Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.
Military Operations in Civilian Disguise, Part 3: Bio-Nano Governance and Terms of Use for Humans 2.0
Abstract: Since government must be involved in the accumulation of capital to legitimate its activities, and since humans are, in the eyes of government, key resources, government must therefore be involved in activities that manage, control and increase the efficiency of these resources whilst at the same time fostering the spread of business. As we have outlined throughout Parts 1 and 2, history shows evidence of how the transhumanist movement has gained a foothold in society through government and business activities, in accordance with high-level military-intelligence forecasting and scenario planning, and how the global program may be viewed and understood as the only rational response to increasingly outdated humans who, save for the gift of high-tech bio/nano brain-chip upgrades, cannot compete against the machines. These kinds of sentiments, wrong as they are, are reflected in language output, which represents the centre of our thinking. Part 3, thus, introduces aspects of cognitive science as a way of examining more closely how centres of power conceptualise human beings and their environments as containers to be managed and controlled by authorities, and how these conceptualisations appear in language, in policy, and in practice. We make the case that behind the theatre of government, electoral politics and manufactured global crises, transhumanist battle-plans have been consistently enacted in policy and in governance, such that “democratic processes” do little more than provide civilian cover for military operations.
Introduction
As we discussed throughout Part 2, official documents tell the story of a sustained, well-funded, and furtive military-intelligence campaign to transform the human being from a natural biological life-form possessing unalienable rights, agency, and sovereignty to a synthetically modified entity whose body and psyche are penetrated by the latest technological “enhancements”. Clever neologisms are, thus, needed to represent the imagined ontological states new to the human experience, to make these novel forms of existence acceptable in the ears and in the hearts of the submissive masses. The project begs the question: Are we really being parsed into totally new social categories as described in the Proteus papers?
One way to answer the question is to examine more deeply how language is used to legitimate practices of redefining humans and reengineering both biological and social systems. Since language is at the very centre of concept formation in humans,[1] it represents a key area of understanding how it reflects popular thinking about how and why certain actions are being taken in the real world — how and why such absurd social policies, for example, are crafted and for what ultimate aim.
In many countries today, official language policies directly reflect the thinking of those in power re-conceptualising the female as something other than what she has been for millennia — the very nucleus of human reproduction. The patriarchy, as it is commonly known today, pushing upon populations the policies of dividing the female into her constituent parts for invasion, commodification,[2] and financialisation [3] have had to invent clever new names to effectively camouflage the larger social program of dissociating the natural woman from her immense womanly powers. If the human is to become trans-human, those innate powers of (re)production must be subdued to make way for a world in which, according to a 2008 Proteus monograph:
… sex is no longer the only generative force; that honor will be shared by the technologies that create the singularity. The true unseen powers are not higher powers per se, but the source of ESIs’ gifts and the networked links that connect them to that source.[4]
To pave the social and economic path toward new artificial generative forces, new artificial linguistic categories (i.e. uterus-havers)[5] are now under construction for the restructuring of the woman in our minds. The concept of the woman, known for millennia to be at the centre of various forms of social and cultural power, is being erased. In its place is the form of some ambiguous sexless other — fully stripped of her feminine charisma, faculties of reason, emotion and allure along with her additional powers of reproduction — the very crux of the long unsolvable problem for elites engaged in the work of reengineering the social world. Explaining the depraved logic of this official top-down assault against the body and the rational mind requires a pathology that can trace to its roots the kind of debased thinking now pervasive across the world.
For help in assessing the claimed necessity of recasting the human female into these new social and biological molds, we draw upon the work of George Lakoff and his classic argument which bolstered, at the time, ongoing research in cognitive science.[6] In Women, Fire and Dangerous Things (1985), Lakoff elaborates a fascinating aspect of human ability to process the plethora of sense data we encounter every moment of our lives and how we, thus, conceptualise what these data mean and how we might recognise and navigate the complex social world, survive and thrive.
“Categorization”, observed Lakoff, “is automatic and unconscious, and if we become aware of it all, it is only in problematic cases”, such as when politicians seek to rationalise and legitimate policies aimed at dispossessing people of their natural rights and abilities to reproduce their lives. Humans create mental classifications for the things we detect and perceive, and so our very words reflect the categories we put things and concepts into. In socially conditioning radical new beliefs and behaviours for a new dehumanised economic order, the trick is to re-engineer norms and concepts so thoroughly that only a new synthetic form of thought and speech will follow and become widely recognisable and acceptable — the default lingo unquestionable.
Theorising the Transhugenderman Category
Why, for thousands of years, were only men eligible to compete in certain sports and women in others? It was to the eye of reason and the principles of fairness that our forebears acknowledged key differences between the two genders — wo/man. One theory, in particular, has helped researchers grapple with the complex mental processes of forming common sense conclusions drawn from extrapolated sense data. Prototype Theory describes the sort of thinking that informs our decisions for how we go about categorising the multiplicity of natural phenomena we encounter.
The various taxonomies in the sciences, for example, are the result of human perception of objects and behaviours — such as reproduction — and our tendency to consider and categorise these phenomena. Theorists such as Brent Berlin, Paul Kay,[7] Eleanor Rosch, Barbara Lloyd,[8] Eugene Hunn,[9] Carolyn Mervis,[10] Barbara Tversky[11] and others have described an important level of human interaction with and recognition of the external environment located in gestalt perception, mental imagery, and motor movements. At this level of perception, we function most effectively in dealing with discontinuities in our surrounding environment. So, it is easy to recognise, for instance, when one man is sufficiently equipped to compete fairly against another in the octagon.
Over the past millennia, humans have had little difficulty recognising patterns and discontinuities in the various strengths and weaknesses exhibited in both sexes, and so this basic level of cognition helped to clear the groundwork for the roles humans naturally adopted in civilising communities, cultures, societies, and landscapes. We can generally recognise outward differences across ethnic categories, but another level down in perceptual acuity is considerably more complex. The difference between someone born and raised in Seoul, for example, and someone born and raised in Jeju is not so easy to determine at first glance.
As the theory goes, our basic-level gestalt perception isn’t adjusted for easily recognising such key differences at lower levels. This makes sense if we consider the origin and development of the scientific method, itself, as a systematic effort to discern clearly what is accessible to observation. Overt discontinuities in otherwise predictable patterns of behaviour trigger deeper levels of scientific inquiry (if the science has not been corrupted and stifled by the promise of favour or material profit). Lakoff argues that studies of categorisation at the basic level suggest that human experience itself is, at this level, structured pre-conceptually. It is why we can so easily see discontinuities and patterns of discontinuity at the basic level but need more time, careful observation, and study — with better tools and laboratory techniques — to even begin to notice more complex patterns and discontinuities at the lower level.
