between 2003 and 2008 aimed to create “bio-digital conversion interfaces” allowing “direct electronic access to biomolecular reactions…including real-time in vivo detection of human responses.”¹⁶⁷

Today, the military origins of “biodigital convergence” are largely obscured. For example, Figure 22 shows how the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) presented the concept of biodigital convergence in 2023.¹⁶⁸ Although the IEC claims that this framework is about responsibly managing biodigital convergence (assumed to be inevitable, rather than deliberately planned and orchestrated) to meet “global challenges,” the other way of looking at it is that the UN Sustainable Development Goals¹⁶⁹ (SDGs) serve to camouflage and legitimize the central agenda of “biodigital convergence & bioengineering,” which has been planned since 2000 at least. In this way, the overarching military project—with key milestones forecast for 2020, 2025, and 2030—remains on course.

The Internet of Bio-NanoThings

The “IT/Bio/Nano” era took a significant step toward realization with the “Internet of Bio-NanoThings” (IoBNT) announced by Akyildiz and others in 2015.¹⁷⁰ Through the reengineering of biological cells and subcellular components, the IoBNT aims to create “bio-cyber interfaces” which “translate information from the biochemical domain of Bio-NanoThing networks [inside the body] to the Internet cyber-domain” and vice versa (p. 38).¹⁷⁰ Put differently, the idea is to create a nanonetwork within the human body that is capable of communicating with the Internet.

In a 2020 publication, Akyildiz and colleagues proposed that “Bio-NanoThings” (BNTs) can transmit data to a “hub/gateway outside of the body,” which in turn can connect to “mobile devices and the backbone network such as Internet or cellular systems,” which, conversely, can “remotely control the BNTs.”¹⁷¹ Thus, we are looking at a two-way process in which information is not only relayed from the body to an external network, but objects within the body can also be wirelessly remote-controlled.

Čuljak and colleagues describe a “high-data rate wireless communication interface (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 802.15.4)” between the body and the “local data aggregator.”¹⁷²

In a visual representation of the IoBNT by Zafar and colleagues¹⁷³ (Figure 23), “a biochemical signal from inside the human body is converted into [an] electromagnetic signal via [a] bio cyber interface, and transmitted through Bluetooth or equivalent technology towards [a] server.” Such a network, they add, is “generally deployed” (a military term) in the human body “orally or through injection,” raising the specter of nanonetworks that can be ingested or administered through a syringe.

The IoBNT and “Healthcare”

As the “medical server” in Figure 23 shows, the IoBNT is typically marketed in terms of healthcare, rather than as a military project for total social control. Ignoring the previous literature on biodigital convergence, Zafar and coauthors¹⁷³ falsely claim that “the idea of integrating biological cells into the communication engineering perspective was first proposed by Akyildiz et al.”¹⁷⁰ in the context of transmitting “vital physiological parameters” to a “remote healthcare provider.”

Akyildiz’s project, “PANACEA: An Internet of Bio-NanoThings Application for Early Detection and Mitigation of Infectious Diseases,” frames the Internet of Bio-NanoThings in terms of disease prevention.¹⁷¹ Ostensibly, it is about “a revolution in biomedical technologies” intended to “improve human health and quality of life.”¹⁷⁴ According to Akyildiz and colleagues,¹⁷¹ in a paper funded by the National Science Foundation, “The ultimate goal of IoBNT is to catalyze a revolution in biomedical technologies…to improve human health and quality of life.” However, when asked about potential applications of the IoBNT by an audience member at the end of one of his talks, Akyildiz struggled to muster an answer and did not mention healthcare.¹⁷⁵

“The Internet of Medical Things,” according to Vizziello and coauthors in 2023, “will enable next generation healthcare by enhancing human abilities, supporting continuous body monitoring and restoring lost physiological functions due to serious impairments.”¹⁷⁶ The misleading term “enhancement” is also common to the transhumanist literature,¹⁷⁷ and, with World War III invisibly unfolding, it disguises the potential for weaponization of the new technologies.

“Molecular communication-based IoBNT,” according to Lee and coauthors,¹⁷⁸ facilitates a variety of eHealth applications, such as using organ monitoring sensors to transfer internal body signals to health-monitoring applications. It is highly likely that most IoBNT researchers have no idea that they are contributing to the building of a weapons system. Moreover, so long as the funding keeps flowing and careers are enhanced, the temptation to hide behind the mask of healthcare (or other civilian applications) is strong.

An IEEE paper, titled “Industrial Cyberphysical Systems: A Backbone of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,”¹⁷⁹ aligns itself with World Economic Forum agendas. It characterizes cyberphysical systems as “the pivotal enabler for a new era of real-time Internet-based communication and collaboration among value-chain participants, e.g., devices, systems, organizations, and humans” [emphasis added]. Here, humans must be connected to the control grid just like any other object; it has nothing to do with health.

The IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference, held in Toronto in October 2023,¹⁸⁰ explored the following technologies, among others:

• Biosensor devices and interface circuits
• Body area/sensor networks
• Innovative circuits for “biofeedback, neuromodulation, and closed-loop systems”
• Biotelemetry and energy harvesting/scavenging circuits and systems
• Lab-on-chip, bioMEMS, and point-of-care devices

According to the conference website, applications based on those technologies include “artificial intelligence of things,” “bio-signal recording,” “machine learning,” “genomics and systems biology,” “human-machine interfaces,” and “bioinformatics.”¹⁸⁰ Shorn of the medical terminology, these concepts create the impression of human bodies as mere nodes on a technocratic network to be monitored and managed by AI.

No Escaping the Control Network?

Universal 5G Coverage

5G is not simply the next incremental upgrade after 4G. For whereas 4G can service up to 4,000 devices per square kilometer, 5G can connect up to one million devices in the same area, increasing the data transfer speed 10 times and the volume of data transmitted by a factor of 1,000.⁵⁵ The ultimate aim is to connect everything with everything else, thus facilitating technocracy.

To achieve this, the wireless network (be it 5G, 6G, 7G, etc.) has to be ubiquitous. An international petition to “Stop 5G on Earth and in Space,”¹⁴⁰ signed by over 305,000 people as of September 2024, notes:

“If the telecommunications industry’s plans for 5G come to fruition, no person, no animal, no bird, no insect and no plant on Earth will be able to avoid exposure, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to levels of RF radiation that are tens to hundreds of times greater than what exists today, without any possibility of escape anywhere on the planet.”

Elon Musk’s Starlink (Figure 24),¹⁸³ Amazon’s Project Kuiper, OneWeb, and EarthNow are vying to provide internet coverage to all parts of the world from low Earth orbit. Companies such as Stratospheric Platforms beam 5G from drones and airplanes. The control network is intended to be inescapable.

The Internet of Space Things

“CubeSats” (also called “nanosatellites”) are cubic satellites measuring only 10 cm along each axis, with a mass of 1-10 kilograms (kg). (“Picosatellites” have a mass of 0.1-1 kg, and “femtosatellites” are < 0.1 kg).¹⁷⁵

In January 2018, Silicon Valley startup Swarm Technologies became the first company to launch satellites into orbit illegally,¹⁸⁴ when it sent up four CubeSats. Having been hit by a $900,000 fine from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for doing so, Swarm in January 2019 requested FCC permission to launch 150 CubeSats into orbit, with a view to creating “a global Internet of Things communication service at a fraction of the price of existing systems.”¹⁸⁵

Akyildiz came up with his own CubeSat design in a paper titled “The Internet of Space Things/CubeSats.”¹⁸⁶ The corresponding patent (US20230006736A1)¹⁸⁷ for a “Network Employing Cube Satellites” was awarded in October 2023. Figure 25 shows Akyildiz’s visualization of the concept.¹⁸⁸

In essence, it amounts to a low-Earth-orbit recreation of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s “integrated, persistent Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) training environment”¹⁸⁹ (Figure 26).

According to Akyildiz and colleagues,¹⁸⁶ the Internet of Space Things represents “the ultimate cyber-physical system,” far surpassing the terrestrial deployments of 5G by facilitating “monitoring of remote areas, Internet provisioning to under-served or disrupted regions, or intelligent global transport management.” Akyildiz’s presentation to NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Corps was rather more candid in its reference to “pervasive tracking,” and “continuous global coverage.”¹⁷⁵

“Smart” Environments

A known problem with 5G, which differentiates it from previous generations of wireless transmission systems, is that it is “easily interrupted by vegetation foliage (and building walls, often requiring additional signal boosting within each building).”⁵⁵ This necessitates transmission-boosting antennae every 100-300 meters, contributing to expensive legal disputes over mounting 5G transmitters on lampposts.¹⁹⁰

If the environment (foliage and buildings) is the “problem,” however, then the “solution” is to modify the environment. Akyildiz, for instance, proposes creating “intelligent environments” via “reconfigurable intelligent surfaces.”¹⁹¹ The resulting patent, US10547116B2,¹⁹² granted in January 2020, is for “programmable wireless environments” facilitated by “software-controlled metasurfaces.” The idea is that surfaces coated with advanced technologies can detect signals and relay them in a customized fashion to circumnavigate physical obstacles (Figure 27).

Should “hypersurface tiles” become the norm in “smart cities,” nothing will stand in the way of all residents being connected to the grid.

Human Bodies as Repeaters

Just as drones help to build the Global Information Grid,¹⁴³ so, too, could human bodies form part of the wireless control network. According to Sabrina Wallace, for instance, who claims to be the daughter of two black-project scientists and to have been experimented upon as a child at the Menninger Foundation, the new 6G Personal Area Network (PAN) is going to use your body “to route the data.”¹⁹³

For context, the PAN is just one of multiple area networks,¹⁹⁴ additionally including Nano, Body (BAN), Local (LAN), Campus (CAN), Metropolitan (MAN), Radio (RAN), and Wide (WAN) (Figure 28).

Thus, even without 5G, intracorporeal nanonetworks can be nested within a shell system of wireless area networks, all connected to the Internet.

Wallace’s concept of using human bodies to route data on a wireless control system does not seem beyond the realm of possibility. According to an IEEE paper, for example, “body channel communication (BCC) uses the human body as a transmission medium.”¹⁹⁵ Akyildiz is certain that 6G will be commercialized within a decade.¹⁷⁵

If Wallace is correct, human bodies could become repeaters in what Kurzweil calls a global “mesh” network on which all nodes not only receive but also transmit.¹⁹⁶ In other words, human bodies, like “hypersurface tiles,” the “Internet of Things,” “smart dust,” etc., will become part of the control network and not mere nodes on it.

In which case, a restrictive focus on the dangers of 5G masts, whose emitters have a limited range of up to 2,000 feet or 610 meters, assuming no obstructions,¹⁹⁷ misses the ubiquitous nature of the threat. Disabling one part of the network will not stop the rest of it from functioning.

Part 4 – Targeting the Brain

The Brain as Battlefield

Over half a century ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski envisaged, within a matter of decades, “a time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain” (p. 15).³³ As Pentagon neuroscience and technology adviser James Giordano notes,⁶⁰ we have now reached that point. However, we did not arrive there by accident.

The DOD’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has invested in brain-computer interface technology since at least 2002 (pp. 340-341).³⁵ Biomedical ethicist Jonathan Moreno realized early on that such investment could end up “shifting the battlefield to our very brains,” allowing memories to be altered, aggressive individuals to be identified through their brain patterns, or weapons to be controlled remotely through the power of thought.¹⁹⁸ He wisely questioned whether there could ever be any sound justification for such technology on national security grounds.

In 2008, a Guardianarticle on a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report was titled, “Brain will be battlefield of future.”¹⁹⁹ It considered devices that could be used to identify suspects from their brain activity and render them unable to lie under interrogation.

In April 2013, President Obama launched the BRAIN Initiative, whose stated purpose is to “unlock the mysteries of the brain” by making extraordinary scientific advances in a short time frame.²⁰⁰ Research funding for the BRAIN Initiative was disbursed through DARPA ($50 million), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ($40 million), and the National Science Foundation ($20 million), beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2014. Four private-sector partners were named: the Allen Institute for Brain Science, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Rockefeller-affiliated Kavli Foundation, and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. The EU (through the Human Brain Project), China, and Russia, too, have launched their own brain research programs with substantial funding as part of what NATO Innovation Hub manager François du Cluzel calls (p. 18) “the militarization of brain science”⁴⁸ [emphasis added].

The BRAIN Initiative Working Group, which outlined the scope of the project, was co-chaired by Rockefeller University’s Cori Bargmann. One early project to be funded was a Rockefeller University initiative to find a “new way to remotely control brain cells” using radiogenetics, which “combines the use of radio waves or magnetic fields with nanoparticles to turn neurons on or off.”²⁰¹ This was successfully achieved in rats, enabling what Rockefeller University in 2016 called “magnetic mind control.”²⁰² A WEF article from 2018 (since deleted) was titled “Mind control using sound waves?”²⁰³ The in-house references to mind control give the game away. Optogenetics (using pulses of light), sonogenetics (ultrasound waves), magnetogenetics (magnetic fields), and chemogenetics (engineered proteins, viz. DREADDS or “Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs”²⁰⁴) were all explored for purposes of remotely controlling brain activity.

In 2018, Georgetown’s Samueli-Rockefeller Professor James Giordano, addressing the cadets at West Point, characterized the brain as “the twenty-first-century battlescape.”⁶¹ Weaponized neurotechnology, Giordano teaches,⁶⁰ can be used to:

1. Assess, predict, and control particular cognitions, emotions, and behaviors.
2. Mitigate aggression and foster cognitions, emotions, and/or behaviors of affiliation or passivity.
3. Incur burdens of morbidity, disability, or suffering and in this way “neutralize” potential opponents.
4. Induce mortality.

In other words, it can be used to control subjective experience and behaviors and to leave a target sick, disabled, or dead. The way it works is to “put minimal sized electrodes in a network within a brain through only minimal intervention to be able to read and write into the brain function, in real time, remotely.”⁶¹ Giordano later referred to this as “mind control.”²⁰⁵

By that time, neural nets had successfully been injected into the brains of rats.²⁰⁶ However, there is no need to inject directly into the brain, because carbon-based nanomaterials, such as graphene, can cross the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) following peripheral injection.²⁰⁷ One study describes incorporating drugs into nanocarriers capable of penetrating the BBB (Figure 29) as “a simple technique.”²⁰⁸

In 2019, DARPA contracted Battelle, a science and technology development company, for its “next-generation non-surgical neurotechnology” program.²⁰⁹ This would involve “bi-directional brain control technology interfaces” that can be “introduced into the body via injection and directed to a specific area of the brain” via magnetoelectric signals transmitted by a helmet-based transceiver (Figure 30).

By 2019, scientists had manufactured artificial neurons requiring only one billionth the power of a microprocessor, which “respond nearly identically to biological neurons under stimulation by a wide range of current injection protocols.”²¹⁰ They even tabled proposals for a human brain/cloud interface that would involve three types of neural nanorobots (endoneurobots, gliabots, and synaptobots) navigating the human vasculature, traversing the blood-brain barrier, and wirelessly transmitting “up to ~6 x 10(18) bits per second…to a cloud-based supercomputer for real-time brain-state monitoring and data extraction.”²¹¹

In sum, prior to 2020, intensively funded research and development (R&D) in the field of neurotechnology had culminated in the realization of nanotechnologies capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, allowing for bi-directional wireless interfacing with the human brain. It is highly likely that such technology existed years earlier in classified form.

Then, the “Covid-19” operation was initiated, and the drive to inject novel technologies (mostly labeled “mRNA”) into everyone on Earth began with the threat by Bill Gates²¹² that “normalcy only returns when we have largely vaccinated the entire global population” (Figure 31).²¹³ By March 2023, a reported 5.5 billion people had been injected.²¹⁴

According to a 2023 NATO report, “Neural nanotechnology can be used to bring nano-sized robots close to a neuron via the bloodstream and make it possible to link the human brain directly to a computer, making use of artificial intelligence in the process.”²¹⁵ Could the agenda be spelled out any more clearly?

