Air is one of the PRIMARY elements of life; without it for about three minutes, we cannot survive. If air is such an important biological and functional life component, why are weather geoengineers messing around with it?
They’re not, according to ‘official source’ denials.
Well, think again, since many independent and non-cabal-financially-sponsored “non-consensus scientists” are finding STUFF in the air we breathe that should not be there unless placed for nefarious reasons. What a mouthful! Is there any documentation to substantiate what I say? But of course! Would I say it, if there were none?
Well, I’m going to explain some things readers may find doubtful, interesting and even frightful, but cannot deny once you stop playing around with your iPhones, etc. and look up and study the sky, which no longer is the crystal clear gorgeous blue it used to be in my youth, since I was born during the Depression years.
Nano particles and Smart Dust [is] being absorbed by all of us via inhalation of chemtrail fallout and from contaminated grocery store food (including organically grown food) where the crops pick up and absorb the same Nano particles and Smart Dust that we are breathing in. In addition, food sources are intentionally being sprayed with Nano technology. I first became aware of “nanobots” as a component of chemtrails in 2005 when the topic of Morgellons first surfaced on the internet. These nanobots were somehow integrating themselves with biological functions inside people’s bodies producing these colored fibers and wire-like threads that would ooze out of lesions on the skin. I had no idea why some people produced the fibers and had the sensation of insects crawling under their skin, while other people had no symptoms at all. 
According to Tony Pantalleresco,
[W]e’ve been breathing in Nano particles in the atmosphere since the 1960s and they’ve been adding Nano particles to food since the 1970s. The expresion [sic] “Nano particles” refers to the size of the particles. A particle 1 micron wide is equivalent to one millionth of one meter, while 1 Nano is equivalent to one billionth of one meter. Our bodies can handle particles in the micron range, but Nano size particles in the 1-100 Nano range especially, cause a great deal of damage to the body. 
Tony should know; he’s been making videos about them! Tony explained them in this podcast.
He explains that many thousands of Nano particles are now residing in EACH human cell of all human beings (including you) and are integrating themselves with our biological functions to re-program our body (and our DNA) into an Android-like hybrid, that is part human biology and part Artificial Intelligence robotics. These Nano particles inside our bodies are activated by (and programmable from a distance) using radio frequencies (microwaves) and ELF waves. That means we are ALL being set up for a 21st Century version of enslavement employing electronic mind-control and body-control coercion harassment (which is what Targeted Individuals who call into the Ella Free podcasts are experiencing and talking about). 
Furthermore, there is much speculation the neurotoxic chemicals in all vaccines are part of that artificial intelligence robotics program!
There’s an amazing, astounding and seemingly unbelievable indication of what Tony contends, as a result of his research, being found in human bodies, and he demonstrates that using his arm and a special Anti-Nano Concoction protocol he created.
Towards the end of the video, he immerses his arm in the anti-Nano bucket (after first adding vinegar, distilled water, salt, DMSO and a capful of olive oil) and following a few minutes, you can see the Nano metal dust particles coming out of the skin and sticking to the floating oil globules. Jump ahead to 1:22 to see the Nano particles coming out of his skin. 
The above video, which I have watched in full and taken notes on, must be considered very seriously, as it deals with emerging protocols to counter Nano technology, which very few individuals know anything about, but all of us are exposed to and compromised by.
After watching more than an hour of his creating the electro-field bucket, Tony discusses the ‘recipe’ for the anti-Nano soaking mixture around 1 hour 12 minutes, more or less. The mixture includes cheap white vinegar, distilled water, salt, DMSO and oil, either olive or almond. The exact measurements are given. At 1 hour 24 minutes “results” (Nano-dust particulates) start showing up emerging from Tony’s arm soaking in the anti-Nano mixture. Tony recommends soaking your feet, but with certain precautions.
If you have any electrical device implanted in your body, DO NOT use this method; it is NOT FOR YOU!
If you have a heart condition or pacemaker, this is NOT FOR YOU!
Tattoos use Nano-inks, which get into the bloodstream. The younger generations, who have gone bonkers over tats, are playing right into the NWO artificial intelligence agenda. Can that be why tattoos are not government regulated? Tattoo inks are neither regulated nor tested by the federal government and are considered a health risk . However, most states regulate “body art studios.”
“The American Red Cross requires someone who has had a tattoo to wait a year before donating blood if the tattoo was applied in Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, Wyoming or the District — jurisdictions that do not regulate tattoo facilities.” 
Nano-dust and particulates make all human bodies receivers and transmitters, a necessary component for control of humans because we can be controlled by microwaves transmitted to those frequency receivers residing within our bodies. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
Furthermore, it’s my understanding that special “matching” frequencies even can be “designed” for those who have given DNA and body tissues sample, e.g., blood tests, which have been collected by certain ‘vested interest’ agencies doing such AI/transhumanism technology work.
