Elon Musk

Elon Musk's Neuralink is an "injectable mesh electronic network that self assemble in the brain and clamp on synapses".  

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/elon-musk-neuralink-bryan-johnson-kernal-bridging-biological-digital-gap/

This is what currently being done by the ongoing 1st generation C19  vaxxes that contains Grapehen Oxide based self assembling nanoelectonic network.

https://www.orwell.city/2022/02/filaments.html

https://odysee.com/@Hemeroteca:f/ANA%CC%81LISIS_ARGENTINO_DE_LOS_VIALES_ASTRAZENECA,_PFIZER,_SINOPHARM_SPUTNIK:3

The Starlink satellites will help Musk's to hook up everyone jabbed with neuro-interface on the internet. (Internet of Body)

 Average ppl won't see any quantum personal computer in their hand, because its expensive to buy and operate and its not aimed for that. It would serve only as decryption and encryption of messages between Alice and Bob, a secure communication.

https://www.freethink.com/technology/quantum-internet-modem

"Quantum computing is a promising technology, which changes our lives in many ways. Quantum computer improves database search significantly and solves many optimization problems

used in business such as data analytics (e.g., big data (Philip Chen & Zhang, 2014)), logistics (e.g., optimizing routes of 10,000 taxies (Cusumano, 2018)), and medical research (Parsons, 2011) while quantum computing can be a cybersecurity threat

until we have post-quantum cryptography (cryptographic algorithms that are secure against the attacks by quantum computers (L. Chen et al., 2016; Mailloux, Lewis,

Riggs, & Grimaila, 2016).)"

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1410&context=jitim

Musk's grandfather was the head of Technocracy movement of Canada. Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Obama was all in for this technocratic nightmare via the Trilateral Commission,  which limits personal freedom. Think about how algorithms ruled over us and justified lockdowns, use of facemasks,test & trace due to technocracy.

https://prepareforchange.net/2020/08/28/the-pressing-dangers-of-technocracy/

Don't trust Musk, folks.

Corey Goode

Confucius

 

Confucius (551-479 BC) was a younger contemporary of Lao Tzu. Who was also born during Chou dynasty. He urgent a system of moral ethics and statecraft aimed at preserving peace and affording people the relative serenity and stability of a just government they required.

Central of his concepts was the existence of Jen, for which English has not evolved a comparable term. Jen refers to the concepts that humans are essentially born as mutually independent creatures all of which are innately and collectively linked by Jen a sympathy coupled with human hearthedness.

Jen seems to consist of an inter-shared connectivity among all,  or collective unconscious  or archaic telepathy upon which sympathy and empathy  would be based.

Jenny could be cooperatively advanced by cultivating intelligence, awareness, insightful alertness, also by reinforcing virtues such as self control, kindness, absence of offensiveness, neighbourliness, fidelity, kindness and patience.

Confucius insisted that Jen thrived and grew in energy via cooperative enhancement of human virtues and was weakened and disoriented by discord and treat of  fear that cannot be resolved.

The Wisdom Category Shedding Light on a Lost Light by Ingo Swann

Lao Tzu

The venerable philosophers sage LaoTzu was born in 604 BC in China during Chou Dynasty (1027-256 BC) that was characterized by constant Warfare between several Chinese states and by the tyranny of their rulers.

La Tzu was highly educated philosophical and intuitively wise and was a librarian at the Chou court.

He became disgusted with the world around him and about 539 recreated I  a self imposed retirement in a monastery eventually dying probably in 515 BC.

Before he became inaccessible to the World many petitioned him to write out his wisdom for the edification of his flowers.

The result of his agreement to do so was the Tao Te King or (Ching) that has been translated in English As "The book of reason and virtue of the right way and The Book.of Tao"

To is commonly translated as "the right way of life" as "Way" or "Path" or "the way of Bliss".

In its broadest sense, Tao refers to the way the universe intrinsically functions,  the TAO PATH  being the Way PATH taken NY the natural events.

The Way of Tao is characterized by creativity and by regular alterations of phenomena ( (such as day following night ) that proceed without effort.

Efforts actions is illustrate by the conduct of water which unresistingly accept the lowest level yet wars away the harvest substance. In order to achieve efforts action man following the Tao must above all striving especially that of desire.

Tao is the essence of form less, but out of which emerge all formative phenomena and things each in their own way, each having their own effortless PATH.