Syringe-injectable Nanotechnologies

Nearly two decades ago, in 2005, the transhumanist Ray Kurzweil predicted that “Nanobots will be introduced without surgery, through the bloodstream.”¹⁹⁶ Eight years later, Israeli scientist Ido Bachelet explained that his team had managed to equip nanobots with antennae made from metal nanoparticles, such that each nanobot carried its own IP address, and that a single hypodermic syringe contained a thousand billion such nanobots, each capable of responding to external electromagnetic fields.²¹⁶ Bachelet predicted that “anywhere between a year and five years from now [i.e., 2018] we’ll be able to use this in humans and finally witness the emergence of a nanobot society”²¹⁶ (Figure 32).

Elon Musk’s Neuralink ostensibly involves a microchip robotically implanted in a person’s skull,²¹⁷ yet in 2017, Musk revealed, “You could go through the veins and arteries.”²¹⁸ What does Musk really know, and is Neuralink being sold to the public as some kind of futuristic technology, to sell the concept of a brain-cloud interface, when in fact far more advanced technologies are already a weaponized reality?

In 2018, Ma and coauthors described thein vivo testing of a networking system²¹⁹ in which injected sensors with antennae transmit wirelessly from deep-tissue locations up to 38 meters outside the body—typically far enough to reach a cell phone, which in the IoBNT literature is often presented as a “gateway” connecting intrabody networks to the Internet.

Zafar and coauthors describe, in the IEEE paper mentioned earlier, a syringe-injectable intra-body nanonetwork that is capable of interfacing with 5G.¹⁷³ Moreover, that nanonetwork can be powered by the human body using “energy scavenging batteries called biofuel cells, which convert chemical energy into electrical energy through biocatalytic reactions.”

Columbia University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science reported in 2021 that its engineers had developed the world’s smallest “chips that can be injected into the body with a hypodermic needle.”²²⁰ On January 5, 2021, the UK Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, wrote on WhatsApp: “[C]onsidering how many people I’m getting his [Bill Gates’] chips injected into, he owes me one!”²²¹ Was Hancock joking, or was he saying the quiet part out loud?

In 2022, researchers at Cornell University announced a technique for manufacturing a million injectable nanobots from a 4-inch silicon wafer (Figure 33); the nanobots measure 70 microns (μm) across and are capable of traversing the human body.²²²

A 2022 NATO report states that “an anthropotechnical approach to develop a hybridized human-system” will occur “mostly through pairing information technology and health nanotechnologies,” enabling humans to be “injected with amplifying substances or nanotechnologies.”⁴⁶ Once more, it is clear that healthcare in this context is nothing more than a cover for the injection of military technologies.

In sum, syringe-injectable nanotechnologies are not science fiction or the product of an overactive imagination. They have been possible since 2011 at least and are of great interest to the military.

Smart Dust

Another “solution” for connecting everything with everything is so-called “smart dust.” NASA predicted even before “9/11” that the coming “IT/Bio/Nano” Age, beginning in 2020, would involve the “surreptitious nano ‘tagging’ (with [microwave] interrogation) of everything/everyone” (slide 88).¹

Kurzweil predicted in 2005 the advent of computers that are “essentially invisible: woven into our clothing, embedded in our furniture and environment” (p. 233).¹⁹⁶ All linked devices would become web servers, helping to create “vast supercomputers and memory banks.”

A decade later, this was starting to look like reality. According to Akyildiz and colleagues,¹⁷⁰ so-called “nanothings,” owing to their limited size, can be “easily concealed, implanted, and scattered in the environment, where they can cooperatively perform sensing, actuation, processing, and networking.”

In 2015, IBM announced it had developed functional nanochips measuring just 7 nanometers (nm)—7 billionths of a meter—across. In comparison, a strand of human DNA is about 2.5 nm across, and the diameter of a single red blood cell is about 7,500 nm.²²⁹ Whereas microchips are roughly the size of a grain of rice and measurable in millimeters, nanochips are 1,000 times smaller and are invisible to the human eye.

The transhumanist co-founder of Singularity University, Peter Diamandis, hubristically imagined in 2015 a “trillion sensor economy” by 2025, in which the Internet of Everything would “exceed 100 billion connected devices, each with a dozen or more sensors collecting data,” yielding potentially “perfect knowledge.”²³⁰

Klaus Schwab, in his 2016 book The Fourth Industrial Revolution, cites a WT VOX article: “Smart Dust, arrays of full computers with antennas, each much smaller than a grain of sand, can now organize themselves inside the body into as-needed networks to power a whole range of complex internal processes.”²³¹ This appears to be a reference to self-assembling nanotechnologies for the purpose of body-machine interface functionality.

The “smart” agenda is about the technocratic surveillanceand monitoring of everyone and everything. Its ultimate aim,²³² according to a 2017 article by Alexander Light, is to:

“[C]reate a giant electromagnetic grid or network that encompasses the entire Earth. Everything that moves is to be made or injected with some kind of sensor or mote that connects it to the grid – including household products, appliances, food/drink items, animals, plants and humans too.”

Injections, GMO mosquitoes, bioengineered food, and stratospheric aerosol injection (“chemtrails”) are all potential mechanisms for delivering smart dust/sensors into human bodies, promising “a synthetic network on the inside which can be remotely controlled from the outside.”²³²

Corroborating Light’s insights,²³² DARPA’s “next-generation non-surgical neurotechnology” program not only involved the injectable brain-machine interfaces already described,²⁰⁹ but it also involved the development of “minutely invasive” technologies that can be “swallowed, sniffed, injected or absorbed into the human body” and which can “read and write to brain cells in just 50 milliseconds.”²³³

In 2018, MIT researchers announced self-powered, aerosolized, “smallest robots yet [i.e., no larger than a human egg cell] that can sense their environment, store data, and even carry out computational tasks.”²³⁴ Citing this invention a few weeks later, Giordano referred to aerosolizable “controllable robotic units at the nano-scale,”⁶¹ which could be used to create:

“[A] nano-swarm of biopenetrable materials that you cannot see, that can penetrate all but the most robust, biochemical filters, that are able to integrate themselves through a variety of membranes, mucus membranes, and wherever – mouth, nose, ears, eyes – [eventually diffusing directly] into the brain space, and these can be weaponized [such] that their presence is almost impossible to detect, and as such, the attribution becomes exceedingly difficult to demonstrate.”

In this context, we cannot ignore the ever-increasing number of reports on social media of crisscross trails in the sky that allegedly disperse over the course of a few hours to leave a layer of artificial cloud cover. Is the “stratospheric aerosol injection” narrative, with its stated purpose of one day dimming the sun to help reduce “global warming,”^{127 128 129 235 236} a decoy to distract from the saturation of entire populations with “smart dust”?

Part 5 – Engineering Human Beings

Synthetic Biology

Turning human beings into nodes on a biodigital control network requires engineering human biology for that purpose. Akyildiz and colleagues, for instance, claim that integrating living organisms and the Internet of NanoThings requires using synthetic biology as the “substrate” inside those organisms, including artificial cells (characterized as “biological embedded computing devices”) and engineered DNA, DNA plasmids, and proteins.¹⁷⁰

Zafar and coauthors explain that the Internet of Bio-NanoThings requires two types of nanodevices: electronic and biological.¹⁷³ The former is constructed from nanotechnology materials such as carbon nanotubes and graphene nanoribbons, while the latter is built using nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Biological cells thereby serve as “programmable substrates to realize Bio-NanoThings (biological embedded computing devices).” Artificially synthesizing biomolecules—such as liposome, nanosphere, nanocapsule, micelle, dendrimer, and fullerene—offers a further means of fabricating biodigital nanodevices.

Kurzweil describes self-assembling nanoscale circuits, whereby trillions of components organize themselves, as a “key enabling technique for effective nanoelectronics.”¹⁹⁶ Building such circuits within the human body requires bionanotechnology, which enables “artificial molecular structures and machines” to be built from biomolecules, utilizing “self-assembly and self-organization” to create “nanomechanical devices and molecular computers.”²³⁷

The idea of self-organizing and self-replicating electronic or mechanical systems is inspired by biology, with the ultimate self-replicating molecule being DNA.¹⁹⁶ A project sponsored by the Office of Naval Research between 2011 and 2014 involved creating self-assembling structures from synthetic DNA.²³⁸ In vivo self-assembly (that is, within the body), in which “the self-assembled nanostructures showed extraordinary enhanced accumulation,” was possible no later than 2018.²³⁹

According to Laramy and coauthors,²⁴⁰ synthetic DNA can be used to “programme the assembly of nanoparticles and microparticles into 1D, 2D and 3D crystalline architectures, in which almost every aspect of the resultant structures can be systematically controlled.” DNA nanostructures, through a process referred to as “DNA origami,” can be programmed to assemble into complex structures at the micron scale.²⁴¹

The Software Metaphor

Craig Venter, alongside future NIH director Francis Collins, announced the mapping of the human genome in 2000. In 2010, Venter and his team transfected genomically emptied bacterial host cells with a synthetic chromosome, and the cells were able to grow and replicate. The Christian Science Monitor saw in this the possibility that “genomes designed in a computer and assembled in a lab can function in a donor cell, eventually reproducing fully functional living creatures, that is, artificial life.”²⁴² Venter, in 2012, went further by proposing that donor cells would soon become unnecessary and that it would become possible to create artificial life “without a prior cellular history.”²⁴³

Venter made another astonishing claim:

“Life is based on DNA software. We’re a DNA software system, you change the DNA software, and you change the species. It’s a remarkably simple concept, remarkably complex in its execution.”²⁴³

In 2020, Elon Musk made a very similar claim:

“You can basically do anything with synthetic RNA/DNA. It’s basically like a computer programme. You could turn someone into a freaking butterfly if you wanted with the right DNA sequence.”²⁴⁴

The software metaphor makes sense if all life is conceived mechanistically as nothing more than expressions of genetic sequences. However, we know that this is not the case. As Broudy shows with reference to the work of Evelyn Fox Keller and Paul Davies,²⁴⁵ the code for life is not “in” the gene; rather, genetic material is interpreted by the cell: a “molecular milieu” is necessary to interpret the genetic code.

Nevertheless, the software metaphor, which implies that all life is ultimately programmable and thus controllable, persists. Moderna, for example, describes its “Covid-19 vaccine” as “an operating system on a computer.”²⁴⁶ According to Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, “mRNA is like software.”²⁴⁷ Moderna’s Chief Medical Officer, Tal Zaks, claimed in a TEDx talk that “we are actually hacking the software of life.”²⁴⁸

This resembles Harari’s 2017 claim that “we are learning… how to hack humans, how to engineer them, how to manufacture them.”²⁴⁹ Klaus Schwab thinks that the “ability to customize organisms by writing DNA” (as though life could be reduced to a bespoke commodity) will entail “changing the very genetic code of future generations” to yield “designer babies” (pp. 21-23).²³¹ Films such as Gattaca (1997) have been sowing such eugenicist ideas in the minds of the public for decades.

But is it really possible to program human beings like computers? In reality, genetic engineering is nowhere near as advanced as we are led to believe. CRISPR Cas-9, for instance, has been found to cause “large deletions and more complex genomic rearrangements” in mouse embryonic stem cells and a human differentiated cell line.²⁵⁰ It has been found to risk chromothripsis, “an extremely damaging form of genomic rearrangement”²⁵¹ that may potentially cause cancer or inherited disease.²⁵² Far from “augmenting” or “enhancing” human beings, genetic engineering comes with significant risk.

That has not prevented the idea of programming human biology from moving into the policy arena, however. According to Policy Horizons Canada,²⁵³ for example, “The idea of biology as having predictable and digitally manageable characteristics may become increasingly common.” In the United States, President Biden’s Executive Order of September 12, 2022, calls for the development of “genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers.”²⁵⁴

Note how “techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells” is conflated here with the software metaphor. What does “write circuitry for cells” actually mean? Does it have anything to do with the idea of “biological embedded computing devices” within cells, articulated by Akyildiz?¹⁷⁰ For if the IoBNT is the end game, then “hacking the software of life” is not really about reprogramming human DNA, but, rather, infiltratinghuman biology by programming cells to produce complex structures that do not belong naturally in the human body. If so, the software metaphor is camouflage for the real military agenda and is designed to make the public think that wondrous breakthroughs in healthcare are imminent based on genetic engineering, and thus to give permission for “mRNA vaccines” and other such products to enter its bloodstream.

Transhumanism, too, provides civilian disguise for military operations. Policy Horizons Canada, for instance, claims that the line between “what is considered natural or organic and what is digital, engineered, or synthetic” is blurring, prompting us to “redefine what we consider human or natural” (p. 5).²⁵³ According to the UK Ministry of Defence in a 2021 report, after six million years of evolution, we suddenly now have “the tools in our hands to decide how our continued evolution should be shaped,”²⁵⁵ with an accompanying diagram (Figure 35) showing the emergence of cyborgs.

Either we look at these claims as the latest iteration of eugenics—hardly a selling point—or we see them as a form of propaganda in which “human augmentation” is being pushed to its extreme as a means of encouraging the public to think that such transformations are possible and desirable when in fact they are not.

XNA is said by Popular Mechanics(the same publication that discredited itself by defending the official account of “9/11”) to be “synthetic DNA that can evolve,” potentially providing the “building blocks for completely new genetic systems.”²⁵⁶ According to Nie and colleagues,²⁵⁷ genetic systems can in principle be expanded with XNAs in ways that lead to “novel functions that do not exist in nature” [emphasis added], affecting genetic information storage, heredity, and evolution. With such research ongoing for over a decade already, Santiago fears that the “Covid-19 vaccine” rollout may have been intended to reverse-transcribe XNA into human DNA for the purpose of redirecting human evolution.²⁵⁸ Yet, there is no evidence that any of this is actually possible.

In sum, the software metaphor, much like the marketing of “booster shots” as batteries for when the efficacy of the first two shots wears off, crudely reduces the human body to a machine amenable to “plug and play” technologies. It can, thus, be used to sell the idea of novel technologies such as “mRNA vaccines” to an unsuspecting public that is used to quickly and easily downloading “upgrades” onto its devices. What those technologies are doing in reality, however, is another matter. If their purpose is to infiltrate, rather than to upgrade, human bodies, this would be consistent with a camouflaged deep-state operation relating to the Internet of Bio-NanoThings.

Dual-Use Technology

The military intelligence community has long been reliant upon collaboration with the civilian sector to realize “dual-use” technologies.²⁵⁹ In the case of “biodigital convergence,” the key partners are the medical/pharmaceutical and electrical engineering sectors. The former tests the requisite technologies in biological systems, while the latter designs the architecture for the Internet of Bio-Nano Things (which, as we have seen, is typically marketed in terms of healthcare, concealing potential military applications).

Because of the favorable risk-reward ratio, dual-use bionanotechnology is typically marketed in terms of potential treatments for cancer (and also Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s where the brain is concerned). Schwab, for instance, invites his readers to “imagine swarms of these [computers with antennas, each much smaller than a grain of sand] attacking early cancer” (p. 122).²³¹ In his speech at the UN in 2019, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson referred to “robots a fraction of the size of a red blood cell, capable of swimming through our bodies and dispensing medicine, and attacking malignant cells like some Star Wars armada.”³⁶

The “armada” metaphor, however, hints at the potential military function of these technologies, some of which (so-called “microdrillers”) can travel at high speeds inside the body, penetrating tissue and deforming cells, while others have potential as surveillance tools, components of cyborg systems, and/or wireless human networks.¹⁷⁷

NATO Innovation Hub manager François du Cluzel openly admits that the NBIC (neuro-bio-info-cogno) revolution, including advances in genomics, has “potential for dual-use technology development” (p. 18).⁴⁸ In October 2021, he told the NATO Association of Canada: “[Y]ou all know that it’s very easy to turn a civilian technology into a military one.”²⁶⁰

Thus, technologies that the medical and electrical engineering sectors have spent decades helping to develop could, like everything else in the Omniwar, have been weaponized against the public.

Part 6 – The “Covid-19” Era and the Internet of Bio-Nano Things

“Covid-19 Vaccines” and the IoBNT

In light of the above material, we have to address the contentious issue of what was actually in the “Covid-19 vaccines,” which, despite not meeting the traditional definition of a vaccine,¹³² were shot into most of the world’s population in 2021. And what was their true purpose?

