Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > Abuni_versem7 > My Blog |
|
The microchip and the evolution of the wearing on the body The first microchip implants were used on animals. The UK now requires all pets to be chipped. Of note, to the best of my knowledge, there is no GPS tracking in RFID implants, although they are most assuredly integrated together in commercial industry (such as container readers on yard cranes for example). A GPS requires a power supply beyond that of a simple scanning reader.. In 1998, British scientist Kevin Warwick did a self-experiment with an RFID implant, likely the first on a human being, for the control of external devices. In October 2004, the US FDA approved the microchip implant for human use, despite potential risks to the body. In 2006, five Puerto Rican alzheimers patients were voluntarily implanted, as well as some 200 patients in Florida USA in 2007. However, this sparked controversy due to concerns about informed consent (even as legal guardians were also involved), as well as a potential violation of the Nuremberg Code on human experimentation. In 2017, a company in Wisconsin USA allowed any employee to volunteer for implants, which totaled about 100. Currently, five US states prohibit involuntary/forced implants. Amendments mandating implants for violent criminal offenders, drew opposition from the US Senate, resulting in such bans. Of note, it is still a battery/felony to inject anyone with anything against their will, with the exception of involuntary mental treatment, but only where meds are concerned. As early as 2009, a noted microchip implant supplier merged with a national credit reporting comapany. This meant that a link between the implant and one's wallet could eventually be realized. Yet having said all that, what exactly would constitute it's "terms of use" outside the venue of the inborn bank/credit account? To agree to only use the implant when it is subcutaneous to the body would be a given. Yet, why would any such use of the implant be done without the physical presence of the body, unless there was criminal activity afoot? Does the implant to be taken out and cleaned periodically like contact lenses? Maybe an silicon oil change every 3,000 transactions? Since the body and chip together as one, now become a whole new consummate ID, the individual becomes a country unto himself. Yet the only countries within a country (aside from the rogue-fairing state of polygamy), are the Vatican, Washington DC, and some will claim London as well. Therefore, in for a penny...in for a pound. It MUST be "All for one and one for all". Or should we say, "e pluribus unum", or 'one out of many'? Even now, there are several avenues that espouse the marriage of microchip and body, such as bank cards and state ID's, which are fast incorporating the chip, where one is hard pressed to leave home without them. Revelation 13 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. If the microchip implant is the 'mark of the beast', it's institution MUST invoke some kind of pledge, whether it be a person's signature (right hand) and/or mental ascent (forehead), that accompanies such the unforgivable sin. But what exactly is the nature of that pledge? See my answer in a later blog  
|
|||
|
Novus ordo seclorum=A New Order of the Ages. Annuit cœptis=[God} has smiled on our undertaking. Both mottos appearing on the Great Seal of the USA.
|
×
×