The RFID Invasion Continues . . . Well, for some.
The RFID debate may seem divided today, but it may be evolving into a clearer majority of rejection until some vital questions are answered. To say that the answer is in the future somewhere yet to be understood – and that we ought to accept RFID until the answers come – is an underhanded tactic; we ought to let the record show the industry as unresponsive. RFID should be turned down on that alone. Permanently.
I am all too familiar with answers' being forgotten, issues hijacked into oblivion, swarming of policy or ramming it down the electorate’s throat – all of it in order to make it happen against our protests. RFID will probably be against our protests.
How do we know this?
Info I’m able to obtain suggests that RFID chips may be useful as marketed in certain tracking modalities, such as auto parts, inter-state commerce, tracking your dog, etc., but only when certain restrictions are spelled out and well observed would even some advocates side with the RFID.
This is because of the potential for abuse.
And this is why it is important to find an answer soon on the question of What If We Say No To RFID? This has to be answered before we move forward on this another inch.
As I say often, Americans don’t need to prove or convince others: as sovereigns, our saying No is reason enough in a free society. Anyone who asks us to prove this or that, explain ourselves or convince them is walking all over your sovereignty.
See this News Release for the latest in one of the clues that should be a red flag as to that kind of potential abuse. Translation: even they don’t believe it’s safe.
What does it mean when the experts or the board of directors or other Pro-RFID advocates refuse to take a chip implant for themselves and their family? As you can see from reading the linked release, I am expanding the question, but the question stands.
Dissenters such as myself agree that the benefits of implanting chips may be welcomed, but only insofar as they are limited, and based on our experience over the last several decades, such limits are too often ignored; the best strategy is to give no ground at all from the beginning, and simply say No, period.
Sovereignty. As sovereigns, we don’t have to have a reason.
But the inevitability of the RFID chips coming into our society is what the Germans and Austrians called the Anschluss, or an incorporation of the two – RFID Tracking merged with our society on an inevitable, or-else basis. The word is an historical political jargon – after Hitler’s rise to power, the Nazi Party took the idea – the tone and connotation are sinister. [Presently, we're already experiencing an Anschluss of all sorts in intrusion, imposition and interference as our way of life changes to meet hundreds of unjust adjustments.]
The merging of RFID technology even for beneficial significance is not welcome.
Who can stop it?
Saying No obviously won’t do it. Anschluss.
But some elites get to say No and their No is respected, as in the above story. This is not a good sign.
The clue is that Mr. Thompson, like the rest of us, knows what’s best for his family, and politely declines, postpones, says No or just plain lied from the beginning, with no intention of swallowing the poisoned drink to prove it’s safe.
The Dope could have taken it publicly, then had it removed secretly. ..or can it be removed?
Perhaps Mr. Thompson knows very well that once it’s in, it’s in to stay, and with any kind of hand-held reader, anyone could scan his medical history and, once obtained, that history – or any other content – is in the wind for both benevolent or hostile uses, as he is never to know the people who took it nor abused it.
This drink is poisoned, folks. He won’t even taste it. [Note: In order for the RFID Advocates to attest to their confidence in the RFID Chip, a majority of advocates would have to take an implant, complete with genuine personal information and permit examiners to scan it for authenticity and placement. Wouldn't you think..?]
Without this majority undertaking their own chip implant -- and soon -- it’s too late to say anything now to dissuade dissenters.
The whole idea is poisoned now by the fact that one of its most notable advocates refuses to take the thing. Others refuse to take his place.
When Mr. Thompson changes his mind – say, when the chip is 'perfected' – it will be too late, of course. Let the record show that he promised to take the thing, then refused.
But, Mr. Thompson, when you change your mind at the behest of shareholders, and become an implantee for the rest of your life, will your family be accepting them, too?
By the way, what do you call it when you’re injected with an RFID chip? Is it called wearing them..? Sporting them? Carrying them? What do you call it when someone is injected with an RFID chip for the rest of their life? As people forever changed, what will they be called?