In modern context is seeing things as they are versus seeing them only in the context  of what we desire them to be. On other words "what will happen will happen" when and for as long as it does, this being the manifold Way of Tao.

Seeing such will result in tranquility and the serenity of enlightenment, but also in
Spontaneous positive and  increasing creativity Nd transformation that become available within the context of an "advanced consciousness ".

In Europe the book of Tao was first rendered into Latin in 1788, and therefore in other languages including several English translation  not all of which are consistent with each other. One basic reason for the confusion is that English simply did not and still does not have matching concepts or terms for many of the important Chinese ones.

The Wisdom Category Shedding Light on a Lost Light by Ingo Swann

Vaccines

Yahoo Sports

GlobeNewswire

CHD Says Pfizer and FDA Dropped Data Bombshell on COVID Vaccine Consumers

Children's Health Defense

March 3, 2022, 3:54 pm

Clinical trial data contradicts ‘safe and effective’ government/industry mantra

Washington, DC, March 03, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In a 55,000-page set of documents released on Tuesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) is for the first time allowing the public to access data Pfizer submitted to FDA from its clinical trials in support of a COVID-19 vaccine license. This follows U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman’s decision on January 6 to deny the request from the FDA to suppress the data for the next 75 years which the agency claimed was necessary, in part, because of its “limited resources.”

A 38-page report included in the documents features an Appendix, “LIST OF ADVERSE EVENTS OF SPECIAL INTEREST,” that lists 1,291 different adverse events following vaccination. The list includes acute kidney injury, acute flaccid myelitis, anti-sperm antibody positive, brain stem embolism, brain stem thrombosis, cardiac arrest, cardiac failure, cardiac ventricular thrombosis, cardiogenic shock, central nervous system vasculitis, death neonatal, deep vein thrombosis, encephalitis brain stem, encephalitis hemorrhagic, frontal lobe epilepsy, foaming at mouth, epileptic psychosis, facial paralysis, fetal distress syndrome, gastrointestinal amyloidosis, generalized tonic-clonic seizure, Hashimoto's encephalopathy, hepatic vascular thrombosis, herpes zoster reactivation, immune-mediated hepatitis, interstitial lung disease, jugular vein embolism, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy, liver injury, low birth weight, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, myocarditis, neonatal seizure, pancreatitis, pneumonia, stillbirth, tachycardia, temporal lobe epilepsy, testicular autoimmunity, thrombotic cerebral infarction, Type 1 diabetes mellitus, venous thrombosis neonatal, and vertebral artery thrombosis among 1,246 other medical conditions following vaccination.

“This is a bombshell,” said Children’s Health Defense (CHD) president and general counsel Mary Holland. “At least now we know why the FDA and Pfizer wanted to keep this data under wraps for 75 years. These findings should put an immediate end to the Pfizer COVID vaccines. The potential for serious harm is very clear, and those injured by the vaccines are prohibited from suing Pfizer for damages.”

The U.S. government has already purchased 50 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine intended for children under five years of age to be delivered by April 30, 2022 although the FDA has yet to grant an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for this age group. The risk of serious injury or death from COVID to healthy children is practically nil and so far, the vaccine is not effective when used in young children.

According to The Guardian, “Pfizer made nearly $37bn (£27bn) in sales from its Covid-19 vaccine last year – making it one of the most lucrative products in history – and has forecast another bumper year in 2022, with a big boost coming from its Covid-19 pill Paxlovid.” President Biden advertised Paxlovid in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, the same day the Pfizer data was released to the public. “We’re launching the ‘Test to Treat’ initiative so people can get tested at a pharmacy, and if they’re positive, receive antiviral pills on the spot at no cost,” Biden said during his speech.

From mid-December, 2020 through February 18, 2022, the U.S. government’s database, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), has received 1,134,984 reports of adverse events, including 24,402 deaths, following COVID vaccination. Additionally, there have been 4,021 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in the U.S. with 2,475 cases associated with Pfizer, 1,364 cases with Moderna and 171 cases with J&J’s COVID vaccine. These include 643 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis in children aged 12 to 17.

“It would be criminal to expose infants and young children to this extremely risky product,” said Holland. “VAERS data show the catastrophic health impacts the vaccine is having on millions of people, yet Pfizer and other vaccine makers are raking in billions of dollars with no fear of being held accountable for injuries and deaths from their vaccines.”