The naked eye alone would be useless to the epidemiologist grappling with what appears to be apparent cause-and-effect connections between Covid-19 injectable gene therapies, for instance, and the shocking precipitous decline in global rates of fertility.[12] In fact, the new injectable mRNA technology remains largely fixed — thanks to the dominant corporate media system — in the basic-level mental category for “vaccine” precisely because of the decades of background conditioning in the culture and the aggressive marketing that directs public consciousness — fusing the technology with all the positive signs and symbols signifying the sterile work we imagine, and expect, in clinical immunisations. In much the same way, the naked eye alone has proven increasingly incapable of helping observers identify the discontinuities that had, for millennia, distinguished men from women in a culture nowadays swayed by the systematic top-down operation fusing and, thus, erasing both with “gender-affirming care”.[13]
Consider, too, the difficulties in accurately assessing the signs of other serious medical conditions disguised by ordinary symptoms of, say, indigestion. Overt signs of dyspepsia that persist and defy treatment may, in fact, camouflage a cancerous war against the pancreas. A deeper examination of the root cause of persistent symptoms with an MRI will bring the physician closer to understanding the gravity of the patient’s condition. Furthermore, other related concepts of war, into which the basic-level conceptual category is filled, tend to contain images typical of conventional weapons: bombs, bullets, bayonets, missiles, and jet fighters to name a few. The weapons of a war fought on a battlefield contain all the conventional signifiers we imagine when warfighters strive against an enemy invader. The stealth weapons of a transhumanist war against humanity, however, are hardly conventional and, thus, exceedingly difficult to recognise without appropriate laboratory tools and techniques.
Categories for Herding and Culling
In a world where the value of bodies, brains, and bloodstreams is constantly weighed against the demands of the free market and the “financialization of everything”,[14] who has the time for such activities as deeper independent studies? The attention of casual corporate news consumers captured by the voices in the mainstream echo chambers confirming their biases are already over-burdened. Discerning the key differences, for example, between the formation of salt crystals in blood samples and the apparent self-assembly of nanostructures exposed to electromagnetic fields requires study, some knowledge of nanomaterials, intracorporeal networks, the plans of the transhumanists, and historical context well beyond what corporate media offer.
Distinguishing these differences requires some knowledge of the larger story of how agencies of power and authority have taken liberties with members of the “human herd”[15] and subjected women — and men — surreptitiously to various biotech injections, chemical adulterations, and genetic manipulations. It is likely why the contemporary war on women and its sophisticated weapons are not so easily recognisable. Complicating the general effort to recognise this war are those caught in states of emotional agitation who are less likely to focus on lower-level patterns of discontinuity. Furthermore, they likely have not yet formed from their perceptions the basic-level categories for such novel forms of warfare.
Since the emergence of the Covid-19 narrative, the state-sponsored campaigns of fear and loathing and dehumanisation, launched across the entire globe, have been integral to coordinating programs of successful cultural conditioning. Many members of the human community, fearful and continually agitated by the practices of social engineering, now put themselves in the category of synthetic objects ever ready for modification rather than natural subjects possessing agency and sovereignty. To them, therefore, maintaining personal bodily integrity means little. Even many feminists — long advocates of a woman’s right to choose what goes into her body — have handed control over their bodily integrity and autonomy to those pushing mandates and “upgrades”.[16] Perhaps, this level of acquiescence isn’t so surprising in this day and age.
In his book, The Body in the Mind, Mark Johnson makes a compelling argument for the embodiment of certain kinesthetic image schema.[17] Our experiences, he argues, are structured in profound ways prior to, and apart from, our mental processes of conceptualising. Johnson argues that image schema are themselves constructed by certain recurring patterns of bodily experience. These existing concepts, he notes, may impose upon our perceptions further structuring of what we experience, but basic experiential structures are present regardless of any such imposition of concepts. This may seem confusing or hardly worthy of our attention, but if we consider language itself, we can see the extent to which pre-conceptualisation is tacitly baked into verbal output.
One example among many that Johnson expounds is the container schema. We conceptualise containers as having boundaries with exteriors and interiors. We handle containers, put things in, and dump things out. Containers can also conceal from external view details of their contents, so the mystery of what might be in them can trigger fear or confusion. Consider, over the preceding four years (as of this writing), how perfectly ordinary bodily functions have been reconfigured in our minds — the random cough or sneeze having been remade into a kind of biological weapon to fear. The conceptual image of a container is the most basic-level distinction between our perception of what’s in — and what’s out. If we understand our bodies as containers, it is easy to see how we conceptualise the processing of all sorts of chemicals, foods, vapors, and liquids and even ideas about ourselves in the larger world framed always as a closed container. In the container, we ingest, digest, process, excrete, exhale, expel, eject, and deliver. Perfectly natural practices now being pitched as detrimental to the “sustainability” of the container itself.
As Johnson points out, our understanding of our own bodies as containers pales in comparison to all the other daily experiences we tacitly know and engage with in terms of the container. What follows are numerous implicitly understood in-out orientations that occur in routine states of arousal to conscious awareness and to reproduction — that incredible natural process that must come under the control of the transnational Giants[18] invested in the Revolution.
Earth as a Closed Container Whose Content Must be Controlled
Precisely what motivates contemporary claims that Earth is over-populated and that populations need to be reduced? Most people point to Thomas Malthus, the 18th century economist and cleric, who was moved to posit that, “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man”.[19] Others simply parrot a contemporary reconstitution of the Malthus proposition propagated by corporate media. Of course, Malthus offered the claim in the closing years of the 1700s when earth’s population was in fact roughly the size of India’s today.[20] Since its 1968 resuscitation by the Club of Rome, eugenicists[21] around the world have fuelled claims (enough to fill a book) that someone needs to do something about the rate of ever-rising populations. In Limits to Growth (1972), Secretary-General U Thant dramatises in his epigraph the urgent need to curb births:
“ …, the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human environment, to defuse the population explosion [a wink and nod to Paul Erhlich’s hyperbolic “Population Bomb”?], …. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems I have mentioned will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.”[22]
Of course, since Limits to Growth first appeared, the 1980s have come and gone, and the only significant shift — apart from the consistently renewed apocalyptic warnings issued every decade — has been in the main narrative: away from the Coming Ice Age and toward Global Warming. Today, others figures, like Sadhguru, WEF’s religious inspiration, simply continue offering up the eugenicist mantra: “All the religious groups are against me because I’m talking about population: they want more souls on the planet; I want less”.
Implicit in these aspirations is the belief that drastic measures must be taken to regulate the power of women to cultivate in their wombs new lifeforms that will only add to these ever-rising numbers. After all, everyone knows that babies demand sustenance, and a crying child with an empty stomach is a constant reminder that the woman and the donor of the seed (man) need to come to terms with the brute force of the economics of cultivating offspring.
Hence, the propaganda campaign to promote neo-feudal economic arrangements (”You will own nothing and you’ll be happy”) simultaneously serves to agitate fear in men and women from engaging and investing in their natural birthright to reproduce. If women (‘bodies with vaginas'[23]) are the very centre of population and cultural (re)production, their eggs, according to the eugenicist logic, must ultimately come under the control of the state ever concerned about resource allocation and domestic production — a dictate of the command economy of Nazi Germany when “your body was not your own [and] it belonged to the national community [since] reproductive policy was a matter of state”.[24] This goes especially so for the so-called stakeholders invested mentally and monetarily in the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” fretting over who could ultimately gain control over their investments and all the other natural resources they appear to believe are rightly theirs.
Cyborg Societies: Transhumanist Designs on Governance
With a sharper focus on such contemporary social engineering efforts to conceal, debase and replace what it means to be human, Proteus’ visions for post-human societies, described in Part 2, seem less remote. Consistent with Proteus’ projections, the linguistic mechanisation of that most profoundly awe-inspiring feat of biology — giving birth and creating life — parallels work in academic transhumanism under which humans are morally and legally indistinguishable from their non-human counterparts. Academic concepts such as ‘post-human dignity’[25, 26] and arguments against human rights as a distinct category[27], serve to relegate human beings to the same status as technological products, or transhumanist merchandise, adorned in the discourse of bioethics. Thus, in keeping with a long corporate tradition of pushing the technological envelope and upgrading technologically outdated stock, tweaking any beings who just happen to be human, and turning them into Proteus ‘Freaks’, is a logical next step.
