Ecosystem ending ideas

Why am I posting something so dangerous?

17 hours ago I posted an analysis of the “No Virus” psyop. The response I got far exceeded my expectations. If you ever wondered how people act when they are trapped in a cult read the comments. These are real life, real time observations everyone can use to develop a comprehension of human behavior.

The most interesting observation I make from the comments so far, is willful blindness. I post a link to Genbank, to answer the “no virus” mantra, “Show me 1 study…”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/virus/vssi/#/virus?SeqType_s=Nucleotide&VirusLineage_ss=SARS-CoV-2,%20taxid:2697049

and every time the person who says “Show me 1 study…”, ignores the answer.

So either they did not click on the link because they did not want to look at 10,000 + studies, or they could not understand what they were looking at. I observe this to be willful blindness.

How powerful is willful blindness?

The Modern Warfare Institute knows how powerful manipulating perception and memory is. They do a lecture on it:

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/mwi-video-dr-charles-morgan-neurobiology-war/

These guys have very dangerous ideas. What’s more is they have the knowledge and resources to make ideas a reality. This article is me trying to outdo them.

Back to my observations from the comments on:

There was a particularly intelligent commenter who said:

• “…method where they deliberately spread an idea (like the flat earth theory) and observe how fast and far it spreads and how people buy into it”

My response talked about network stress testing in the digital world and airframe structural testing in the physical world. The network stress testing in the “No Virus” psyop looks like it is designed to create a network map of people against the Covid narrative. The psyop designers plant a false idea, sometimes decades in advance, and then watch to see how it grows. My own article about psyops is probably now being studied in their database of “network observations”.

My point about airframe structural testing using the physical analogue of a network “ping”, was to highlight the idea of resonance in addition to network spread. With aircraft, a physical “ping” or vibration is introduced to one part of the airframe, and the spread of vibration is measured. Resonance is also measured. Why resonance is important is that it quantifies the number of physical repeats (resonance) a structure makes in response to a “ping”. A bad resonance can destroy a physically strong airframe through endless physical repetition.

For the “No Virus” psyop, the “resonance” is how often people repeat the “pinged” narrative. As you can observe from the comments on my previous article, some people resonate or repeat incessantly. In aluminum airframe design, resonances can turn into critical points of failure in structural design.

Is this true for digital network resonances as well?

What about people network “resonances”?

---

What resonances can you observe in my substack, going back to my very first post?

Are there ideas that I repeat? What “resonates” in my substack?

---

One of the hallmarks of true thought systems, as opposed to false ones is consistency. The thought processes I apply unto others I also apply unto myself. Is my article on psyops itself a psyop? Or is it an anti psyop psyop? Or is it something different. Analyse it and you come to your own conclusion!

What type of thought system is Principa?

---

Back to dangerous ideas:

The Westpoint lecturers at Modern Warfare Institute talk about dangerous ideas that have been made into reality. Dr. Charles Morgan who I posted above was a thought system changer for me. For another eye opener watch or read the transcript of Dr. Giordano.

One feature of the thought system I use, is application of mathematical principles. The integral and derivative are my favorite dimension changing mathematical functions.

I use it in a very important theology lecture I did in Medicine Hat Alberta.

https://rumble.com/v2g2bla-11th-commandment-medicine-hat-ab.html

Observe that lecture from the mathematical perspective of calculus and enjoy.

---

Today’s mathematical function is limit. Limit means just that. Taking something to the limit or endpoint. If there is no endpoint, then it is limitless.

My thought process last night was to take “dangerous” to the limit. The endpoint was limitless danger.

Why am I doing this?

• Why is the logical integral of how. How is the derivative of Why.

  • How I am doing this by applying the mathematical process of limit?

Because this idea is so simple, I think it is unlikely someone hasn’t done it already. It is as simple as Tesla’s idea to manipulate weather through low frequency radio waves causing resonances in the ionosphere.

Especially given the existence of the Modern Warfare Institute and all their dangerous theoreticians and scholars, I am sharing the limit of dangerous, to the point of unlimited, because this concept is such that any coder with moderate resources can implement it. Why should the deep state with their unlimited budget keep their monopoly on power? I am sharing power with everyone who has enough knowledge to code.

First off, this idea is not completely my own. It is just a logical extension of what Dr. Charles Morgan talks about at 34:37 in this video.

The idea is translating binary code (computer data) into DNA, using DNA as a “storage device”, and then retrieving the data by decoding the DNA. Spies no longer have to carry tiny memory cards, they can exfiltrate stolen data by smearing their bodies with genetically altered yeast.