Why is this happening?
It’s part-and-parcel of global weather geoengineering or “chemtrails,” which literally rain down 43 known chemicals and metals, especially aluminum—the key “tagging” mineral/element, which also is a constituent in most, if not all, vaccines.
Homo sapiens literally are being redesigned into another species created by man-made-technology. Will it be called Homo Nano-particulatem?
Is that the reason why “Sophia,” the humanoid robot, officially was made a ‘citizen’ of Saudi Arabia?
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
We have the reached the stage of AI Building AI. Our AI robots/machines are creating child AI robots/machines. Have we already lost control?
AI Building AI
is the next phase humanity appears to be going through in its technological evolution. We are at the point where corporations are designing Artificial Intelligence (AI) machines, robots and programs to make child AI machines, robots and programs – in other words, we have AI building AI. While some praise this development and point out the benefits (the fact that AI is now smarter than humanity in some areas, and thus can supposedly better design AI than humans), there is a serious consequence to all this: humanity is becoming further removed from the design process – and therefore has less control. We have now reached a watershed moment with AI building AI better than humans can. If AI builds a child AI which outperforms, outsmarts and overpowers humanity, what happens if we want to modify it or shut it down – but can’t? After all, we didn’t design it, so how can we be 100% sure there won’t be unintended consequences? How can we be sure we can 100% directly control it?
AI building AI: AutoML built NASNet. Image credit: Google Research
AI Building AI: Child AI Outperforms All Other Computer Systems in Task
Google Brain researchers announced in May 2017 that they had created AutoML, an AI which can build children AIs. The “ML” in AutoML stands for Machine Learning. As this article Google’s AI Built Its Own AI That Outperforms Any Made by Humans reveals, AutoML created a child AI called NASNet which outperformed all other computer systems in its task of object recognition:
“The Google researchers automated the design of machine learning models using an approach called reinforcement learning. AutoML acts as a controller neural network that develops a child AI network for a specific task. For this particular child AI, which the researchers called NASNet, the task was recognising objects – people, cars, traffic lights, handbags, backpacks, etc. – in a video in real-time. AutoML would evaluate NASNet’s performance and use that information to improve its child AI, repeating the process thousands of times. When tested on the ImageNet image classification and COCO object detection data sets, which the Google researchers call “two of the most respected large-scale academic data sets in computer vision,” NASNet outperformed all other computer vision systems. According to the researchers, NASNet was 82.7 percent accurate at predicting images on ImageNet’s validation set. This is 1.2 percent better than any previously published results, and the system is also 4 percent more efficient, with a 43.1 percent mean Average Precision (mAP).”
With AutoML, Google is building algorithms that analyze the development of other algorithms, to learn which methods are successful and which are not. This Machine Learning, a significant trend in AI research, is like “learning to learn” or “meta-learning.” We are entering a future where computers will invent algorithms to solve problems faster than we can, and humanity will be further and further removed from the whole process.
AI building AI: how will humanity control children AI when humans didn’t create them?
AI Building AI: Programmed Parameters vs. Autonomous and Adaptable Systems
The issue is stake is how much “freedom” we give AI. By that I mean this: those pushing the technological agenda boast that AI is qualitatively different to any machines of the past, because AI is autonomous and adaptable, meaning it can “think” for itself, learn from its mistakes and alter its behavior accordingly. This makes AI more formidable and at the same time far more dangerous, because then we lose the ability to predict how it will act. It begins to write its own algorithms in ways we don’t comprehend based on its supposed “self-corrective” ability, and pretty soon we have no way to know what it will do.
Now, what if such an autonomous and adaptable AI is given the leeway to create a child AI which has the same parameters? Humanity is then one step further removed from the creation. Yes, we can program the first AI to only design children AIs within certain parameters, but can we ultimately control that process and ensure the biases are not handed down, given that we are programming AI in the first place to be more human-like and learn from its mistakes?
“OpenAI’s Dr. Dario Amodei would point out that research conducted into machine learning often resulted in unintended solutions developed by AI. He and other researchers noted that often the decision making process of AI systems is not entirely understood and many results are often difficult to predict.
The danger lies not necessarily in first training AI platforms in labs and then releasing a trained system onto a factory floor, on public roads or even into combat with predetermined and predictable capabilities, but in autonomous AI systems being released with the capacity to continue learning and adapting in unpredictable, undesirable and potentially dangerous ways.
Dr. Kathleen Fisher would reiterate this concern, noting that autonomous, self-adapting cyber weapons could potentially create unpredictable collateral damage. Dr. Fisher would also point out that humans would be unable to defend against AI agents.”
