Guest
Guest
 |  Subject: THE NANOCHIP IMPLICATIONS BY JOSEPH P. FARRELL  Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:02 am | |
| THE NANOCHIP IMPLICATIONS Why bother asking if you can chip someone? Just make it small enough to be invisible, and sneak it into them via their food supply, those oh-so-helpful yearly "flu vaccines", your drink, and so on. That, anyway, is the implication of the following article that was shared this week by Mr. V.T.:What caught my eye in this article were two things, firstly, the absolutely noodle-baking smallness that engineers have now been able to make an actual, functioning, chip: - Quote :
- The word “nano” is 3 orders of magnitude smaller than “micro”. Nano means “one billionth” while micro means “one millionth”. While microchips are about the size of a grain of rice and measured in millimeters, nanochips are completely invisible to the human eye. Some of the nanochips are far smaller than human hair (e.g. the μ-chip that is 0.4 x 0.4 mm). In 2015, IBM announcedthat they had developed functional nanochips measuring just 7 nm or nanometers (7 billionths of 1 meter). In comparison, a strand of human DNA is about 2.5 nm and the diameter of a single red blood cell is about 7500 nm! These nanochips power themselves from their environment (they don’t need batteries) and have a 100 year life span. They are slated to be rolled out first on products (so the corporatocracy can have total knowledge of consumer behavior in real time) before they can be used inside people’s bodies. Did you know that nerve cells grow onto/meld with the chip?
...7 billionths of a meter, and nerve cells can, according to this article, "meld" with the chip. Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that the corporations will have as their goal to more or less taint the food supply - heck, why stop at food? why not taint everything? - with their nanochips, all with the goal of greater data mining and control. They will, of course, spend millions buying off this or that Demoratic or Republithug Congressman or Senatrix, who will rush the bills through, and the the FDA will insure us that there's nothing unhealthy about nanochips and besides they might help that unruly child/boss/spouse/in-laws of yours. General Mills will market breakfast cereal... maybe something like "Coco-bots", which you can douse with your non-organic milk and drink down more chips along with a little glyphosate. Indeed, the author of the article asserts that this whole tainted food supply game is "the plan." I don't know whether it is or isn't. But one thing is certain: it is in line with their behavior, their corruption, and their unbounded lust for power, and their "Google is God" delusions. In other words, it fits their inhuman, and anti-human spirit and character.In short, the tech companies will join I.G. Farbensanto in the big business of tainting the food supply, and they'll use the same underhanded, one-sided mercantilist policies to do so. One side poisons you, and the other controls you, and makes you "like" it.There was, however, a second thing that caught my eye in this article, and as one might imagine, put me into my high octane speculation mode of thinking. It was this: - Quote :
- So what can you do about this? Firstly, get informed and make sure you understand the true nature and danger of nanochip and smart technology. Secondly, make sure you never acquiesce to getting chipped, no matter what reason you’re given. Doing so is tantamount to opening yourself to being remotely controlled without your knowledge. Thirdly, if you do discover a chip inside your body, get it removed. There are various ways to do. Some people crudely cut the chips out if they are large enough (i.e. a microchip instead of a nanochip). Other people claim you can used magnets such as neodymium magnets to render the nanochips useless. Hopefully, there will be intelligent inventors to step forward with new technologies that we can use to deactivate, disable and remove nanochips inside of our bodies.
(Emphasis added) What caught my eye here was the reference to the development of anti-chip technology and the whole cottage industry that might grow from it. This provoked an entirely different line of speculation: with the export of food tainted with such technologies, one can imagine two consequences, and both are high with geopolitical and economic implications. Firstly: no cyber-system is absolutely secure; with all the hacking stories in the past few years, a nano-chipped population might be a "controllable" population, but it could also be a "hackable" population, and overnight it might be transformed into a wildly out of control population ala the Kingsmen scenario from the movie of that name. And no - message to big Pharma here - Ritalin won't stop it. Secondly, tainting the food supply in this fashion will provoke an inevitable backlash against agricultural exports. If you think the opposition to GMOs is spreading add "Coco-bots" to the mix and the revolt is all but certain. Will Russia, China, Japan, India want to buy such products and expose their populations to the potential of outside manipulation?Probably not.It only adds yet another layer of mistrust to any dealings with the good ole USSA...See you on the flip side... |
|