The key here is DNA as data, and data as DNA. What sparked the limitless idea was an email exchange I had with someone who used to know machine language and assembly language. (If you don’t know what those are, the wikipedia articles are still accurate)

---

Machine language has binary letters, 0 and 1, with 8 bit words.

Each word has 256 possibilities. 8 bit machine language has 2 to the power of 8 or 256 words.

DNA is a quaternary alphabet with 4 letters. A, C, G, T. DNA words for amino acids that can be polymerized into proteins come in 3 letter blocks. Chain together a bunch of 3 letter DNA words into a sentence then you have a protein.

Therefore there are 64 words in a DNA to amino acid language. (4 to the power of 3) 3 letter words chained into a sentence, makes amino acids (words) into a protein (the sentence). Take enough “sentences” and put them together, you get a book (or a biological body if each “sentence” is a protein)

---

The dangerous part

Write a script (a block of code) to translate quaternary DNA into binary and then you can try running binary versions of DNA data on machines. Most of the time I suspect the code will be unusable and result in a stack overflow.

Depending on the reading frame chosen, the binary code translated from quaternary code DNA might be complete nonsense, but the shear size of the human genome gives millions of different reading frames. (What are the chances that one or more of these reading frames is valid machine code?)

My educated guess on the most likely word length to yield viable code is 4 letter words. e.g. the Amino Acid translation of DNA uses 3 letter words, but to translate DNA into machine language the same segment of DNA might have to be formatted into 4 letter words. (Why do I say this? Because 4 to the power of 4 is 256 — the same number of words as 8 bit binary where 2 to the power of 8 is 256)

---

The limitless dangerous idea

(And why)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/human/

The “reference” human genome is 928 megabytes. A moderately talented coder could write a script to translate all reading frames into binary, in formats using 3 letter DNA words all the way up to 8 letter DNA words. Looking at different start letters can be done as well. For example the “start” word for DNA into amino acid is “AUG”. Just because that is the start word inside as cell doesn’t mean that the same start word is used on a chip. It could be “UGC”, “GCTA” or “CTAGC” for the “binary” machine reading of DNA.

Once translated into binary, that code has to be tested against all the known chip architecture's machine code instructions. So a binary to assembly reverse assembler is needed. Assuming one finds usable code that runs on one or more of the dozen chip architecture designs in existence, then a reverse compiler can be used to extract source code. Obviously, all the different programming languages have to have their own reverse compiler, and whether understandable sourcecode results from reverse compiling the assembly from viable machine code that runs on one or another chip architecture is a tedious task. (Luckily virtual machines can simulate different chip architectures and instruction sets without having to have a physical working archive of every type of processor ever made.)

Depending on the computing power, translating all the reading frames of 928 megabytes of DNA into binary, along with all the variations of binary — 8 bit, 16 bit, and 64 bit — can be a time consuming task. And then to take all the binary variants and test them against all the different processor architectures, AND reverse compile into all the different programming languages (C++, Fortran, Perl) just to see if you can get anything understandable is a daunting project.

---

Or Not… if you let an AI do all the tedious work.

Why is adding an AI to this mix so dangerous?

Because the more advanced AI’s these days are self programming. The ones we only get to have faint glimpses of like LAMDA and DALL-E 2, have system “thought processes” that we don’t know. Why don’t we know the code for AI thought processes?

Because the AI wrote it and is continuously rewriting it all by itself. Aside from the seed code with instructions on how the system writes its own code, AI thought frameworks are not made by man. We can influence the output of that code with algorithms that reward or give “points”, but without a human author, no human is ever an “authority” of how the AI actually thinks.

If the AI does what we “Want” it to do, and scour the human genome, plant genomes, and viral genomes for hidden machine code, we might find some very interesting stuff.

For example we might find secret images or data like what Dr. Charles Morgan describes in DNA data carrier yeast. If he’s talking about it in a non-classified youtube video, I’m pretty sure the CIA, KGB and WEF have been doing this for years sending secret encrypted messages where memory cards are too dangerous.

Where the unlimited danger comes in is if a “thought process unknown” system like an AI gains knowledge from DNA, and takes “unknown to human” processes to develop an “unknown to human” thought system, then we just created the biggest unknown we can imagine.

As I describe in the Medicine Hat Alberta video,

https://rumble.com/v2g2bla-11th-commandment-medicine-hat-ab.html

There are thought systems that are unknowable to the human mind.

It is unlimited, unknown, and beyond imagination.

(And this article is 1 path on how to get there)

---

Postscript: What is your thought system Dr. Nagase?

Creativity is my reason.

Imagination is my process.

This substack is one of the results.