The days of Noah? Not so fast…
“Chaff are small thin pieces of metal which are shot out of an airplane or warship. These thin strips of metal make it harder for enemy radar to detect where the plane or ship is. The thin strips of metal also make it harder for radar-guided missiles to hit the plane or warship.
The chaff TRICKS the enemy and helps to keep the plane or warship SAFE.”
The realm of psychological operations (PsyOps) is a multifaceted arena, one where the intricacies of human cognition and perception converge with the subtle art of manipulation. These operations represent a delicate dance between information dissemination, influence peddling, and the deliberate shaping of attitudes and behaviors. At its core, PsyOps harnesses the power of psychology to achieve strategic objectives; whether in the military, political, or commercial realms. In parallel, obfuscation — a tactic that is synonymous with PsyOps — employs sophisticated techniques to obscure, confuse, or mislead; adding a necessary layer of intrigue to the world of information warfare.
The crux of psychological operations lies in the recognition that humans are not solely driven by logic and rationality: our thoughts and actions are deeply influenced by emotions, biases, and perceptions. In this intricate interplay, PsyOps practitioners seek to exploit these cognitive nuances, aiming to sway public opinion, incite fear, or rally support for a cause. Look no further than your social media feed to see these operations in action on an hourly basis. It is — in essence — the strategic manipulation of minds; blending elements of psychology, communication, and information dissemination with ancient forms of witchcraft. PsyOps and mass manipulation is an artform our rulers have perfected long ago.
Central to the world of PsyOps is the concept of obfuscation, i.e. chaff and countermeasures. Obfuscation involves the deliberate act of concealing or muddling information, rendering it difficult to discern or interpret what is actually true. It is akin to weaving a complex tapestry of disinformation, obscuring the truth beneath layers and layers of occult deceit. The intrinsic need for PsyOps to be cloaked in voluminous layers of obfuscation should be apparent; otherwise, what good is the PsyOp? In the arsenal of psychological warfare, obfuscation serves as a potent tool to sow confusion, paralyze decision-making processes, and manipulate perceptions in a modern war that has touched every aspect of our societies.
Chaff & countermeasures are essential elements of the fog of war in the cognitive battlefield; a place where clarity is elusive, trust is scarce, and uncertainty reigns supreme.
To fully grasp the nuances of psychological operations and fifth generation warfare, one must delve into the wide array of intricate tactics employed. These tactics encompass a diverse array of strategies, including disinformation campaigns, limited hangouts, controlled opposition, rumor mills, and even the manipulation of visual and auditory stimuli. In the modern era, the digital realm has become a fertile ground for PsyOps: the spread of “fake news”, social media manipulation campaigns, and deepfake technologies serve as prime examples of obfuscation techniques within the digital realm.
Victor Marchetti, former Deputy Director of the CIA, describes a limited hangout as (emphasis mine):
Spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting — sometimes even volunteering — some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.
The alleged pandemic of 2020 serves as a fitting testament to the power of this particularly potent form of mental warfare. Consider the still ongoing debate surrounding the alleged origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, giving rise to two prominent narratives — both of which are limited hangouts: the lab leak theory and the natural evolution theory. These dueling narratives, driven by different degrees of evidence and interpretations, have spurred intense discussions amongst scientists, policymakers, and the public. Unsurprisingly, these seemingly opposing viewpoints can be seen converging toward a Hegelian synthesis, with both theories positing that this alleged contagion was something that must be feared — whether it came from natural or synthetic processes (with the obligatory China Bad thrown in for good measure). Ignore the inconvenient fact that for much of the world, excess deaths were no higher in 2020 than the previous 5 years: if the virus must be feared, than we require novel therapies to treat a novel contagion.
The lie is never the point, it’s what the lie gets you to believe: that is always the point.
It is these limited hangouts that have left countless multitudes spellbound, utterly oblivious to the true nanotechnological threat in our midst. Look no further than the limited hangouts of the RNA, gene therapy, and spike protein narratives to see how effective these countermeasures have been in obfuscating the actual forces at hand. I’m sure this is surprising to hear for many. That is because you have been purposely bombarded with a barrage of half truths and misstatements; dazzled with possibilities and potential, yet utterly devoid of any demonstrable proof.
