This 6-pillar curriculum teaches the basic literacy we need to be personally and financially successful and to do so in a manner in which together we evolve a culture that supports the emergence of an advanced human civilization.
“Too often … I hear comments like, ‘I’m not a criminal so I have nothing to worry about if they spy on me.’ It saddens me to hear such ignorance among the people because the definition of what is considered criminal may change from administration to administration.”
~ Dr. John Hall
If We’ve All Been Chipped, We Need to Overwrite the Inserted Code to Make It Inert
I am using firefox browser. The link to Jesse Beltran website comes up, but can not add my name and email address for further information. I get a 404 error message. I tried looking for it on brave browser but do not have the right URL apparently. I am interested in finding out about strange sounds in my head especially at night.
I emailed them to let them know they need to fix it.
Same error with brave, vivaldi & mulvad browser.
Love the Lucy YouTube interview. My husband had radio stations play in his mouth, he had military dental work with copper posts with teeth on them. It took years and getting rid of that dental work to eliminate the radio signal receiver. It was pretty weird.
I appreciate it not only for examining what may be emerging technologically, but also for how your work implicitly highlights a deeper layer — the conceptual worldviews that shape how we build and interpret these developments.
Your exploration of RF-responsive structures in the human body opens an important line of inquiry not only technologically, but conceptually. It invites us to look at the underlying assumptions that made such technologies imaginable in the first place.
To me, this relates to a broader historical pattern.
The idea that human beings can be governed, corrected, optimised or managed as programmable units does not originate in the technologies themselves. It stems from a binary–Prussian paradigm that has shaped Western institutions for more than 300 years.
The Prussian educational and disciplinary model (1717–1819) trained populations to function as components within a central command structure: uniform, predictable, optimisable.
Digital technologies did not invent this worldview, they accelerated it.
Even the most advanced technologies today, spintronics, neuromorphic interfaces, nanostructures, and RF-reactive materials remain faithful to the same 17th-century binary foundation: the idea that life is something that can be encoded and therefore controlled
If one follows the genealogy further back, one encounters Leibniz’s binary calculus not as a cause of modern control architectures, but as the first formal expression of a worldview that imagined reality as fully computable.
Seen from this perspective, the idea of a “Targeted Collective” does not only mark a technological possibility; it marks the point where a centuries-old binary paradigm is forced against its limits. And systems at their limit do not soften — they intensify. Hostility becomes their final expression, precisely because they can no longer expand their logic into anything truly new.
This is why your work feels so timely.
It raises questions that go beyond the technological: questions about the conceptual frameworks we inherited, and whether they are still adequate for understanding living beings.
I often wonder what would happen if a small group of people were to work together more intensively to:
make these inherited paradigms visible
show their limitations
trace how they shaped our sciences, technologies and institutions
and articulate what might come after them
Because once an old paradigm becomes explicit, space opens for a new one — one that almost no one sees coming yet.
A paradigm not driven by control, optimisation or binary logic,
but by the principles we observe in living systems: relational coherence, decentralised order, adaptive intelligence, and a form of discipline that does not require subjugation.
In this sense, your article feels like an opening an invitation to a deeper conversation about the transition between paradigms, and about the new territory where the human being might develop beyond the constraints of the current model.
I would be very interested to hear how you see this.
Thank you Monique, these are interesting observations, you have such penetrating thinking.
I agree that it is not about the technologies per se but the ideas behind what is technologically possible.
I many ways, the history of the idea may go back even further than the 17th and 18th centuries. It is already reflected in the “golem”, the medieval legend of an artificial man, or in all sort of “magic”.
I hope like you for a new paradigm based on living systems, and not on death and imitation.
The binary technology is keeping us bound in the wrong logic. In Russia in the 1950ies they already had ternary computers (3-fold logic) which work much faster [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun].
These were abandoned (suppressed?) but are resurfacing in today’s expensive quantum computer industry. (I personally don’t think real “quantum” = many-logic computing is technologically possible, but we do know that ternary/trinity computing works).
Josephson junctions are candidates for ternary computer transistors, and such Josephson junctions also exist in our bodies. This is a form of computer logic much closer to living systems.
Dear Ulrike,
Do you have any idea which language was used in coding ternary computers? What did it look like? Why do you think many-logic computing is not possible? Could that have anything to do insofar humanity currently does not master a characteristica universalis? Could it be that such a language was rediscover but like so many things is not for public use?
“the Leibniz project is not a matter of logic but rather one of knowledge representation, a field largely unexploited in today’s logic-oriented epistemology and philosophy of science. It is precisely this one-sided orientation of these disciplines, which is responsible for the distorted picture of Leibniz’s work found in the literature.
Hi Alexandra
Maybe I should say it differently. I do think quantum computing is happening in our cells, and as many say it happens in plasmas. That is why the quantum computers use plasma. But I hold my breath when it comes to artificial quantum computers. There is a lot of “hype” around it.
I believe that one would have to consciously interact with the plasma to “make” it compute for us. Quantum computing cannot be a “machine” in the old sense, that does what we program it to do, but is most likely something living, consciously interacting. Does the plasma in the quantum computer want to compute for us? Would we have to engage with it to teamwork with us?
I thought as much which brings communication back to Angels / Demon territory if I am interpretating you correctly. Thanks Ulrike.
I’m looking forward to watching the interview.
All I can say is, Nature is miraculous. Look at all the effort “they” are investing into subverting it.
I have heard that Holy Communion is a main weapon or antidote against this kind of poisoning.
I have not heard that yet. Very interesting thought.
