An article posted on the World Economic Forum’s website makes the case for implantable microchips – including in healthy adults and even children.
The article sings the praises of what it calls “augmented reality,” a euphemism for transhumanism, and predicts it will soon be normalized.
Transhumanists believe the next big leap in the evolution of humanity will be directed by humans themselves, taking advantage of advancing technologies that allow them to blur the line between human physiology and computerized artificial intelligence.
In the article posted August 16 on its website, the WEF says:
- Augmented reality technology has the ability to transform society and individual lives.
- As much as visual and hearing aids are a part of our lives today, implant technologies could become the norm in future.
- Stakeholders in society will need to agree on how to ethically make these amazing technologies a part of our lives.
Take a look at the short promotional video the WEF includes with the article.
“Are we moving towards a ‘brave new world’?” the article asks, adding:
“As scary as chip implants may sound, they form part of a natural evolution that wearables once underwent.”
The WEF is attempting to conflate implantable microchips with innocuous inventions like hearing aids, prosthetic legs and eye glasses. This is a deliberate deception. Eye glasses and hearing aids may improve our functionality as human beings but they don’t have the potential to change our very makeup as humans.
Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli historian and chief adviser to the WEF, has said that if he had access to artificial intelligence when he was younger, he believes he would have discovered he was a homosexual at age 11 or 12 instead of at 17. In fact, a Newsweek article from September 8, 2017, made the case that AI can predict “with startling accuracy” whether someone is gay or straight.
Tell me this is no different than wearing glasses or a hearing aid. Not buying it.
The WEF is clearly starting to get defensive now that its anti-human agenda is becoming more widely known among the masses. They are no longer able to operate under a cloak of anonymity. The globalist organization, based in Geneva, Switzerland, and headed by prominent futurist and German economist Klaus Schwab, is one of the world’s main drivers for population control and what many critics believe is the gateway to transhumanism – the experimental gene-based Covid “vaccines.”
Schwab has said he wants every person on the planet jabbed.
“As long as not everybody is vaccinated nobody will be safe,” he says in the video below, which of course was the exact opposite of the truth. Those who got injected with the toxic spike protein are the ones playing Russian roulette with their health, not to mention they gave up their rights to bodily autonomy.
Schwab and his WEF comrades, which include vaccine peddler Bill Gates, BlackRock CEO and ESG peddler Larry Fink, Metaverse peddler Mark Zuckerberg, Harari, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Pete Buttigieg, Justin Trudeau, Jacinda Ardern, Boris Johnson, etc., have all spent the last two years calling for a “Great Reset” of all aspects of life on earth. This requires tearing up the existing world order so we can “build back better,” with digital money and digital identities tied to a social credit scoring system.
The WEF is tightly connected to the global implementation of digital health passports, requiring people to “show their papers” before they can travel or enter public spaces.
Yet, the WEF is increasingly worried about its reputation. It prefaces its August 16 article on microchip implants with an editor’s note that says the article has been “misrepresented” on sites that “spread misinformation.”
Oh, those poor, misunderstood globalist elites. Don’t you feel sorry for them?
Anyway, back to the article, penned for the WEF by Kathleen Philips, vice president R&D of the Interuniversity Microelectronics Center.
Human implant technologies will soon become a commodity, the article suggests, arguing that there are “solid, rational” reasons for microchipping children with location trackers.
Philips argues that augmented reality technology “has the ability to transform society and individual lives” and despite sounding “scary,” will undergo the same “natural evolution” as wearable technology.
“Hearing aids or glasses no longer carry a stigma. They are accessories and are even considered a fashion item. Likewise, implants will evolve into a commodity,” she writes.
In some ways, the article reads like an advertisement for Zuckerberg’s Metaverse.
“The augmenting technology will help in all stages of life: children in a learning environment, professionals at work and ambitious senior citizens. There are many possibilities.”
Philips further explains, adding:
“Or another example: many children with attention deficit struggle in school. In the best case, they get special education services or classroom accommodations. However, with extra visual and audio guidance that blocks off excess stimuli, an otherwise-enabled child can cope with a standard school environment. And when class is over and playtime begins, they can just take the aids off.