Moreover, to dismiss Proteus’ forecasts for Humanity 2.0 requires ignoring an extensive dossier of supporting official documents, with an overt theme of marketizing, subduing and, ultimately, discontinuing an increasingly outmoded (human) product. The landmark DoD-backed NBIC ‘futures’ report at the turn of the millennium [28], for instance, like Proteus’ 2008 monograph,[29] made clear that transhumanist “enhancements” were not intended for military personnel alone.
While the Proteus monograph advised that, “the first waves of ESIs” (aka cyborgs) would likely emerge from military research labs[30], the earlier, overarching NBIC project always envisioned a broader societal bio-nano-info-cogno future, with the potential to “change our species”.[31] It is hardly any wonder why the dominant myth-makers in Hollywood would produce a deluge in recent years of superhero trans-humans emerging from secret military-industrial research labs.
As part of the evolutionary pathway towards a changed species and society, the expectation of the NBIC project was that, by 2020, electronic devices would become sufficiently advanced for civilian populations to experience a “significant shift in our view of the dividing line between what is natural and what is man-made”.[32] That fundamental shift in perception of the natural and synthetic was, in turn, anticipated to ease the societal path towards the merger of humans and machines.
Ultimately, the human-machine hybrids of the future were cast in NBIC and subsequent official documents as serving not only national security purposes, but also commercial interests (described variously as ‘economic prosperity’, ‘wealth’, ‘competitiveness’, ‘e-business’, ‘the nation’s productivity’, ‘work efficiency’, ‘the entertainment industry’, ‘the tourist industry’, ‘new products and services’ and so-on), as well as medical and IT industries, and a perceived, unquestioned imperative for nations to pursue “technological superiority”.[33]
Accordingly, via government, commercial, medical and educational avenues, the NBIC project and a plethora of subsequent-military intelligence reports foresaw for everyday citizens the same transhumanist “enhancements” slated for soldiers. These include genetic engineering, brain implants, brain-to-machine and brain-to-brain interfaces, engineered tissue, synthetic organs and cells, nano implants, and bio-nano electronics / molecular electronics. All of which enable virtual environments that could, with the help of bio-nanotechnology, “transcend the biological limitations of human senses and create a new human relationship to the physical environment”.[34]
Indeed, as illustrated below, explicit references to civilian cyborg scenarios consistent with Proteus’ projections abound in military-intelligence reports, which are simultaneously peppered with policy and governance recommendations to turn the strategic visions into material reality. In those reports, a number of key themes emerge: Humans are expected to fall to the bottom of the social hierarchy; injections are a method of technologically transitioning human beings; certain transhumanist interventions are expected to become mandatory; governments should lead society-wide human augmentation efforts, and; governments and the private sector will partner in the whole endeavour, marching forth with ‘national security’ and ‘economic prosperity’ side by side.
In ‘Human Augmentation: The Dawn of a New Paradigm’ (2021), for instance, the UK Ministry of Defence writes that human augmentation, which conceptualises “the person as a platform…a human platform … is relevant across society and Defence … Designer babies”, it says, may be “likely within the next 30 years”.[35]
Societally, like the Proteus monograph of 2008, the 2021 MoD document foresees the emergence of social classes stratified by their ‘enhancement’ status. It says that:
Human augmentation is likely to exacerbate inequality, and could lead to societal tensions. The wealthy are expected to be early adopters of human augmentation, and they could use their acquired superior abilities to entrench their status. In time this could lead to an elite overclass that could become genetically distinct from the rest of humanity, and leave an unaugmented underclass as relatively disadvantaged as the illiterate are in today’s societies”. Those who reject technological adulteration, moreover, “could be marginalised, or even persecuted”.[36]
Nevertheless, the MoD report argues that “there may be a moral obligation to augment people” on certain grounds, such as in the name of “wellbeing” or protection from “novel threats”. (See Part 1 for discussion of the euphemistic linguistic shell game involving sanitising and eulogising language — such as ‘wellbeing’ or ‘protection’ — within which questionable transhumanist agendas can hide.) Regarding “novel threats” the document adds, “It could be argued that treatments involving novel vaccination processes … are examples of human augmentation already in the pipeline”. Given the date (2021), we wonder whether the MoD was referring to “novel threats” such as Covid-19, and “novel vaccination processes” such as the bio-nano Covid-19 ‘vaccines’, which were purportedly designed to synthetically ‘augment’ (read adulterate) the human genome and immune system using synthetic RNA. The document continues, “The future of human augmentation should not, however, be decided by ethicists or public opinion … rather, governments will need to develop a clear policy position that maximises the use of human augmentation”.[37]
Which, indeed, governments did do in 2021. Clear policy positions on ‘vaccine’ mandates maximised the use of gene-based injections to ‘augment’ human immunity. As advised by the MoD, public opinion and ethical due diligence were cast aside, with disastrous consequences.[38] This confirms that democracy today is a mere husk, an artifice with which to distract and fool the population, while real power lies with the executive branch, enacting policies formulated on the basis of military intelligence.
Having already experienced governments maximising the use of injectable bio-nano technology under the auspices of Covid-19, and the guidance of the WHO, with the WHO’s impending authority over nation-states [39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44], as forecast by Proteus[45], and its associated global power to unilaterally impose emergency governance, including bio-nano “health” requirements, we surmise that the WHO may be positioned to emerge as a leading source of policy that “maximises the use of human augmentation”. We revisit this issue in Part 4.
Down the path of ‘augmentation’, in Cyborg Soldier 2050: Human/Machine Fusion and the Implications for the Future of the DOD (2019), The US Army DEVCOM and its co-authors write:
Introduction of augmented human beings into the general population … will accelerate in the years following 2050 and will lead to imbalances, inequalities, and inequities in established legal, security, and ethical frameworks. Each of these technologies will purportedly afford some level of performance improvement to end users, which will widen the performance gap between enhanced and unenhanced individuals and teams.
Such technologies should be backed by a “whole-of-nation” approach, the report recommends, while negative narratives around them are to be countered.[46]
Once again, a military-intelligence body is advising governments in ostensibly democratic countries to push transhumanist technologies (i.e. genetic and bio-nano technologies) upon their populations. When and how did DEVCOM, a US Army science and technology offshoot, whose 2019 Cyborg report was sponsored by the office of the third highest ranking DoD official, assume that authority? Is it relevant that since 2020 the deployment of gene-based bio-nano Covid injections in both the US [47, 48,] and Australia,[49] supposedly on health grounds, was co-ordinated by military-intelligence bodies rather than health bodies?
The Military and Covid-19 Injections
In the United States, Operation Warp Speed (OWS), the U.S. project to develop, produce, and distribute 300 million doses of a “coronavirus vaccine” by January 2021, was compared to the Manhattan Project by President Trump when he unveiled it on May 16, 2020, a clear allusion to top-secret military technology.[50]
OWS was led, not by scientists and healthcare specialists, but by the military. An organisational chart shows that 61 of the 90 leadership positions in OWS were occupied by DoD officials, including four generals.[51] The military’s role was not merely to assist with logistics; rather, the DoD was “in full control” of the “vaccination” programme from its inception, including “development, manufacturing, clinical trials, quality assurance, distribution and administration”.[52] The White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator was Deborah Birx, whose colourful scarves created a civilian appearance while media reports touted her as the next head of the HHS, a civilian agency;[53] Birx, however, holds the rank of Colonel. The “Covid-19 vaccine” rollout in the United States, as in Europe and Australia it seems, was a camouflaged military operation from start to finish.[54, 55]
Under Operation Warp Speed, contracts were clandestinely awarded to “vaccine” companies via Advanced Technology International, which has close ties to the CIA.[56] The use of a non-governmental intermediary meant that regulatory oversight and transparency conferred by regular federal contracting mechanisms could be bypassed.