The FDA’s attempt to suppress these data in support of the pharmaceutical industry’s bottom line isn’t a new phenomenon in this country’s public health system. For more information on pharmaceutical corruption and the tight relationship the industry has with government regulatory agencies, read The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health by CHD Chair and lead counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

###

Children's Health Defense is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Its mission is to end childhood health epidemics by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable, and establish safeguards to prevent future harm.

Rhotchilds and the Banks

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=255742360086653&id=100069526715265

Mind Control using Sound Waves

The World Economic Forum Talks About “Mind Control Using Sound Waves”

The World Economic Forum – one of the most powerful elite organizations in the world – recently discussed the emergence of remote mind control technology. And it admits that it could be used to turn humans into mind-controlled slaves.

Published

 November 13, 2018

 Vigilant Citizen 

FacebookTwitterSubscribe

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is one of the most influential elite organizations, alongside the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg group, and the Trilateral Commision. Every year, the forum brings together some 2500 top business leaders, international political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists to discuss world issues.

The Board of Trustees of the WEF is composed of some of the powerful people in the world. Here are some of them.

• Mark Carney, Governor, Bank of England

• Al Gore, Vice-President of the United States (1993-2001); Chairman and Co-Founder, Generation Investment Management LLP

• Jim Yong Kim, President, World Bank

• Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)

• Peter Maurer, President, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

• Indra Nooyi, Chairman, PepsiCo

• L. Rafael Reif, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

• Ursula von der Leyen, Federal Minister of Defence, Federal Ministry of Defence of Germany

• David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chairman, Carlyle Group

In many ways, the WEF is similar to the Bilderberg Group. Interesting fact: Klaus Schwab, the Founder and Executive Chairman of the WEF is a former member of the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group.

Not unlike other powerful organizations that claim to “help the world”, the WEF is accused of actually promoting the interests of the world elite.

The Transnational Institute describes the World Economic Forum’s main purpose as:

“To function as a socializing institution for the emerging global elite, globalization’s “Mafiocracy” of bankers, industrialists, oligarchs, technocrats and politicians. They promote common ideas, and serve common interests: their own.”

Far from actually solving world problems, the WEF is accused of simply shifting the blame from governments and major conglomerates to regular citizens.

“A study, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, investigated the sociological impact of the WEF. It concluded that the WEF do not solve issues such as poverty, global warming, chronic illness, or debt. They have simply shifted the burden for the solution of these problems from governments and business to “responsible consumers subjects: the green consumer, the health-conscious consumer, and the financially literate consumer.” They merely reframe the issues, and by so doing perpetuate them. Gore is singled out as a prime example. Gore’s speeches deliberately shift focus away from the problems of unregulated markets and corporate activities to one of moral pathologies, individual greed, etc. In doing so he is actually promoting the creation of new markets, and hence perpetuating the same old problems in a new guise. New markets will follow the same patterns as the old ones because the core problem of corporate governance is never addressed.”
– Markus Giesler Ela Veresiu, Creating the Responsible Consumer: Moralistic Governance Regimes and Consumer Subjectivity

Remote Mind Control

The WEF’s Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils took place on November 11-12 in the United Arab Emirates. One of the topics discussed was “mind control using sound waves”. The WEF’s official website published an article entitled Mind control using sound waves? We ask a scientist how it works where University of Oxford Professor Antoine Jérusalem describes the technology and the issues related to it.

Controlling the brain with sound waves: how does it work?

Well, to get straight to the science, the principle of non-invasive neuromodulation is to focus ultrasound waves into a region in the brain so that they all gather in a small spot. Then hopefully, given the right set of parameters, this can change the activity of the neurons.

If you want to get rid of neurons that have gone wild, for example in epilepsy, then you might want to crank up the energy to essentially kill them. But if you want to selectively promote or block the neuronal activity, you need to fine-tune your ultrasound waves carefully.

In other words, there’s a difference between ultrasound stimulation used for removing tissue, and ultrasound neuromodulation, which is aimed at controlling neuronal activity without damaging the tissue.

Ultrasound neuromodulation is something that definitely works, but that we still don’t understand.

What social good can come of it?

The current buzzwords are Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, as well as traumatic brain injuries. But scientists are also looking at the spinal cord and peripheral nervous systems. As far as I am concerned, since the brain is the de facto centre of decision for so many processes, any of them could be targeted.

Is it safe?