For example, what did WEF stooge Yuval Harari mean when he referred, on March 20, 2020, to “under the skin surveillance”?²⁶¹ Harari recommended that governments should:

“[M]onitor people, and punish those who break the rules. Today, for the first time in human history, technology makes it possible to monitor everyone all the time.”

Did Harari’s comments have anything to do with IEEE 802.15.6,²⁶² which sets out the standards for a wireless body area network (WBAN) connecting “independent nodes that are placed in the clothes, on the body or under the skin of a person”? As we have seen, syringe-injectable neurotechnologies go under the skin.

We know from the microscopic and spectroscopic investigations of independent researchers and research teams from around the world that the “Covid-19 vaccines” contain an array of undisclosed ingredients and produced unidentified structures displaying highly complex morphology, self-assembling functionality of non-biological components, and EMF sensitivity (Figure 36).^67,69

There is abundant evidence that the “vaccines” were military, rather than pharmaceutical, products (pp. 236-238).³⁵ But could they really have anything to do with the Internet of Bio-Nano Things?

In between singing his own praises during an hour-long presentation to NATO, Akyildiz made an astonishing claim (timestamp 13:40):

“Bio-nanoscale machines are for injecting into the body…. And that is going really well with these Covid vaccines. It’s going [in] that direction. These mRNAs are nothing [other] than small scale, nano-scale machines. They are programmed and they are injected.”¹⁷⁵

What did he mean by this? That all mRNA “vaccines,” including the Covid ones, are about injecting nano-scale machines? (See my argument that “mRNA vaccines” provide cover for injectable military technologies (pp. 342-344).³⁵ Certainly, no one gave informed consent for that.

Recall Zafar and colleagues’ explanation that the Internet of Bio-Nano Things requires two types of nanodevices, electronic and biological, involving both nanotechnology and synthetic biology (biological cells as “programmable substrates”).¹⁷³ According to a 2017 Moderna patent (US20170340725A1),²⁶³ mRNA can “direct the body’s cellular machinery to produce nearly any protein of interest, from native proteins to antibodies and other entirely novel protein constructs.” In other words, the human body can be programmed to produce non-human (and likely toxic) structures. In the context of Covid (and all other) “mRNA vaccines,” what exactly is being programmed for production? Is it only (if at all) the “spike protein,” or could we also be looking at the fabrication of biodigital nanodevices?

Is it science fiction to imagine that cell phone masts might be used to control cyborg microorganisms swimming through bloodstreams? Not according to the front cover of the journal Advanced Science in November 2020,²⁶⁴ one month before the “Covid-19 vaccine” rollout began (Figure 37).

Dual-use technology means that devices introduced into the human body in one context (therapeutics) can potentially double as military hardware in another. In light of all the above information, and in the context of the Omniwar, therefore, we have to ask: are so-called “mRNA vaccines” the cover for covertly installing military hardware into human bodies (pp. 337-353)?³⁵

Objections to Nanotech in the “Vaccines”

Critics sometimes object that self-assembling nanotechnologies could not possibly have been identified in the “Covid-19 vaccine” contents by microscopists, because they are too small to be seen by most microscopes. However, we know that DNA nanostructures can assemble into micron-scale megastructures,²⁴¹ which would be consistent with the observed effects. Furthermore, “DNA origami-engineering” can be used to fashion such extraordinary devices as a “DNA origami rotary ratchet motor,” a “cartwheeling DNA acrobat,” a “DNA rolling motor,” a “synthetic tubular molecular transport system,” and a “DNA self-assembled robotic arm.”²⁷⁰ Self-assembling “DNA nanowires” also exist.²⁷¹ Thus, while allegations of undeclared DNA in the Covid injections (pp. 243-246)³⁵ have revolved around traditional biological explanations and harms (cancer and genetic modification), DNA-based nanoengineering is clearly at an advanced stage, even in the open literature. In the context of the Omniwar, it would be remiss to write off the possibility of it being linked to “Covid-19 vaccines.”

Another common objection is that the unidentified structures and undeclared materials found in the “Covid-19 vaccines” are naturally occurring salt or cholesterol crystals. However, the chemical composition of those structures and materials does not match that of salt/cholesterol (see the spectroscopic findings reviewed in my 2022 article, “What is in the so-called Covid-19 ‘vaccines’?”⁶⁷), their morphology is far more complex, and they behave differently, for instance by forming a perimeter before filling in internal details resembling circuitry (see in particular the dark-field microscopy of Dr. David Nixon at drdavidnixon.com). Some have also been shown to be EMF-responsive, for example by assembling when a nearby router is turned on and disassembling when the router is turned off²⁷² or failing to assemble inside a faraday bag.²⁷³ This is all highly suspicious, to say the least.

Yet, commentators hesitate to entertain the possibility of undisclosed technologies in the “Covid-19 vaccines” for several further reasons. For starters, it sounds preposterous—the stuff of sci-fi—and falls too far outside the spectrum of socially acceptable opinion. This, however, merely reflects the limitations of human psychology and groupthink; it is not evidence-based science. Military-grade propaganda means that the public’s perceptual parameters remain limited to the virus, the spike protein, mRNA, and dangers deriving from the disclosed “vaccine” ingredients. Most doctors, virologists, microbiologists, etc., know very little about bionanotechnology, so they are unqualified to comment and understandably prefer to stick to their fields of expertise. Fear of reprisal (e.g., hit pieces by the media, attacks by colleagues, withdrawal of medical licenses, harassment, and threats to life) also disincentivizes scientists and doctors from publicly challenging orthodoxy.

Classifed/Black Budget Technologies

As an example of potential undisclosed IoBNT technologies in the “Covid-19 vaccines” sounding too much like sci-fi to be believable, consider van der Pijl’s thesis (p. 257):

“[L]inking human organisms to artificial intelligence for the benefit of the oligarchy that now controls the planet is possible in principle, but in its totality remains wildly premature. It may be possible, but it will need a range of new inventions still to be made and integrated.⁴

This would be an entirely understandable and rational position, were it not for the existence of classified military, or “black,” technology, which is kept secret from the public.

The history of classified scientific research goes at least as far back as the Manhattan Project (1942–1945), where well over 100,000 people were sworn to secrecy regarding their work on developing the atom bomb.²⁷⁴ Compartmentalization meant that this aim would not have been known to most of them.

Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works is a known manufacturing site for classified technology, which has previously included the U-2 spy plane, the SR-71 “Blackbird”²⁷⁵ (capable of flying coast to coast in just over an hour) (Figure 38), and the F-117 Nighthawk. The existence of those technologies was only disclosed retrospectively.

Lockheed first proposed the U-2 in 1953, and its first test flight was in 1955, but it only became public knowledge when the Soviet Union shot one down and captured its pilot in 1960.²⁷⁶ Work on the SR-71 began in 1958 and first flew in 1962, but it was only disclosed to the public in 1964.²⁷⁷ The F-117 made its maiden flight in 1981, but the Pentagon only acknowledged its existence in 1988.²⁷⁸ On this evidence, classified military technology leads public awareness by around five to seven years, but in principle it could be longer.

Arthur C. Clarke once argued that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.²⁷⁹ To someone who has never encountered such technology before, it may indeed seem like magic, because it does things that are inexplicable on the basis of publicly available science. The public would not be able to recognize such technology—even if used in broad daylight, recorded from dozens of different angles, and played back billions of times online. There would always have to be some other explanation for the observed effects that conforms to what is “possible” based on a scientifically bounded understanding. I am referring here to the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, which was demonstrably carried out using technology that remains classified to this day.²⁸⁰

Harvard historian of science Peter Galison estimates that the volume of classified scientific research is five to ten times greater than publicly available scientific research, meaning that it is “we in the open world…who are living in a modest information booth facing outwards, our unseeing backs to a vast and classified empire we barely know.”²⁸¹ This necessitates a very large degree of intellectual humility when it comes to thinking about classified technology, because the public simply has no idea what is scientifically and technologically possible behind the scenes.

Since the late 1990s, this problem has been compounded by the “missing money” phenomenon identified by Skidmore and Fitts.²⁸² Eye-watering amounts of money, it seems, have been funneled from U.S. federal budgets into black budgets that the public is not allowed to know about. For example, an estimated US$21 trillion²⁸² cannot be accounted for in the financial records of the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development between 1998 and 2016—and these are only two U.S. Government departments. It turns out that 34% of U.S. federal government assets cannot properly be accounted for.²⁸³

The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), which sets the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the U.S. federal government, introduced Standard 56 on October 4, 2018,²⁸⁴ allowing national security concerns to override the need for public financial transparency. FASAB-56, according to Fitts and Betts, “permits the federal government by administrative action—without formal legislative, regulatory, judicial, or executive approval—to keep secret books as determined by a secret group of people pursuant to a secret process.”²⁸⁵ In other words, it provides for the clandestine pillaging of public wealth. The U.S. government, in Fitts and Betts’ opinion, is “operating sufficiently outside the Constitution and financial management and other laws to be called a ‘criminal enterprise.’”²⁸⁵

Where is all the money going? In the “War on Terror” context, we have long known about a power apparatus in the United States that has grown “so large, unwieldy and secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs or how many programs exist within it.”²⁸⁶ For all we know, it could be akin to a scaled-up version of the Manhattan Project. Its aim, however, is controlling the domestic population through intelligence gathering on civilians, such that “technologies and techniques honed for use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan have migrated into the hands of law enforcement agencies in America.”²⁸⁶ Thus, we appear to be looking at increasingly brazen robbery to make the public pay for its own oppression.

As part of that process, the missing money will almost certainly have flowed into R&D for classified military technology. Fitts estimates that 170 underground bases exist in North America,²⁸⁷ many of which are secret and operating outside the law. What kinds of technologies might have been developed in such bases?

Even before “9/11,” a seminal NASA document claimed that technologies such as cyber and artificial life, biocomputing, nanobots, smart dust, and ubiquitous immersive holographic and virtual environments were “NO PIXIE DUST” and were “based in all cases upon existing data/trends/analyses/technologies” (slide 4).¹ Such technologies, the next slide continued, take “15+ years to produce.” Sure enough, the “IT/Bio/Nano” era slated at the turn of the millennium to begin in 2020 started to materialize with the Internet of Bio-Nano Things in 2015.¹⁷⁰

Akyildiz explicitly denied that he was presenting science fiction when he claimed, of body sensor networks, that “you inject these into the body of the human,”²⁸⁸ hard as that concept may have been to grasp for his audience at the time. Yet, we now know that all kinds of seemingly exotic technologies can be delivered via a syringe: “Nanobots. Shape-changing bioelectronic devices. Remote-controlled vaccines. This is not the stuff of science fiction but of science fact.”²⁸⁹ A NATO Review article co-authored by Johns Hopkins University and Imperial College London argued, in 2021, “Advances in biophysical, biochemical and behavioural technologies are beginning to turn science fiction into reality.”²⁹⁰

In light of the above evidence, the claim that hooking human bodies up to AI “will need a range of new inventions still to be made and integrated” (p. 257)⁴ needs to be reevaluated. In the 20th century, classified military technology led public awareness by five to seven years, but since the late 1990s, the impudent diversion of public funds into black budgets appears to have given the military a much greater lead. This, along with the existence of free-energy technology, would explain, for instance, the severity of the attacks on Judy Wood for providing the evidence that such technology was used to destroy the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.²⁸⁰ Lest anyone doubt the reality of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, NASA’s Dennis Bushnell included “LENR’s” in his list of “high energy density materials (power, explosives, propellants)” two months before “9/11” (slide 57).¹

The massive gap between what is already technologically possible and what the public understands to be possible needs to be closed.

Remember that Omniwar is war waged by the few against the many. The only way such a war can be won is through technological superiority. In the planning for the Omniwar, which I have argued (Chapter 1)³⁵ goes at least as far back as 1968, the transnational ruling class must always have known that, at some stage, it would need to acquire a decisive technological advantage. This is reflected, for instance, in Schwab and Malleret’s claim (p. 21) that “It is far from certain that the COVID-19 crisis will tip the balance in favor of labor and against capital. For political and social reasons, it could, but technology changes the mix.”¹⁴

In the final analysis, the war for technocracy hinges upon the successful weaponization of biodigital technologies that the public does not imagine to be possible. Should the public get wise to that fact, the war could swing very fast in the opposite direction.

Synthetically Altered Cells

Akyildiz and colleagues proposed in 2015 deploying synthetic cells inside the human body,¹⁷⁰ including those with an electromagnetic nano-transmitter where the nucleus and DNA should be. Confirming that this is technologically feasible, MIT researchers have reported the development of intracellular antennae,²⁹⁴ which respond to alternating magnetic fields and can “operate wirelessly inside living cells.”²⁹⁵

In April 2024, Karl Coronas, using a high-resolution optical microscope, revealed some astonishing findings in his bloodwork²⁹⁶ (Figure 39).

In Coronas’ interpretation, what we are looking at here are “many complex productions occurring in synthetically altered cells,”²⁹⁷ involving “use or production of Electro-chemical structures.”²⁹⁶ Some cells contain what Coronas identifies as microfluidics (a technology dealing with the behavior of fluids at the microscale level).²⁹⁸ He is at pains to point out that these are not necessarily graphene structures, but, rather, “polymers, hydrogel, coacervates, prot[o]cells, colloids, and NPs [nanoparticles]” (although the presence of graphene cannot be ruled out).²⁹⁸

How are such findings to be explained, if not in terms of a transhumanist attack on human biology? And how widespread is this phenomenon?

Coronas has been working with David Nixon to examine the blood samples of over 120 people from five primary cohorts: rural Queensland (December 2023), rural northern New South Wales (January 2024), coastal northern New South Wales (January 2024), the Greater Brisbane area (intermittently over the last 12 months), and various locations in the UK (over the last 12 months). All participants provided informed consent for their blood to be examined and for any images obtained to be used anonymously. The images included in this report were obtained using a Neogenesis Systems microscope and a Leica DM2000 microscope, both optimized for dark-field imaging. Some images are shown here for the first time publicly.

Troublingly, according to Coronas, “the blood of everyone I have seen on my high-end Leica microscope is looking like this or far worse,” irrespective of “vaccination” status.²⁹⁸ According to Nixon in private correspondence (reproduced here with his permission), “We have seen dramatic changes in the appearance of the blood particularly over the last 3 months. These have mostly been people (estimated 90+%) who did not receive the Covid-19 vaccination.” Coronas initially surmised that environmental adulterations must be to blame (e.g., in air, food, and water),²⁹⁶ but now he and Nixon are also considering the possibility of some kind of self-replicating technology.

Nixon explains common features identified in the recent pathology (Figures 40-45):

• What appears to be hydrogel visible in the blood, particularly on the edges of the slide, which lead to solid polymer structures forming
• The formation of large, thick-walled cells within the blood, referred to in the literature as “multilamellar vesicles”
• Within the multilamellar vesicles, the production of smaller structures
• Liposome and particle formation within the plasma
• Liposome and particle formation within red blood cells and neutrophils

Coronas and Nixon refer to the latter intracellular pathology as “parasitization,” even though they believe it to be a synthetic process.

Although these images might be difficult for a non-specialist to interpret, they are more than adequate to warrant extensive further investigations of human blood for synthetic biology by the rest of the scientific community.

A comprehensive scientific investigation of the nanoscale assault on humanity that is apparently unfolding, however, requires access to extremely expensive equipment such as precision atomic force microscopes and scanning tunneling microscopes, which, used in conjunction with electron microscopes, can precisely characterize nanoparticles and nanomaterials.²⁹² Problematically, such equipment is monopolized by the very institutions that have failed the public utterly since 2020 and which act in lockstep to protect official narratives, for instance by refusing to take seriously the sky-high levels of “vaccine” damage since the rollout⁷⁰ and by ignoring the numerous reports of undisclosed ingredients in their contents.