In a biopolitical era where control is exercised directly over human bodies (Agamben, 1998),[57] – with military-grade bio-nano technologies deployed through “’Trojan Horse’ ‘civilian’ systems”[58] and so-called “vaccines” doubling as transhumanist delivery mechanisms,[59, 60] in a transhumanist war on humanity – injections provide the perfect weapon to penetrate behind enemy lines.[61–66]
Military Operations in Civilian Disguise?
In addition to its assumption of dominion over civilian bodies, documents such as the DEVCOM report[67] illustrate that Proteus is not the only high-level military-intelligence actor advising senior decision makers to prepare for societies stratified along transhumanist class lines.
Similarly, and consistent with the notion of obligatory ‘enhancement’, a 2009 research report from the Air War College of the US Air Force titled, ‘Cognition 2035: Surviving a Complex Environment through Unprecedented Intelligence’ talks about “Enhanced Human Intelligence” being compulsory in some scenarios by 2035, for instance as a condition of employment. The report concludes that, “despite the potential pitfalls of cognitive technologies, they must be pursued”.[68] But why? Is “enhanced human intelligence” even a thing?
On the level of R&D policy, in a 2013 Statement by the DARPA Director to the United States Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, the Director pledged DARPA’s commitment to working with the civilian sector to advance technologies such as synthetic biology, brain-computer interfaces and robotics. She presciently added that DARPA was at the time working to “accelerate the timeline” for “novel techniques that will enable the human body to directly manufacture its own vaccines”. One of DARPA’s objectives for those vaccines, the Director told the Senate Subcommittee was, “bypassing traditional vaccine manufacturing processes that can take months”.[69] In other words, accelerating the novel ‘vaccines’ to market. Such acceleration of novel vaccination technology later came to pass in the form of a Moderna-DARPA collaboration on the synthetic mRNA platform of 2020, rolled out at Warp Speed.
With equal prescience, in that same year, a 2013 follow-up report to the foundational NBIC document of 2002, this time focussed on the societal rollout of nano-bio-info-cogno technologies, predicted, in keeping with NASA’s timeline for a BioNANO Age, that from 2020 onwards the “convergence” of bio-nano technology and society would be “systemic”, and driven by a “higher level purpose”.[70] (A higher level purpose, we wonder, such as combating a “novel threat” as noted by the UK MoD, in the form of a “novel” virus, creating an “obligation” to use DARPA’s novel auto-immunisation technology?)[71] The 2013 paper was sponsored by NASA and the Office of Naval Research among others, with contributors and reviewers including Moderna co-founder Robert Langer, and personnel from Johnson & Johnson, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft and the US Army. It was titled, ‘Convergence of knowledge, technology, and society (CKTS): Beyond Convergence of Nano-Bio-Info-Cognitive Technologies’. The report moved a step beyond fostering the convergence of technology and biology, which underpins transhumanism, to advocating the convergence of technology and governance, which underpins technocracy.
To this end, the document sought “radical paradigm transformations in human endeavors” to “accelerate progress in the foundational NBIC technologies”. The document advocated a “new governance model” that would involve “public-private partnerships” and a “global convergence network”.[72] By 2020, with the “higher level purpose” of a war on a virus, the WEF’s network of public-private partnerships and its push for “convergence” of our physical, digital and biological identities (under the Fourth Industrial Revolution moniker) seemed to fit the bill. The 2013 CKTS document also advocated drawing on artificially augmented and inter-connected brains (which it referred to as “convergent cognitive technologies”) for future decision-making, particularly in the area of public health, and “at all levels of society”.[73] We critique the viability of such proposals, and their likely true intention, below.
By 2020, as public-private partnerships, including with CKTS report contributors Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and Microsoft, were gearing up for their military-style, lockdown-driven, bio-nano, injection-based “higher level purpose” war on a virus, a NASA-Langley report titled ‘Disruptive Technologies and Their Impacts Upon Society’ included a section titled, ‘Increasing Cyborgism’. The report observed that “humans are developing Humanity 2.0”. It declared society to be “entering the Virtual Age [which NASA Langley had previously slated to commence post-2020, as we described in Part 1] with major shifts to direct brain to machine interaction, humans merging with machines, immersive digital reality, autonomous robotics, tele-everything, a global sensor grid and a shared global mind”. The report added, almost as an aside, “The major existential issue will then become ‘Whither Humans’?”[74]
Who needs “heavy”, “tender”, “slow”, carbon-emitting, climate-changing humans on an ‘over-populated’ planet anyway?
Dual-Use Technologies and Bio-Nano Power
Approximately twenty years before NASA-Langley declared society’s entry into the Virtual Age in 2020, at the turn of the millennium when the course towards Humanity 2.0 was being charted in the 424-page DoD-backed NBIC report, advancements in brain-machine interfaces were being viewed as “an important next step in human evolution, potentially as important as the evolution of the first language spoken between our ancestors”. Via brain-to-brain and brain-to-web connections, it was hoped that “linked enhanced individuals” of the future would form “a networked society of billions of human beings”, together creating a “global collective intelligence”, or hive mind.[75] In other words, officialdom’s vision for its “enhanced” citizenry of the future was as nodes on a vast network.
Copyright Yena_B, 2024, artist’s interpretation of Hierarchical BANN architecture. Original image from Figure 1 of S. Canovas-Carrasco, A. J. Garcia-Sanchez, and J. Garcia-Haro (2018), A nanoscale communication network scheme and energy model for a human hand scenario. Nano Communication Networks, 15, 17-27.
Such a development, needless to say, irrespective of whether it ‘enhances’ the lives of the individuals concerned, would significantly enhance the exercise of power, particularly with respect to issues such as information operations and population control. Consistent with this theme, in 2004 the US Army War College Center for Strategic Leadership said of 2020 scenario planning, “across all of the worlds, it is clear that instruments of power and sources of threat will come in smaller and smaller packages … Classic tools of state power (e.g., weapons and surveillance systems) will be dramatically miniaturized as a result of both bio- and nanotechnology”.[76]
The observations were made as part of a presentation to ‘The 9th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium’, an annual event headed by a former DOD official, which continues today. Interestingly, on the same page of the same Powerpoint presentation, looking towards the year 2020, the War College noted that, “biological viruses are good examples of both instruments of power and source of threat”.[77]
Which was a curious statement for its time. Why was the Army War College Center for Strategic Leadership describing viruses as instruments of power in 2004? The statement was made 16 years before the Army had partnered with the US president under Operation Warp Speed to coercively deploy bio-nano vaccines as intravenous weapons, purportedly against a virus. The statement was also made 16 years before citizens were placed under effective house arrest to flatten an over-hyped viral curve. And 16 years before emergency governance and emergency medicine merged, to create a brave new era of politico-medical rule, empowered to suspend fundamental rights such as freedom of movement and bodily autonomy, all in the name of a virus.
