8 NeuroStrike – The Cyber, Cognitive, Nanotech and Electronic Gateway to Mindfully impaired Metaverse [McCreight]

PURVIEW

Images of a future world where humans are engaged in lifelong phony IOT/AI enabled fantasy universe  are frenetically engaged in a competitive long-term struggle with those choosing to dwell in reality for dominance. Reality is one thing, but AI enabled escapism is quite another. Youth have collectively signaled their preferences and fantasy seems likely to edge out extended excursions into reality wherein pain, setback, humiliation, and loss are prevalent. Regrettably, many under the age of 25 want that fantasy right now and cannot wait any longer for it to happen. Collegiate diversions to contemplate life’s hidden meanings and study enduring global mysteries hold no power over those who cherish entertainment over education.

Capturing the attention and focus of younger people is no longer reserved for the decade after 2030. Today calibrating an illusory threat, we neither comprehend nor display adequate expertise to decipher allows the cyber experts to engineer a future we may not want to inhabit. Instead, it beckons to those who shun the random, sometimes bizarre  and whimsical episodes which daily life offers. When quantum, AI and IOT [internet of things] combine in deliberate convergent ways for explicit entertainment infused among the masses who can resist or overcome its undeniable appeal. The rest of us opting out of cyber fantasyland cannot forecast what good things, perverse things  and some very bad  things might result. Those embarking on the risk of consuming unlimited unrestricted cyber entertainment must absorb the consequences. What warning flags or cautionary advice would dissuade those already smitten with cyber based fantasy? Can we foresee the engineered convergence of multiple technologies yielding anything but productive and beneficial outcomes? How about blending in nanotech, genomics, electromagnetics, and other technological dynamics? Should the experts pause to consider the impact or implications? What happens then? Will the net result be a better world or one where what Mankind has created via its unending curiosity an environment that  eventually swallows us all up? How will our minds be affected?

THE TAUTOLOGY OF TRUSTING IN TECHNOLOGY

What does the human constantly yearn for and what steps will humans undertake to achieve that? If we are truly on a path to a better more fulfilling life versus the apocalypse, then what is the best road to be chosen? Will the current trajectory of human aspiration, global society and civilization continue as in the past or divert in a new direction? Many will put their trust in technology as a rational and objective basis for answering these questions. They will do so without very much hesitation.

Some will prefer to continue the present uneven and fate-filled course. Holding technology at arm’s length attracts those doubtful the full array of expected and unexpected outcomes will be salutary. Others will reject that out of hand. Only a full embrace of all technology offers makes sense to them. Fearlessly the pursuit and support of unrestricted technology—convergent or not—is the antidote to stagnation.

Life itself needs a reboot and refocus that only objective unlimited application and investment in every aspect of technology can offer. For many this is the preferred path. Is there any doubt? Technology provides the answer to a multitude of global ills, doesn’t it? Technology unchained and supported continually by visionary leadership can bring about a level of global achievement, efficiency, stability, and relative security unencumbered by managers, politicians, and professors whose inherent fleshly capabilities are limited. The future and its essential socio-technical architecture is a comfortable alternative to swallowing more of the same. It allows one to jettison the past and all the trappings of unimaginative energy which hold back human destiny.

Without too much thought we routinely invest confidence and trust in modern technology. We find ourselves comfortably minimizing any  latent uncertainty when we board a jetliner or travel overseas by merchant ship trusting all will go well and safely. We abide by the assurances and confidence which positive experiences with technology have thus far conveyed. Technology itself is the pathway to a better future for all. Isn’t it? It harbors good things—not woeful things—correct? We have benefitted so richly from technology over the years can its rare and periodic setbacks ever nullify its frequent successes. If technology is king who then are its servants?

We govern what technology achieves in our name and faithfully executes the tasks given to it. As such technology is our handmaiden and workhorse obedient and tireless like the horse pulling a plow or a yachtsman steering his ship. We remain unsure whether that will always be the case and we harbor some serious doubt about whether our love affair with technology will end well or badly. Bent to our will and governed by well-educated and visionary brainiacs we expect technology to take us places we could never go to or experience without it. It is a clever and deceptive bargain in any case.

Technologies we hardly imagined 50 years ago such as cell phones, hypersonics, advanced genomics, quantum computers and vehicles for transiting space are prevalent and ubiquitous. The human brain has launched and nurtured these ideas and infused these technologies in ways that cause one to ponder if the brain itself is truly without limits. We must always balance the good with the bad, the expected with the unexpected, the known with the unknown. Recognizing we can hardly see the actual end of all things that today we can only dimly grasp should enable us to admit we wander into speculation. One might consider whether inquiries which push modern technologies into operational realms never merit a detached perspective. In effect we should insert caution—however frequently we do not. Far from being a wildly unpredictable jungle full of predators and risks embedded in nature, the decision to pursue and engage technology aggressively raises few caution flags. With applied genius, scientific rigor and professional dedication, experimental innovative excursions into modern technology are seen as manageable as controlling a drone with a joystick. In episodes like this we routinely trust the experts to know what they are doing.

Risks are inherently embedded in discovery and outcomes include both the known and unexpected. When scientists tinker with technology the rest of us have to invest some trust in their innovative theory—up to a point. After all whatever could go wrong is keenly understood within the limitless ambit of pristine human logic. Risk is always there but not to a degree that thwarts scientific inquiry and experimentation. Esteemed scientists have encountered these risks and pitfalls many times. This does compel serious thought about ramping up confidence , paring down uncertainty and expanding the art of the possible. Our brains, cognition and normal everyday neural functions are indeed spectacular and impressive. Is there a dark side that seldom gets attention? Is there a hidden dimension ignored? Is it reasonable to ask whether our brains and ordinary cognition are at risk? What are the boundaries of neuro-resilience? What threats our brains and cognition must be taken seriously? Are we asking the right questions?

We must reckon with the frontier into which technology invades a very personal space. Here we witness technology at work assisting 0r alleviating persons with emotional or mental health issues and those with traumatic brain injury. The MRI and the MeRT [Magnetic Resonance Therapy] used by neuroscientists offers a benign and helpful pathway to reduce mental stress and reductions in chronic brain problems. Here the admirable skills of public health aim to heal and restore people suffering a variety of mental health woes. It can readily be extolled as marvelous and conferring verifiable relief on those afflicted. Neuroscience remedies are wonderful things.

Our brains are also wonderful things, but they lack sustained defenses against external nefarious efforts to degrade and distort ordinary thought and cognition. To imagine a hostile nation that would subvert and redirect certain technologies to disrupt and destabilize the brain sounds ludicrous and offensive. We must note carefully and diligently that the threat emanating from this activity is genuine.

Targeting healthy brains to disrupt, impair, destabilize, and degrade their innate functions using stealthy technology sounds like Sci-Fi but it is not. We possess admirable cognitive instincts against danger, but our brains stop short of being alerted instinctively to every conceivable pitfall, calamity, and risk. There are biases and perspectives which inhabit our mind as much as creative and helpful thoughts often do. Trying to picture our brain as a target and an objective to be conquered, neutralized, and crippled by a determined clandestine foe seems alien. However, these days our attention should shift quickly to this provocative idea. It is happening to many people and has been verified as a confirmable neuroscience assault incident. Those adversely affected for years have stepped forward to claim harm and seek relief knowing a shroud of serious doubt and derision is often levied at them. These randomized attacks on human cognition and brain function are significant and have adversely affected thousands. Evidence abounds regrettably that this is happening all around us.