When attempting to ‘control’ neuronal activity by providing minute mechanical vibrations to a region of the brain, it’s important that the focus of the ultrasound, frequency and amplitude are properly tuned, or the brain can potentially be damaged. The point is that we still don’t know how to tune all of this; and if I were to exaggerate a bit, I could say that our current approach is not that far off from fiddling around with the settings on a radio until we hear the right station.

One of the many difficulties is to know for sure that we are indeed controllingneurons with these sound waves, as opposed to damaging them. The truth is that we still don’t know how the process works. And if you don’t know how it works, you don’t know how much is “too much”.

What are the biggest ethical challenges?

The potential of this technique is huge – by that I mean the sheer number of applications, as well as the ethical use.

From a biological perspective, it’s similar to drugs. It can cure you, it can get you addicted, and it can kill you. It’s all about staying within a given set of rules. From an ethical perspective, the world is changing so fast that it’s difficult to assess what will be acceptable tomorrow that is not today.

I am also convinced that human nature is such that if something can be done, it will be done. The question is by whom. I would rather have a fair society leading the dance than some rogue state without any respect for human or animal life. If we want to lead that dance 10 years from now, we need to start researching today.

How dystopian could it get?

I can see the day coming where a scientist will be able to control what a person sees in their mind’s eye, by sending the right waves to the right place in their brain. My guess is that most objections will be similar to those we hear today about subliminal messages in advertisements, only much more vehement.

This technology is not without its risks of misuse. It could be a revolutionary healthcare technology for the sick, or a perfect controlling tool with which the ruthless control the weak. This time though, the control would be literal.

What can we do to safeguard its potential?

I am not going to argue that scientists are all wise and knowledgeable when it comes to what should and should not be done. Some of us will go as far as we can get away with. But that’s human nature, and not unique to scientists.

Either way, our job is to find something that is beneficial to humanity. And if you find a way to make somebody better, then you most likely also know how to do the contrary. The goal is to make sure that regulation prevents the latter, without impeding the former. I believe that this is the role of regulators. And I think that the European Union, where I work, is quite good at this.

Another role of politicians should be to provide a communication platform to explain the long vision of any given area of research. And it can be too early, or not a good idea, and the final decision might very well be to stop it. But in the long term, the public should have the potential benefits of a new technology explained to them in plain words, which is something that scientists are not necessarily good at.

Politicians should remember that if we don’t do it, then somebody somewhere will do it anyway…potentially unregulated.

In short, Antoine Jérusalem says that remote mind control is an incredibly powerful technology that has the power to possibly cure illnesses. However, in the wrong hands, the technology can completely take control of one’s brain. In his words, it can be the “perfect controlling tool with which the ruthless control the weak”.

That being said, remote mind control is nothing new and the elite had access to this kind of technology for years. A few months ago, I published an article about a leaked 1996 document describing remote mind control.






One page of the document describes the many possible effects of remote mind control.

Despite the technology’s admitted dystopian potential, Antoine Jérusalem believes that humanity cannot avoid developing it. He probably says that because a company developing this technology is part of the WEF. His solution to make sure that the technology is not used to turn humans into mind control slaves? Government regulation.

In short, the WEF states that this technology should be under the control of the global elite. Does that comfort you?

Link

https://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-world-economic-forum-talks-about-mind-control-using-sound-waves/
 

Sonic Weapons Were Used on Canadian Citizens in Ottawa in February 27, 2022

Extremely high-power sound waves can disrupt or destroy the eardrums of a target and cause severe pain or disorientation. This is usually sufficient to incapacitate a person. Less powerful sound waves can cause humans to experience nausea or discomfort.

Can sonic waves hurt you?

Yes, it can! Sound can kill you in multiple ways. If we're talking about sounds within the human hearing frequency range (between 20 and 20,000 Hz), high-intensity sounds above 150 decibels can burst your eardrums, while sounds above 185 dB can impact your inner organs and cause death.

What is a sonic attack?

Rumours began to spread of a “sonic attack” by a new, advanced energy weapon, an unprecedented way to direct sound towards individuals at a frequency that would cause them physical harm.

LRAD sonic weapon spotted on the ground in Ottawa. It appears to be an LRAD model 100X.

The LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) is billed as both a communications device and a "non-lethal weapon."