Hal 9000, the evil computer/machine from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
AI Building AI: Can We Ever Be 100% Sure We Are Protected Against AI?
Power and strength without wisdom and kindness is a dangerous thing, and that’s exactly what we are creating with AI. We can’t ever teach it to be wise or kind, since those qualities spring from having consciousness, emotion and empathy. Meanwhile, the best we can do is have very tight ethical parameters, however there are no guarantees here. The average person has no way of knowing what code was created to limit AI’s behavior. Even if all the AI programmers in the world wanted to ensure adequate ethical limitations, what if someone, somewhere, makes a mistake? What if AutoML creates systems so quickly that society can’t keep up in terms of understanding and regulating them? NASNet could easily be employed in automated surveillance systems due to its excellent object recognition. Do you think the NWO controllers would hesitate even for a moment to deploy AI against he public in order to protect their power and destroy their opposition?
“Thankfully, world leaders are working fast to ensure such systems don’t lead to any sort of dystopian future. Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and several others are all members of the Partnership on AI to Benefit People and Society, an organisation focused on the responsible development of AI. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEE) has proposed ethical standards for AI, and DeepMind, a research company owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet, recently announced the creation of group focused on the moral and ethical implications of AI. Various governments are also working on regulations to prevent the use of AI for dangerous purposes, such as autonomous weapons, and so long as humans maintain control of the overall direction of AI development, the benefits of having an AI that can build AI should far outweigh any potential pitfalls.”
” … according to some new work from researchers at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,as well as other schools in Spain, the US, and Australia, once an AI becomes “super intelligent”… it will be impossible to contain it.
Well, the researchers use the word “incomputable” in their paper, posted on the ArXiv preprint server, which in the world of theoretical computer science is perhaps even more damning. The crux of the matter is the “halting problem” devised by Alan Turing, which holds that no algorithm is able to correctly predict whether another algorithm will run forever or whether it will eventually halt—that is, stop running.
Imagine a superintelligent AI with a program that contains every other program in existence. The researchers provided a logical proof that if such an AI could be contained, then the halting problem would by definition be solved. To contain that AI, the argument is that you’d have to simulate it first, but it already simulates everything else, and so we arrive at a paradox.
It would not be feasible to make sure that [an AI] won’t ever cause harm to humans.”
Meanwhile, it appears there are too many lures and promises of profit, convenience and control for humanity to slow down. AI is starting to take everything over. Facebook just deployed a new AI which scans users’ posts for “troubling” or “suicidal” comments and then reports them to the police! This article states:
“Facebook admits that they have asked the police to conduct more than ONE HUNDRED wellness checks on people.
‘Over the last month, we’ve worked with first responders on over 100 wellness checks based on reports we received via our proactive detection efforts. This is in addition to reports we received from people in the Facebook community.’“
With AI building AI, we are taking another key step forward into a future where we are allowing power to flow out of our hands. This is another watershed moment in the evolution of AI. What is going to happen?
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news siteThe Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.
Bankers, pharmaceutical giants, Google, Facebook … a new breed of rentiers are at the very top of the pyramid and they’re sucking the rest of us dry
This piece is about one of the biggest taboos of our times. About a truth that is seldom acknowledged, and yet – on reflection – cannot be denied. The truth that we are living in an inverse welfare state.
These days, politicians from the left to the right assume that most wealth is created at the top. By the visionaries, by the job creators, and by the people who have “made it”. By the go-getters oozing talent and entrepreneurialism that are helping to advance the whole world.
Now, we may disagree about the extent to which success deserves to be rewarded – the philosophy of the left is that the strongest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden, while the right fears high taxes will blunt enterprise – but across the spectrum virtually all agree that wealth is created primarily at the top.
So entrenched is this assumption that it’s even embedded in our language. When economists talk about “productivity”, what they really mean is the size of your paycheck. And when we use terms like “welfare state”, “redistribution” and “solidarity”, we’re implicitly subscribing to the view that there are two strata: the makers and the takers, the producers and the couch potatoes, the hardworking citizens – and everybody else.
In reality, it is precisely the other way around. In reality, it is the waste collectors, the nurses, and the cleaners whose shoulders are supporting the apex of the pyramid. They are the true mechanism of social solidarity. Meanwhile, a growing share of those we hail as “successful” and “innovative” are earning their wealth at the expense of others. The people getting the biggest handouts are not down around the bottom, but at the very top. Yet their perilous dependence on others goes unseen. Almost no one talks about it. Even for politicians on the left, it’s a non-issue.
To understand why, we need to recognise that there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our “human capital” in economic terms) to create something new, whether that’s a takeout app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth.
But there is also a second way to make money. That’s the rentier way: by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others’ expense, using his power to claim economic benefit.