GRASPING THE ERA OF NEUROSTRIKE

When US diplomats first reported suspicious and bizarre brain maladies in the 2016-2018 period arising from their posting to Havana it was embraced by the media with a mixture of acceptance, doubt, and denigration. Numerous studies and reports on these incidents can be found which reflect a widening series of attacks on diplomats, US military personnel, intelligence community staff and those assigned to work in selected embassies on trade, commerce, or energy issues. (National Academies, 2020)  It is far less illuminating to know the actual number of verified victims than to ponder what technology could be causing this series of cognitive impairment events which I have termed NeuroStrike. (McCreight, Neuro-Cognitive Warfare: Inflicting Strategic Impact via Non-Kinetic Threat, 2022)

Media and armchair experts have launched their theories rooted in doubt and denigration where various explanations for the victim’s cognitive injuries have ranged from crickets to hallucinations, to emotional distress, to job pressures to indirect exposure to  Zika virus environmental spraying. All of these analyses are rooted in nonfactual analysis and faulty conclusions. While the actual number of victims, even continuing today, is less important than the fact that such insidious attacks persist at all without robust detection, defense, deterrence, and defeat measures we cannot fail to see the implications of NeuroStrike technology and sophisticated cognitive warfare dominating the decades ahead. Convergent technology will continue at a pace which far exceeds our ability to understand or manage it. (McCreight & Sincavage, The Significance of Convergent Technology Threats to Geospatial Intelligence, 2019)  Biochemical, neuroscience, electronic warfare, RF biophysical effects, acoustic biophysical effects, nanoparticles, and magnetic factors  are blended in a debilitating convergent technology which signifies the complex NeuroStrike threat. It enables the owner of NeuroStrike to derive the quintessential leverage which ancient Chinese sage Sun Tzu observed allows one to win a war ‘without firing a shot.’

Thinking about how silent, covert, and insidious neuro-modulators can impair cognitive functions, damage analysis, and decimate ordinary reasoning along with speech, memory and spatial orientation is likewise relegated to a time cloaked in distant science fiction. We know otherwise. Not because we subscribe to conspiracy theory or allow ourselves to depict a dark and dystopian future rooted in abject cynicism or submit to hallucinogenic drugs. Instead, we know history has demonstrated humanity has a deeps seated lust and enduring appetite for technology that fascinates, entertains, amuses, and simplifies life’s problems. So, it is with innovative technology, complexity convergent technology, and technology that alters our sense of what is real and unreal. For many, the virtual world has more net appeal than the real one and those talented geniuses in our midst are driven to acquire it as soon as feasible.

Is this a recipe for madness? Or is it a world instead where machines, computers and AI technology do our bidding, attaining quantum insights and secures advances in social and economic wellbeing we long for perpetually? Our innate fascination with the seductive value of technology and what it potentially offers can hardly be dismissed. Worse, we lack wisdom not only in gauging the known risks we face but grappling with the myriad unknown risks attached to any future convergent technology engineering venture. This absence of wisdom accrues to experts and scientists alike.

Intuitively we are accustomed to reliance on egghead experts. In fact, in some cases, we carelessly delegate the task of making complex decisions to further societal progress towards scientific elites. This most frequently happens because we lack proper estimates of the design, operational structure, and dynamics of the venture they are sponsoring. Do we also unwittingly assume the downstream risk and unforeseen consequences which produce potential negative outcomes for society have been assessed and homogenized to our benefit? Are we truly aware and cognizant of the persistent problems quantum computers and AI can resolve—or regrettably and inadvertently generate? If anything, enhancing NeuroStrike scope and effectiveness via quantum AI, and unlimited IOT involves risks we can hardly envision let alone regulate. Yet here we sit keenly aware of the beast at our doorstep but entranced and distracted by TV, entertainment, and vapid expressions of cultural awareness masquerading as education.

We can hardly be blamed for wanting to harness technology which improves life for all, creates abundance, economic security, improved health, upgraded quality of life and still manages to solve mankind’s most acute problem while we sit back and watch movies or request another beverage. However, there is always the inevitably unexpected spate of outcomes which can be brutally damaging and then it is often accompanied by unseen or hardly anticipated costs and societal consequences. Not to worry you say. Just like TV, jetliners, computers, and plastic surgery the initial fears and skepticism are overblown and display a haphazard disregard for the promise of technology as savior.

However, if our doubts, concerns, and risk awareness are justifiable we find ourselves once again reliant on the closed shop cabal of scientists who are extremely happy to be entrusted to navigate and accelerate  our collective societal wellbeing. Too often this scientific mafia of experts decides what is ‘good’ for all people based on their superior intellect. Supported and funded by their retinue of endorsers and policymakers who ramrod their presumptive expertise and technological preferences into massively consequential decisions affecting the unwashed masses. The naively trusting public  must always endure the immediate and long-term consequences of scientific largesse absorbing the best and unseen worst of their ideas and technological ventures.

Quite simply and predictably we trust these big decisions to those experts who have earned our collective trust and civic confidence. We imagine that like a jetliner rolling down the runway at takeoff speed the entire flight will be smooth, safe, and pleasurable. It is akin to the unstated confidence we invest in medical doctors to know what they are doing, conduct proper diagnoses and find the prescription for better health. The degree of automatic trust involved is overwhelming. In like manner we have invested similar levels of trust in science and technology for their salutary effects. But is that a foolish default position for society to adopt so unthinkingly? A trusting public unaware of risk and potentially negative outcomes remains comfortable with the view science and technology is the pathway to a better life. Is it flawed to think that experts trust science, worship technology and are energetically committed to achieving all that focused brainpower and technology can accomplish? Not necessarily but it could be so.

All our flawed thinking, blind ignorance and error prone behavior is steered faultlessly toward ever more perfect and optimal outcomes because we seek it so urgently. If the pathway to a better future resides in the convergent mix of IOT, AI, quantum, and the promises of nanotech, ChatGPT and the metaverse why would anyone aim to thwart that? As a result, we have placed our support behind mixing these technologies in explicitly convergent strategies to attain a better future. (Ortiz, 2023) In effect, we openly create an electronic gateway to a more ideal, tranquil, stable, and secure future where that formula is attractive. Many see this as a calculated gamble which nullifies the annoying diversions, errors, blind spots, and costly surprises which have historically plagued human thought. In effect this sophisticated convergent technology venture is well worth the risk—assuming we truly grasp the risks involved. Isn’t that the pathway and outcome modern society and organized great nations ought to pursue with robust enthusiasm and confidence? Why should anyone raise concerns or pose cautions when engineering advanced convergent technology itself is the difference between progress and maintaining the deceptive array of gadgets we know as normal?

NEUROSTRIKE—CONSIDERING ITS CYBER DIMENSIONS   IOT/CHATGPT

The immediate future in modern society is one transfixed and endlessly entertained by quantum, IOT, cyber leverage and the introduction of ChatGPT unveiled in November 2022. Expectant society welcomes all the beneficial changes and revolutionary outcomes which these technologies offer to society dimly aware that hidden and ambiguous risks are blended with –but dwarfed—by images of limitless progress. Can a hopeful society be blamed for such enthusiasm? Technological breakthroughs and skillfully mixing emerging complex and hybrid technologies earn a welcome from the general public because it contains the promise of a  simplified and enhanced ordinary life.

The internet of things [IOT] dwells harmlessly in our midst and operates magically in human space as a means of communication—so we think. However, the standard cell phone is always searching for and receiving signals which it finds useful or which it has relied on many times before. Those thousands of signals drifting and bouncing among people in a crowded shopping mall stores, relays and searches other signals in that mishmash environment which the phone itself is designed to identify and connect with apart from any decision the user or owner may have. Our reliance on cell phones and the amazing IOT network behind them connecting us to devices anywhere in the world via satellite or other means  purely out of sight and mind. However, we must remember our brains are truly hardwired to display sensitivity and a degree of receptivity to electromagnetic activities around us whether we are cognizant and aware or not. It raises the intriguing question of whether cellphones can be instruments of passive mind influence and cognitive control. A question best left as speculative—for now.

Cyber, IOT, quantum and ChatGPT are truly fascinating and laden with extraordinary promise. By themselves they offer grand visions of a better life for many. Caution is justified as the realities of unrestricted technology convergence is not well understood. Justifiable confidence in engineered convergence is the fundamental  root of wide civic faith in what advanced technology might produce. However, where many advanced areas of scientific inquiry such as genomics, nanotech, biotech, cyber mechanics, geomagnetic systems, and electronics are explicitly merged and engineered via deliberate convergence  is fraught with risk and uncertainty. In exchange for every conceivable outcome that is valuable and beneficial there is a hidden, unexpected, and ambiguous array of risks. Worse, our collective ability to estimate and foresee all adverse and dangerous outcomes from technology convergence is opaque and often delusional. This is the central dilemma and evokes a security nightmare which is embedded in a headlong race to engineer convergence of IOT, quantum and ChatGPT.[Generative Pretrained Transformer] (BROWNE, 2023)

It is simply because all possible, unexpected, secondary, and downstream adverse consequences of such deliberate engineering symbolize a level of trust which society can ill afford. Traditional reliance on science and technology experts to overcome these shortfalls and hidden risks displays a level of misplaced confidence which is dangerous. This is especially troublesome as our enemies, rivals and foes have no compunction about engaging in this odyssey of convergent engineering because they seek to secure an invincible strategic advantage.