Part 7 – Conclusion

Summary of the Argument

1. The existing control system went into crisis in 2019, which is why the war for technocracy began in 2020.
2. That war assumes the form of an Omniwar, waged clandestinely against the population across all areas of life, entailing the weaponization of everything.
3. Network-centric warfare leverages information networks and is increasingly powered by AI. Plans to connect human bodies to a ubiquitous external network, dating back to the early 2000s, are coming to fruition via the Internet of Bio-Nano Things and universal wireless coverage.
4. The brain is now targetable via syringe-injectable neurotechnologies and “smart” dust, and the military sees this as something to be weaponized.
5. The Internet of Bio-Nano Things requires synthetic biology, which human cells can be programmed to produce and which is capable of self-assembly within the body. This is dual-use medical/military technology that has been camouflaged by transhumanist visions of redirecting the course of human evolution.
6. There is evidence to suggest that the “IT/Bio/Nano” era, slated to begin in 2020, did begin in 2020, not least involving the use of “vaccines” and other measures to smuggle the relevant (black budget?) technologies into human bodies.

The implications of these findings are that we are all now combatants in World War III, like it or not. The aggressors in that war are fighting for global technocracy, a totalitarian control system premised on biodigital technologies. If they are successful, the result will be a novel (and potentially irreversible) slavery system whereby technocrats have total control over your life and backdoor access to your body (much as the NSA managed to gain backdoor access to everyone’s computers). Humans will become “hackable animals”²⁹⁹ in the sense that technocrats will have control over nanonetworks operating inside human bodies.

The Evil Potential of Weaponized Neurotechnology

If human brains and bodies become nodes on a biodigital control grid, remote-control torture and assassination cannot be ruled out (pp. 348-352),³⁵ nor can automated decisions taken by AI, including the kill decision.

Intracorporeal nanonetworks, just one part of the network of networks, can behave autonomously: “Systems of nanoparticles equipped with computing capability—nanoparticle ‘circuits’—can autonomously perform complex tasks in response to external stimuli, directing the flow of matter and information at the nanoscale.”³⁰⁰ This is akin to having an artificial life form inside one’s own body, parasitically harvesting its energy from cells, yet capable of autonomously interfering with bodily processes. In theory, the “external stimuli,” themselves determined by AI, could program the production of pain, suffering, and death.

Giordano alludes to ethical considerations in relation to weaponizable neurotechnology.^60,61 Yet, all his argument really amounts to is “we would never do that,” which we know from decades of military experimentation on civilians as well as U.S. war crimes and violations of international law to be false (pp. 74-77, 105-120).¹²

In the context of World War III, moreover, there is no reason to expect any respect for medical ethics, for as the hypnotist George Estabrooks realized in an earlier era, “any ‘accidents’ which may occur during the experiments will simply be charged to profit and loss, a very trifling portion of that enormous wastage in human life which is part and parcel of war” (p. 194).³⁰¹ This is consistent with my hypothesis that “Covid-19 vaccine” damage should be regarded as collateral damage incurred as part of a worldwide military operation or experiment conducted as part of the wider war.⁶⁷

“War” Is Not A Metaphor

The fact that we are in a war must be taken seriously. “War” here is not a metaphor or hyperbole. It is a literal and accurate description of what is happening. “Fundamentally,” Fitts explains, “we need to understand that we are staring down the barrel of a coup d’état, mass atrocity, and a serious escalation of global military operations. Someone is trying to kill us, and DOD works for them, not for us.”²⁸⁷

Accordingly, we need to adopt a war footing in the mind. In the past, the public has been tricked into adopting such an attitude toward phantom enemies, as in the “War on Drugs” (cover for CIA drug-trafficking operations), the “War on Terror” (used to spread terror and terrorism), and the “war on this virus”³⁰² (cover for profoundly harmful measures taken in the name of public health). Let us be fooled no more. It is the transnational deep state which is waging war against the people, and the people, therefore, have the right of self-defense.

Lest there be any lingering doubts about this situation, consider the following words in a recent report by NATO’s Joint Warfare Center (p. 101):

“The human mind is becoming the battlefield of tomorrow, and this means that every person is a potential target. Warfare is no longer a purely military concept; it has become much broader and more complex. In the future, there will only be one rule in warfare: There are no rules.”²¹⁵

How else are we to read this, if not as an implicit declaration of lawless, unrestricted warfare against the population, with the human mind as the primary target? This is the same document that openly discusses linking the human brain directly to a computer via AI. Such will be the future that awaits us if we do not act to preclude it.

Given that NASA’s 2001 timeline has remained on track so far—with new technologies such as smart dust, the IoBNT, and syringe-injectable neural nets appearing on cue in 2015, followed by the apparent initiation of the IT/Bio/Nano era in 2020—and given that its seminal document was titled “Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare, circa 2025,” one shudders to think how the Omniwar might intensify in 2025. For instance, that same document claims that “combat in 2025” will involve “ubiquitous micro sensors,” robotics, “bio/chem munitions,” and “beam weapons” (slide 45).¹ Moreover, it suggests that a “takedown” of the United States could be achieved via biological terrorism, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, “selective antipersonnel RF/MW (Towers),” and contamination of the water supply, all accompanied by “SERIOUS ‘PSYWAR’” (slide 98).¹

We have just lived through the most comprehensive psychological warfare operation in history,³⁵ the risks of beamforming technology emanating from 5G towers (capable of targeting individual devices) are well known,⁵⁹ and there are reasons to suspect possible preparations for a massive cyberattack³⁰³ and manufactured water shortages.⁸⁴ Should such events occur “circa 2025,” it will be difficult to deny that 21st-century social reality is fundamentally a product of deep-state planning and orchestration, with a view to steadily moving entire populations onto a biodigital slavery system.

Resistance

Resistance begins by understanding what it is that we are facing. To quote Fitts, “the control grid is about to pop into a position of total control. To stop it—and halt the plan that would have us spending our lives in digital concentration camps—we first need to see it.”³⁰⁴ I have tried to render the invisible mechanisms of the Omniwar and its intended technocratic slavery system visible in this report.

Armed with this knowledge, each of us has a moral and strategic obligation to act. The moral obligation involves doing the right thing in a context where evil currently has the upper hand, as evidenced by the atrocities of the Covid era (pp. 352-354)³⁵ and the totalitarian darkness that continues to descend gradually over the West. The strategic obligation arises from the fact that in the Omniwar, our primary advantage lies in our numbers: the more people who take action to put down the global technocratic coup, the greater our chances of victory.

Different people bring different talents to bear, and collective resistance is needed to all aspects of the Omniwar. Therefore, find where youcan make a difference. Given that the Omniwar affects every area of human life, there most certainly is something that you can do—you just need to figure out what it is.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the history of totalitarianism, it is Solzhenitsyn’s recognition that “the line separating good and evil passes…through all human hearts.”³⁰⁵ Totalitarianism is firmly on the side of evil. At the level of conscience, we all know where to draw the line. And as we look evil in the face, we must not be cowed. Rather, as Cullen opined during the darkest days of Covid, “We get the opportunity to stand against the darkest, most powerful, insidious, Satanic, and psychotic evil that humanity has ever faced. We should see this as an honor and a privilege, because the quality of life, and indeed human life itself, is under such attack.”³⁰⁶

We must do the right thing, regardless of the seeming enormity of the challenge we face, “simply because it is the right thing to do, not because we might fail or be denied some personal gain,” says Patrick Wood (p. 152).³⁰ Passive bystanding is not an option, however much it is encouraged by various mechanisms for sanitizing atrocity.¹³⁶ As Einstein wrote, “the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.”³⁰⁷ Silence connotes consent (Qui tacet consentire videtur). Defeatism is unacceptable.

Once you summon the moral courage to take action, you may be surprised to find how powerful you are. There may even be therapeutic effects. Brzezinski (p. 87), for instance, notes that during the “period of concerted political action” around 1967-68, the number of students at Harvard and Berkeley seeking psychiatric help declined dramatically, because the students had found an “external outlet for their intense concern and so were less caged in their own minds.”³³ In light of the skyrocketing rate of mental health problems afflicting students and young people today because of screens, debt, “lockdowns,” poor job prospects, etc., some good old-fashioned activism against the system that is causing their problems would be no bad thing.

Our actions must be guided by a love of the truth and a willingness to defend it. The control system is premised from top to bottom on lies, so it is important that we learn to spot the mechanisms of deception and expose them before they do more harm. The truth always wins out in the end: “They may deplatform the truth, they may censor the truth and they may imprison those who tell the truth or label them terrorists—but their lies and their distortions can never, ever replace it.”³⁰⁸ This is why we must continue to speak truth to power, in ever increasing numbers.

Because we have the numbers on our side, spreading awareness and understanding is crucial. Until the invisible technocratic architecture of oppression reaches maturity, the few can only control the many provided the many do not become conscious of what is really taking place—that is, an invisible war to enslave them through biodigital means. Should that simple proposition be widely understood, technocratic agendas will quickly become impossible to enforce in the face of mass resistance.

Our would-be oppressors are reliant on biodigital technologies for their vision of totalitarian control, and this is their Achilles’ heel. Refusing to accept those technologies en masse is, strategically, an obvious move:

• No to CBDC, the end of cash, and an all-digital financial system
• No to facial recognition
• No to biometrics such as iris or fingerprint scanning
• No to surveillance cameras that can recognize individuals by their gait
• No to “smart” watches that track our health data
• No to “smart” phones monitoring every detail of our lives
• No to digital ID and “vaccine passports”
• No to psychographics (the digital profiling of individuals according to psychological variables)
• No to the Internet of Bio-NanoThings

In the opinion of Silicon Valley tech veteran Aman Jabbi (timestamp 49:00-50:33),³⁹ the entire infrastructure of sensors facilitating technocracy needs dismantling, because what it really represents is a silent weapons system deployed against the population. This highlights the fact that such technology only stays up with public consent.

Despite the attempt to conjure the illusion of omnipotence through “lockdowns” and designs to block out the sun, the ruling class position is, in fact, one of great jeopardy. They themselves are dismantling the old control system, but the new one is not yet operational. We thus live in an interregnum, in which control is precarious and could quickly slip away if enough people rise up against the global technocratic coup. That coup attempt represents the most audacious—but also the most desperate—political project of all time, and its success is far from assured.

Consider the unimaginable sums of money being spent on the Omniwar—to propagandize us and manipulate our minds, to inflate the money supply, to inject billions of people with substances that may themselves be the product of decades of investment in classified R&D, to spray our skies, etc. As has been evident in pronouncements by key figures since 2020 (pp. 358-361),³⁵ there is a strong element of desperation in all this. It does not represent an expression of power, but, rather, reveals a strong fear of our power.

Like a gambler going “all in,” the transnational ruling class is staking everything on the success of its Omniwar. But is it playing a losing hand? As Davis observes,

“They invest billions in propaganda, hybrid warfare and security systems because they are terrified that we will realize what they are doing. Their plan can only succeed if we believe their lies and comply with their orders. If we don’t there is nothing they can do about it.”³⁰⁹

Like the “all-powerful” Wizard of Oz, who turns out to be a man hiding behind a curtain using a special effects machine, a numerically minuscule transnational ruling class can project power in various ways, but ultimately, mass non-compliance with all aspects of technocracy renders it unenforceable.

Samuel Huntington once remarked that “Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate” (p. 14).³¹⁰ The transnational deep state,¹² with its longstanding goal to create a single world government (pp. 2, 10, 217-218),³⁵ has remained in the shadows for decades. Since 2020, however, it has come much more clearly into view owing to the lockstep pursuit of technocratic agendas by governments, international organizations, think tanks, banks, foundations, etc. This increased visibility is a good thing, because it reveals how power really works in the world, that is, not through national sovereignty and democracy, but, rather, through transnational networks that have infiltrated our institutions and turned them against the people. This means it is pointless appealing to those institutions for help. Solutions lie not at the political or legal levels but at the social level.

Ultimately, human freedom depends on defeating a tiny cabal whose evil methods act like a cancer against the body politic, creating a “disease of inter-human relations,” as Meerloo (p. 108) refers to totalitarianism.³¹¹

Freedom Is One Person at a Time

One way of thinking about 21st-century technologies of oppression is in terms of Fitts’ notion of control being exercised “one person at a time.”³⁸ Twentieth-century techniques tended to rely on manipulating the public en masse (for example, through the dynamics of mass psychology, propaganda, popular entertainment, the mass media, the education curriculum, changes to social policy, adjustments to fiscal and monetary policy, etc.). In contrast, the new technologies permit a more granular level of control, involving automated feedback loops with individuals to monitor their behavior patterns and influence them accordingly.

To the extent that public “consent” is thereby engineered, it is scaled up from the individual level, rather than arising as a mass phenomenon. Desmet’s pernicious “mass formation” thesis,³¹² apparently lifted from Freud (§3),¹¹⁰ which I and two coauthors have criticized at length without reply,^{110 136} prevents people from seeing the “individualized high-tech trap that is closing in around each one of us.”³⁸

The power of exercising control one person at a time is that it promises to reach even those atypical individuals who, for whatever reason, are not susceptible to mass conditioning. Physiologically, for instance, the public is told that alcohol and tobacco are bad for health, yet some people get to drink and smoke to a ripe old age. Psychologically, Huxley (p. 45) estimates that a fifth of the population “cannot be hypnotized at all,”³² regardless of mass persuasion techniques. This creates inherent limitations to any totalitarian control project. Control exercised at the individual level, in contrast, takes totalitarianism to the next level, at least in principle.

It follows that freedom is also one person at a time—a decentralized, bottom-up process that begins with individuals, then alliances of individuals, and communities asserting their freedom.³⁸ Davis offers a simple guiding principle: “Instead of doing the things that move us away from freedom we need to consistently do the things that move us toward it.”³¹³ What exactly does that look like, however? Once the logic of the Omniwar is understood, all manner of solutions spring to mind.

Practical Steps

• Oppose everything labeled “smart.” Ditch your smartphone, or at the very least de-Google it. Get rid of your smart meter. Refuse digital surveillance technologies of all kinds.
• Minimize time spent on screens and, thus, your exposure to cognitive warfare. Preferably, get rid of your TV: it is a potent mind control device.
• Minimize your exposure to mainstream everything—news, newspapers, search engines, social media sites, music, films, etc. All of it has been weaponized and is being used for mind control purposes.
• Minimize your exposure to 5G. Place pressure on your local authority to remove 5G masts, preferably through collective action.
• Reject all “vaccines.” Even if some were “safe and effective” before 2020, which seems doubtful, the Omniwar means that all forms of injection represent potential weapons or delivery systems. David Nixon has found self-assembling technologies in dental anesthetic, for instance.
• Take personal responsibility for your health. To counteract attempts to poison and debilitate you, independently research and reevaluate whatever medication you may be on. Give more consideration to your diet and exercise.
• Avoid processed food, high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, and all forms of Pharma Food. Spend the time and effort to buy fresh food locally.
• Drink reverse osmosis water or filtered water to remove the many impurities that show up in public drinking water.
• Oppose CBDC and every attempt to leverage financial control to influence behavior.
• Oppose all legislation that removes the public’s rights and liberties. Exercise your lawful right to protest while it lasts.
• Demand greater transparency and accountability around immigration. Do not accept the recent spike in non-Western immigration into the West as “normal” or “necessary.”
• Cultivate your relationship with the Divine, whatever you conceive it to be. Do not allow yourself to be robbed of the sense of infinite possibility. Ask why satanic messaging in particular infuses popular culture in the West.
• Do not allow yourself to be gaslit that what is happening in our skies is normal.
• Be sure to protect your children. Consider homeschooling or unschooling them, or at the very least keep a close eye on what they are being taught in school and challenge any attempts at indoctrination. Reject the criminal childhood vaccination schedule. Keep children off screens as much as possible.
• Protect the elderly. Monitor health services closely for covert euthanasia measures.
• Reject the tyranny of woke and remember that the global class war is driving everything.
• Demand that regulators be held to account.
• Demand justice and accountability for the mass atrocities of the Covid era, and do not accept the results of whitewash inquiries.