Thank you Ulrike for inquiring into this matter. It is the first time I have come across this kind of information, although I did research the subject. For those of us who have been subjected to these experiments and who fear they have become paranoid, this indeed bridges the gap. I can also confirm the positive effects of using zeolite for chelation. So thank you very much.
I am using firefox browser. The link to Jesse Beltran website comes up, but can not add my name and email address for further information. I get a 404 error message. I tried looking for it on brave browser but do not have the right URL apparently. I am interested in finding out about strange sounds in my head especially at night.
I emailed them to let them know they need to fix it.
Same error with brave, vivaldi & mulvad browser.
Love the Lucy YouTube interview. My husband had radio stations play in his mouth, he had military dental work with copper posts with teeth on them. It took years and getting rid of that dental work to eliminate the radio signal receiver. It was pretty weird.
The Human Antenna
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmmE3Qj4vYw&t=1s
Dear Ulrike,
Thank you for your recent article.
I appreciate it not only for examining what may be emerging technologically, but also for how your work implicitly highlights a deeper layer — the conceptual worldviews that shape how we build and interpret these developments.
Your exploration of RF-responsive structures in the human body opens an important line of inquiry not only technologically, but conceptually. It invites us to look at the underlying assumptions that made such technologies imaginable in the first place.
To me, this relates to a broader historical pattern.
The idea that human beings can be governed, corrected, optimised or managed as programmable units does not originate in the technologies themselves. It stems from a binary–Prussian paradigm that has shaped Western institutions for more than 300 years.
The Prussian educational and disciplinary model (1717–1819) trained populations to function as components within a central command structure: uniform, predictable, optimisable.
Digital technologies did not invent this worldview, they accelerated it.
Even the most advanced technologies today, spintronics, neuromorphic interfaces, nanostructures, and RF-reactive materials remain faithful to the same 17th-century binary foundation: the idea that life is something that can be encoded and therefore controlled
If one follows the genealogy further back, one encounters Leibniz’s binary calculus not as a cause of modern control architectures, but as the first formal expression of a worldview that imagined reality as fully computable.
Seen from this perspective, the idea of a “Targeted Collective” does not only mark a technological possibility; it marks the point where a centuries-old binary paradigm is forced against its limits. And systems at their limit do not soften — they intensify. Hostility becomes their final expression, precisely because they can no longer expand their logic into anything truly new.
This is why your work feels so timely.
It raises questions that go beyond the technological: questions about the conceptual frameworks we inherited, and whether they are still adequate for understanding living beings.
I often wonder what would happen if a small group of people were to work together more intensively to:
make these inherited paradigms visible
show their limitations
trace how they shaped our sciences, technologies and institutions
and articulate what might come after them
Because once an old paradigm becomes explicit, space opens for a new one — one that almost no one sees coming yet.
A paradigm not driven by control, optimisation or binary logic,
but by the principles we observe in living systems: relational coherence, decentralised order, adaptive intelligence, and a form of discipline that does not require subjugation.
In this sense, your article feels like an opening an invitation to a deeper conversation about the transition between paradigms, and about the new territory where the human being might develop beyond the constraints of the current model.
I would be very interested to hear how you see this.
Thank you Monique, these are interesting observations, you have such penetrating thinking.
I agree that it is not about the technologies per se but the ideas behind what is technologically possible.
I many ways, the history of the idea may go back even further than the 17th and 18th centuries. It is already reflected in the “golem”, the medieval legend of an artificial man, or in all sort of “magic”.
I hope like you for a new paradigm based on living systems, and not on death and imitation.
The binary technology is keeping us bound in the wrong logic. In Russia in the 1950ies they already had ternary computers (3-fold logic) which work much faster [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun].
These were abandoned (suppressed?) but are resurfacing in today’s expensive quantum computer industry. (I personally don’t think real “quantum” = many-logic computing is technologically possible, but we do know that ternary/trinity computing works).
Josephson junctions are candidates for ternary computer transistors, and such Josephson junctions also exist in our bodies. This is a form of computer logic much closer to living systems.
Dear Ulrike,
Do you have any idea which language was used in coding ternary computers? What did it look like? Why do you think many-logic computing is not possible? Could that have anything to do insofar humanity currently does not master a characteristica universalis? Could it be that such a language was rediscover but like so many things is not for public use?
“the Leibniz project is not a matter of logic but rather one of knowledge representation, a field largely unexploited in today’s logic-oriented epistemology and philosophy of science. It is precisely this one-sided orientation of these disciplines, which is responsible for the distorted picture of Leibniz’s work found in the literature.
— Jaenecke 1996”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristica_universalis
Hi Alexandra
Maybe I should say it differently. I do think quantum computing is happening in our cells, and as many say it happens in plasmas. That is why the quantum computers use plasma. But I hold my breath when it comes to artificial quantum computers. There is a lot of “hype” around it.
I believe that one would have to consciously interact with the plasma to “make” it compute for us. Quantum computing cannot be a “machine” in the old sense, that does what we program it to do, but is most likely something living, consciously interacting. Does the plasma in the quantum computer want to compute for us? Would we have to engage with it to teamwork with us?
I thought as much which brings communication back to Angels / Demon territory if I am interpretating you correctly. Thanks Ulrike.
I’m looking forward to watching the interview.
All I can say is, Nature is miraculous. Look at all the effort “they” are investing into subverting it.
I have heard that Holy Communion is a main weapon or antidote against this kind of poisoning.
I have not heard that yet. Very interesting thought.
Thank you Ulrike for inquiring into this matter. It is the first time I have come across this kind of information, although I did research the subject. For those of us who have been subjected to these experiments and who fear they have become paranoid, this indeed bridges the gap. I can also confirm the positive effects of using zeolite for chelation. So thank you very much.