We shall return to these and other issues in Part 4, but meanwhile, besides viruses, what kinds of miniaturized instruments of power might the US Army Center for Strategic Leadership have been referring to?
While there are numerous candidates, “nano-taggants”[78], including smart dust, are openly discussed as tools of power in military-intelligence literatures. Smart dust, which dates to the 1990s, consists of miniature microelectronic particles, as small as 20 microns by 2020, which are fashioned from nano-components, and which can be sprayed, scattered, implanted, or inhaled, forming wireless networks capable of transmitting information, “about anything nearly anywhere” (such as temperature, location, light, movement, sound and so-on), to a cloud or other base for processing.[79, 80]
In a paper from the US Air War College, Center for Strategy and Technology titled, ‘Enabling Battlespace Persistent Surveillance: The Form, Function, and Future of Smart Dust’, the technology’s ability to enable “dispersal of a wireless sensor network on the actual bodies” of adversaries is described, with the capability to provide “vital tactical information, such as location and numbers, to support counterinsurgency operations”. The paper adds that, “Smart Dust offers a low observable ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] asset providing detailed information on insurgents and the US populace [italics added]”.[81]
Having shrunk from the size of a grain of sand in the 1990s to microscopic dimensions by 2020, smart dust appears to embody what the US Army War College might have meant when it said that sources of power would be coming in smaller and smaller packages. The inclusion of the US populace as smart dust surveillance targets in US Air Force reports, moreover, is consistent with a recurring theme around counterinsurgency in defense science and technology papers, such as one from the Air War College Center for Strategy and Technology in 2009, titled ‘Disaster-Proofing Senior Leadership’. The paper, again from the US Air Force, warns leaders that the “nano-enabled battlefield” of the future will create adversaries “across the spectrum from state actors to empowered individuals”.[82]
To be ready for the nano-enabled battlefield and the empowered individuals of the future, the 2007 smart dust paper stresses that, “the US military must invest their energy and money today … to develop persistent surveillance applications such as Smart Dust”, making clear that such “persistent surveillance” should be society-wide. It counsels: “the United States needs to mount an effective information operations campaign now and in the future to educate the public on the benefits of Smart Dust to their way of life”.[83]
Should a leader wish to domestically surveil their populations in this way, in 2007, the same year the Smart Dust paper was published, an enabling legislative and practical framework was established under the auspices of 9/11. In August of ‘07, President Bush signed into law an Act titled, ‘Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007’. As part of that Act, a National Biosurveillance Integration Center was established, in order to track any future “biological event of national concern”. Such an event was defined as either an act of bioterrorism or an outbreak of any infectious disease that “may” (or may not) result in an epidemic. Faced with such an infectious disease, the Integration Center, “in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence [and] the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis” was tasked with aggregating the nation’s surveillance data from government sources, as well from “private sources of surveillance, both foreign and domestic”. In other words, since 2007, US intelligence has had the legal authority to gather surveillance data on its citizens, from public and private sources nationally and internationally, under the auspices of disease control. According to the Act, the Center (essentially a legislatively empowered transnational public-private surveillance partnership) has the responsibility to avail itself of the “best available” information technology, in order to track bio-events “in as close to real-time as is practicable”.[84]
Looking back, we can’t help but wonder whether the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act was triggered in 2020, as the world was swept 9/11-style into emergency mode by a “biological event of [inter]national concern”. Could smart dust, with its ability to be dispersed upon populations in the gust of a breeze – or on the end of a nasal swab — have fit the bill as the “best available” technology?[85, 86, 87, 88]
While Covid ‘vaccines’ have gained the most attention as potential sources of covert nanotechnology deployment, the simple PCR nasal swab has also been examined by microscopists for undeclared inclusions since its mass roll-out in 2020. In 2023 Gatti and colleagues studied nine different PCR swabs for their morphology and chemical composition, using Optical Microscopy and a Field Emission Gun Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope with Energy Dispersive System.[89] The scientists reported a number of substances on the swabs that had not been declared in the manufacturers’ data sheets. Those substances included black fibres that were present “in an almost systematic way”, silver nanoparticles, coatings on the swab fibres involving different combinations of Silicate, Zirconia, Titanium, Aluminium and Sulphur, and “extremely high” levels of what the authors described as “dust”.[90] The dust on the nasal swabs was composed of Silicon, Carbon, Aluminium, Potassium, Oxygen, Magnesium, Titanium, Iron and Sulphur.
Did these elements reflect a “dirty environment”, as the authors proposed, or was it a reflection of other kinds of dust, such as Silicon-based ferromagnetic smart dust[91], or Silica-Alumina neural dust, for creating “a neural dust brain-machine interface (BMI)”?[92] Either way, the authors warned that delivering undeclared nano-components such as these on the ends of nasal swabs “deeply inside nasal cavity” can not only damage the olfactory epithelium, but “finally reach the brain”.[93]
All of which harkens back to NASA-Langley’s 2001 prognostication that a Bio-NANO Era (circa 2020) would see the surreptitious nano-tagging of everything and everyone, with microwave interrogation, for status and identification purposes (as we discussed in Part 1). Followed by Yuval Noah Harari’s insistence in early 2020 that surveillance had gone under the skin with the arrival of The Pandemic™ (and its PCR tests). Was it smart dust they were referring to?
Alongside surveillance applications, in the commercial sphere, smart dust has been described as “the pinnacle of the Internet of Things”,[94] with “the capacity to multiply IoT technologies up to a billion times”.[95] Driven by IoT demand and related medical sensing applications, therefore, a report titled ‘Technology Convergence 2035’, from the US Army War College predicts that smart dust “will achieve mainstream commercial usage by 2028”.[96]
Dual-Use Technologies and Bio-Nano Governance
Importantly, this simultaneous utility of smart dust to military and commercial / medical applications exemplifies the ‘dual use’ nature of nanomaterials and nanotechnologies. Dual use technologies are those with both civilian and military applications, and/or harmful as well as beneficial purposes, where harm can be perpetrated on a mass scale.[97, 98] A common ingredient in cosmetics, for instance, can be used to create mustard gas. Smart dust, similarly, may be used by medical personnel to monitor and treat disease, or, surreptitiously, by those in power to surveil and wirelessly network their citizens, or as a bio-nano weapon to “identify, and/or destroy certain cell types in the body”.[99]
On this theme, in the book ‘Nanoweapons: A Threat to Humanity’, a physicist and former IBM and Honeywell executive, who led advancements in microelectronics and sensors (such as smart dust), warns of existential threats from weaponisable nanotechnologies “previously relegated to fantasy”. The technologies he describes include “self-replicating smart nanorobots”, which “search for and destroy targets without human input, and self-replicate with materials found in the environment”.[100] Similarly, in 2001, along with smart dust, NASA Langley described, “Micro Dust Weaponry” or “Micron sized mechanized ‘dust’ which is distributed as an aerosol and inhaled into the lungs. Dust mechanically bores into lung tissue and executes various ‘Pathological Missions.’ A Wholly ‘New’ class of Weaponry which is legal”.[101]
The upshot of the dual uses for many, if not most, bio-nanotechnologies is that their covert deployment as weapons is as simple as calling them by some benign name, for instance a medical intervention. Which brings to mind NASA Langley’s commentary on the “attack capabilities” of “’Trojan Horse’ ‘civilian’ [quotation marks in original] systems”.[102] Combined with the increasing designation of Western domestic populations as adversaries, (cf 2021 reports on domestic “terrorism”, “extremism”, “radicalism” and “conspiracy theorists” by the European Commission[103] and the US Department of Homeland security),[104] citizens would be wise to remain vigilant to the potential dual use and abuse of bio-nano power.