The explicit convergence of these technologies contains zero risks according to some critics who see benign text-based regurgitation of massive databases, an inability to persuade, influence, reason or imagine in complex cognitive operations equivalent to the human brain. Just blending these innovative technologies includes a manageable set of risks they say where a system defaults to a trove of stored data and facts. However, the threat involved is clearly insidious. This makes the issue more complex as those regimes which threaten our future security will pursue insidious convergent engineering to leverage their strategic projection and power. We understand the explicit blend of IOT, cyber, AI and ChatGPT contains these risks

–there are no operational, legal, or ethical boundaries [no moral corpus]

–it does not yet acquire self-aware capabilities but eventually could do so

–can potentially acquire competitive analysis and critical thinking

–it is potentially capable of blended deep fake misdirected phony communication

–it retains the capacity to generate deceptive, fraudulent, and incorrect decisions

–it can misguide and misdirect decisionmakers who rely upon it

–it is not impervious to external hacking and anonymous external control

In effect, the engineered blend of IOT, cyber, AI and ChatGPT fails to convey to its human overseers the inherent capacity to transparently view the good, bad, and ugly of its internal operations, focused queries, and generative outcomes. Building safeguards or kill switches into the convergently engineered mix of these technologies does not appear to be under consideration. But it should be. The merger and explicit convergent engineering of ChatGPT, quantum, IOT and cyber over the next few years contains risks and unseen consequences which even the experts cannot fathom.

In 2014, Elon Musk called AI humanity’s biggest existential threat and compared it to demonizing the devil, “One of the biggest risks to the future of civilization is AI,” Musk told attendees at the 2023 World Government Summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, shortly after mentioning the development of ChatGPT. “It’s both positive or negative and has great, great promise, great capability,” Musk said. But he stressed that “with that comes great danger.” More recently he mentioned at that summit that we lack  skilled and sophisticated appreciation for its hidden risks—not just its attractive benefits. Elon Musk, who co-founded firm behind ChatGPT, warns A.I. is ‘one of the biggest risks’ to civilization   (Browne, 2023)

Merged elements of ChatGPT, IOT, cyber, and other convergent technologies is not only happening now but will continue to happen in the unrestricted wild west wide open space that nurtures creativity, innovation, and free thinking. Nations oblivious to ethical constraints and mindful of its strategic leverage will seek to expand and invest in these dangerous convergent mixes. Worse, terrorists, criminal enterprises and proxy guerilla warfare states can expect to acquire this capability—or rent it—for their own nefarious purposes. Laid back society snoozing comfortably amidst NETFLIX, Grubhub, endless video games, fitness activities,  mindless Grammy infused music tsunamis and Tik Tok will never see it coming. It is here already. But the dazed confused clueless will likely  remain entranced and unfocused mired in staggering narcissism consuming hours of their own entertainment as US national security is exchanged for escapist relaxation.

Collaboration among like-minded criminal experts will also open the doorway to installing nanotech issues and stealthy neurotoxins where it is most beneficial to them. If you imagined cocaine and fentanyl was poisoning youth just picture a generation turned into Tim Tok zombies unable to sense when their wellbeing and security is in jeopardy. Will the West truly awaken from a woke stupor in time? What about our enemies, foes, and rivals? What leveraged opportunities exist for the bad guys to redirect these technologies against us? What conceivable countermeasures will limit their work?

The essential warning derives from a fundamental awareness of how our bodies, brains and internal systems respond to electromagnetic waves, signals, and influences. Gateways to crafty external human exploitation and nefarious misdirection within the brain and its cognitive subsystems starts with a keen awareness of how electromagnetic phenomena interact with our brains and nervous systems. We know that transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a technique used to induce a short-term interruption of normal activity in a restricted area of the brain caused primarily via rapid changes using a strong magnetic field near the focus of treatment activity. Modern technology, including  nonionizing radiation from power lines, wireless devices, cell phone towers is ubiquitous in our society and unavoidable. Along with that are risks arising from extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) which routinely surround home appliances as well as high-voltage electrical transmission lines and transformers. Evidence of adverse health effects from EMF, including its controversial influence on the brain, ranges from studiously inconclusive to menacingly harmful. Few experts today wish to conclusively state that continuous EMF exposure is a genuine health hazard. However, we do know that exposure to elevated levels of non-ionizing energy, such as at radio wave frequencies, can potentially  damage the structure and function of the nervous system. In some ways the perverse politics of environmental science mitigates a deeper dive into human health implications as the sacred agenda of those who express alarm versus those arguing for benign effects cannot readily agree. (Staff, 2017)

Hence there is ample room for caution when considering the next neurological effects of electromagnetic factors and technologies on human brains. Does that issue stop the application, research and innovation of such technology given this caution? Not really. We are left to isolate and study what the net impact of electromagnetic technologies may be in both immediate, long term and their latent effects. (WHO -Staff, 2016) (Zwoinska & al., 2015) (N.J.Cherry, 2003) (Tennenhouse, 2018)

DEALING WITH THE COGNITIVE, NANOTECH AND THE ELECTROMAGNETIC GATEWAY

Humans are distinctly composed biophysically and biochemically as repositories for electromagnetic activity and the record of human sensitivity to, and influence by, electromatic factors is beyond debate. There is little if any debate about the nature of human sensitivity to and reaction to electromagnetic fields [EMF]. The intensity of electromagnetic radiation in the human environment emanating from these fields– which are ubiquitous and normally found in developed areas—are both significant plentiful in human health terms. Normal EMF impact on living organisms derives from its direct tissue penetration. More specifically, the nature of our brains as a biological organ automatically includes a degree of electromagnetic sensitivity and responsiveness to EMF. Scientific theory and research into human intelligence notes that in order to retain intelligent thinking and sustain cognitive systems there needs to be a constant, globally available, synchronization system that continuously stabilizes the brain. Here the significance is found in the  electromagnetic signaling system, supported by a biochemical system. EMF exerts both a thermal and nonthermal effect on brain tissue and its effects on other parts of the body [nervous system, endocrine system, visual system, cardiovascular and immune systems] are well established. More specifically EMF radiation is reported to affect the central nervous system, brain chemistry and histology, and the blood-brain barrier. We also understand limited medical applications of EMF for treatment and diagnostic purposes found in the electroencephalograms (EEGs) and MRI [magnetic resonance imaging] used to treat neural disorders are commonplace. Repurposing and re-engineering these technologies for harmful, disruptive, and damaging effects is just as real.

Effects of pulsed and sinusoidal ELF fields on the electrical activity of the nervous system have also been studied extensively. While only high-intensity sinusoidal electric fields or rapidly pulsed magnetic fields induce sufficient current density in tissue  to alter neuronal excitability and synaptic transmission or to produce neuromuscular stimulation their net effects at verified intensities are beyond dispute. When a person focuses attention or tries to remember something this activity fires thousands of neurons simultaneously at the same frequency generating a wave — but at a rate closer to 10 to 100 cycles per second. Along with the brain the heart is the largest and most potent electromagnetic field inside the body exceeding brain electromagnetic sensitivity by 60 times.

It is well known that weak EMF could cause all sorts of dramatic non-thermal effects in body cells, tissues, and organs. The observed symptoms are hardly to assign to other environmental factors occurring simultaneously in the human environment. Although, there are still ongoing discussions on non-thermal effects of EMF influence, (WHO) has classified radio electromagnetic fields as potentially carcinogenic. Electromagnetic fields can be dangerous not only because of the risk of cancer, but also other health problems, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a phenomenon characterized by the appearance of symptoms after exposure of people to electromagnetic fields, generated by EHS is characterized as a syndrome with a broad spectrum of non-specific multiple organ symptoms including both acute and chronic inflammatory processes located in the skin and nervous systems, as well as in respiratory, cardiovascular systems, and musculoskeletal system.