The Need for a Positive Vision

What is needed, above all, is a positive vision of the future that can rally and inspire people—something to build toward. As psychologist of evil, Philip Zimbardo (p. 127), writes in a different context, though the principle is the same, “The absolute power of this oppressive system is threatened by […] imagining future realities, future possible selves, with meaningful options and viable choices” (p. 127).³¹⁴

After all, the ruling class has its vision of global technocracy by 2030, viz. the UN’s Agenda 2030, the WHO’s Immunization Agenda 2030, the WEF’s “own nothing and be happy” vision by 2030, the 2030Vision project around digital technology, the European Commission’s 2030 Climate Target Plan and Digital Targets for 2030, etc. Transhumanism looks toward a “then year” of 2030 (slide 109).¹ In Kurzweil’s “2030 Scenario,” human brains will connect to cloud-based computers via nanobots inside the body.¹⁹⁶ The Global Trends 2030 report by the U.S. National Intelligence Council anticipates brain-machine interfaces and a “disruptive global event” involving an “easily transmissible novel respiratory pathogen.”³¹⁵ At the start of the “Covid-19” operation, Harari wrote: “Imagine North Korea in 2030, when every citizen has to wear a biometric bracelet 24 hours a day. If you listen to a speech by the Great Leader and the bracelet picks up the tell-tale signs of anger, you are done for.”²⁶¹

The theme of the 2021 Middle East WEF conference was “The Great Narrative.” The ruling class evidently understands the importance of narratives, hence its funding of “strategic narratives” (a weaponization of narrative). It knows how to rally its cadre at Davos, Bilderberg, G7 meetings, etc., around key ideas such as “sustainability” and “stakeholder capitalism,” with a clear timeline in place.

We need to do the same, with a positive, desirable, and achievable vision of the future, one that can counteract the dystopian spellcasting around the year 2030. Bob Moran’s “The Good Reset” is a good example (Figure 46).³¹⁶ Otherwise, the psychological attacks on the population are so sophisticated, so unrelenting, and so merciless that it is easy to forget what the world could realistically be like.

For example, if free energy is real—and the destruction of the Twin Towers provides the evidence that it is¹⁰—then there is no need for energy scarcity, resource wars, and sustainability initiatives based on finite resources. Existing technologies such as psychographics, if expropriated from the ruling class, could be used to distribute wealth fairly throughout the world. Automation could create greatly increased leisure time for all and an opportunity for human flourishing and self-realization, instead of a “useless class” that ultimately needs to be culled because of its economic worthlessness.

We know that cognitive dissonance makes it extremely difficult to use facts and evidence to reach those who have been heavily propagandized and indoctrinated (pp. 248-253).³⁵ However, narratives, stories, and metaphors may be able to reach people who are otherwise impervious to empirical evidence.³¹⁷ One advantage we have in that respect is that the ruling class is terrible at narrative: owning nothing, eating insects, turning humans into cyborgs, biometric dictatorship, etc. is as bad as it gets. It cannot be difficult to come up with a more inspiring counternarrative.

That, indeed, is what I propose needs to happen next, and fast. For if technocracy and transhumanism are accelerating toward their “then year” of 2030 (slide 109),¹ an event horizon beyond which even Bushnell cannot imagine, then weneed a countervision in place for 2029. Although “their” vision and the clandestine planning for it dates back decades, our strength lies in our numbers. The right vision for the future, capable of galvanizing large numbers of people, has the potential to create change that will benefit most of humanity.