Yet, the question remains: Are there any indications that those in power seek to translate bio-nano/transhumanist policy advice into practice, for instance by pushing ahead with microelectronic (’smart’) dust? Are they even interested in bio-nano power?
If the proof is in the policy pudding, it seems that they are indeed. To name just a few trans-administration examples, the Clinton Administration launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in 2000[105] on the advice of the lead author of the landmark DoD-backed NBIC report[106]. The NNI continues to this day.[107] Shortly thereafter, in December 2003, President George W. Bush signed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, or Public Law 108-153,[108] to create a National Nanotechnology Institute [109]. Internationally, similar activity has been taking place around the world, in Europe, China, Iran, India, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, to name just the most active regions.[110, 111] Also spawned by the NBIC initiative was the European Union 2014-2020 ‘Horizon 2020’ research and innovation program[112], which saw the 2018 launch of the “Horizon 2020 Graphene Flagship” project, Europe’s largest ever research initiative,[113] aimed, according to its website, at integrating the expertise of 170 academic and industry partners[114] to “bring graphene innovation out of the lab and into commercial applications”,[115] … “accelerating the timeline for industry acceptance of graphene technologies”.[116]
Building upon this growing international nanotechnology base, in 2013 the Obama Administration launched its Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, a public-private partnership that runs to 2025, involving DARPA, IARPA, the NIH, the FDA, and the Military Services among other government agencies.[117] Its projects include those in nanoscience, brain-machine interfaces and bioengineering.[118, 119] A few years later, in 2016 under the Trump Administration, Congress established an Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD R&E) as part of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. The new Under Secretary “would take risks, press the technology envelope, test and experiment, and have the latitude to fail, as appropriate”.[120] The following year, on December 18, 2017, the Trump Administration released its National Security Strategy, declaring that “the United States will prioritize emerging technologies critical to economic growth and security, such as data science, encryption, autonomous technologies, gene editing, new materials, nanotechnology, advanced computing technologies, and artificial intelligence”.[121]
More recently, in February 2022, during the Biden Administration, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, created under Trump, announced that her office would “spearhead a National Defense Science and Technology strategy for the Department of Defense (DoD)”[122] which sought “success through policies that encourage innovation and risk taking”.[123] The “Critical Technology Areas” of interest included human machine interfaces, advanced materials, future generation wireless, and AI. Next, in September 2022 Biden’s Whitehouse issued an executive order announcing the funding of a new “bioeconomy”, under which the United States would invest in and “develop engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way we write software and program computers”.[124]
With its problematic casting of biology as technology, to be manipulated like a computer program in the name of the “economy”,[125] Biden’s Executive Order is noteworthy in that, like the Trump Administration’s creation of a risk-happy DoD Science and Technology office, the order was undertaken in lockstep with the US military. Days after the Biden Executive Order was issued, the same DoD Research and Engineering Under Secretary created by Trump, who is also the Pentagon’s Chief Technology officer[126] and oversees the activities of DARPA,[127] said, “This Executive Order will advance and synchronize our efforts — across the DoD and across the Federal Government”.[128] Prior to her political and military appointments,[129] the Under Secretary spent much of her career at Raytheon.[130]
And so it is that while populations have been dazzled, decoyed and distracted by the theatre of electoral politics, governments and the US military have quietly laid the conceptual, structural and technological foundations for transhumanist societies — administration after administration. Behind the spectacle of Clinton’s sexual exploits, Bush’s blunders, Obama’s eloquence, Russiagate, and the January 6th concoction, a military operation in transhumanism has been marching steadily on, largely unreported and unchallenged. No election outcome appears to have ever altered that trajectory. The 2024 election, we wager, will be no exception.
References for Part 3
[1] Alderson-Day, B., and Fernyhough, C. 2015. Inner speech: Development, cognitive functions, phenomenology, and neurobiology. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 141, No. 5. pp. 931-965. [Journal]
[2] dos Santos Barbosa, A., Marcello Romani-Dias, M., and Veludo-de-Oliveira, T.M.. 2020. Data for the acets of women commodification: Violence in the university Ccntext in administration (Version 1) [Data set]. Zenodo. [Journal]
[3] van de Wiel, L. 2020. Freezing fertility: Oocyte cryopreservation and the gender politics of aging. Chapter 3, Frozen Eggs and the Financialization of Fertility: Distributing Reproductive Aging in the Reproductive-Industrial Complex. New York (NY): New York University Press. [Website]
[4] Kunstler, B. 2008. Leadership in the era of the human singularity: New demands, new skills, new response. The Proteus Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Issue 1, p.25. [Website]
[5] Gamble, J., and Gribble, K. 2022. ‘Inclusive’ language on maternity care risks excluding many women. The Guardian. [Website]
[6] Lakoff, G. 1985. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[7] Berlin, B., Kay, P. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[8] Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B.B., Eds., pp.27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence. [Website]
[9] Hunn, E. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 830-847. [Journal]
[10] Mervis, C. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 573-605. [Journal]
[11] Tversky, B. 1983. Components and Categorization, Noun Classes and Categorization: Proceedings of a symposium on categorization and noun classification, Eugene, Oregon. [Website]
[12] Edwards, M. 2022. What’s happening? The miscarriage of declining fertility rates. Uncover DC. [Website]
[13] Mondegreen, E. 2022. The dangers of gender-affirmative care: American doctors are unnecessarily harming children. UnHerd. [Website]
[14] Harvey, D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 33.
[15] Alen, G.E. 2013. “Culling the herd”: Eugenics and the conservation movement in the United States, 1900-1940. Journal of the History of Biology, Vol 46, No. 1, pp.31–72. [Journal]
[16] Murphy, M. 2021. The feminist case against vaccine mandates. UnHerd. [Website]
[17] Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago University Press.
[18] Phillips, P. 2018. Giants. New York: Seven Stories Press. [Website]
[19] Malthus, T.R. 2010. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Oxfordshire, England: Oxford World’s Classics, p. 13. [Website]
[20] Worldometer. 2023. World Population by Year. [Website]
[21] King, A., and Schneider, B. 1991. The First Global Revolution A Report By The Council Of The Club Of Rome. New York, NY. Pantheon Books. [Website]
[22] Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D., Randers, J., Meadows, D.L., and Behrens, W.W.III. 1972. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York, NY. Universe Books. [Website]
[23] The Lancet. 2021. Sep 25, Vol. 398, No. 10306, front cover. [Journal]
[24] Epstein, C.A. 2015. Nazi Germany: Confronting the myths. John Wiley & Sons, 76.