Gene editing — a.k.a. gene therapies — and their ability to turn our cells into permanent spike protein factories is hardly a proven fact. Firstly, we must verify whether intact RNA — of either the modified or messenger variety — is present in sufficient quantities to actually be effective. The European Medicines Agency data from 2021 shows an alarming trend, finding ““a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species” between the clinical batches and proposed commercial batches—from around 78% to 55%” (Tinari). These highly variant batches have been noted in major medical journals, such as Vaccine, as soon as fall of 2021. For context, less than 95% integrity is an ineffective treatment according to their clinical standards.
It should be evident to anyone who has delved into the original scientific papers presented as evidence for the existence of “coronaviruses” that the spike protein is essentially an artificial construct. The first spike protein was derived from the staining patterns of arbitrarily selected particles, which are then used to represent the alleged “virus.” The CDC admitted in 2020 that the original SARS-CoV-2 genome was largely assembled from a viral computer database, with just 0.001% of the genomic pairs (a mere 37 out of 30,000) obtained from tissue samples. Quite simply put, the CDC has rather brazenly admitted that the original “viral” genome called SARS-CoV-2 is a computer simulation. It is this seriously shaky foundation that all subsequent C-19 “research” has been built upon.
That simulated genome then served as the control for the infamous PCR tests that led to the shutdown of our societies. Even the serial murderer Dr. Fauci has admitted to the ability for the PCR test to be grossly misused in this fashion (emphasis mine):
…If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more, the chances of it being replication-confident [i.e. accurate] are miniscule … you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle, so I think if someone does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you gotta say, you know, it’s just dead nucleotides, period.
— Dr. Anthony Fauci
For reference, the FDA recommends a cycle threshold (CT) of 40 or less for positive PCR tests. According to a study done by Jaffar et al., when the CT is 35 or above, the false positive rate rises to 97%. Again, per Fauci’s own words, what we have witnessed the last three years is nothing less than a monumental fraud. The Portuguese courts found that the PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that such positivity result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (Court decides that quarantine in state of alert is illegal). Indeed, a 97% false positive rate is not proof of anything, and it is a sick joke to pretend otherwise. This PCR hocus pocus is what almost all bacterial, antibody, and viral diagnostic testing is based upon.
Yet another dialectical dilemma that has been proffered to those within the alternative health movement is the dispute over whether mRNA or Modified RNA (modRNA) is present within the injections. modRNA vaccines are said to introduce synthetic RNA sequences altered from their natural state to encode specific proteins in the cell. These tailored sequences are designed to stimulate an immune response, effectively training the body to recognize and defend against particular pathogens. This precision approach has been hailed by researchers as a breakthrough in vaccine development, offering the potential to combat diseases with remarkable specificity. The Epoch Times, an outlet funded by the CIA-backed Falun Gong, covered this very topic in April of 2023 (emphasis mine):
Today, many more of us have heard of mRNA, as both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines use messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA, as the active ingredient. At least, that’s what we’ve been told.
In fact, RNA-based vaccine technology utilizes modified RNA (modRNA), not mRNA. This applies to the COVID-19 vaccines and all vaccines currently in the research and development stages. Because mRNA is so fragile that the human immune system will destroy it within a few minutes, mRNA can’t be effective on its own. Therefore, the current technology was made possible only after stabilizing mRNA; the result is modified RNA.
Furthermore, modified RNA-based “vaccines” aren’t vaccines but gene-based injections that force healthy cells to produce a viral protein.
— RNA-Based Vaccine Technology: The Trojan Horse Didn’t Contain mRNA, Klaus Steger, Ph.D.
Conversely, mRNA vaccines are said to employ unaltered, naturally occurring messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce specific proteins, such as the alleged spike protein found on the surface of certain viruses. These vaccines utilize the body’s natural machinery to elicit an immune response, replicating the process that occurs during a viral infection.
While both share the objective of training the immune system to combat pathogens, the former involves precise genetic manipulation to tailor the immune response, while the latter relies on the innate processes of our biology. This tension prompts a critical inquiry: If we can modify RNA to achieve precise immune responses, could we extend this technology to edit or manipulate other genes within our DNA? The Hegelian synthesis once again emerges as we contemplate the possibility that both modified RNA vaccines and mRNA vaccines serve as theoretical gateways to genetic manipulation. No matter where you fall on this dialectical spectrum, by agreeing to their premise, you tacitly accede to the idea that our DNA can be permanently altered on a fundamental level.