Endnotes

1. Bushnell DM. Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare, circa 2025. NASA Langley Research Center, July 2001. https://archive.org/details/future-strategic-issues-and-warfare_202011 ↩︎
2. Chancel L, Piketty T, Saez E, Zucman G. World Inequality Report 2022. World Inequality Lab, 2022, pp. 10, 15. https://www.cadtm.org/IMG/pdf/summary_worldinequalityreport2022_english.pdf ↩︎
3. Wright R. The story of 2019: Protests in every corner of the globe. The New Yorker, December 30, 2019. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-story-of-2019-protests-in-every-corner-of-the-globe ↩︎
4. van der Pijl K. States of Emergency: Keeping the Global Population in Check. Clarity Press, 2022. https://www.claritypress.com/product/states-of-emergency-keeping-the-global-population-in-check/ ↩︎
5. Wolff E. The master plan behind the Covid crisis. TCW, September 20, 2021. https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-master-plan-behind-the-covid-crisis/ ↩︎
6. Carney M. The growing challenges for monetary policy in the current international monetary and financial system. Bank of England, August 23, 2019. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2019/mark-carney-speech-at-jackson-hole-economic-symposium-wyoming ↩︎
7. Bartsch E, Boivin J, Fischer S, Hildebrand P. Dealing with the next downturn. BlackRock Investment Institute, August 15, 2019. https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/insights/blackrock-investment-institute/publications/global-macro-outlook/august-2019 ↩︎
8. Lippmann W. Public Opinion. Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1922, p. 248. https://archive.org/details/publicopinion0000walt_e3z4 ↩︎
9. Herman E, Chomsky N. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon, 1988. https://archive.org/details/pdfy-NekqfnoWIEuYgdZl ↩︎
10. Wood J. Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11. The New Investigation, 2011. https://www.drjudywood.com/wp/book/ ↩︎
11. Agamben G. Where Are We Now? The Epidemic as Politics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2021, p. 7. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538157602/Where-Are-We-Now-The-Epidemic-as-Politics ↩︎
12. Hughes DA. Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crimes of the Deep State. Skyhorse Publishing, 2024. https://dhughes.substack.com/p/wall-street-the-nazis-and-the-crimes ↩︎
13. Schwab K. Now is the time for a “great reset.” World Economic Forum, June 3, 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/ ↩︎
14. Schwab K, Malleret T. Covid-19: The Great Reset. World Economic Forum, 2020. https://archive.org/details/covid-19_great_reset_schwab ↩︎
15. Titus J. The Going Direct Reset. The Solari Report, 2021. https://goingdirect.solari.com/the-going-direct-reset/ ↩︎
16. Bartsch E, Boivin J, Donilon T, Fischer S, Harrison R, Hildebrand P, et al. Time for policy to go direct. BlackRock Investment Institute, March 2020. https:/www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/whitepaper/blackrock-bulletin-policy-going-direct-march-2020.pdf ↩︎
17. Cited in Michel N, Anthony N. The risk of CBDCs. CATO Institute, February 22, 2023. https://www.cato.org/visual-feature/risks-of-cbdcs ↩︎
18. Global Preparedness Monitoring Board. A World At Risk: Annual Report on Global Preparedness for Health Emergencies. GPMB, September 2019, p. 15. https://www.gpmb.org/annual-reports/annual-report-2019 ↩︎
19. Mawdsley H. Fake news and the flu. Wellcome Collection, September 18, 2019. https://wellcomecollection.org/articles/XXIeHhEAACYAIdKz ↩︎
20. Center for Health Security. Event 201. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, n.d. https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/event-201-pandemic-tabletop-exercise ↩︎
21. World Health Organization. Novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV): Situation report – 13. WHO, February 2, 2020. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200202-sitrep-13-ncov-v3.pdf%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank ↩︎
22. Cited in Haynes M. FLASHBACK: New Zealand PM told public “we are your single source of truth.” LifeSite News, July 16, 2021. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/flashback-new-zealand-pm-told-public-we-are-your-single-source-of-truth/ ↩︎
23. Agamben G. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford University Press, 1998. https://archive.org/details/homosacersoverei0000agam ↩︎
24. Elmer S. The camp as biopolitical paradigm of the state (the road to fascism: for a critique of the global biosecurity state). Architects for Social Housing, June 12, 2022. https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2022/06/12/8-the-camp-as-biopolitical-paradigm-of-the-state-the-road-to-fascism-for-a-critique-of-the-global-biosecurity-state/ ↩︎
25. van der Pijl K. Health emergency or seizure of power? The political economy of Covid-19. New Cold War, April 27, 2020. https://newcoldwar.org/health-emergency-or-seizure-of-power-the-political-economy-of-covid-19/ ↩︎
26. O’Neill B. The death of Europe. Spiked, December 6, 2021. https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/12/06/the-death-of-europe/ ↩︎
27. Technocracy, Inc. Technocracy Study Course. Electronic Edition Version 1.2, 2005, p. v. https://www.technocracyinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Study-Course.pdf ↩︎
28. Cited in Wood P. Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order. Coherent Publishing, 2018, p. 10. https://www.technocracy.news/product/technocracy-the-hard-road-to-world-order/ ↩︎
29. Davis I. Technocracy: The operating system for the new international rules-based order. Unlimited Hangout, February 22, 2022. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/02/investigative-reports/technocracy-the-operating-system-for-the-new-international-rules-based-order-1/ ↩︎
30. Wood P. Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order. Coherent Publishing, 2018. https://www.technocracy.news/product/technocracy-the-hard-road-to-world-order/ ↩︎
31. Russell B. The Impact of Science on Society. Simon and Schuster, 1952. https://archive.org/details/impactofscienceo00russ/page/54/mode/2up?q=%22scientific+dictatorship%22 ↩︎
32. Huxley A. Brave New World Revisited. Harper & Row, 1958. https://archive.org/details/Brave_New_World_Revisited/page/n55/mode/2up?q=%22scientific+dictator%22 ↩︎
33. Brzezinski Z. Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. Viking Press, 1970. https://ia801302.us.archive.org/7/items/books_201603/between_twoages.pdf ↩︎
34. Wood P. The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism. Coherent Publishing, 2022, p. ii. https://www.technocracy.news/product/the-evil-twins-of-technocracy-and-transhumanism/ ↩︎
35. Hughes DA. “Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy. Palgrave Macmillan, 2024. https://dhughes.substack.com/p/covid-19-psychological-operations ↩︎
36. TechDesign. 5 selected smart city startups to watch. Nuvoton Technology Corporation, January 24, 2018. https://blog.techdesign.com/5-selected-smart-city-startups/ ↩︎
37. Johnson B. PM speech to the UN General Assembly: 24 September 2019. Prime Minister’s Office, September 25, 2019. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly-24-september-2019 ↩︎
38. Fitts CA. Control is one person at a time. The Solari Report, January 14, 2022. https://home.solari.com/control-is-one-person-at-a-time/ ↩︎
39. Jabbi A. 2023 Update: Digital ID or Digital Prison (& Five Pillars to Enslave Humanity) [Video]. YouTube, November 19, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQwr7FbRnPw ↩︎
40. Corbett J. WWIII has begun. The International Forecaster, March 21, 2020. https://theinternationalforecaster.com/topic/international_forecaster_weekly/wwiii_has_begun ↩︎
41. Epp R. Mastering the mysteries of diplomacy: Karl Marx as international theorist. Socialist Studies. 2017;12(1):78–96. https://doi.org/10.18740/S4VP8J ↩︎
42. Valentine D. The CIA as Organized Crime. Clarity Press, 2017, p. 64. https://www.claritypress.com/product/the-cia-as-organized-crime/ ↩︎
43. Corbett J. Your guide to fifth-generation warfare. The Corbett Report, March 28, 2022. https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/your-guide-to-fifth-generation-warfare ↩︎
44. Cited in Moorhouse R. Berlin at War. Basic Books, 2010, p. 339. https://archive.org/details/berlinatwar0000moor_p3q5/mode/2up?view=theater ↩︎
45. van Hamelen E. Citizen’s brain is the battlefield in 21st-century warfare. Global Research, September 22, 2022. https://www.globalresearch.ca/citizen-brain-battlefield-21st-century-warfare/5794156 ↩︎
46. Claverie B, du Cluzel F. “Cognitive warfare”: the advent of the concept of “cognitics” in the field of warfare. In: B Claverie, B Prébot, N Buchler, & F du Cluzel (Eds.), Cognitive Warfare: The Future of Cognitive Dominance, 2022, pp. 1-7. NATO Collaboration Support Office. https://hal.science/hal-03635889/document ↩︎
47. NATO. Cognitive warfare, n.d. https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cognitive-warfare/ ↩︎
48. du Cluzel F. Cognitive Warfare. NATO Innovation Hub, January 2021. https://innovationhub-act.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/20210113_CW-Final-v2-.pdf ↩︎
49. MacDonald A, Ratcliffe R. Cognitive warfare: maneuvering in the human dimension. Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute. 2023;149(4):1,442. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/april/cognitive-warfare-maneuvering-human-dimension ↩︎
50. Glaser ZR, Brown PF, Brown MS. Bibliography of reported biological phenomena (“effects”) and clinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation: compilation and integration of report and seven supplements. Naval Medical Research Institute, September 1976. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Naval-MRI-Glaser-Report-1976.pdf ↩︎
51. U.S. Congress. H.R. 2977 – Space Preservation Act of 2001, p. 5. https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2977/text ↩︎
52. Department of Defense. Electronic Warfare. Joint Publication 3-13.1, February 8, 2012. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp3-13-1.pdf ↩︎
53. Waltman C. Washington State Fusion Center accidentally releases records on remote mind control. MuckRock, April 18, 2018. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/apr/18/fusion-center-em/ ↩︎
54. Regenstein L. The mysteries – and realities – of the Havana syndrome: it’s the Russians. The Intelligencer. 2023;28(1):13-22. https://www.afio.com/publications/REGENSTEIN%20Havana%20Syndrome%20article%20from%20AFIO%20Intelligencer%20WinterSpring_2023_Vol28_No1_INTEL.pdf ↩︎
55. Frank JW. Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2021;75(6):562–566. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2019-213595 ↩︎
56. Burdick S. 5G towers can make healthy people sick, two case reports show. The Defender, February 23, 2023. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/5g-cell-towers-microwave-syndrome/ ↩︎
57. Jamieson G. How safe really is 5G? The Daily Sceptic, February 1, 2023. https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/01/how-safe-really-is-5g/ ↩︎
58. Hughes DA. Sabrina Wallace, the global information grid, and electromagnetic warfare. David A. Hughes, July 22, 2024. https://dhughes.substack.com/p/sabrina-wallace-the-global-information ↩︎
59. Hughes DA. Electromagnetic warfare: history and dangers. David A. Hughes, September 4, 2024. https://dhughes.substack.com/p/electromagnetic-warfare-history-and ↩︎
60. Giordano J. Neurotechnology: Premises, Potential and Problems. Routledge, 2012. https://www.routledge.com/Neurotechnology-Premises-Potential-and-Problems/Giordano/p/book/9781439825860#:~:text=Neurotechnology%3A%20Premises%2C%20Potential%2C%20and%20Problems%20explores%20the%20technical%2C,their%20implications%20for%20the%20future ↩︎
61. Giordano J. Brain science from bench to battlefield: the realities – and risks – of neuroweapons. [Lecture]. Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, August 29, 2017. https://cgsr.llnl.gov/event-calendar/2017/2017-06-12 ↩︎
62. Giordano J. The brain is the battlefield of the future [Video]. Modern War Institute, West Point, September 25, 2018. https://mwi.usma.edu/mwi-video-brain-battlefield-future-dr-james-giordano/ ↩︎
63. Triggle N, Jeavans C. The NHS Covid legacy – long waits and lives at risk. BBC News, May 13, 2021. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57092797 ↩︎
64. National Health Service. The Spectator data tracker. Retrieved October 6, 2024 from https://data.spectator.co.uk/nhs ↩︎
65. Stevens S, Pritchard A. Important and urgent – next steps on NHS response to Covid-19. Letter to: Chief executives of all NHS trusts and foundation trusts, CCG accountable officers, GP practices and primary care networks, and providers of community health services. National Health Service, March 17, 2020. https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/03/urgent-next-steps-on-nhs-response-to-covid-19-letter-simon-stevens.pdf ↩︎
66. Gatti AM, Montanari S. New quality-control investigations on vaccines: micro- and nanocontamination. International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination. 2017;4(1):7-14. https://doi.org/10.15406/ijvv.2017.04.00072 ↩︎
67. Hughes DA. What is in the so-called Covid-19 “vaccines”? Part 1: Evidence of a global crime against humanity. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. 2022;2(2):455–586. https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.52 ↩︎
68. Latypova, S. Intent to harm. Due Diligence and Art, December 13, 2022. https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/intent-to-harm ↩︎
69. Lee YM, Broudy D. Real-time self-assembly of stereomicroscopically visible artificial constructions in incubated specimens of mRNA products mainly from Pfizer and Moderna: a comprehensive longitudinal study. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. 2024;3(2):1180-1244. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/102 ↩︎
70. OpenVAERS. VAERS COVID vaccine adverse event reports. Retrieved October 6, 2024 from https://openvaers.com/covid-data ↩︎
71. Pfeiffer MB. The missing babies of Europe. RESCUE with Michael Capuzzo, November 28, 2022. https://rescue.substack.com/p/the-missing-babies-of-europe ↩︎
72. Bujard M, Andersson G. Fertility declines near the end of the Covid-19 pandemic: evidence of the 2022 birth declines in Germany and Sweden. Preprint posted June 9, 2022. Retrieved from https://su.figshare.com/articles/preprint/Fertility_declines_near_the_end_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_Evidence_of_the_2022_birth_declines_in_Germany_and_Sweden/20975611 ↩︎
73. Swiss Policy Research. Covid vaccines and fertility (2022). https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-and-fertility/ ↩︎
74. Main D. Glyphosate now the most-used agricultural chemical ever. Newsweek, February 2, 2016. https://www.newsweek.com/glyphosate-now-most-used-agricultural-chemical-ever-422419 ↩︎
75. World Health Organization. IARC monograph on glyphosate. WHO, July 19, 2018. https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/ ↩︎
76. Gillam C. “Disturbing”: Weedkiller ingredient tied to cancer found in 80% of US urine samples. The Guardian, July 9, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/09/weedkiller-glyphosate-cdc-study-urine-samples ↩︎
77. Isaacs-Thomas B. Why getting PFAS out of our products is so hard – and why it matters. PBS News, March 14, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/pfas-are-everywhere-what-can-we-do-to-change-that ↩︎
78. Bulbul SN, Mamur S, Yuzbasioglu D, Unal F. Safety assessment of high fructose corn syrup and fructose used as sweeteners in foods. Toxicol Mech Methods. 2024;34(5):584-595. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376516.2024.2318570 ↩︎
79. World Health Organization. Aspartame hazard and risk assessment results released. WHO, July 14, 2023. https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released ↩︎
80. Gatti AM, Tossini D, Gambarelli A, Montanari S, Capitani F. Investigation of the presence of inorganic micro- and nanosized contaminants in bread and biscuits by environmental scanning electron microscopy. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009;49(3):275-282. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/10408390802064347 ↩︎
81. Peckham S, Awofeso N. Water fluoridation: a critical review of the physiological effects of ingested fluoride as a public health intervention. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:293019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/293019 ↩︎
82. National Toxicology Program. NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopment and Cognition: A Systematic Review. Department of Health and Human Services, NTP Monograph 08, August 2024. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/fluoride_final_508.pdf ↩︎
83. Office of Dietary Supplements. Fluoride. National Institutes of Health, n.d. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Fluoride-HealthProfessional/ ↩︎
84. World Economic Forum. Press Conference: The New Economics of Water – Launch of Global Commission | Davos [Video]. YouTube, August 24, 2022, timestamp 15:49. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bw0gjFxu_w ↩︎
85. Hughes DA. Weaponization of the food and water supplies. David A. Hughes, August 10, 2024. https://dhughes.substack.com/p/weaponisation-of-the-food-and-water ↩︎
86. van Hamelen E. Pharma Food: Biotech on Your Plate: The Next Chapter in Big Money’s Battle to End Food Sovereignty. The Solari Report, July 2022, pp. 80-81. https://home.solari.com/pharma-food-with-elze-van-hamelen/ ↩︎
87. Whiting K. How soon will we be eating lab-grown meat? World Economic Forum, October 16, 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/will-we-eat-lab-grown-meat-world-food-day/ ↩︎
88. Lanum N. Davos speaker calls for one billion people to “stop eating meat” for “innovation” and the environment. Fox News, January 19, 2023. https://www.foxnews.com/media/davos-speaker-one-billion-people-stop-eating-meat-innovation-environment ↩︎
89. Hubert A. Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems. World Economic Forum, July 12, 2021. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-insects-the-role-they-deserve-in-our-food-systems/ ↩︎
90. Vanheuckelom T. Not just the farmer’s fight. European Conservative, November 29, 2023. https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/not-just-the-farmers-fight/ ↩︎
91. van Hamelen. Dutch Farmers and Fishermen: Local Heroes in the Global War on Our Food and Property Rights. The Solari Report, July 2023. https://home.solari.com/2nd-quarter-2023-wrap-up-dutch-farmers-and-fishermen-the-people-who-feed-us-with-elze-van-hamelen/ ↩︎
92. Beck S. A sinister agenda down on the farm. TCW, February 22, 2024. https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-sinister-agenda-down-on-the-farm/ ↩︎
93. Hoft J. Interactive map details destruction of numerous U.S. food manufacturing plants, grocery stores, etc. – compares U.S. incidents to global trends. Gateway Pundit, June 23, 2022. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/interactive-map-details-destruction-numerous-us-food-manufacturing-plants-compares-us-incidents-global-trends/ ↩︎
94. Corbett J. Episode 438—The future food false flag. The Corbett Report, March 6, 2023. https://corbettreport.com/foodfalseflag/ ↩︎
95. Shapiro A. America’s biggest owner of farmland is now Bill Gates. Forbes, January 14, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielshapiro/2021/01/14/americas-biggest-owner-of-farmland-is-now-bill-gates-bezos-turner/ ↩︎
96. Scribner C. Top 10 largest farmland owners in the US in 2022. Farm Land Riches, June 6, 2022. https://www.farmlandriches.com/largest-farmland-owners/ ↩︎
97. FRED. M2. St. Louis Fed, n.d. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL#0 ↩︎
98. Ponton F. PART 2 – Smoking guns: Nord Stream sabotage “secret teams” revealed. 21st Century Wire, May 3, 2023. https://21stcenturywire.com/2023/05/03/part-2-smoking-guns-nord-stream-sabotage-secret-teams-revealed/ ↩︎
99. Davis I. Not fact checkers. Iain Davis: The Disillusioned Blogger, February 28, 2020. https://iaindavis.com/not-fact-checkers/ ↩︎
100. Woodworth E. COVID-19 and the shadowy “Trusted News Initiative.” Global Research, January 22, 2022. https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-shadowy-trusted-news-initiative/5752930 ↩︎
101. Hayward T. Counter-disinformation fails: feedback from a target. Propaganda in Focus, July 29, 2022. https://propagandainfocus.com/counter-disinformation-fails-feedback-from-a-target/ ↩︎
102. Guterres A. Message by António Guterres on Covid-19 and misinformation. United Nations Indonesia, April 15, 2020. https://indonesia.un.org/en/92948-message-antonio-guterres-covid-19-and-misinformation ↩︎
103. Lalani F, Majcin J. Inside the battle to counteract the COVID-19 “infodemic.” World Economic Forum, April 9, 2020. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/covid-19-inside-the-battle-to-counteract-the-coronavirus-infodemic/ ↩︎
104. Lederer EM. UN seeks millions of people to counter virus misinformation. AP, May 22, 2020. https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-united-nations-4f786288e10bf3510adbe2c0f2b12b70 ↩︎
105. Ministry of Defence. Integrated operating concept. Gov.UK, September 30, 2020 (last updated October 26, 2022), p. 7. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-integrated-operating-concept-2025 ↩︎
106. Fisher L, Smyth C. GCHQ in cyberwar on antivaccine propaganda. The Times, November 9, 2020. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gchqin-cyberwar-on-anti-vaccine-propaganda-mcjgjhmb2 ↩︎