When nanotech aspects are added to EMF influences available research shows high risks of ambient neurotoxicity exists not only from nanotech in foods, the environment and within medical treatments such as vaccines. This is not claiming a deliberate and perverse conspiracy to poison people and render then silent bio-transducers of external ELF signals. Instead, this is simply to draw attention to the ramped-up risk for human health based on the presence of nanoparticles in various aspects of our normal lives dwelling covertly  there largely without our knowledge or consent. So, ELF by itself generates many legitimate human health questions but when paired with the existence of nanoparticles in the environment, our bodies, and our food we may want to pause and consider its impact and ramifications on cognitive degradation issues, brain biochemistry and the overall degree to which our DNA has been altered in ways that fundamentally change our humanity. We know painfully well that anxiety, depression, and even self-harm can be linked to youth saturation with social media technology. Again, this is not aimed to condemn nanotech but to shed light on its prevalence in our society, ordinary social media, and diet in order to highlight the studies which underscore human health risks and suggest we need to know more about its borderline toxicity. In effect, our collective combined trust juxtaposed with our ignorance of nanotech complicates a rational analysis of its insidious contributing impact. (WHO – Staff, 2017)

Part of the electronic gateway facilitating NeuroStrike is the obvious nexus between cyber, AI, quantum and space platforms which send, receive, and resonate electronic signals enabling long distance transmission of allegedly benign but potentially harmful RF and electromagnetic energy which has the capacity to injure or impair cognitive functions. While the era of precise targeting of humans in large groups—i.e., cities, buildings or gathering places—all at once in the form of a planned attack seems remote. To many people it smells of borderline Sci-Fi antics gone amuck. However, creativity in this sphere of research admits a wonderfully complex convergent matrix of integrated technologies creating a pathway for its eventual appearance along with a few unexpected issues. It is not far-fetched to imagine satellite leveraged EMF directed to clueless cell phone users or equivalent signals disruptive of normal synaptic and dendrite connectivity inside the brain. Neural waves contain low levels of magneto-electronic activity, and we must acknowledge that many modern high EMF-emitting satellites in space which are being used to enhance internet speed, video surveillance and communication here on earth can exert that effect whether intended or not.

In 2012 chemists at New York University (NYU) created a nanoscale robot from DNA fragments that walks on two legs just 10 nm long. This so-called “nanowalker,” with the help of psoralen molecules attached to the ends of its feet, takes its first baby steps: two forward and two back. Its creators envisage a future molecule-scale production line, where molecules are shifted until the right location is reached. In this unique way a nanobot injects chemistry like “spot-welding” on a car assembly line. This is a decent example of “biomimetics,” where with nanotechnology they can imitate some of the biological processes in nature, such as the behavior of DNA, to engineer new methods and even improve them. So, while its medical benefits are clear, the perversion of such science for insidious and damaging purposes by nefarious actors and state sponsored enemies is also reinforced.

Recently a study published in 2022 in the Journal Neurology found that a higher daily intake of ultra-processed foods was associated with a substantially higher risk of dementia. The researchers were also able to determine that substitution of some ultra-processed foods with unprocessed or minimally processed foods was associated with a lower risk of dementia. In that study 72,000 participants were identified from the UK Biobank and all participants were at least 55 years old and did not have dementia at the start of the study. Participants were followed for an average of 10 years, during which they filled out questionnaires regarding their diet which included processed foods. By the end of the study, 518 people were diagnosed with dementia. The controversy over nanotech, including independently credible assessments of its actual risks, always confronts supporters and detractors. The WHO recently went on record as well saying,

“The properties of nanomaterials, and of engineered nanoparticles in particular, have raised concern about unwanted or unexpected interactions with biological systems, which could result in adverse consequences to human and ecosystem health. Though rapidly growing, knowledge on these aspects is limited and many uncertainties remain. “ (McMillen, 2015)

So, the unanswered questions about nanoparticles in food, their net impact on how the body and brain store and contend with their presence and the implications of stored nanoparticles in terms of human health is a subject not often addressed or discussed among major media. So, we are left to speculate about the interactive aspects of nanotech embedded as it is with RF, electromagnetics and other technologies this far mentioned on human neurological health. For example, the chart below simply illustrates a portion of the nanotech effect in our food supply. (Ghebretatious & et.al., 2021) (Gaidos, 2015) (Sahdev & et.al., 2014) (Nature Reviews – Staff, 2021) (centerforfoodsafety.org – Staff / Editorials, 2023)

                                                    Figure 8-1:  Extract from Nanoparticles in Food Raise Safety Questions

Source: (Gaidos, 2015)

As a direct consequence we now have reason to raise concerns about IOT, cyber, quantum computers, nanotech, EMF, and related substances which form an arguable electronic gateway into human mental functions, cognition, and brain health. Apart from marvelous and beneficial aspects of medical research and scientific inquiry seeking to blend these technologies into better human health we understand the covert engineered diversion and perversion of these technologies for impairing cognition and degrading neurological health is plainly wide open to exploitation by bad actors. This confers an entirely new meaning to the conventional term ‘brainstorm’ which does not explicitly refer to the lightening quick appearance of a great idea or insight Instead it depicts the covert insidious destruction and degradation of cognitive health, neurological wellbeing via external nonkinetic technologies which exploit neurobiological vulnerability.

Worst of all we find it difficult to ascertain sponsored government or industry hosted objective studies which outline the impact, risks and consequences of engineered technology convergence involving these disparate systems on the human body and brain. Is this yet another area where trusting the experts and allowing periodic government scrutiny and oversight supply the margin of safety, we consumers expect? What entity provides the safeguards to create speed-bumps and guardrails around the explicit mixing of technologies without examining the immediate and long-term effects of their engineered combination?

So, we are left to ponder the degree to which social media and pervasive influence factors such as Tik Tok. Aside from its appeal as entertainment, serving as a platform for exchanges of video material among people, it provides a subtle but powerful impact on human cognition especially among young adults whose brains are still undergoing cognitive growth and biophysical maturation. Their brain chemistry and neurological stability are still developing and yet that offers the ripest and most delectable target for Tik Tok designers to exploit.

Tik Tok  symbolizes and reflects a wider confluence of exploitive technologies having a measurable effect on young brains, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors which is still regarded as benign and annoying by many adults and our own government. Our Congress is focused on the issue as Senators Hawley of Missouri and Rubio of Florida have proposed bills that would bar Tik Tok from government IOT devices. In addition, Senators Blumenthal of-Connecticut and Moran of Kansas teamed up to demand the Biden administration impose a wall between TikTok’s U.S. operations and its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. A Senate hearing urged TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew “to consider his platform’s harm to a generation of Americans.” “TikTok is digital fentanyl,” said Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., the chair of the new House select committee in China. (Scott Wong, 2023)

Judging from prevalent effects which social media has on young people and adults we must draw renewed attention to its indirect neurological influences which are detrimental. Tik Tok illustrates the almost hypnotic influence which that platform has on youngsters and its ability to trigger, support, and encourage dangerous and destructive behavior such as the various and infamous  Tik Tok challenges’ which so often result in physical harm to those succumbing to its Ethernet whims. A 2021 study on TikTok’s specific neurological effects examined how Douyin, China’s TikTok equivalent, affects Chinese college students’ brains. It found that watching personalized, algorithm-selected videos activates reward centers in the brain much more than watching random videos that have not been chosen specifically for the viewer. (Miller, 2022)

In a  2022 Harvard medical review of the issue involving Tik Tok it was found that the first known examples of social media-induced sociogenic illness were recognized in the period 2020-2022, a time coinciding with the pandemic. Neurologists began seeing increasing numbers of patients, especially teenage girls, with unusual, involuntary movements and vocalizations reminiscent of Tourette syndrome. After ruling out other explanations, the tics in these teenagers seemed related to many hours spent watching TikTok videos of people who report having Tourette syndrome and other movement disorders. Posted by social media influencers, these videos have billions of page views on TikTok; related videos are available on YouTube and other sites. (Shmerling, 2022)

Indirect but effective neurological disruptions and displacement of normal cognitive functions tied to the visual, auditory, and routine sensory ingestion of social media such as Tik Tok on a regular basis indicates more must be done to sort out any hidden NeuroStrike factors and injurious elements of these media. We lack a comprehensive understanding of their net immediate, long term and covertly embedded impact on young minds and whether they open the door to other forms of external influence, manipulation, or control. Being naive about this threat and separating it conveniently from other influence technologies such as AI, quantum, cyber, nanotech and EMF is a dangerously narrow-minded strategy which thwarts a comprehensive strategic assessment of its genuine power. We do not know enough to provide cautionary warnings which are preventative and timely for those most likely to be affected.