“13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”
— Psalms 139:13-16 KJV
The origins of CRISPR can be traced back to the late 1980’s, when Japanese researchers first uncovered unusual patterns in the DNA of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria. These mysterious repeats, resembling palindromes, left scientists puzzled until the early 2000’s, when the puzzle pieces began to fall into place. In 2005, a group of scientists, led by Francisco Mojica, bestowed the name “CRISPR” upon these enigmatic sequences, marking a significant milestone in their recognition.
However, it wasn’t until 2012 that CRISPR’s true potential was unleashed. Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier made a historic breakthrough by discovering how CRISPR could be harnessed as a revolutionary gene-editing tool. They identified a protein called Cas9, capable of acting as molecular scissors, snipping DNA at specific locations as dictated by a guide RNA molecule.
Or so they say.
The largest issue to tackle on the topic of gene editing is the exceedingly complex logistical problem of rewriting one’s DNA in toto without provoking a hideously lethal immune response. The average adult has 30 trillion cells in their body, and our cells are fully refreshed every 7-10 years — depending on the cell type (blood cells refresh approx. every 90 days). While their technology platforms have demonstrated the technical capability of infecting human cells with foreign proteins or DNA, that is worlds of difference between creating a cell resilient enough to evade the body’s natural immune response to what it sees as mutated, i.e. cancerous, genes. There are a host of issues that currently plague CRISPR and gene therapy technologies in humans: fundamental issues at that, and ones which have yet to be addressed in a clinical or laboratory setting.
So far in human clinical trials, gene therapies have largely failed to produce any results. In 2016, the first CRISPR clinical study in humans was conducted in China. PD-1 knockout T cell therapy was administered to different patient groups with aggressive forms of lung cancer. The primary focus of the trial was on safety, and the treatment led to mild to moderate adverse events in every single patient. Additionally, there were no notable reductions in tumor size across the cohorts within a 3-month timeframe; in fact, the tumors grew rather significantly. The study also examined overall survival rates, with varying survival times amongst the subjects; ranging from 13 weeks to 29 months. The average survival time for these patients after their treatment was about a year — no different than that of the average survival rates for metastatic lung cancer. This trial was an abject failure, and subsequent CRISPR trials in humans have fared no better.
CRISPR, truly gene editing as a whole, continues to face the insurmountable hurdle first identified in clinical studies in 2018: our immune systems identify these cells as cancerous and destroys their “treatments” faster than they can propagate:
Much hope is being pinned on the potential of gene editing using the CRISPR (gene scissors) method as a crucial part in the precision medicine of the future. However, before the method can become hospital routine, several hurdles need to be overcome.
One of these challenges is associated with how cells behave when subjected to DNA damage, which CRISPR gene editing causes in a controlled fashion. Damage to cells activates the protein p53, which acts as the cell’s “first aid” response to DNA damage.
It is already known that the technique is less effective when p53 is active; at the same time, however, a lack of p53 can allow cells to start growing uncontrollably and become cancerous. In over half of all cancers the gene for p53 is mutated and thus unable to protect against uncontrolled cell division.
CRISPR has consistently shown to increase the odds of cancerous mutations precisely because it targets areas of the human genome that are most prone to these p53 mutations (Sinha et al.) Our immune system plays a significant role in fighting cancer (Messerschmidt et al.), which naturally poses a large problem for any kind of treatment that is reliant upon those mutated cells propagating. The very fact that the first FDA approved gene augmentation therapy, Luxturna, is a prescription drug – as opposed to a one time treatment — further elucidates the cunning sleight of hand that has been employed here.