For those who know their history, the term “rentier” conjures associations with heirs to estates, such as the 19th century’s large class of useless rentiers, well-described by the French economist Thomas Piketty. These days, that class is making a comeback. (Ironically, however, conservative politicians adamantly defend the rentier’s right to lounge around, deeming inheritance tax to be the height of unfairness.) But there are also other ways of rent-seeking. From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, from big pharma to the lobby machines in Washington and Westminster, zoom in and you’ll see rentiers everywhere.
There is no longer a sharp dividing line between working and rentiering. In fact, the modern-day rentier often works damn hard. Countless people in the financial sector, for example, apply great ingenuity and effort to amass “rent” on their wealth. Even the big innovations of our age – businesses like Facebook and Uber – are interested mainly in expanding the rentier economy. The problem with most rich people therefore is not that they are coach potatoes. Many a CEO toils 80 hours a week to multiply his allowance. It’s hardly surprising, then, that they feel wholly entitled to their wealth.
It may take quite a mental leap to see our economy as a system that shows solidarity with the rich rather than the poor. So I’ll start with the clearest illustration of modern freeloaders at the top: bankers. Studies conducted by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements – not exactly leftist thinktanks – have revealed that much of the financial sector has become downright parasitic. How instead of creating wealth, they gobble it up whole.
In other words, a big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body. It’s not creating anything new, merely sucking others dry. Bankers have found a hundred and one ways to accomplish this. The basic mechanism, however, is always the same: offer loans like it’s going out of style, which in turn inflates the price of things like houses and shares, then earn a tidy percentage off those overblown prices (in the form of interest, commissions, brokerage fees, or what have you), and if the shit hits the fan, let Uncle Sam mop it up.
The financial innovation concocted by all the math whizzes working in modern banking (instead of at universities or companies that contribute to real prosperity) basically boils down to maximising the total amount of debt. And debt, of course, is a means of earning rent. So for those who believe that pay ought to be proportionate to the value of work, the conclusion we have to draw is that many bankers should be earning a negative salary; a fine, if you will, for destroying more wealth than they create.
Bankers are the most obvious class of closet freeloaders, but they are certainly not alone. Many a lawyer and an accountant wields a similar revenue model. Take tax evasion. Untold hardworking, academically degreed professionals make a good living at the expense of the populations of other countries. Or take the tide of privatisations over the past three decades, which have been all but a carte blanche for rentiers. One of the richest people in the world, Carlos Slim, earned his millions by obtaining a monopoly of the Mexican telecom market and then hiking prices sky high. The same goes for the Russian oligarchs who rose after the Berlin Wall fell, who bought up valuable state-owned assets for song to live off the rent.
But here comes the rub. Most rentiers are not as easily identified as the greedy banker or manager. Many are disguised. On the face of it, they look like industrious folks, because for part of the time they really are doing something worthwhile. Precisely that makes us overlook their massive rent-seeking.
Take the pharmaceutical industry. Companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer regularly unveil new drugs, yet most real medical breakthroughs are made quietly at government-subsidised labs. Private companies mostly manufacture medications that resemble what we’ve already got. They get it patented and, with a hefty dose of marketing, a legion of lawyers, and a strong lobby, can live off the profits for years. In other words, the vast revenues of the pharmaceutical industry are the result of a tiny pinch of innovation and fistfuls of rent.
Even paragons of modern progress like Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Uber and Airbnb are woven from the fabric of rentierism. Firstly, because they owe their existence to government discoveries and inventions (every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll). And second, because they tie themselves into knots to avoid paying taxes, retaining countless bankers, lawyers, and lobbyists for this very purpose.
Even more important, many of these companies function as “natural monopolies”, operating in a positive feedback loop of increasing growth and value as more and more people contribute free content to their platforms. Companies like this are incredibly difficult to compete with, because as they grow bigger, they only get stronger.
Aptly characterising this “platform capitalism” in an article, Tom Goodwin writes: “Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. Alibaba, the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate.”
Olympic athletes are shaking in their boots: Engineers have released a somewhat disconcerting video showing Boston Dynamics’ Atlas robot effortlessly jumping over obstacles and doing a backflip while performing an impressive gymnastics routine.
The new video shows the Atlas robot, which is six feet nine inches tall (over 2 meters) and weighs 167 pounds (75 kg), casually jumping between platforms, turning around, and nailing a perfect backflip.
A real breakthrough comes when the humanoid is seen back-flipping off a block, and raising both arms to stick the landing. It’s not clear, however, how many takes the agile robot needed to perfect the feat.
The robotics firm made waves earlier this week after unveiling the newest version of its dog-like SpotMini robot. The electric-powered 30kg robot is armed with a set of 3D-vision cameras to avoid getting into trouble.