107. Hughes DA, Broudy D, Kyrie V. Global class war and the politics of a hatchet job: a reply to John Waters. The Solari Report, February 22, 2023. https://constitution.solari.com/global-class-war-and-the-politics-of-a-hatchet-job-a-reply-to-john-waters/ ↩︎
108. Broudy D, Hughes DA, Kyrie V. The psychology of Covid-19 atrocities [Video]. Doctors for COVID Ethics, December 10, 2022. https://doctors4covidethics.org/session-iv-understanding-tactics-of-oppression-2/ ↩︎
109. Davis I. The bizarre trial of Richard D. Hall. Iain Davis, July 26, 2024. https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/the-bizarre-trial-of-richard-d-hall ↩︎
110. Hopkins CJ. Guilty. CJ Hopkins, September 30, 2024. https://cjhopkins.substack.com/p/guilty ↩︎
111. Office for National Statistics. Long-term international migration, provisional: year ending December 2023. Gov.UK, May 23, 2024. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingdecember2023 ↩︎
112. Stanton GH. The ten stages of genocide. Genocide Watch, 1996. https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages ↩︎
113. Vigilant Citizen. An in-depth look at the depravity of the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremony. July 29, 2024. https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/an-in-depth-look-at-the-depravity-of-the-2024-paris-olympics-opening-ceremony/ ↩︎
114. Carter E. (2024, August 9). How did the Olympic opening ceremony mock “The Last Supper”? Details you didn’t know. Bible Scripture. https://biblescripture.net/how-did-the-olympic-opening-ceremony-mock-the-last-supper-details-you-didnt-know/ ↩︎
115. Harari YN. “If we succeed, and there’s a very good chance we will, then very soon, we will be beyond the god of the bible” [Video]. Odysee, July 26, 2022. https://odysee.com/@realworldnews:d/yuval-noah-harari-delusion:b ↩︎
116. Secker T, Alford M. Documents expose how Hollywood promotes war on behalf of the Pentagon, CIA and NSA. Films For Action, July 5, 2017. https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/documents-expose-how-hollywood-promotes-war-on-behalf-of-the-pentagon-cia-and-nsa/ ↩︎
117. Devlin M. Musical Truth: Volume 1. aSys Publishing, 2016. https://djmarkdevlin.com/musical-truth-volume-1/ ↩︎
118. Devlin M. Musical Truth: Volume 2. aSys Publishing, 2018. https://djmarkdevlin.com/musical-truth-volume-2/ ↩︎
119. Devlin M. Musical Truth: Volume 3. aSys Publishing, 2021. http://djmarkdevlin.com/musical-truth-volume-3/ ↩︎
120. Williams A. Laughter in an ugly world with Alistair Williams. UK Column, August 13, 2024. https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/laughter-in-an-ugly-world-with-alistair-williams ↩︎
121. Emery F, Emery M. A Choice of Futures. Martinus Nijhoff, 1976, p. 64. https://archive.org/details/choiceoffutures0000emer ↩︎
122. Nelson J. The Perfect Machine: Television and the Bomb. New Society Publishers, 1992, p. 69. https://archive.org/details/perfectmachinete00nels/mode/2up?q=krugman ↩︎
123. Trombly A. Entrainment Technology, Subliminal Programming & Financial Manipulation. The Solari Report, 2011. https://home.solari.com/entrained-subliminal-programming-and-financial-manipulation/ ↩︎
124. Willoughby H, Jorgenson DP, Black RA, Rosenthal SL. Project STORMFURY: a scientific chronicle, 1962–1983. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 1985;66(5):505-514. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26224358 ↩︎
125. House TJ, Near Jr. JB, Shields WB, Celentano RJ, Husband DM, Mercer AE, et al. Weather as a force multiplier: owning the weather by 2025. United States Air Force, August 1996. https://archive.org/details/WeatherAsAForceMultiplier/page/n1/mode/2up ↩︎
126. Sample I. Spy agencies fund climate research in hunt for weather weapon, scientist fears.The Guardian, February 15, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/spy-agencies-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim ↩︎
127. Young DN. Considering stratospheric aerosol injections beyond an environmental frame: the intelligible “emergency” techno-fix and preemptive security. European Journal of International Security. 2023;8(2):262-280. https://www.doi.org/10.1017/eis.2023.4 ↩︎
128. Tracy SM, Moch JM, Eastham SD, Buonocore JJ. Stratospheric aerosol injection may impact global systems and human health outcomes. Elementa (Wash D C). 2022;10(1):00047. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2022.00047 ↩︎
129. Thompson J. Solar geoengineering could become the “new form of denial” for Silicon Valley enthusiasts, critics say. Sierra, September 21, 2023. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/solar-geoengineering-could-become-new-form-denial-silicon-valley-enthusiasts-critics-say ↩︎
130. Cabinet Office. COVID-19 Response – Spring 2021. Gov.UK, February 22, 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-response-spring-2021/covid-19-response-spring-2021 ↩︎
131. Associated Press. CDC: Vaccinated teachers, students do not need to wear COVID masks inside schools. AL.com, July 9, 2021. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/cdc-vaccinated-teachers-students-do-not-need-to-wear-covid-masks-inside-schools.html ↩︎
132. World Health Organization. COVID-19: virtual press conference, July 7, 2021, p. 4. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/media_briefing_on_covid-19_070721.pdf ↩︎
133. Hughes DA. “Covid-19 vaccines” for children in the UK: a tale of establishment corruption. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. 2022;2(1):209–247. https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i1.35 ↩︎
134. Fitts CA. Political Control & Pedophilia with Jon Rappoport. The Solari Report, February 4, 2017. https://home.solari.com/political-control-pedophilia-with-jon-rappoport/ ↩︎
135. Scott B. We are all Pavlov’s dogs now. UK Column, May 2, 2021. https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/we-are-all-pavlovs-dogs-now ↩︎
136. Hughes DA, Kyrie V, Broudy D. Covid-19: Mass formation or mass atrocity? Unlimited Hangout, November 29, 2022. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/11/investigative-reports/covid-19-mass-formation-or-mass-atrocity/ ↩︎
137. Mackley A, Kennedy S, Hobson F, Harker R. Changes to winter fuel payment eligibility rules. House of Commons Library, September 9, 2024. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10094/ ↩︎
138. Stokes D. Prof. Doug Stokes: Anti-White Racism Is Rampant In Universities [Video]. YouTube, June 20, 2021, timestamp 12:50. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlntg1qnyHM ↩︎
139. Lambert H. Kathleen Stock and Sussex University: the war over academic freedom. The New Statesman, October 20, 2021. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2021/10/kathleen-stock-and-sussex-university-the-war-over-academic-freedom ↩︎
140. Firstenberg A. INTERNATIONAL APPEAL: Stop 5G on Earth and in Space. n.d. https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal ↩︎
141. Gyngell K. The doctor who turned her health watchdog into a Covid vaccine lapdog. TCW, July 6, 2022. https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-doctor-who-turned-her-health-watchdog-into-a-covid-vaccine-lapdog/ ↩︎
142. Kumar CN. Network-centric warfare and emerging communication technologies. Defense Research Studies, December 6, 2020. https://dras.in/network-centric-warfare-and-emerging-communication-technologies/ ↩︎
143. Wogaman DG. Network-centric warfare: an emerging warfighting capability. Marine Corps War College, 1998. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA529329.pdf ↩︎
144. Ballard M. Drone kill communications net illustrated. Computer Weekly, June 13, 2014. https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Public-Sector-IT/Drone-kill-communications-net-illustrated ↩︎
145. Sensor Open Systems Architecture. The Open Group SOSA™ Consortium. SOSA, n.d. https://www.opengroup.org/sosa ↩︎
146. The “willy-nilly” drone doctrine. Foreign Policy, March 1, 2012. ↩︎
147. Taylor J. Outrage at CIA’s deadly “double tap” drone attacks. The Independent, September 26, 2012. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cia-s-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html ↩︎
148. Copp T. US aims to stay ahead of China in using AI to fly fighter jets. Air Force Times, May 12, 2024. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2024/05/12/us-aims-to-stay-ahead-of-china-in-using-ai-to-fly-fighter-jets/ ↩︎
149. Department of Defense. DoD Directive 3000.09, Autonomy in Weapons Systems. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, November 21, 2012. https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodd/300009p.pdf ↩︎
150. Vincent B. NGA working with combatant commands to integrate “Maven” AI capabilities into workflows. Defense Scoop, May 23, 2023. https://defensescoop.com/2023/05/22/nga-working-with-combatant-commands-to-integrate-maven-ai-capabilities-into-workflows/ ↩︎
151. Vincent B. Fiscal 2025 budget docs reveal how Project Maven is still evolving. Defense Scoop, March 14, 2024.https://defensescoop.com/2024/03/14/project-maven-fiscal-2025-budget-still-evolving/ ↩︎
152. Albon C. Palantir wins contract to expand access to Project Maven AI tools. C4ISRNET, May 30, 2024. https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2024/05/30/palantir-wins-contract-to-expand-access-to-project-maven-ai-tools/ ↩︎
153. Department of Defense. Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command & Control (JDAC2) Strategy. March 2022. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.PDF ↩︎
154. SAIC. Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2): Accelerating battlespace effectiveness through data interoperability between DOD partners and coalition forces. n.d. https://www.saic.com/what-we-do/mission-it/jadc2 ↩︎
155. Congressional Research Service. Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS). CRS, February 15, 2022. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/IF11866.pdf ↩︎
156. Manson K. U.S. used A.I. to help find Middle East targets for air strikes. Bloomberg, February 26, 2024. ​​https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-26/us-says-it-used-ai-to-help-find-targets-it-hit-in-iraq-syria-and-yemen ↩︎
157. Cotovio V. Ukraine’s AI-enabled drones are trying to disrupt Russia’s energy industry. So far, it’s working. CNN, April 2, 2024. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/01/energy/ukrainian-drones-disrupting-russian-energy-industry-intl-cmd/index.html ↩︎
158. Robins-Early N. AI’s “Oppenheimer moment”: Autonomous weapons enter the battlefield. The Guardian, July 14, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/ais-oppenheimer-moment-autonomous-weapons-enter-the-battlefield ↩︎
159. Vincent B. What the Pentagon can learn from the saga of the rogue AI-enabled drone “thought experiment.” Defense Scoop, June 14, 2023. https://defensescoop.com/2023/06/14/what-the-pentagon-can-learn-from-the-saga-of-the-rogue-ai-enabled-drone-thought-experiment/ ↩︎
160. Suarez D. Daniel Suarez: The Kill Decision Shouldn’t Belong to a Robot [Video]. YouTube, June 13, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI ↩︎
161. Elbit Systems. LANIUS: Drone-based loitering munition for complex environments. n.d. https://elbitsystems.com/product/lanius/ ↩︎
162. Automated Decisions Research. Elbit Systems LANIUS loitering munition. n.d. https://automatedresearch.org/weapon/elbit-systems-lanius-loitering-munition/ ↩︎
163. Bhuiyan J, Montgomery B. “A betrayal”: Google workers protest Israeli military contract at vigil for ex-intern killed in airstrike. The Guardian, December 1, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/01/google-intern-gaza-israel-military-contract-project-nimbus ↩︎
164. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS. (Eds.). Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce, June 2002. https://web.archive.org/web/20041026051927/wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_pre_publication.pdf ↩︎
165. Schmid G, Simon U, Stranick SJ, Arrivo SM. Bio-Inspired Nanoscale Hybrid Systems. May 29, 2003. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA414905.pdf ↩︎
166. United States Army War College. PROTEUS: New Insights for a New Age. CCRTS Briefing, June 15-17, 2004. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA465874.pdf ↩︎
167. Xu J, Beresford R. Direct Nanoscale Conversion of Bio-molecular Signals into Electronic Information. September 22, 2008. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA492481.pdf ↩︎
168. International Electrotechnical Commission. A standard journey for BioDigital convergence. IEC, August 8, 2023. https://www.iec.ch/blog/standard-journey-biodigital-convergence ↩︎
169. United Nations. The 17 goals. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, n.d. https://sdgs.un.org/goals ↩︎
170. Akyildiz IF, Pierobon M, Balasubramaniam S, Koucheryavy Y. The internet of Bio-Nano things. IEEE Commun Mag. 2015;53(3):32-40. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7060516 ↩︎
171. Akyildiz IF, Ghovanloo M, Guler U, Ozkaya-Ahmadov T, Fatih Sarioglu A, Unluturk BD. PANACEA: An Internet of Bio-NanoThings application for early detection and mitigation of infectious diseases. IEEE Access. 2020;8:Article 140515. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9149878 ↩︎
172. Čuljak I, Vasić ZL, Mihaldinec H, Džapo H. Wireless body sensor communication systems based on UWB and IBC technologies: state-of-the-art and open challenges. Sensors. 2020;20(12):Article 3587. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20123587 ↩︎
173. Zafar S, Nazir M, Bakhshi T, Khattak HA, Khan S. A systematic review of bio-cyber interface technologies and security issues for internet of bio-nano things. IEEE Access. 2021;9:93529-93566. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9467302 ↩︎
174. Guler U. Bacteria-based bio-sensors implanted in the human body for the early detection of infection. Integrated Circuits and Systems Lab, October 16, 2018. https://icaslab.org/research/bacteria-based-bio-sensors-implanted-in-the-human-body-for-the-early-detection-of-infection/ ↩︎
175. Akyildiz IF. ARRC Seminar Series – TeraHertz Band Communication: An Old Problem Revisited & Research Directions for the Next Decade [Video]. YouTube, March 21, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAtQFkEg5-w ↩︎
176. Vizziello A, Magarini M, Savazzi P, Galluccio L. Intra-body communications for nervous system applications: current technologies and future directions. Comput Netw. 2023;227:109718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2023.109718 ↩︎
177. Johnson L, Broudy D, Hughes D. Bringing transhumanism down to earth, Part 1: military intelligence operations cloaked in the false promise of transcendence. Propaganda in Focus, April 23, 2024. https://propagandainfocus.com/bringing-transhumanism-down-to-earth-part-1-military-intelligence-operations-cloaked-in-the-false-promise-of-transcendence/ ↩︎
178. Lee C, Koo BH, Chae CB, Schober R. The internet of bio-nano things in blood vessels: system design and prototypes. Journal of Communications and Networks. 2023;25(2):222-231. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=10102779 ↩︎
179. Colombo AW, Karnouskos S, Kaynak O, Shi Y, Yin S. Industrial cyberphysical systems: A backbone of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine. 2017;11(1):6-16. https://www.doi.org/10.1109/MIE.2017.2648857 ↩︎
180. IEEE. BioCAS 2023: Artificial Intelligence BioMedical Circuits and Systems for Health. Toronto, Canada, October 19-21, 2023. https://2023.ieee-biocas.org/ ↩︎
181. US9643841B2. Graphene-based plasmonic nano-antenna for terahertz band communication. https://patents.google.com/patent/US9643841B2/en ↩︎
182. Tucker P. Four DARPA projects that could be bigger than the Internet. Defense One, May 20, 2014. https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/05/four-darpa-projects-could-be-bigger-internet/84856/ ↩︎
183. Bloomberg. Elon Musk’s fleet of low-orbiting Starlink satellites dot space, leave astronomers upset. July 8, 2019. https://www.scmp.com/tech/gear/article/3017767/elon-musks-fleet-low-orbiting-starlink-satellites-dot-space-leave ↩︎
184. Henry C. FCC fines Swarm $900,000 for unauthorized smallsat launch. SpaceNews, December 20, 2018. https://spacenews.com/fcc-fines-swarm-900000-for-unauthorized-smallsat-launch/ ↩︎
185. Harris M. Swarm wants to send hundreds of tiny CubeSats into orbit. IEEE Spectrum, January 3, 2019. https://spectrum.ieee.org/swarm-wants-to-fly-the-sky-with-tiny-cubesats ↩︎
186. Akyildiz IF, Kak A. The internet of space things/CubeSats. IEEE Network. 2019;33(5):212-218. https://www.doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2019.1800445 ↩︎
187. US20230006736A1. Network employing cube satellites. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20230006736A1/en ↩︎
188. Akyildiz IF. A New CubeSat Design with Reconfigurable Multi-band Radios for Dynamic Spectrum Satellite Communication Networks. TRUVA Inc., 2021. https://ianakyildiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MICROWAVESON_IANAKYILDIZ.pdf ↩︎
189. Geiss K. Human Systems Roadmap Review. Human Systems Community of Interest, 2018. https://defenseinnovationmarketplace.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018_coi_humansystems_final_roadmap_distro_a_onr_43_3712_18.pdf ↩︎
190. Weaver M. Revealed: 5G rollout is being stalled by rows over lampposts. The Guardian, May 19, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/19/revealed-5g-rollout-is-being-stalled-by-rows-over-lampposts ↩︎
191. Nie S, Akyildiz IF. Beamforming in intelligent environments based on ultra-massive MIMO platforms in millimeter wave and terahertz bands. ICASSP 2020, May 4-8, 2020. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9053786 ↩︎
192. US10547116B2. Wireless communication paradigm: realizing programmable wireless environments through software-controlled metasurfaces. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10547116B2/en ↩︎
193. Cited in Bruce A. Sabrina Wallace: Synthetic telepathy – 6G. Forbidden Knowledge TV, May 22, 2024. https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/149715-2/ ↩︎
194. Network Lessons. IoT standards and protocols. n.d. https://networklessons.com/cisco/evolving-technologies/iot-standards-and-protocols ↩︎
195. Celik A, Eltawil AM. The Internet of Bodies: the human body as an efficient and secure wireless channel. IEEE Internet of Things Magazine. 2022;5(3):112-120. http://www.doi.org/10.1109/IOTM.001.2100209 ↩︎
196. Kurzweil R. The Singularity Is Near. Viking, 2005. https://paisdospuntocero.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/book-kurzweil-singularity-is-near-1.pdf ↩︎
197. Simmons A. Cell tower range: how far do they reach? Dgtl Infra, January 14, 2024. https://dgtlinfra.com/cell-tower-range-how-far-reach/ ↩︎
198. Moreno J. DARPA on your mind. Cerebrum. 2004;6(4):92-100. https://core.ac.uk/reader/76379550 ↩︎
199. Sample I. Brain will be battlefield of future, warns US intelligence report. The Guardian, August 13, 2008. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/aug/13/military.neuroscience ↩︎
200. White House. Fact sheet: BRAIN Initiative. Office of the Press Secretary, April 2, 2013. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/02/fact-sheet-brain-initiative ↩︎
201. Rockefeller University. Rockefeller neurobiology lab is awarded first-round BRAIN initiative grant. October 7, 2014. https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/8772-rockefeller-neurobiology-lab-is-awarded-first-round-brain-initiative-grant/ ↩︎
202. Rockefeller University. Using magnetic forces to control neurons, study finds the brain plays key role in glucose metabolism. March 23, 2016. https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/11045-using-magnetic-forces-to-control-neurons-study-finds-the-brain-plays-key-role-in-glucose-metabolism/ ↩︎
203. Jérusalem A. Mind control using sound waves? We ask a scientist how it works. World Economic Forum, November 7, 2018. https://web.archive.org/web/20181107172700/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/mind-control-ultrasound-neuroscience/ ↩︎
204. Morgan C. Dr. Charles Morgan on Psycho-Neurobiology and War [Video]. YouTube, June 14, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTtIPBPSv0U ↩︎
205. Ber L. How human brain is targeted and the role nanotechnology plays in it. Homo Interruptis, with Len Ber MD, February 29, 2024. https://substack.com/home/post/p-142170943 ↩︎
206. Hong G, Yang X, Zhou T, Lieber CM. Mesh electronics: a new paradigm for tissue-like brain probes. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2018;50:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2017.11.007 ↩︎
207. Calabrese G, De Luca G, Nocito G, Rizzo MG, Lombardo SP, Chisari G, et al. Carbon dots: an innovative tool for drug delivery in brain tumors. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(21):11783, § 4.2. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/21/11783 ↩︎
208. Henna TK, Raphey VR, Sankar R, Ameena Sharin VK, Gangadharappa HV, Pramad K. Carbon nanostructures: the drug and the delivery system for brain disorders. Int J Pharm. 2020;587:119701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.11970 ↩︎
209. Army Technology. Battelle wins DARPA contract for injectable brain control technology. May 21, 2019. https://www.army-technology.com/news/darpa-injectable-brain-control-technology/ ↩︎