Additionally, human trials have shown robust immune responses to Cas9 proteins used in CRISPR editing (emphasis mine):
The most widely used homologs of the Cas9 protein are derived from the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Streptococcus pyogenes (S. pyogenes). Based on the fact that these two bacterial species cause infections in the human population at high frequencies, we looked for the presence of pre-existing adaptive immune responses to their respective Cas9 homologs, SaCas9 (S. aureus homolog of Cas9) and SpCas9 (S. pyogenes homolog of Cas9). To determine the presence of anti-Cas9 antibodies, we probed for the two homologs using human serum and were able to detect antibodies against both, with 79% of donors staining against SaCas9 and 65% of donors staining against SpCas9. Upon investigating the presence of antigen-specific T-cells against the two homologs in human peripheral blood, we found anti-SaCas9 T-cells in 46% of donors…
Together, this data demonstrates that there are pre-existing humoral and cell-mediated adaptive immune responses to Cas9 in humans, a factor which must be taken into account as the CRISPR-Cas9 system moves forward into clinical trials.
— Identification of Pre-Existing Adaptive Immunity to Cas9 Proteins in Humans, Charlesworth et al.
This study reveals yet another hurdle that this or any other gene editing technology must overcome if they are to be based upon viral and bacterial vectors.
Of course, it would be impossible to fully address this issue without discussing the infamous case of “successful” gene editing in two Chinese twins. The New Yorker ran a shockingly good article on just this subject a few weeks ago:
…in November, 2018, Antonio Regalado, an investigative journalist at MIT Technology Review, discovered data that JK’s lab had uploaded to a Chinese registry for clinical trials. Believing that the data might indicate the existence of an edited human fetus, Regalado sent it to Fyodor Urnov, an expert on gene editing, for verification. “I did not want to open that file,” Urnov told me. “I’m, like, ‘Please, please, please, no. Nobody’s that crazy.’ ” He shuddered, remembering the moment that his fear was confirmed. “I’m, like, Life will never be the same again.”
A few days later, as scientists from around the world prepared for a gene-editing conference in Hong Kong, JK released a series of YouTube videos, announcing the birth of a set of twins, edited as embryos with crispr. A slim, nervous-seeming man in a pale-blue shirt, he looked earnestly into the camera and said, “Two beautiful little Chinese girls named Lulu and Nana came crying into the world, as healthy as any other babies.” He went on to explain how, when each was only a single cell, he had used crispr to delete CCR5. “I understand my work will be controversial,” he said. “But I believe families need this technology, and I’m willing to take the criticism for them.”…
— The Transformative, Alarming Power of Gene Editing, Dana Goodyear
This critical point can not be overstated: this “successful” gene editing occurred at the single cell level. This is not even proof of a child, let alone an adult, having their DNA fundamentally changed through gene therapy. This is merely a demonstration that whatever changes were made to the genome were small enough to not interfere with the children being brought to term.
While the twins are almost 5 years old now, it has not been demonstrated that they have a particular immunity to HIV; the disease that JK was trying to immunize the twins against. While they were not born with HIV, it has simply not been sufficiently demonstrated whether this “treatment” was actually successful or not. It also remains to be seen what health problems, if any, these girls develop. Lastly, it is unclear whether they can successfully reproduce, or what other unknown consequences will manifest themselves later on in life.
Gene therapy is hardly as settled a science as its proponents, and even detractors, give it credit for. In 2020, the first in vivo CRISPR studies were conducted in humans, with decidedly mixed results. The inhalable administration of modifiedRNA “vaccines” have been tested as recently as 2023 (Suberi et al.). It has so far “failed to produce sufficient protein to improve lung function in cystic fibrosis patients.”
Or in other words, they failed.
Given the wildly unforeseen consequences that early CRISPR and gene editing therapies have produced, a true risk-benefit analysis can not be properly given. Therefore, it is strictly impossible for these trials to comply with the ethical standards laid out for medical experimentation in the Nuremberg Code (Riva & Petrini).
“But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.”
— 1st Epistle to the Corinthians 15:38 KJV
Chemical analysis of these injections have repeatedly shown that while whole mRNA/modRNA is scarce within the vials, graphene oxide, aluminum, and other heavy metals are present to a shockingly high degree. On June 24th, 2021, La Quinta Columna — led by biostatistician Ricardo Delgado and Dr. José Luis Sevillano — unveiled a collection of photographs showcasing the results of extensive analyses conducted by their collaborative research team. These analyses involved employing various identification techniques to meticulously quantify the constituent elements of 2100 vials of the so called “mRNA vaccines”. The findings were nothing short of astonishing, and the presence of graphene oxide within the vials was unequivocally demonstrated by their team.