It has seriously negative effects on humans when used as a weapon, including:

- Deafness
- Partial hearing loss (can "take years" to manifest)
- Dizziness & Nausea
- Disorientation
- Extreme pain
- Unknown ("limited studies")

Small LRAD data dump:

How to Dodge the Sonic Weapon Used by Police

LRAD Whitepaper

Health Impacts of Crowd Control: LRAD

Secret Sonic Weapons’ War Lead To Carcinogenesis

~🔥~ [secret anti-UN group chat] ~🔥~

Effects on humans explained in another use of sonic weapons against citizens. 

Despite his professional-grade headphones, the effect of the weapon—a long-range acoustic device, or LRAD—was so disorienting at first that Choy couldn’t tell which way to run and was forced to randomly pick a direction. But he was lucky.

“People in the direct line of fire [of the LRAD] didn’t run,” he says. “They just dropped to the ground and started screaming.”

Police invest in sonic weapons

Ottawa’s police force has purchased three high-decibel “sound cannons” that they say are intended for use in addressing huge crowds but have been used as sonic weapons in the U.S.

Acquired this spring and described by police as a “megaphone on steroids,” the “Long Range Acoustic Device” or LRAD can propel an officer’s voice up to 1.5 kilometres.

Sgt. Rob Bernier, co-ordinator of the force’s emergency operations directorate, says it’s possible future protests and public events may warrant the need for police to use these devices.

“Communication is a major challenge in major events and disasters,” says Bernier. “It becomes challenging to get (voice messages) both loud and clear enough to go the distance you need.”

Along with the city’s recent Major Events Policy, LRADs are part of a larger effort by police and city officials to modernize and improve police procedures with respect to what police call “public order operations.”

Other large-city police forces have had LRADs for a few years now. Although not used during the 2010 G20 protests in Toronto, the police had LRADs on hand in case they were needed.

As the capital, Ottawa sees scores of major demonstrations every year.

“Some of them are a bit more volatile than others, and sometimes it would have been really nice to provide some direction to the crowd,” says Bernier, pointing to the 2011 Occupy protests as an example.

Ottawa Police now have two LRAD 100xs and one LRAD 300x, all kept at the force’s Barrhaven station. Bernier says the 100x — small enough to be strapped to an officer’s chest — costs about $8,000, while the larger, 28-pound (12.7-kg) 300x costs about $18,000.

The manufacturer, California-based LRAD Corp., calls its product a “sonic weapon,” because it can also send out loud alarm tones that can be ear-piercing and incapacitating.

There are rules in place in Ontario that forbid the use of the LRAD as a sonic weapon. However, according to the Police Services Act section on acoustic hailing devices, “the use of an alarm or alert tone on an acoustic hailing device to get the attention of members of the public is communicating.”

Wendy Fedec, the executive director of the Ottawa Police Services Board, says the board made amendments to its policy on acoustic hailing devices earlier this year so that it is in line with the provincial rules regarding their use.

 “It (the LRAD) can only be used as a communication device,” says Bernier.

Bernier says their procedure with respect to the LRAD’s “alarm” function is a brief three- to five-second tone, followed by a voice message.

But the LRAD is a powerful device, and there are valid health concerns with its use, police acknowledge.

If used improperly, sounds emitted by the LRAD could cause hearing damage or loss.

He says there are a handful of officers who attended a full day course on its use.

As an example of its power, Bernier says when the LRAD 300x is turned to full volume, no one can be within 75 metres of the device.

Mark Calzavara, regional manager of the Council of Canadians’ Toronto chapter, claims the LRAD was designed primarily as a weapon used to disperse people, pointing to the events that took place four years ago in Pittsburgh as an example.

Bernier says the LRAD can be used for marine search-and-rescue operations, where the 1.5 kilometre hailing distance could be particularly useful.

He says the LRAD can be used in other circumstances, as well: hostage situations, suicide attempts and tactical operations.

https://capitalcurrent.ca/archive/centretownnews/1997-2016/2013/11/29/police-invest-in-sonic-weapons/

Itnwas used against peaceful protesters and children presents in the plaza.

Here is an example of the effects on a Canadian citizen that felt paralyzed for two weeks.

https://www.facebook.com/mihaela.johnny/videos/498175778359056/

You might need a translator.

Trudeau: "we see a bit of a slippage in our democracies. Countries turning towards slightly more authoritarian leaders. Countries allowing increasing misinformation and disinformation to be shared on social media"

,