[25] Bostrom, N. 2005. In defence of posthuman dignity. Bioethics, Vol. 19., No. 3, pp. 202-214. [Journal]
[26] Rubin, C. 2008. Human dignity and the future of man. In Schulman, A., and Merrill, T.W., Eds., Human Dignity and Bioethics: Essays Commissioned by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Washington D.C.: President’s Council on Bioethics, pp. 155-172. [Website]
[27] Zemblyas, M., and Bozalek, V. 2014. A critical engagement with the social and political consequences of human rights: the contribution of the affective turn and posthumanism. Acta Academica, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 29-17. [Journal]
[28] Roco, M.C. and Bainbridge, W., Eds. 2002. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. [Website]
[29] Kunstler, B. 2008. op. cit. [Website]
[30] ibid., p.7. [Website]
[31] Roco, M.C. and Bainbridge, W., Eds. 2002. op. cit., p. 89. [Website]
[32] Roco, M.C., and Bainbridge, W., Eds. 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: NSET [Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee] Workshop Report. National Science Foundation, p. 86. [Website]
[33] Roco. M.C., and Bainbridge, W., Eds. 2002. op. cit., p. 12. [Website]
[34] ibid., p. 161 [Website]
[35] UK Ministry of Defence Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). 2021. Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm: A strategic implications project, in partnership with the German Ministry of Defence Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning (BODP), pp. 11, 19 and 59. [Website]
[36] ibid, pp. 28 and 61. [Website]
[37] ibid, p.13 [Website]
[38] Baker, C.J. 2023. The four pillars of medical ethics were destroyed in the Covid response. Brownstone Institute. [Website]
[39] Kheriaty, A. 2022. The WHO treaty is tied to a global digital passport and ID system. Brownstone Institute. [Website]
[40] Knightly, K. 2022. “Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government. Off Guardian. [Website]
[41] Knightly, K. 2022. WHO moving forward on GLOBAL vaccine passport program. Off Guardian. [Website]
[42] Thakur, R. 2024. The WHO Wants to Rule the World. Brownstone Institute. [Website]
[43] Nevradakis, M. 2023. International Health Regulations Amendments Will Give WHO Unprecedented Power to Override National Sovereignty, Expert Warns. The Defender: Children’s Health Defense News & Views. [Website]
[44] Alliance for Natural Health International. 2024. Think WHO shouldn’t make decisions about your health? You must be a conspiracy theorist. The Defender: Children’s Health Defense News & Views. [Website]
[45] Kunstler, B. 2008. op. cit. [Website]
[46] Emanuel, P., Walper, S., DiEuliis, D., Klein, N., Petro, J.B., and Giordano, J. 2019. Cyborg Soldier 2050: Human/Machine Fusion and the Implications for the Future of the DOD. Aberdeen, MD: U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Chemical Biological Center, pp. vi and vii. [Website]
[47] Lerman, D. 2022. Government’s National Security Arm Took Charge During the Covid Response. Brownstone Institute. [Website]
[48] Lerman, D. 2024. DOD Told Pharma Exec the Virus “Posed a National Security Threat” on Feb. 4, 2020. Brownstone Institute. [Website]
[49] Johnson, L. 2024. The People’s Terms of Reference, Answers to Questions on Notice, Document 12, Terms E and N, pp.87-139, and 217-231. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Parliament of Australia. [Website]
[50] Smith, D. 2020. Trump unveils ‘warp-speed’ effort to create coronavirus vaccine by year’s end. The Guardian. [Website]
[51] Florko, N. 2020. New document reveals scope and structure of Operation Warp Speed and underscores vast military involvement. Stat. [Website]
[52] Altman, P., Rowe, J., Hoy, W., Brady, G., Lefringhausen, A., Cosford, R., and Wauchope, B. 2023. Did national security imperatives compromise COVID-19 vaccine safety? Brownstone Institute. [Website]
[53] Cancryn, A., Cook, N., & Diamond, D. 2020. White House weighing plan to replace Azar. Politico. [Website]
[54] Ponton, F. 2023a. Are Covid-19 “vaccines” a military biodefense response gone terribly wrong? 21st Century Wire. [Website]
[55] Ponton, F. 2023b. NATO’s Trojan horse behind Europe’s Covid-19 response – part 1: Vaccinating Europe with a military experimental biodefense countermeasure. 21st Century Wire. [Website]
[56] Webb, W. 2020. Operation Warp Speed is using a CIA-linked contractor to keep Covid-19 vaccine contracts secret. Unlimited Hangout. [Website]
[57] Agamben, G. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [Website]
[58] Bushnell, D. 2001. Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]. Presentation to The 4th Annual Testing and Training for Readiness Symposium & Exhibition: Emerging Challenges, Opportunities and Requirements, National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), 13-16 August 2001. NASA Langley Research Center, p. 81. [Website]
[59] Akyildiz, I. F. 2023. TeraHertz Band Communication: An Old Problem Revisited & Research Directions for the Next Decade. ARRC Seminar Series,** Technology Innovation Institute, Advanced Technology Research Council (ATRC), YouTube. [Website]
[60] UK Ministry of Defence Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). 2021. Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm: A strategic implications project, in partnership with the German Ministry of Defence Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning (BODP). [Website]
[61] Khizroev, S. 2018. Meet Technobiology’s Wireless Messenger: The Nanoparticle. TedX Talks, YouTube. [Website]
[62] Rivers, B.M. 2019. Battelle awarded contract by DARPA to develop non-surgical neurotech. Executive Biz – Latest Federal & Government Contracting Companies’ News Coverage. [Website]
[63] Nguyen, T., Gao, J., Wang, P., Nagesetti, A., Andrews, P., Masood, S., Vriesman, Z., Liang, P., Khizroev, S., and Jin, X. 2021. In vivo wireless brain stimulation via non-invasive and targeted delivery of magnetoelectric nanoparticles. Neurotherapeutics, Vol. 18, pp. 2091–2106. [Journal]
[64] Prabhakar, A. 2013. Statement of the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Submitted to the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, United States Senate, p.7. [Website]
[65] Ma, Y., Luo, Z., Steiger, C., Traverso, G., and Adib, F. 2018. Enabling deep-tissue networking for miniature medical devices. SIGCOMM ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the ACM [Association for Computing Machinery] Special Interest Group on Data Communication. August 2018, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 417–431. [Website]
[66] Claverie, B., and Du Cluzel, F. 2021. “Cognitive Warfare”: The Advent of the Concept of “Cognitics” in the Field of Warfare. In B. Claverie, B. Prébot, N. Buchler, and F. du Cluzel, Eds. Cognitive Warfare: The Future of Cognitive Dominance. NATO Collaboration Support Office, p.6. [Website]
[67] Emanuel, P. et al. 2019. op. cit. [Website]
[68] Finn, M. 2009. Cognition 2035: Surviving a Complex Environment through Unprecedented Intelligence. A Research Report Submitted to the Air War College Air University, p. 38. [Website].