In September of 2021, the Japanese rollout of the Moderna vaccine was halted after stainless steel was found in the vials. On August 16th, 2022, Dr. Daniel Nagase analyzed a batch of both Pfizer and Moderna vials that were sent to Canada. After a thorough chemical analysis of the components, he failed to find any nitrogen or phosphorous. I’ll let Dr. Nagase explain why this finding is so significant (emphasis mine):
X-ray spectroscopy didn’t detect any nitrogen or phosphorus. So, if those complex shapes – that rectangle with all the dots arranged in a grid – were the result of some kind of biological process … then there should be nitrogen and phosphorus there in addition to carbon and oxygen. Because every living thing, whether it’s a virus, plant or animal, is made up of proteins that contain nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, and phosphorus.
Perhaps the reason we can not find organic compounds within a great deal of these injections is because the true threat is not organic in nature. That being said, I do not discount the possibility that certain batches in this mass experiment could have contained gene editing technology. However, if vast swathes of our cells were now spike protein factories, as so many are claiming, we would be seeing cancer on a truly apocalyptic scale.
In the labyrinthine realms of PsyOps, transhumanism, and nanotechnology, we find ourselves traversing a multifaceted landscape; one where the boundaries of reality, perception, and scientific exploration blur. At its core, PsyOps is underpinned by obfuscation, where layers of disinformation narratives obscure the truth of the matter at hand. In the arsenal of psychological warfare, this tactic becomes an essential element, paralyzing decision-making processes and plunging the cognitive battlefield into a perpetual fog of uncertainty. It has proven so decisively effective, most of us are still arguing whether the COVID virus came from a lab or a pangolin, instead of asking where they got the alleged COVID genome to test against in the first place.
The Regime also knows that when they attack something, half of us will flock to defend that thing purely because our enemy is attacking it. They banked on just that reaction throughout this entire charade. PsyOps, the art of wielding influence through information, presents a nuanced dance between the complexities of human psychology and the orchestrated manipulation of perceptions. It serves as a reminder that our thoughts and actions are not purely rational; they are inexorably intertwined with emotions, biases, and the lens through which we perceive the world. These operations unfold daily in the digital sphere, where obfuscation becomes a strategic tool to sow confusion, hijack public opinion, or foment support for divergent causes, both for and against. This age-old stratagem, seamlessly blending psychology, communication, and information dissemination, is a testament to the psychotically depraved nature of our rulers.
The idea that our cells can reproduce the spike protein ad infinitum is a seriously dubious one in light of the realities of the human immune system, ones which we have thoroughly explored in this essay. There are fundamental issues that must be addressed with this technology platform, and we are not anywhere close to addressing them. There has been a great deal of theory, potentials, patents, and promises, but very little in the way of actual proof. After an exhaustive analysis of the clinical trials and current state of gene therapy, it is hard to describe the gene editing/spike protein/mRNA narratives as anything other than devastatingly effective limited hangouts.
CRISPR and gene editing is still a highly experimental field; one in its infancy. On the other hand, Nanotechnology has a proven track record and history spanning some 60 years. IBM is creating 2 nanometer wide computer chips, and incredibly sophisticated computers are already running at the nanoscale. Since the nanomaterials my team and I have identified are capable of passing through the body’s protective membrane barriers (such as the blood-brain barrier), these materials would naturally be expected to impact every part of our bodies.
The scientific literature cited in The Forced Evolution of Humanity lays out this truth out quite clearly: the wound patterns attributed to the spike protein and the RNA gene therapies can largely be explained via exposure to nanomaterials such as chitosan, cadmium, & graphene oxide.
Unfortunately, the fog of war still lies thick in the air of our national discourses, preventing all but the most determined from discerning the truth of the assault we face.
The Regime’s psychological chaff & alchemical countermeasures have certainly done their job.
Current advance in gene therapy of mitochondrial diseases by Soldatov et al.
An overview of the history, applications, advantages, disadvantages and prospects of gene therapy by Jafarlou et al.
An Update on Gene Therapy for Inherited Retinal Dystrophy: Experience in Leber Congenital Amaurosis Clinical Trials by Chio et al.
Gene therapy comes of age by Dunbar et al.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.