The central task is not to raise alarms and point to unmanaged risks arising from the explicit and deliberate blending of these technologies. Our goal is to pinpoint our innate vulnerability to the silent hidden and perverse engineering of these technologies for which we lack strategic warning, adequate defenses, robust deterrent measures, and operational strategies to nullify and defeat those who would wield such damaging technology against us. Opportunities for enemy interests to magnify the scope, scale and effect of these insidious technologies are unlimited for several reasons

• We are focused on and distracted by glossy kinetic high dollar defense systems
• Evidence of deliberate NeuroStrike technology in enemy hands is unconvincing
• We lack hard facts about the exploitable neural pathways for NeuroStrike
• We lack consensus on candidate technologies which comprise NeuroStrike
• We are unable to accept that enemy interests have perfected NeuroStrike
• We are far from finding powerful countermeasures to nullify NeuroStrike

The key challenge after 2022 is discerning the nature, scope, scale, magnitude and focus of enemy NeuroStrike capabilities. We must devise effective deterrent and offsetting technologies ourselves to diminish a threat that has been ripening and maturing for at least a decade. Military and civilian leadership is at critical risk that NeuroStrike will only become more sophisticated as time unfolds and its damage to larger groups of people is manifest. Building defenses is important but even more so is the task of attaining resilience against it.

BUILDING NEUROSTRIKE RESILIENCE IN THE MIDST OF TECHNOLOGY TSUNAMI

When one imagines a future replete with modern state-of-the-art technological breakthroughs and emerging complex and hybrid technologies the general public welcomes anything which simplifies and enhances ordinary life. However, where many advanced areas of scientific inquiry such as genomics, nanotech, biotech, cyber mechanics, geomagnetic systems, and electronics are explicitly merged and engineered via deliberate convergence  into something never before seen our collective ability to estimate and foresee adverse and dangerous outcomes is opaque and ambiguous. This is the central dilemma and security nightmare which a headlong race to devise, develop  and sustain an ill-defined Metaverse includes.

Using a mix of the most advanced science and technology systems and platforms to create a faux parallel cyber grounded reality esteemed and admired as more inherently attractive and beneficial than reality itself. The quest for a metaverse where no organizational, personal or government entity can assume primordial governance and creative ownership of it opens the door to insidiously dangerous mischief where our neural and behavioral safeguards and intuitive autonomous systems are outmaneuvered. It creates to a degree, so far unanticipated or expected, an evolving appetite for dwelling in the allegedly majestic and fantastic environment which the metaverse promises to establish.

NEUROSTRIKE: A METAVERSE IMPAIRED MINEFIELD

The metaverse is a set of virtual three-dimensional spaces where you can share immersive experiences with other people even when you cannot be together. It will be inherently social; you will be able to hang out with friends, collaborate with colleagues, learn, shop, and create – among other things. Its most enthusiastic supporters and fanatical endorsers cannot see any downside to the emergence of the metaverse and welcome its arrival warmly as a life experience enhancing experience.

Being mindful the metaverse swallows up, replicates, and substitutes itself for reality with seductive immersion in V/R and A/R, humans are ill equipped to divert their attention away from so attractive a source of faux enlightenment. Here it is truly insidious qualities are revealed as deftly skilled AI, quantum and IOT engineers achieve a parallel experiential universe more appealing and satisfying than real life itself. One must accept the fact that those wishing to dwell inside the metaverse will always be open to its invitation and some will enter for a brief period and be deluded while others will opt to remain there much longer. The deceit is grounded on the principle that access to the metaverse is not exclusively by their own choice as any would believe. Instead, just as the maturation of quantum, AI, IOT, nanotech, neurobiological factors, EMF, Magento-biology and NeuroStrike demonstrate it is orchestrated externally as a covert weapon of influence destabilizing leaders, managers, commanders, and everyday people.

A healthy dose of skepticism seems warranted here. It is attractive because it offers an escapist gateway into a faux reality that allows an endless series of fantasy adventures and unlimited entertainment experiences which can be terminated easily by simply unplugging form the program or removing the special V/R equipment. But wait a minute!! The metaverse is not just VR! It is not just one dimensional. Those metaverse junctions and entry ports will connect the person with AR glasses and launch them into a world of unrivalled imaginary experiences in dreamlike quality where the person actually sees themselves operating in that virtual environment. One of its chief sponsors and supporters has said, “…there will be a real sense of continuity where the things you buy are always available to you.” (Shah, 2021)      Other metaverse advocates say,  “.the metaverse will be an infinite realm that blankets both the physical and virtual worlds. At its core will be a self-contained economy that allows individuals and businesses to create, own or invest in a range of activities and experiences. Like the internet, it will not be just one thing–but several layers of different technologies, products, and languages.” (NOBELL, 2023)

They argue vehemently that the metaverse bridges physical and digital realities in ways where the interface offers a spatial version of the Internet . . . Ideally, the metaverse is highly customizable and as separate or integrated into our physical realities as necessary—and desired. Therefore, the metaverse experience can be altered from the individual’s point of view and shaped or curated by any number of agents—whether human or A.I. The metaverse, together with our physical locations, forms a spatial continuum. The very materials of the metaverse are math and imagination, so we can create buildings or garments made here to function in new, more ambitious, and inspired ways than their counterparts in the physical world. (CHERUKURI, 2021)

Advocates for the metaverse will extol its benign and harmless features. It will find a place in everyone’s living room along with the TV, fireplace  and couch. Consumers and entrepreneurs will all be able to interact amid the metaverse. Gamers, and coworkers sitting around a table as digital holograms for a conference as opposed to a video call, making virtual meetings seem more natural as it is in 3D. The A/R and v/R applications of the metaverse are limitless and it really can become the next great version of the internet. These depictions of the metaverse—especially by its most ardent fans—sound useful and beneficial. But like every other technology discussed thus far that can influence, leverage, alter and undermine cognitive functions and neurological activity there is adequate reason for caution.

These cautions are rooted in several fundamental questions which ought to guide, govern, and inform further excursions into ambitious enthusiastic metaverse development

— what regulatory, safeguards and security principles will apply to it?

— what organization, entity or group will control, manage, and provide it?

— what restrictions, boundaries, cautions and requirements will be included in it?

— what measures will be taken to ensure that those visiting it can freely depart from it?

Here there is room enough for serious doubt, cynicism, and outright repudiation as even the most strident supporters of the metaverse can argue it is still decades distant  in appearing and scientifically impossible to establish. In effect many dispute whether a metaverse can even be devised, developed  and sustained. Excursions into the metaverse by persons and families are not just PG-13 ventures into a dreamworld where one can operate with elements of freedom and emerge safely back into reality unscathed either psychologically or neurologically from the experience. In fact, there is no scientific evidence which provides assurance that those inhabiting the metaverse for 30 minutes and returning back to reality are the same people in terms of their cognitive security and intellect. Measuring what actually happens to the human brain while swimming inside the metaverse remains an unknown equation and arcane theory as yet unproven and unknown. Look at the extraordinary precautions we used to prepare astronauts for space travel. Did we plan to do as much for those wearing V/R headsets?

Again, the essential concept of a dual parallel reality available for a short V/R diversion, or a multi-day investment of time indicates people may wish to inhabit the false reality as superior and more rewarding than real life itself. What is more perverse is considering the capability of evil geniuses devising a Metaverse as friendly and accessible as Tik Tok where kids and adults alike can disappear and never return—either mentally or physically. This would entail the deliberate collective engineered convergence of quantum, AI, EMF, nanotech, magneto-biology, and other technologies  to validate an operational universe playland where thousands would drift towards it for the fantasy experience just as surely as throngs await the next generation smartphone release. Too much to imagine? Very unlikely and too Sci-Fi to contemplate? Well then consider the reality of NeuroStrike itself. If you doubt that its effects are genuine—anything science and technology produces is ironically attractive.