Chippies is already taken.
Say NO to RFID.
______________________________
John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth – The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry, available mid-December.
I am all too familiar with answers' being forgotten, issues hijacked into oblivion, swarming of policy or ramming it down the electorate’s throat – all of it in order to make it happen against our protests. RFID will probably be against our protests.
How do we know this?
Info I’m able to obtain suggests that RFID chips may be useful as marketed in certain tracking modalities, such as auto parts, inter-state commerce, tracking your dog, etc., but only when certain restrictions are spelled out and well observed would even some advocates side with the RFID.
This is because of the potential for abuse.
And this is why it is important to find an answer soon on the question of What If We Say No To RFID? This has to be answered before we move forward on this another inch.
As I say often, Americans don’t need to prove or convince others: as sovereigns, our saying No is reason enough in a free society. Anyone who asks us to prove this or that, explain ourselves or convince them is walking all over your sovereignty.
See this News Release for the latest in one of the clues that should be a red flag as to that kind of potential abuse. Translation: even they don’t believe it’s safe.
What does it mean when the experts or the board of directors or other Pro-RFID advocates refuse to take a chip implant for themselves and their family? As you can see from reading the linked release, I am expanding the question, but the question stands.
Dissenters such as myself agree that the benefits of implanting chips may be welcomed, but only insofar as they are limited, and based on our experience over the last several decades, such limits are too often ignored; the best strategy is to give no ground at all from the beginning, and simply say No, period.
Sovereignty. As sovereigns, we don’t have to have a reason.
But the inevitability of the RFID chips coming into our society is what the Germans and Austrians called the Anschluss, or an incorporation of the two – RFID Tracking merged with our society on an inevitable, or-else basis. The word is an historical political jargon – after Hitler’s rise to power, the Nazi Party took the idea – the tone and connotation are sinister. [Presently, we're already experiencing an Anschluss of all sorts in intrusion, imposition and interference as our way of life changes to meet hundreds of unjust adjustments.]
The merging of RFID technology even for beneficial significance is not welcome.
Who can stop it?
Saying No obviously won’t do it. Anschluss.
But some elites get to say No and their No is respected, as in the above story. This is not a good sign.
The clue is that Mr. Thompson, like the rest of us, knows what’s best for his family, and politely declines, postpones, says No or just plain lied from the beginning, with no intention of swallowing the poisoned drink to prove it’s safe.
The Dope could have taken it publicly, then had it removed secretly. ..or can it be removed?
Perhaps Mr. Thompson knows very well that once it’s in, it’s in to stay, and with any kind of hand-held reader, anyone could scan his medical history and, once obtained, that history – or any other content – is in the wind for both benevolent or hostile uses, as he is never to know the people who took it nor abused it.
This drink is poisoned, folks. He won’t even taste it. [Note: In order for the RFID Advocates to attest to their confidence in the RFID Chip, a majority of advocates would have to take an implant, complete with genuine personal information and permit examiners to scan it for authenticity and placement. Wouldn't you think..?]
Without this majority undertaking their own chip implant -- and soon -- it’s too late to say anything now to dissuade dissenters.
The whole idea is poisoned now by the fact that one of its most notable advocates refuses to take the thing. Others refuse to take his place.
When Mr. Thompson changes his mind – say, when the chip is 'perfected' – it will be too late, of course. Let the record show that he promised to take the thing, then refused.
But, Mr. Thompson, when you change your mind at the behest of shareholders, and become an implantee for the rest of your life, will your family be accepting them, too?
By the way, what do you call it when you’re injected with an RFID chip? Is it called wearing them..? Sporting them? Carrying them? What do you call it when someone is injected with an RFID chip for the rest of their life? As people forever changed, what will they be called?
Chippies is already taken.
Say NO to RFID.
______________________________
John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth – The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry, available mid-December.
<< Home