210. Abu-Hassan K, Taylor JD, Morris PG, Donati E, Bortolotto ZA, Indiveri G, et al. Optimal solid state neurons. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5309. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13177-3 ↩︎
211. Martins NR, Angelica A, Chakravarthy K, Svidinenko Y, Boehm FJ, Opris I, et al. (2019). Human brain/cloud interface. Front Neurosci. 2019;13:112. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.00112/full ↩︎
212. Associated Press. Raise vaccination rates: Gates to health leaders. AP, May 17, 2011. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/raise-vaccination-rates-gates-to-health-leaders-1.1037362 ↩︎
213. Gates B. Transcript: Bill Gates speaks to the FT about the global fight against coronavirus. Financial Times, April 9, 2020. https://www.ft.com/content/13ddacc4-0ae4-4be1-95c5-1a32ab15956a ↩︎
214. Holder J. Tracking coronavirus vaccinations around the world. The New York Times, March 13, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html ↩︎
215. van der Klaauw C. Cognitive warfare: the 21st century game changer. The Three Swords. 2023;39:97-101. https://studylib.net/doc/27295928/nato-cognitive-warfare–the-21st-century-game-changer–2023- ↩︎
216. Bachelet I. TEDMED Israel 2013 “Como los nanobots cambiaran la medicine” (Dr. Ido Bachelet) [The emergence of nanobot society] [Video].YouTube, 2013 (posted February 8, 2014). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F3jYViA_o4 ↩︎
217. Asher Hamilton I. The story of Neuralink: Elon Musk’s AI brainchip company where he had twins with a top executive. Insider, July 7, 2022. https://www.businessinsider.com/neuralink-elon-musk-microchips-brains-ai-2021-2 ↩︎
218. Cited in Jimenez A. Elon Musk says we’ll have to become cyborgs to survive. The American Genius, February 27, 2017. https://theamericangenius.com/tech-news/elon-musk-cyborgs/ ↩︎
219. Ma Y, Luo Z, Steiger C, Traverso G, Adib F. Enabling deep-tissue networking for miniature medical devices. SIGCOMM ‘18. 2018:417-431. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230543.3230566 ↩︎
220. Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science. Tiny, wireless, injectable chips use ultrasound to monitor body processes. ScienceDaily, May 11, 2021. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210511174133.htm ↩︎
221. Lockdown Files Team. Matt Hancock cracks joke about Bill Gates Covid conspiracy. The Telegraph, March 5, 2023. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/05/matt-hancock-joke-bill-gates-covid-vaccine-conspiracy-theory/ ↩︎
222. Roston B. These injectable nanobots can walk around inside a human body. SlashGear, February 23, 2022. https://www.slashgear.com/777282/these-injectable-nanobots-can-walk-around-inside-a-human-body/ ↩︎
223. Matthys SA. China’s hidden talent: the Thousand Talent plan. Air University, October 26, 2023. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Articles/Article-Display/Article/3541536/chinas-hidden-talent-the-thousand-talent-plan/ ↩︎
224. Reuell P. Injectable device delivers nano-view of the brain. The Harvard Gazette, June 8, 2015. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/06/injectable-electronics-promise-sharper-view-of-brain/ ↩︎
225. Templeton G. Amazing injectable neuro-mesh covers the brain, can control individual neurons. Extreme Tech, June 10, 2015. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/207848-injectable-neuro-mesh-covers-the-brain-can-control-individual-neurons ↩︎
226. Lieber C. Cyborgcell: Molecular-Nanoscale Circuits for Active Control of Cells. Air Force Research Laboratory, August 27, 2018. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1061425.pdf ↩︎
227. Zhang A, Zhaoa Y, Youa SS, Lieber CM. Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces. Nano Today. 2019;31:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2019.100821 ↩︎
228. Kyrie V, Broudy D. Cyborgs R us: the bio-nano panopticon of injected bodies? International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. 2022;2(2):355–383. https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.49 ↩︎
229. Gaffey C. World’s smallest nano chip will double processing power of smartphones. Newsweek, July 9, 2015. https://www.newsweek.com/worlds-smallest-nano-chip-will-double-processing-power-smartphones-330062 ↩︎
230. Diamandis P. My predictions for the next 10 years. HuffPost, May 6, 2015. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-next-10-my-prediction_b_7172978 ↩︎
231. Schwab K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum, 2016, p. 122. https://archive.org/details/fourthindustrial0000schw/page/122/mode/2up?q=arrays ↩︎
232. Light A. Nanochips and smart dust: the dangerous new face of the human microchipping agenda. Humans Are Free, October 21, 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20220402072026/https://humansbefree.com/2017/10/nanochips-and-smart-dust-the-dangerous-new-face-of-the-human-microchipping-agenda.html ↩︎
233. Scudellari M. DARPA funds ambitious brain-machine interface program. IEEE Spectrum, May 21, 2019. https://spectrum.ieee.org/darpa-funds-ambitious-neurotech-program ↩︎
234. Chandler DL. Cell-sized robots can sense their environment. MIT News, July 23, 2018. https://news.mit.edu/2018/cell-sized-robots-sense-their-environment-0723 ↩︎
235. Brennan JO. A Conversation with John O. Brennan [Video]. YouTube, June 29, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIQDqxl9FtM ↩︎
236. Wiggington D. The Dimming [Video]. Geoengineering Watch, 2021. https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-dimming-full-length-climate-engineering-documentary/ ↩︎
237. Jungmann R, Renner S, Simmel FC. From DNA nanotechnology to synthetic biology. HFSP J. 2008;2(2):99-109. https://doi.org/10.2976/1.2896331 ↩︎
238. Yin P. Self-Assembly of Large Scale Shape Controlled DNA Nano-structures. Technical Report for N000141110914, December 16, 2014. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA616319.pdf ↩︎
239. Zhao MZ, Cheng DB, Shang ZR, Wang L, Qiao ZY, Zhang JP, et al. An “in vivo self-assembly” strategy for constructing superstructures for biomedical applications. Chinese Journal of Polymer Science. 2018;36:1103-1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10118-018-2170-3 ↩︎
240. Laramy CR, O’Brien MN, Mirkin CA. Crystal engineering with DNA. Nat Rev Mater. 2019;4:201-224. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-019-0087-2 ↩︎
241. Boettner B. DNA nanostructures grow up to become micron-scale megastructures. Wyss Institute, December 21, 2022. https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/dna-nanostructures-grow-up-to-become-micron-scale-megastructures/ ↩︎
242. Fox S. J. Craig Venter Institute creates first synthetic life form. The Christian Science Monitor, May 21, 2010. https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0521/J.-Craig-Venter-Institute-creates-first-synthetic-life-form ↩︎
243. Venter JC. What is life? A 21st century perspective. Edge, July 12, 2012. https://www.edge.org/conversation/j_craig_venter-what-is-life-a-21st-century-perspective ↩︎
244. Musk E. Elon Musk on mRNA “You could turn someone into a freaking butterfly with the right DNA sequence” [Video]. YouTube, December 14, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hTz2281uQI ↩︎
245. Broudy D. Vaccine development and social control: a psychopathology of impaired reasoning in the global push for mass compliance.
     International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. 2021;2(1):93-124. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/29 ↩︎
246. Hohmann L. Will you allow Big Pharma to install its “computer operating system” into your body? LeoHohmann.com, n.d. https://leohohmann.com/2021/02/05/will-you-allow-big-pharma-to-install-its-computer-operating-system-into-your-body/ ↩︎
247. Cited in Garde D. Lavishly funded Moderna hits safety problems in bold bid to revolutionize medicine. STAT, January 10, 2017. https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ ↩︎
248. Zaks T. The disease-eradicating potential of gene editing [Video]. TEDx, November 2017. https://www.ted.com/talks/tal_zaks_the_disease_eradicating_potential_of_gene_editing ↩︎
249. Harari YN. Homo deus: a brief history of tomorrow. [Video]. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, February 27, 2017. https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/media/series/39/20170222-homo-deus-a-brief-history-of-tomorrow ↩︎
250. Kosicki M, Tomberg K, Bradley A. Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36(8):765–775. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4192 ↩︎
251. Sheridan C. CRISPR therapies march into clinic, but genotoxicity concerns linger. Nat Biotechnol. 2021;39:897–899. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41587-021-00017-3 ↩︎
252. Robinson C. Gene editing may cause “massive damage” to chromosomes, study finds. The Defender, September 27, 2021. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/crispr-gene-editing-damage-chromosomes-chromothripsis/ ↩︎
253. Policy Horizons Canada. Exploring Biodigital Convergence: What happens when biology and digital technology merge? Policy Horizons, 2019, p. 10. https://horizons.gc.ca/en/2020/02/11/exploring-biodigital-convergence/ ↩︎
254. White House. Executive order on advancing biotechnology and biomanufacturing innovation for a sustainable, safe, and secure American bioeconomy. September 12, 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/09/12/executive-order-on-advancing-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-innovation-for-a-sustainable-safe-and-secure-american-bioeconomy/ ↩︎
255. Ministry of Defence. Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm: A strategic implications project. Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre, May 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/986301/Human_Augmentation_SIP_access2.pdf ↩︎
256. Fecht S. XNA: synthetic DNA that can evolve. Popular Mechanics, April 19, 2012. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a7636/xna-synthetic-dna-that-can-evolve-8210483/ ↩︎
257. Nie P, Bai Y, Mei H. Synthetic life with alternative nucleic acids as genetic materials. Molecules. 2020;25(15):3483. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25153483 ↩︎
258. Santiago D. A partial answer to the question posed by David A. Hughes, PhD, in the article: “What is in the so-called COVID-19 ‘vaccines’? Part 1: Evidence of a global crime against humanity.” International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. 2022;2(2):587-594. https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i2.56 ↩︎
259. Department of Defense. Defense Science and Technology Strategy. May 1996, p. 12. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA323116.pdf ↩︎
260. Cited in Norton B. Behind NATO’s “cognitive warfare”: “battle for your brain” waged by Western militaries. The Grayzone, October 8, 2021. https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/ ↩︎
261. Harari YN. The world after coronavirus. Financial Times, March 20, 2020. https://www.ft.com/content/19d90308-6858-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcca75 ↩︎
262. Salehi SA, Razzaque MA, Tomeo-Reyes I, Hussain N. IEEE 802.15.6 standard in wireless body area networks from a healthcare point of view. 2016 22nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications, August 25-27, 2016. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7581523/authors#authors ↩︎
263. US20170340725A1. Combination piv3/hmpv rna vaccines. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170340725A1/en ↩︎
264. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/21983844/7/21 ↩︎
265. Andersen M. Intracorporeal Nanonetwork: Brief Summary. Version 1. Last Update: December 10, 2021. https://everydayconcerned.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/12-intracorporal_nanonetwork.pdf ↩︎
266. Andersen M. Summary of research to date. November 25, 2021. https://www.richplanet.net/vaccine.php ↩︎
267. Fergusson D. Potential nanotech in vaccines. February 1, 2022, v2.0. https://cdn1.richplanet.net/pdf/0495.pdf ↩︎
268. See Hall RD. Brain-jabbed, Part 3. RichPlanet TV, 2023. https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=295&part=3&gen=99 ↩︎
269. https://telemetr.io/en/channels/1121890613-corona2inspect/posts ↩︎
270. See p. 3995 of Zhan P, Peil A, Jiang Q, Wang D, Mousavi S, Xiong Q, et al. Recent advances in DNA origami-engineered nanomaterials and applications. Chemical Reviews. 2023;123:3976-4050. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00028 ↩︎
271. Joshi RK, West L, Kumar A, Joshi N, Alwarappan S, Kumar A. Production of semiconducting gold–DNA nanowires by application of DC bias. Nanotechnology. 2010;21:185604. http://www.doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/21/18/185604 ↩︎
272. Hughes DA. Prof. David Hughes | We Are in a Global Class War [Video]. Bitchute, April 14, 2023, timestamp 51:00-55:21. https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZPHbyPe04Yc0/ ↩︎
273. Nixon D. Australian doctor shows microscopic images/video of Pfizer-BioNTech “vaccine” vials, says “structures” present respond to Wi-Fi. Sense Receptor, October 8, 2022. https://sensereceptornews.com/?p=12581 ↩︎
274. Atomic Heritage Foundation. Security and secrecy. June 5, 2014. https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/security-and-secrecy/ ↩︎
275. NASA. SR-71 Blackbird. https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/sr-71-blackbird-8/ ↩︎
276. Richelson JT (Ed.). The U-2, OXCART, and the SR-71: U.S. Aerial Espionage in the Cold War and Beyond. National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 74, October 16, 2002. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB74/ ↩︎
277. Beckhusen R. The SR-71 Blackbird had no chance of staying a secret. The National Interest, June 29, 2020. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/sr-71-blackbird-had-no-chance-staying-secret-163639 ↩︎
278. Orr CD. F-117 Nighthawk: the story of the incredible first stealth “fighter.” The National Interest, December 29, 2023. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-117-nighthawk-story-incredible-first-stealth-%E2%80%98fighter%E2%80%99-208236 ↩︎
279. Clarke AC. Profiles of the Future. Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1962, p. 29. https://archive.org/details/profilesoffuture0000arth_g1r3/mode/2up?q=magic ↩︎
280. Hughes DA. In defence of Judy Wood. David A. Hughes, September 11, 2024. https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-judy-wood-0ce ↩︎
281. See p. 31 in Galison P. Removing knowledge. Critical Inquiry. 2004;31(1):229–243. https://doi.org/10.1086/427309 ↩︎
282. Skidmore M, Fitts CA. Should we care about secrecy in financial reporting? The Solari Report, February 8, 2019. https://hudmissingmoney.solari.com/should-we-care-about-secrecy-in-financial-reporting/ ↩︎
283. Ferrie M, Lurie J. The U.S. statutes creating modern constitutional financial management and reporting requirements and the government’s failure to follow them. The Solari Report, January 23, 2018. https://missingmoney.solari.com/the-u-s-statutes-creating-modern-constitutional-financial-management-and-reporting-requirements-and-the-governments-failure-to-follow-them/ ↩︎
284. Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56: Classified Activities. October 4, 2018. https://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_56.pdf ↩︎
285. Fitts CA, Betts CA. U.S. Taxation: With or Without Representation? The Solari Report, 2021. https://ourmoney.solari.com/taxation/ ↩︎
286. Priest D, Arkin WM. Monitoring America. The Washington Post, December 20, 2010. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/top-secret-america/2010/12/20/monitoring-america/ ↩︎
287. Fitts CA. The Solari Papers #3: Musings on the Department of Defense. The Solari Report, June 2024. https://missingmoney.solari.com/the-solari-papers-3/ ↩︎
288. Akyildiz IF. “You Inject These into the Body of the Human” Ian F. Akyildiz – Nanonetworks: A New Frontier in Communications [Video]. Rumble, 2011. https://rumble.com/v43ox2q-you-inject-these-into-the-body-of-the-human-ian-f.-akyildiz.html ↩︎
289. Corbett J. Episode 392 – The Future of Vaccines. The Corbett Report, December 23, 2020. https://corbettreport.com/futurevaccines/ ↩︎
290. Johns Hopkins University & Imperial College London. Cognitive biotechnology: opportunities and considerations for the NATO Alliance. NATO Review, February 26, 2021. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2021/02/26/cognitive-biotechnology-opportunities-and-considerations-for-the-nato-alliance/index.html ↩︎
291. Tannahill T. Am I cyborg? Teresa Tannahill’s Commentary, December 12, 2022. https://teresatannahill.substack.com/p/am-i-cyborg ↩︎
292. Johnson L, Broudy D, Hughes D. WHO’s pulling the strings? Covid injections and the Internet of Bio-Nano Things, Part 4: testing new human nodes of connectivity. Propaganda in Focus, May 24, 2024. https://propagandainfocus.substack.com/p/whos-pulling-the-strings-covid-injections-and-the-internet-of-bio-nano-things-part-4-testing-new-human-nodes-of-connectivity ↩︎
293. Apple. Wi-Fi privacy. n.d. https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/security/secb9cb3140c/web ↩︎
294. Jarvis M. Cell rover: exploring and augmenting the inner world of the cell. MIT News, September 22, 2022. https://news.mit.edu/2022/cell-rover-exploring-augmenting-inner-world-cell-0922 ↩︎
295. Joy B, Cai Y, Bono DC, Sarkar D. Cell rover—a miniaturized magnetostrictive antenna for wireless operation inside living cells. Nat Commun. 2022;13:5210. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32862-4 ↩︎
296. Coronas K. Blood reaches new catastrophic levels of alteration. DOD Erythromer like tech in full swing. Coacervates, Proteinosomes, and more. Karl. C’s Substack, April 1, 2024. https://managainstthemicrobes.substack.com/p/blood-reaches-new-catastrophic-levels ↩︎
297. Coronas K. The process of altering our blood cells. See an Erythromer form in this video. Karl. C’s Substack, April 21, 2024. https://managainstthemicrobes.substack.com/p/the-process-of-altering-our-blood ↩︎
298. Coronas K. The blood reaches new levels of tragic alteration. Karl. C’s Substack, April 15, 2024. https://managainstthemicrobes.substack.com/p/the-blood-reaches-new-levels-of-tragic ↩︎
299. Harari YN. Yuval Noah Harari: Humans are now hackable animals. CNN, November 26, 2019. https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2019/11/26/yuval-noah-harari-interview-anderson-vpx.cnn ↩︎
300. Seo J, Kim S, Park HH, Choi DY, Nam JM. Nano-bio-computing lipid nanotablet. Science Advances. 2019;5(2). http://www.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau2124 ↩︎
301. Estabrooks G. Hypnotism. Dutton, 1957. https://archive.org/details/hypnotism0000esta/mode/2up?q=%22A+nation+fighting+with+its+back+to+the+wall+is+not+worried+over+the+niceties+of+ethics.+If+hypnotism+can+be+used+to+advantage%2C+we+may+rest+assured+that+it+will+be+so+employed%22 ↩︎
302. United Nations. Declare war on this virus – U.N. chief on the coronavirus COVID-19. March 13, 2020. https://www.unon.org/file/394 ↩︎
303. Hughes DA. Where cyber and biological worlds meet: how to create the ultimate financial control system. David A. Hughes, August 20, 2024. https://dhughes.substack.com/p/where-cyber-and-biological-worlds ↩︎
304. Fitts CA. Control & freedom happen one person at a time with Catherine & Ulrike Granö
     gger. The Solari Report, February 11, 2022. https://home.solari.com/control-freedom-happen-one-person-at-a-time-with-ulrike-granogger/ ↩︎
305. Cited in Mahoney DJ. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Ascent from Ideology. Rowman & Littlefield, 2001, p. 50. ↩︎
306. Cullen D. To Be Truly Human Is to Be Truly Free [Video]. Bitchute, February 9, 2021. https://old.bitchute.com/video/1XK41pkaSMXN/ ↩︎
307. Cited in Corredor JM. Conversations with Casals. Dutton, 1957. ↩︎
308. Webb W. They may deplatform the truth, but their lies and distortions will never replace it. The Defender, October 27, 2022. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/whitney-webb-government-truth-distortions/ ↩︎
309. Davis I. Pseudopandemic. OffGuardian, June 29, 2021. https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/29/pseudopandemic/ ↩︎
310. Hoffmann S, Huntington SP, May ER, Neustadt RN, Schelling TC. Vietnam reappraised. International Security. 1981;6(1):3-26. https://doi.org/10.2307/2538527 ↩︎
311. Meerloo JA. The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing. World Publishing Company, 1956. https://archive.org/details/rapeofmindpsycho0000meer/mode/2up ↩︎
312. Desmet M. The Psychology of Totalitarianism. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2022. https://archive.org/details/the-psychology-of-totalitarianism-2022-mattias-desmet_202308 ↩︎
313. Davis I. Acceptance of and commitment to freedom. Iain Davis: The Disillusioned Blogger, January 24, 2022. https://iaindavis.com/towards-freedom/ ↩︎
314. Zimbardo P. Mind control in Orwell’s Nineteen eighty-four: Fictional concepts become operational realities in Jim Jones’s jungle experiment. In A Gleason, J Goldsmith, & MC Nussbaum (Eds.), OnNineteen eighty-four: Orwell and our future (pp. 127–154). Princeton University Press, 2005. ↩︎
315. National Intelligence Council. Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds. NIC 2012-001, December 2012. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GlobalTrends_2030.pdf ↩︎
316. Moran B. The Good Reset. n.d. https://www.bobmoran.co.uk/prints/the-good-reset-print ↩︎
317. Activists’ Toolbox. Awaken your friends & family. 2021. https://activiststoolbox.com/2021/awaken-others/how-to-easily-wake-up-your-friends-family/ ↩︎