Metaverse dilemmas can arise in expected and unexpected ways and reside in subtle venues which have many security implications deserving a closer look.  There are simply too many ramifications of metaverse adoption to be exhaustively examined and discussed here but sensible caution and risk management criteria must be diligently applied to avoid succumbing to the nuanced and seductive nature of presumptive metaverse benefits.  With the emergence of every single dual use technology in the 21st century we must confront the hidden, unknown and subtle risks of misusing or redirecting that technology away from its benign and beneficial intentions and capabilities  to create instead an unforeseen weapon or instrument of societal repression and control.  Dual-use Science and Technology [DUST] is the hallmark of 21st century creativity and power  but contains within itself also the ingredients of humanity’s demise.

More sensible and coherent risk analysis must be applied to fully grasp the implications of the metaverse on many of our essential societal and industrial systems. While it can never be assumed that unethical and unscrupulous hostile nations, terrorist groups or criminal elements will reject using the metaverse to acquire more power, leverage control and unleash mayhem it is a stark warning.  It means that modern civilized nations blissfully unaware could be targeted and therefore must remain  wary and vigilant to grasp the true spectrum of metaverse threats. This calls for serious sophisticated wargaming of metaverse risk scenarios—who will do it?

For example, if the metaverse expands under a climate of unfettered technology oversight it can readily be used by institutions, organizations, government and the military to covertly impose a regulatory scheme in social, political and economic spheres by concentrating cyber power in vested groups who possess custodial controls over it.  Observers have called the metaverse a ‘convergence of virtually enhanced physical reality operating seamlessly in a parallel virtual’ space’ coexisting with bona fide reality itself. (Vanorio, 2020) We know the metaverse as envisioned skillfully blends augmented reality [AR] with extended reality [XR] utilizing a mixed reality system [MR] to create a virtual reality world [VR]. The MR construct enables free flowing movement between genuine reality and AR where the user enters the VR portal causing real data and images to be replaced by virtual data and images. Thus VR fulfills its designer’s ultimate purpose by smoothly replacing the real world with a simulated one.

This means using AR/VR technology enables the illusion and felt experience of trading genuine reality for a cyber created reality.  This has serious and unforeseen security implications of long-term concern. We are already familiar with digital replication technologies, erasing images from video streams to alter a landscape, being fooled by deep-fakes and other alternative distortions of visual perception where a person’s actual location is at considerable variance with what VR says is his/her augmented location.  So the metaverse could make images of people appear in places where in reality they are not.  Crisis management, military threat analysis and spatial orientation to confirm place and location would be compromised.  Memories, emotional reactions and behavioral anomalies could occur impairing breathing, heart rate, judgement and balance.  Likely the true physiological and neurological impact of metaverse experience has never been medically evaluated for its overall human effects.  This begs the question of how that would be accomplished and verified to enable safe continued metaverse operations.

At least two aspects of the evolving metaverse merit a pause—its dark web and physical-cyber threats.  Some have argued the metaverse is more dangerous than the dark web because of the pseudo-physical presence of the users  mimicking clandestine physical meetings versus the purely online open discussion threads in dark web criminal forums. (Numaan Huq, 2022)  It seems almost everything a user does will be under unlimited surveillance by the metaverse owner/ operators who will enjoy unprecedented visibility into user actions where privacy conveniently evaporates.  Tyrannical and repressive regimes can use the metaverse to control, subdue and govern people as state owned metaverse operators collect troves of user data and exploit it for advantage.   As an example, critical infrastructure (CI) facilities will have physical equipment connected to metaverse platforms featuring ‘helpful’ digital twins ostensibly for safety and maintenance reasons which enables benign remote work.  However, it also potentially exposes CI to external cyberattacks via the metaverse and theoretically brings in outsiders able to sabotage CI systems and functions. Criminal access to a power plant’s digital twin can exploit it to gain unlawful access to the plant’s internal systems or its internal ICS/SCADA environment. Worse criminals can use digital blueprints of the site to plot their attacks or plan entry/ exit approaches to power plants and possibly nuclear reactors.  How does this change the set of risk considerations and security measures which must be incorporated to offset this?

Another disturbing area of metaverse intrusion which seems harmless at first would be full-body actuator suits giving users [surgeons and maintenance personnel] the ability to physically feel things inside the metaverse. Metaverse systems can allow users to touch an object, sense a push, feel a jump, experience the interactive elements, and derive the ‘hands on’ feel of reality. However, this opens the door to dangerous  cyber-physical threats where malicious code embedded in these body suits can cause a malfunction, endangering the user by inducing extreme heat, cold, pain or visual effects distorting reality to triggering seizures.  Criminal elements can gain access to bodysuits via cyber intrusion and monitor the user’s actions.

Curbing adoption and implementation of metaverse technologies will be difficult. Champions advocating metaverse use will be relentless during the 21st century. Those harboring doubts or legitimate concerns will encounter stiff and resolute resistance from inventors, scientists and civilian leaders who will extol its many benefits while overlooking its risks and security pitfalls. Again the forces of modernity may prevail over those hesitant to embrace all the good and bad which comes along whenever DUST is accepted and promoted.

What we have described about the metaverse is worth thinking about. Using a mix of the most advanced science and technology systems and platforms to create a faux parallel cyber grounded reality much more inherently attractive and beneficial than reality itself we stumble upon the ultimate escape. The quest for a metaverse free space where no organizational, personal or government entity can assume primordial governance and creative ownership of it is breathtaking. However, it opens the door to insidiously dangerous mischief where our neural and behavioral safeguards and intuitive autonomous systems are outmaneuvered. It creates to a degree, so far unanticipated or expected, an unrequited and evolving appetite for dwelling in the allegedly majestic and fantastic environment which the metaverse promises to establish. For all to enjoy.

In strategic terms as the decade beginning in 2020 rolls ahead without hesitation into its third year, we face a crossroads of geopolitical analysis where assigning blame and ultimate responsibility for both the good and bad arising from the engineered convergence of these technologies must be assessed. In more stringent terms we must confront the degree to which explicit convergence of these technologies actually confers the kind of strategic advantage which leverages global history in favor of one nation over the others. It is therefore fair to ask who benefits from this massive endeavor?

STRATEGIC MYOPIA AND CHINA BLINDNESS

In  turn this historic crossroads must be assessed against the present-day forces of geostrategic reality. Dominant military enterprises, research institutes, decades long R&D ventures in innovative technology and sophisticated high-tech espionage depict the Peoples Republic  today. Their relentless quest to sit atop the global superpower club drives their respective ambitions and unlimited appetite to further the deliberately engineered technology convergence which is the heart of this essay. This is not to claim that other nations are not busy pursuing the same set of outcomes but  instead to reinforce the point that the West—especially the USA—is woefully behind in the frantic race for supremacy in this arena. Worse, many of these nations are blissfully unaware that Chinese military investment in and perfection of this set of convergent technologies is happening at a pace and scale which conveys a distinct strategic advantage. This is both myopia and China blindness. There is no immediate remedy for the shortcoming but reckoning with it honestly as a serious security shortfall is a start. Kinetic systems capture the imagination and win the lion’s share of budget dollars. There is a disturbing tendency among commercial and government leadership to favor short term issues and challenges over the longer-term view which deals explicitly with the security and stability of the enterprise itself. This is also known as strategic myopia which refers to intense focus on short term issues, gains, objectives, and challenges to the extent that anything longer term is ignored, overlooked, or diminished in significance. For example, having the US focus on the Russia-Ukraine war, or climate change, or the World Economic Forum dicta about ESG to the utter exclusion of legitimate geopolitical threats such as China, secure US borders, drug cartel dominance in Mexico, declining leverage in US made goods and trade imbalances and many others. When one contemplates the insidious, gradual, and covertly growing momentum which convergently engineered IOT, quantum, nanotech, metaverse perversion and NeuroStrike symbolizes the threshold endgame significance as tipping point strategic leverage becomes clear. Tragically, among senior US defense leadership—both civilian and military—there is ample manifestation of strategic myopia which fosters widespread concern. Traditional defense bulwarks such as new weapons systems, investing in troop training, upgrading special operations versatility, overhauling logistics requirements,  acquiring space, IOT, quantum and nanotech superiority have fallen into a quiet trance. Our defenses against future biotech, synthetic biology and genomic weapons are at least 15 years behind their most desirable position. Even some senior Pentagon officers have spoken out about this aware that their energetic call to arms is being ignored in the process.