“Augmented reality doesn’t end there. Your phone might feel like part of your body, but it’s not put in through surgery. Technology will become more intertwined with the body in the form of implants, but it will also seamlessly integrate with the environment – you might have sensors in a chair, for example.”
No, augmented reality does not end there. It does not end with simply improving the lives of the hearing impaired or otherwise handicapped. Now they are venturing into new territory. They want to “augment” those “completely healthy” people who for whatever reason do not meet their expectations as we enter into this new digital society, a society that will be more controlled and monitored.
Philips concludes her article for the WEF as follows:
“Augmentation can be defined as the extension of rehabilitation where technological aids such as glasses, cochlear implants or prosthetics are designed to restore a lost or impaired function. Add it to completely healthy individuals and such technology can augment. Night goggles, exoskeletons and brain-computer interfaces build up the picture. The augmenting technology will help in all stages of life: children in a learning environment, professionals at work and ambitious senior citizens. There are many possibilities.”
So now, at the end of the WEF article, the vision begins to be more fully presented. You have to read to the end to find out that it’s not just about helping the downtrodden but “improving” the healthy people. Because while you may be healthy, you may not be ideally suited for the type of controlled society they are building. Through microchip implants, they openly admit, the possibilities for human manipulation are indeed endless.
Philips believes an augmented society (i.e. transhumanist) is more or less inevitable and the only thing still up in the air is how it will be regulated.
“The limits on implants are going to be set by ethical arguments rather than scientific capacity,” she writes.
For example, should children be implanted with microchips at birth, or maybe when they enter school?
“There are solid, rational reasons for it, like safety,” she writes, while admitting that for some it might be a “bridge too far.” You know, like those insufferable Christians who believe it’s biblically suspect to be chipping your kids like farmers do livestock.
And who does Philips believe should have regulating authority over the use of implantable microchips?
“Ethics should not be preached from an academic ivory tower. Overarching or independent institutions should guide policymakers and researchers in the augmented society on the do’s and dont’s and help build the ethical framework on societal aspects of augmented reality technology,” she writes, without naming who these “overarching” institutions might be.
She does give clues, however, pointing to the Council of Europe, which recently launched a strategic action plan for issues raised by the application of neurotechnologies, as well as the Rathenau Institute, established by the Dutch government, which assesses the impact of technology on people’s lives.
In other words, it’s the government that should decide what’s ethical and what’s not in the use of transhumanist technologies. No surprise there.
Let’s not forget that WEF founder Klaus Schwab has predicted a soon-to-arrive “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” which he says will “lead to a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity.”
So the WEF can say what it wants about its August 16 article being “misrepresented” on sites that “spread misinformation.”
Taken in the full context of prior statements made by Schwab and Company, it’s hard not to believe the worse of motives are behind their drive to microchip the human population. This is a man who has openly advocated, along with his supporters, for brain implants, mandatory digital health passports, digital and programmable money, basically the digitization of everything in so-called “smart cities,” where people will “own nothing,” will have “no privacy” but will learn to like it.
This must be resisted with every fiber of our being. To do otherwise will result in not only the relinquishment of our bodily autonomy, but the death of our humanity.
PLEASE SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH PASTORS AND CHRISTIAN LEADERS.
Those who are not educated WILL BE DECEIVED!
01/09/22. From– https://coercioncode.com/2022/08/26/world-economic-forum-says-its-time-to-start-microchipping-humans-with-augmented-reality/
“it’s hard not to believe the worse of motives ” Poor wording, should be ” hard to not believe..”
Most people don’t understand what an “infinitive” is. They say, “Try and see..” or “Try and do…”.
‘and’ doesn’t belong there An infinitive say ” Try TO see”, “Try TO do..” Using the word “and” suggests
that a person will both “try” to see AND “will” see; or “try” to do, AND “will” do. So IF they WILL see, do, — then no need to TRY !!! People in many instances appear gramatically illiterate – there are many examples. **Secondly, wrong word,– “worse”. S.B. “worst” . E.g. “It was worse than yesterday..”
(worse is for comparing one thing with another).- &/or “It was the worst thing he did.”. Above,- S.B. “..the worst of motives..”. (“worst” is superlative — e.g. “Of all of them, this one is the worst.”. ) TY