[69] Prabhakar, A. 2013. op. cit., p. 7. [Website]
[70] Roco, M.C., Bainbridge, W.S., Tonn, B., and Whitesides, G., Eds. 2013. Convergence of Knowledge, Technology, and Society: Beyond Convergence of Nano-Bio-Info-Cognitive Technologies. Lancaster, PA: World Technology Evaluation Center, p.359. [Website]
[71] UK Ministry of Defence Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC). 2021. op.cit., p.13. [Website]
[72] Roco, M.C. et al. 2013. op.cit., pp. 2 and 358. [Website]
[73] ibid., p. 28. [Website]
[74] Bushnell, D. 2020. Disruptive Technologies and Their Putative Impacts Upon Society and Aerospace – Entering The Virtual Age. Technical Memorandum. Hampton, Virginia: NASA Langley Research Center, pp. 7, 10 and 16. [Website]
[75] Roco, M.C. and Bainbridge, W., Eds. 2002. op. cit., pp. 19 and 97. [Website]
[76] United States Army War College. 2004. Proteus: Insights for a New Age. CCRTS (Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium) Briefing, p.11. [Website]
[77] ibid., p.11. [Website]
[78] Hauth, C.P. 2010. Nanotechnology: Threats and Deterrent Opportunities by 2035. Research report submitted to the Air War College Air University. [Website]
[79] Dickson, S.A. 2007. Enabling Battlespace Persistent Surveillance: The Form, Function, and Future of Smart Dust. Blue Horizons Paper. Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College. [Website]
[80] Maize. 2019. What is Smart Dust? Maize®. [Website]
[81] Dickson, S.A. 2007. op. cit., pp. 26-27 and 29. [Website]
[82] Day, A.E. 2009. Disaster-Proofing Senior Leadership: Preventing Technological Failure in Future Nano-War. Blue Horizons Paper. Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, p. 1. [Website]
[83] Dickson, S.A. 2007. op. cit., pp. ii and 27-28. [Website]
[84] United States Congress. 2007. Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Public Law 110–53, 110th Congress, pp.111-114. [Website]
[85] Aileni, R.M., Suciu, G., Serrano, M., Maheswar, R., Valderrama Sakuyama, C.A., Pasca, S. 2020. The perspective of smart dust mesh based on IoEE [Internet of Everything Everywhere] for safety and security in the smart cities. In S. Rani, R. Maheswar, G. Kanagachidambaresan, and P. Jayarajan, Eds. Integration of WSN and IoT for Smart Cities book. EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series, pp. 151-179. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. [Website]
[86] Ramaian, C. P., Vinayagam, N., Ramanathan, K.P., Dhanraj, J.A., Selvaraju, N., Jenoris Muthiya Solomon, J.M., and Anaimuthu, S. 2023. A critical evaluation on design and development of smart dust sensor for mechatronics applications. AIP Conference Proceedings 2690, 020055. ISET International Conference on Applied Science & Engineering (Case 2021), pp.020055-1-020055-9. [Website]
[87] Connected World. Publication. no date. Getting Smart About Dust. [Website]
[88] Link, J.R., and Sailor, M.J. 2003. Smart dust: Self-assembling, self-orienting photonic crystals of porous Si. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 100, No. 19, pp. 10607–10. [Journal]
[89] Gatti, A.M., Ristic, M., and Montanari, S. 2023. Chemical-physical investigations of nine types of nasopharyngeal swabs for the PCR analyses. MOJ Biol Med. (MedCrave Online Journal of Biology and Medicine), Vol. 8, Issue 3., pp. 133-137. [Journal]
[90] ibid., pp. 134 and 135. [Website]
[91] Sailor, M.J., Li, Y.Y., Trujillo, N., Dorvee, J.R., 2006. Smart dust: Ferromagnetic photonic crystals derived from porous silicon. Proceedings – Electrochemical Society, 206th Electrochemical Society Meeting, 3 – 8 October 2004, Honolulu, HI. [Website]
[92] Neely, R. M., Piech, D. K., Santacruz, S. R., Maharbiz, M. M., and Carmena, J. M. 2018. Recent advances in neural dust: Towards a neural interface platform. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Vol. 50, pp. 64–71. [Journal]
[93] Gatti, A.M., et al. 2023. op. cit., p.136. [Website]
[94] Maize. 2019. op. cit. [Website]
[95] Nicholas Delcour, N., Duncan, L., Lancaster, P., and Vann, L. 2020. Estimation of Technology Convergence by 2035. United States Army War College, p. 108. [Website]
[96] ibid., p.108
[97] Evans, N.G. and Commins, A. 2017. Defining Dual-Use Research: When Scientific Advances Can Both Help and Hurt Humanity. The Conversation. [Website]
[98] Miller, S. 2018. Dual Use Science and Technology, Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
[99] Link, J.R., and Sailor, M.J. 2003. op. cit., p.10609 [Website]
[100] Millott, P.M. 2019. Review of *Nanoweapons: A Growing Threat to Humanity by Louis A. Del Monte. Potomac Books, 2017, 244 pp. Air University Press. [Website]
[101] Bushnell, D. 2001. Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]. Presentation to The 4th Annual Testing and Training for Readiness Symposium & Exhibition: Emerging Challenges, Opportunities and Requirements, National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), 13-16 August 2001. NASA Langley Research Center, p. 43. [Website]
[102] ibid., p. 81. [Website]
[103] Farinelli, F. 2021. Conspiracy Theories and Right-Wing Extremism – Insights and Recommendations for P/CVE. Radicalisation Awareness Network, European Commission. [Website]
[104] US Department of Homeland Security. 2021. National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin, May 14, 2021. Department of Homeland Security. [Website]
[105] National Science and Technology Council. 2000. National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology. [Website]
[106] National Academy of Engineering. 2024. Mihail Roco, National Science Foundation. National Academies: Sciences, Engineering, Medicine. [Website]
[107] The White House. 2023. Celebrating the 20-Year Anniversary of the Authorization of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. [Website]
[108] US Congress. 2023. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. 15 USC 7501. [Website]
[109] Hauth, C.P. 2010. op. cit. [Website]
[110] ibid. [Website]
[111] Garshasbi, M. 2021. Iran Among Five Pioneers of Nanotechnology. Modern Diplomacy. [Website]
[112] Roco, M.C., et al., Eds. 2013. op. cit., p.2. [Website]
[113] Graphene Flagship. no date. The Graphene Flagship. European Commission Horizon Europe research and innovation programme. [Website]
[114] Graphene Flagship. no date. Graphene Flagship Partners. European Commission Horizon Europe research and innovation programme. [Website]
[115] Graphene Flagship. no date. Industrialisation. European Commission Horizon Europe research and innovation programme. [Website]
[116] European Commission. 2022. Graphene Flagship. [Website]
[117] Gramm, J.D. and Branagan, B.A. 2021. Neurowar is Here! Thesis from the Naval Postgraduate School. [Website]
[118] Kavli Foundation. 2013. The Kavli Foundation and University Partners commit $100 million to Brain Research. Kavli Institute for Brain Science. [Website]
[119] Kavli foundation. 2014. Brain Initiative Press Conference. [Website]
[120] Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2020. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: Overview and Issues for Congress. CRS report prepared for members and committees of congress, p.19. [Website]
[121] The White House. 2017. National Security Strategy of the United States of America, p. 20. Washington, DC. [Website]
[122] Department of Defense. 2022. Department of Defense Technology Vision for an Era of Competition. Media release, US Department of Defense. [Website]
[123] Under Secretary of Defense. 2022. USD(R&E) Technology Vision for an Era of Competition. Memo, US Department of Defense Research and Engineering, pp. 1 and 2. [Website]
[124] Biden, J.R. 2022. Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy. The White House. [Website]
[125] ibid. [Website]
[126] McCormick. 2022. DOD tech chief Heidi Shyu receives 2nd Wash100 award from Executive Mosaic CEO Jim Garrettson. GovConWire. [Website]
[127] US Department of Defense. no date. Heidi Shyu: Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)). [Website]
[128] Edwards, J. 2022. DOD to invest $1.2B in biomanufacturing; Heidi Shyu quoted. GovCon Wire. [Website]
[129] Wikipedia. 2024. Heidi Shyu. Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia. [Website]
[130] US Army. no date. The Honorable Heidi Shyu, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics &Technology) and Army Acquisition Executive. [Website]
(Featured Image: “150606-N-PO203-115” by Office of Naval Research is licensed under CC BY 2.0.)
No comments:
Post a Comment