“I will be very honest with you. It is very unsettling to see how much the US is not connecting the dots on our number one challenge,” Rear Adm. Mike Studeman, the commander of the Office of Naval Intelligence, told attendees here at the West 2023 conference in San Diego. “It is disturbing how ill-informed and naïve the average American is on China. I chalk this up, if I could summarize, into a China blindness. We face a knowledge crisis and a China blindness problem,” he continued. Studeman’s blunt comments come as the White House, the Pentagon, and the country at-large deal with the fall-out of a Chinese high-altitude balloon that violated US airspace  (Katz, 2023)

So, the question lingering in the atmosphere is simple—If the NeuroStrike threat is real and it is founded on the explicit convergent engineering of several key technologies mentioned herein which the USA has thus far overlooked, dismissed, or ignored what does that suggest about future American security and societal stability among our allies in the West? The answer is to speculate openly about at least three outcomes…

1—West and USA discern NeuroStrike threat effectively confronting and defeating it

2—West and USA dismiss/ignore NeuroStrike threat and become 3rd rate powers

3—The NeuroStrike threat scenario never happens at all is the globe is secure

PRIMARY PRINCIPLES AND THE PRIMACY OF THE POO POO PASHAS

The underlying principles in grasping NeuroStrike entail a mix of technologies combined with well-established and scientifically verified studies of negative cognitive effects stemming from the so-called Frey effect and the work of acoustics genius Ross Adey. Of course, deniers, artful dodgers from the intelligence community, and media hawks unaccustomed to probing scientific phenomena which contain anomalies will inhabit the poo poo pasha sect. Those focused on truth and medical facts must arrive at a different conclusion. Very simply the nonkinetic yet invasive neurological  degradation system called NeuroStrike is very real and has dozens of government scientists and other experts engaged in validating its operational metrics and discerning ways to thwart its effects. Defense of persons and creation of early warning and eventual countermeasures to quell NeuroStrike attacks in the future is well underway.

This fact exists apart from the faux vision of reality which the leader of US intelligence at ODNI denies is ‘hostile’ or originates from a foreign threat source. (ODNI, 2023) The denial of NeuroStrike as a legitimate threat is puzzling and counterintuitive for several reasons. First there are hundreds of victims seeking authentic cognitive treatment and relief where medical experts are today attempting to reduce cognitive degradation effects. Secondarily the reports of random isolated NeuroStrike attacks remain viable and confirmable as recently as March 1, 2023-coincidentally the same date as ODNI denies its authenticity. Thirdly a dedicated cadre of experts are investigating the contributing factors underpinning NeuroStrike on both sides of the Atlantic and they are pursuing this quest without the ODNI bias that so-called victims are experiencing episodes of emotional or psychological trauma. Fourth, the laws passed by Congress to compensate verified victims of NeuroStrike have been in place for 2 years and some have been reimbursed for their medical expenses and others continue to seek qualification under those laws for onward treatment. Fifth, prominent US government analysts and diplomats who have gone on record with media interviews have never repudiated their basic narratives about the effects of NeuroStrike on themselves and their families.

A dilemma of genuine national security proportions looms from this analysis because if the technology behind Havana Syndrome [i.e., NeuroStrike] is real, and such attacks continue, and thousands of people remain injured from this technology, and we have reason to suspect a foreign power controls this technology and it poses a future threat to military and civilian leadership as well as ordinary warfighting troops we have a problem. Is it a problem more serious than global warming, equity or finding pathway to sustainable development—indeed it is. But unless our leadership sees it that way, we risk becoming victimized strategically for lack of vision and geopolitical courage.

So, we are left with a conclusion that is far more plausible and credible than an official denial levied by a US government agency. After all the sordid experience of Americans with COVID amply illustrates a breach of trust between citizens and their government on the trustworthiness and reliability of guidance on masks, shutdowns, vaccines, and what cohort groups ought to be vaccinated we can read for ourselves the hypocrisy involved. The primary principles on NeuroStrike which emerge from all this are

• NeuroStrike is real and authentic, not imagined or theoretical.
• NeuroStrike attacks have damaged many hundreds of victims thus far
• NeuroStrike attacks continue into 2023.
• Technologies at the core of NeuroStrike are under serious investigation.
• Protecting US diplomats, military, and IC personnel against NeuroStrike is key.
• Determining if ordinary US citizens have been victimized by NeuroStrike is key
• Discerning the technological core of NeuroStrike is a paramount security goal
• Devising defense/deterrence/defeat technologies against NeuroStrike is key.
• Confirming foreign sponsors/owners of NeuroStrike is a priority security issue.

Surely there can be little doubt that fundamentally these principles must guide our national survey and inquiry about NeuroStrike over the next few years to dispel all doubt, decode any lingering mystery and validate its technological essence and foreign sponsor well before 2025. If we have trouble seeing the confluence of cyber, AI, nanotech, the metaverse and mixed RF, magnetic, acoustic, and vestibular factors involved then one should join the critics who regard NeuroStrike as an evil fantasy.

To overlook. misjudge or underestimate the strategic significance of NeuroStrike and its indirect links to AI, cyber, nanotech, ChatGPT and the metaverse is a fatal error. The linkage is palpable and insidiously unfolding outside the facile and inquisitive eyes of major media and academic experts for two good reasons. Number one they are in love with modern technology and all it potentially offers. Number two, they are abysmal in discerning threats to society rooted in advanced technology as their paradigm posits a world made comprehensively better because of technology itself. Years ago, the prescient author Mary Shelley wrote about the dangers of science and renegade ego running amuck in her famous treatise on Frankenstein where the monster devours its creator. We risk the same outcome because of widespread arrogance and naivete where the contours of unrestricted technology as threat vs technical savior wins out. (Shelly, 1818)

There is ample room for caution, doubt, and skepticism when one combines AI, nanotech, cyber, neurotechnology and ChatGPT into some amorphous insidious convergent monster that strips humanity of its sovereign controls over mental functions and cognitive operations. However, that reasonable signpost of caution and doubt must be dispelled in part because the obvious and latent convergence of these technologies has already happened and is being upgraded for effectiveness and reliability. It reflects a concept also known as ‘attack surface management’ [ASM] which involves a combination of people, processes, technologies, and services deployed to continuously discover, inventory, and manage an organization’s assets. These assets can be both internal and external, and they pose digital risks. This visibility can help reduce exposure that could be exploited by malicious threat actors which entail internal, external, and digital risks. (Paloaltonetworks – Staff, 2022) The unknown vulnerabilities we confront or ignore will spell out our collective humanitarian future.

The watchword being offered here is that often we are blind to the full spectrum of our own vulnerabilities which opponents can exploit to their advantage. While it makes sense to consider that ChatGPT, AI, cyber systems, nanotech, neurobiological impairment platforms and the Metaverse can convergently combine in insidious ways to harm us it requires some strategic perspective. The ASM construct suggests we may be ignorant of all internal, external, and digital risks—including the oft neglected phigital realm where digital and human factors coincide and dwell harmoniously. The day will surely arrive when scientists and innovative engineers bereft of a moral code will create a cyborg that is autonomous and refuses to heel to our desperate bidding. Only then will we fully comprehend the future Frankenstein which our imaginations have been born.

What must happen today and urgently is to liberate ourselves from viewing the net impact of convergent technology  on humans and its incipient fascination. It is a dangerously flawed assumption which distracts us from the genuine challenge. Instead, we ought to refocus ourselves towards establishing human direct and indirect influence over all technology itself including strategies for zero-day controls and kill switches. By protecting our innate cognition, perception and mental functions against technological interference, theft, and hostile manipulation we can survive in spite of the machines which so ardently seduce us in spite of ourselves. We must take a different pathway. The reciprocal option is that human logic, perception, imagination,  thought and design can warmly persuade us that nothing less than direct control, confinement, absolute  restriction and daily vigilant governance of technology is our best hope.

