What do they want to know about us? How can we hide? Marianna recapitulates Darwin

20220203

Government already has the ability to know fairly exactly who we are, what our political and social opinions are, where our financial assets are located, and exactly where we are. They are openly using the Cоvid 19 crisis to aggressively expand their surveillance through QR codes and implants of chips as in Sweden. And American pets. Assuming that the microcircuits and graphene implants being covertly implanted are real, that objective as well has to be government tracking us.

It begs the question, given that they already know so much, why are they so insistent on getting jabs into everybody? The information web in which we are already enmeshed has many tentacles. It is worth starting by listing the mechanisms already in place that identify us to them:

I will try as a database guy to analyze what they can do with these self assembling microcircuits and MAC codes that they seem to be implanting that they couldn't otherwise manage.

First of all, I observe that the MAC codes alone could not be sufficient to uniquely identify an individual. Not everybody will get one.  Since they are self assembling, we have to assume that some of them won't work.  Assuming that they are part and parcel of each dose and booster, most people will get more than one. 

The injected microcircuit MAC codes will be a more positive means of identifying a person than voice recognition, face recognition, iris recognition or other such means.  It may be about as accurate as fingerprint recognition. It will not be 100%. Even though the MAC coding scheme address space is capable of including 281 trillion combinations, making sure each person received a unique one would be quite difficult. Almost unique will be good enough.

Computer software will be able to establish a reliable association between the injected MAC codes and a person's identity by associating them with other electronically active permanent forms of identification. QR codes are quite uniquely associated with individuals. QR codes are of course associated with the smart phones that host them.  Injected MACs will link to the device holding the QR code. The cellular communications service provider can easily provide subscription information. Even if one MAC code is not enough to fully identify a person, the combination of two in a double jabbed individual will certainly be.  Once the MAC connection is made, the cell phone is no longer needed.  The database knows the chips inside you.

A surveillance advantage of the injected MAC codes is that they will be on full time. As long as a person is within range of an appropriate transmitter they will be visible to the surveillance state. Even now we are very rarely out of range of our computers and cell phones. After they roll out 5G wireless, we can be tracked anywhere within the coverage area, even without our devices.

Full-time surveillance will be somewhat more spotty outside of urban areas.  Nevertheless, even in the poorest countries most people have cell phones or visit locations that use Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Security cameras are cheap and ubiquitous – facial recognition is  widespread. Even the poor need to identify themselves for financial transactions. Absent smart phones, this is done by face, fingerprint, iris and voice recognition.

Only inhabitants of remote villages will be outside the network, and the surveillance state has little interest in them.  Assuming that the poor do not represent a vast threat to the stability of government, the surveillance state can afford less than blanket surveillance of these populations.

Tinfoil hat theorists have put forth another theory. It may be possible to broadcast signals that would affect the recipient's thinking or physiology. It is hard to believe that anything that small could actually kill a person, but it could possibly affect mood. The same tinfoil hat crowd observes that once the government has access to a person's body for an endless series of injections – boosters – they have a vehicle for implanting new and improved control systems.

My take is that this is inconsistent with the operation of the health side of the injections. If there is substance to the evidence that they are destroying people's health, that is control enough.  There wouldn't be too much point to modifying the thought processes of the condemned.  It is conceivable, but not very likely, that the geniuses behind this program have a trick up their sleeve to reverse the effects of the spike protein. If that were the case, implanting a tool for long-term control of people would make sense. I don't think they're that smart, nor do I think it is their intent.

My conclusion is that the reason for the microcircuit inclusions in the supposed of vaccines is simply surveillance. It will enable governments to know even better where everybody is all the time.

The fact that these devices are so small means that they probably could not be engineered to thwart countermeasures. Here is some noodling by a guy with no background in electronics. It seems to me that one might:

·        Use the radio signal it emits to locate the transmitter and simply remove it

·        Have a cauterizing needle home in on the signal and zap the transmitter, by heat or electricity

·        Locally apply some sort of chemical, perhaps by injection, to disassemble the self-assembled transmitter

·        Devise some battery-powered personal electronic countermeasures to jam the MAC signal

·        Record the MAC code of the implanted transmitter, then replicate it and put identical chips in feral canines. Send the goons to chase stray dogs.

Bottom line, it seems that the most potent aspect of this implanted microtechnology would be its secrecy. Once people know it is there, it would probably not be hard to circumvent. The problem that remains is that there are so many ways to track us already in existence and there is no practical way to hide from all of them. If government has a will to keep us under surveillance, they will figure out how to do it. Our salvation is in fixing our government, not in technology.

Phylogeny recapitulates ontology. When I was a kid not a small number of educated adults were familiar with this famous phrase from Darwin. The growth of the individual echoes the evolution of the species.

16-month-old Mariana points and grunts at everything. She points at the cats, at my coffee and our dominos when we play. She points and looks at me.

Linguists and anthropologists say that high levels of shared attention are a uniquely human trait. Two million years ago we were able to cooperate in hunting animals, building fire and making stone tools. Key to it all was shared attention. One member of the group directing another member's attention to a common object, be it an animal to be killed a stone to be sharpened or a child to be tended, so the other could do something in cooperation.

Shared attention is key to teaching. Two of our ancestors would look at a stone tool as one taught the other how to make them. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy writes that grandmothers are a human invention. For better or worse, a new mother gets help and a lot of advice from her own mother. Also aunts, cousins and so on.

The theory holds that this was one essential precursor to language. Our species only learned to talk two hundred thousand years ago, but we had developed the social need for it much earlier. This is what we are witnessing in Marianna. She understands when we are talking to her and about her. If I say "Marianna, no!" she freezes and stops climbing on the table or whatever. It won't be too long before she starts to mimic the adults and articulate such phrases herself.

That's the news from Lake WeBeGone, where the men are strong and not that dumb, the women good looking and also no fools, and the children watch us free adults and want to be that way themselves.

Graham