FINDING A WAY FORWARD AGAINST NEUROSTRIKE

The NeuroStrike threat is genuine and has racked up thousands of verifiable victims awaiting some form of cognitive relief and genuine treatment to alleviate the persistent disabling syndrome its victims endure. Today Europe and the United States can awake from a dangerous stupor and recognize the era of targeted cognitive warfare where NeuroStrike is all but invincible is truly upon us. Such powerful technology in the wrong hands, or in the hands of amoral scientific ghouls based in any society, leads us into a miasma of cognitive chaos and abject mental cannibalism. Certainly, enemy possession of this technology can covertly bring down society, its leaders, and its government with surgical precision as the technology is improved and modified to adversely affect a wider target audience. If this remains an unknown threat and an unrecognized vulnerability, we are doomed. Many will fall victim to its enduring appeal especially for those who would seek to subdue us all and control human behavior conclusively as a blatant power move. This cannot be allowed to happen.

If it fails to be clear now it should soon emerge as the obvious preferred scenario choice listed that choice #1 is the best path forward for America and the West. Recognizing, confronting, and defeating all manifestations of the NeuroStrike threat is paramount. This will require devising robust early warning, sensor detection capabilities, defensive and deterrent technologies, and standoff systems to impose nullification and defeat of the NeuroStrike threat. This implies also finding a validation architecture for forensic analysis to determine and validate the origin of future attacks. The term ‘attack’ seems off-putting and controversial to so many. However unpopular or quasi-offensive the term ‘attack’ may be, it clarifies exactly what is happening. Technology is targeting humans to strip them of cognition, will and logic and it edges every day towards a finer degree of perfection.

A better term than ‘NeuroStrike attack’ is needed to make the idea more resonant with a doubtful public and civic leadership? Should such terminology be clear enough that the old and noticeably young readily grasp its significance and rail energetically against its continuation? Brain wars are clear enough and cognitive conflict is appealing, however it must be a concept we all recognize as a foundational threat to humanity. There can be no latent ambiguity. Can we call it a ‘hostile brainstorm” and thereby acquire wider public approval and support? The jury is still out on the question. It is not at all clear—the only thing that is fundamentally clear is what happens to civilization if we continue to ignore or overlook the NeuroStrike threat. Doing so is truly not good at all.

REFERENCES

BROWNE, R. (2023, Feb 15). CHATGPT. (https://www.cnbcevents.com/davos/, Interviewer)

Browne, R. (2023, Feb 15). elon-musk-co-founder-of-chatgpt-creator-openai-warns-of-ai-society-risk. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/elon-musk-co-founder-of-chatgpt-creator-openai-warns-of-ai-society-risk.html

centerforfoodsafety.org – Staff / Editorials. (2023, Mar 15). nanotechnology and our food supply . Retrieved from https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org: https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/682/nanotechnology/food-and-nanotechnology

CHERUKURI, N. (2021). Interview. Retrieved from https://www.thirdeyegen.com/: https://www.thirdeyegen.com/

Gaidos, S. (2015, Oct 16). Nanoparticles in foods raise safety questions. Retrieved from https://www.sciencenews.org: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/nanoparticles-foods-raise-safety-questions

Ghebretatious, M., & et.al. (2021, Feb 16). Nanoparticles in the Food Industry and Their Impact on Human Gut Microbiome and Diseases. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33669290/: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33669290/

Katz, J. (2023, Feb 15). naval-intelligence-admiral-naive-american-public-has-a-china-blindness-problem. Retrieved from https://breakingdefense.com/: https://breakingdefense.com/2023/02/naval-intelligence-admiral-naive-american-public-has-a-china-blindness-problem/

McCreight, R. (2022, Sept 16). Neuro-Cognitive Warfare: Inflicting Strategic Impact via Non-Kinetic Threat. Retrieved from https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/: https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/neuro-cognitive-warfare-inflicting-strategic-impact-non-kinetic-threat

McCreight, R., & Sincavage, &. S. (2019, Jan 25). The Significance of Convergent Technology Threats to Geospatial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://trajectorymagazine.com/: https://trajectorymagazine.com/the-significance-of-convergent-technology-threats-to-geospatial-intelligence/

McMillen, M. (2015, July 15). Nanoparticles: Small Size, Big Health Concerns? Retrieved from https://www.webmd.com/: https://www.webmd.com/special-reports/food-additives/20150723/nanoparticles-food-additives#:~:text=Titanium%20dioxide%2C%20the%20most%20common%20nanoparticle%20in%20food%2C,dioxide%20as%20%22GRAS%2C%22%20or%20generally%20regarded%20as%20safe.

Miller, M. (2022, April 13). Is ‘TikTok Brain’ Affecting Kids? Retrieved from https://www.verywellhealth.com/tiktok-brain-5225664: https://www.verywellhealth.com/tiktok-brain-5225664

N.J.Cherry. (2003, Jun 60(6):843-4. doi: 10.1016/s0306-9877(03)00027-6.). Human intelligence: the brain, an electromagnetic system synchronised by the Schumann Resonance signal. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12699709/: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12699709/

National Academies. (2020, Dec 5). New Report Assesses Illnesses Among U.S. Government Personnel and Their Families at Overseas Embassies. Retrieved from https://www.nationalacademies.org/: https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2020/12/new-report-assesses-illnesses-among-us-government-personnel-and-their-families-at-overseas-embassies

Nature Reviews – Staff. (2021, Feb 9). Let’s talk about lipid nanoparticles. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41578-021-00281-4

NOBELL, N. (2023). the metaverse will be an infinite realm that blankets both the physical and virtual worlds. Retrieved from https://www.callisonrtkl.com/: https://www.callisonrtkl.com/

Numaan Huq, R. R. (2022). Metaverse or Metaworse? Cybersecurity Threats Against the Internet of Experiences . TrendMicro Rsearch.

ODNI. (2023, March 3). US Intelligence—No Evidence a Foreign Power Behind Havana. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3879732-us-intelligence-says-havana-syndrome-unlikely-caused-by-foreign-adversary/

Ortiz, S. (2023, March 10). what-is-chatgpt-and-why-does-it-matter-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/. Retrieved from https://www.zdnet.com/: https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-chatgpt-and-why-does-it-matter-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/

Paloaltonetworks – Staff. (2022, April 5). Innovation Insight for Attack Surface Management. Retrieved from https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/resources/research/innovation-insight-for-sttack-surface-management: https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/resources/research/innovation-insight-for-sttack-surface-management

Sahdev, P., & et.al. (2014, Nov 22). Biomaterials for nanoparticle vaccine delivery systems. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24848341/

Scott Wong, K. S.-K. (2023, Feb 18). Momentum builds in Congress to crack down on TikTok. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/congress-tiktok-ban-social-media-harms-teens-rcna70998

Shah, V. (2021, Oct 29). What is the Metaverse? Meta’s Vishal Shah explains. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/EFTMonline/videos/: https://www.facebook.com/EFTMonline/videos/what-is-the-metaverse-metas-vishal-shah-explains/6474011812672174/

Shelly, M. (1818). Frankenstein-or-The-Modern-Prometheus. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Frankenstein-or-The-Modern-Prometheus: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Frankenstein-or-The-Modern-Prometheus

Shmerling, R. H. (2022, Jan 18). Tics and TikTok: Can social media trigger illness? Retrieved from https://www.health.harvard.edu/: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/tics-and-tiktok-can-social-media-trigger-illness-202201182670

Staff. (2017, Nov 3). how-the-human-body-creates-electromagnetic-fields. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/11/03/how-the-human-body-creates-electromagnetic-fields/?sh=32a879a356ea

Tennenhouse, E. (2018, May 25). What Magnetic Fields Do to Your Brain and Body. Retrieved from https://www.discovermagazine.com/: https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/what-magnetic-fields-do-to-your-brain-and-body

Vanorio, F. (2020). Metaverse: Implications for Security and Intelligence . NATO Defense College Foundation Paper.

WHO – Staff. (2017, Feb 2). WHO guidelines on protecting workers from potential risks of manufactured nanomaterials. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550048

WHO -Staff. (2016, Aug 4). questions-and-answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields

Zwoinska, J., & al., e. (2015). Electromagnetic field induced biological effects in humans. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27012122/: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27012122/