This is a blog post I’ve been working on for the past three weeks. It’s about the Crypto Symposium that was held in early September. It’s actually very important and I’d appreciate it if you spend some time with it. The implications are pretty serious. Thanks @Jason_Bosch, @leo and @cliffgomes1 for providing input to the draft.
I just did a read aloud of this:
“That is the end game, managed life (Kubernetes, cybernetics) using nano-tech track and trace energy economics interwoven with infinite unseen contractual arrangements.”
When I look into my life I can see all the places I’ve consented to accept contracts. Some are ideological and my participation has been through mostly unconscious agreement, some I’m aware of, but go along with as the cost of doing business in culture and I accept them to travel or work. What’s exciting about them for me, and why I appreciate Alison’s work so much, is to trace the concept of unconscious or passive acceptance of contracts into the spiritual and energetic spheres of my life, to look and see there how the contracts I’ve made disempower my efforts towards becoming conscious and free of the constraints they represent in mind, and in consciousness itself. My faith is that shifting my allegiances at that level will sponsor a new awareness at every level that alerts me whenever I adopt a stance of passive acceptance.
Thanks Cliff. The thing is the past few years this domination system got to be really strong-armed with the forced agreements. I know many people who consented, even though that was not their desire. I do think it’s not an all or nothing thing. Even being aware that unseen contracts exist and affect our lives is a useful step in working to disentangle from them.
I’d never really thought about mental entanglements, but your insights have really helped me see them better - and now seeing all the metaphysical games these jokers are playing - it’s getting clearer and clearer.
To echo the thoughts shared by Eric and Cliff (see below) . . .
I read your blog post three times since you published it – each time absorbing more. As I processed and integrated the dense material, I realized that it is so incredibly rich in detail and depth that I simply cannot find a branch or tributary on which I can even contribute. Thats’s a good thing! That means you have woven a complete tapestry – a seamless quilt. It is magnificent.
I also came to a sense that the underpinnings of this presentation are shamanic in nature. To be a shaman – at its core – is to get to the root of dysfunction or dis-ease; and to know precisely how events in the past, present, and future all intersect; and then to communicate this to the others, so that we can learn to right our relationship with what is occurring.
I am truly grateful for your most thorough exploration and analysis – establishing and modeling clarity and contouring (the latter of which is something I struggle to exhibit). It certainly seems it may be time to dissolve unhealthy energetic entanglements, imbalanced invisible/unknown agreements, and polarized transactions. The spectacle and stage actors are becoming increasingly apparent – as if coming out of the woodwork.
Again, I wish I had more to offer. I will sit more with this. It is time for me to take an in-breath – a very long in-breath . . . A perfect time for me to practice listening . . . With gratitude ~ Steph
Eric says:
Huge <3 to you, Allison, for continuing this fight of fights. A post of epic proportions.
Cliff says:
Reading it for the fourth time! It’s such an expansive and clarifying post. I value your work more than I can say and appreciate so much the work you do to bring it to everyone’s attention.
On a side note . . .
I found Nick Weaver to be extremely wormy – downright icky . . . Must be all of that time he has spent with computer worms (Nicholas Weaver's CV). His snarkiness is viscerally disturbing to me. I would not be able to last one minute if I had a class with him. Blockchain is NOT a meme. It is a real thing, and it is so incredibly gross for him to gleefully dismiss what we are confronting.
Conversely, I found Roxana to be entirely refreshing, courageous, and erudite. I would sign up in a heartbeat for any of her classes! 
P.S. At the beginning of his lecture here, he wonders why there is such a large drop-off in student attendance: Computer Security 161 Cryptocurrency Lecture - YouTube. Hmmmm. I wonder why, Dr. Weaver . . . What I would like to know is . . . What is the real reason he has been investigating the crypto space so intently since 2013.
Great job. Their fabricated narratives are paper thin when it comes to ‘crypto skepticism’. Thinner than even web3 proponents, who are at least correct in that web3 is the latest constructed evolution towards deeper socio-technical management.
Don’t feel like I have anything to add at the moment. I mean their arguments are just so ridiculous, blockchain is being used commercially/industrially at a decent scale already. There’s already several multinational trading/shipping and high finance consortiums that use it, tons going on in Asia/china, and probably alot more that’s never published.
Regarding the video clip at the beginning of this post @AMcD , I found this quote very helpful, “A blockchain is just an append-only ledger. It’s a way to write data that you can only add stuff to it. Think of it as a giant roll of toilet paper that you write stuff on.” This conceptualization was very helpful to me. I had a sense of the “permanent ledger” quality of blockchain, but the idea that you ONLY add to the ledger, and that its all connected sequentially like the squares of toilet paper, that clarifies my understanding in an essential way. One thing that had confused me was the idea of “blocks”. I was visualizing them being built out in multiple directions, like the additive squares of minecraft, rather than in a single line. Essentially, I was over-thinking the idea of blockchain, and the toilet paper comparison clarified that.
I worry when you say this that you are missing the point about data interoperability. That is the key element.
@AMcD Yes, but to understand the interoperability, I need to start from a core concept, and that is what the toilet paper metaphor gives me. I think I was getting lost in the idea of interoperability, without understanding the core concept of a sequential, permanent ledger. This is similar to my experience as a child, when I couldn’t “get” algebra. What I didn’t understand was the idea that “if A ,than B” was a closed universe, and A and B were not variable. To most people this would be “Well,duh…”, but to me - until I accepted that - it completely hampered my ability to understand and do algebra.
I guess what I’m saying is I don’t think that is actually accurate - the toilet paper metaphor. Yes, it is append only, but the chains will interlink. It isn’t a line.
The energetic crystal will only be able to “grow” and become more complex and faceted (not less, because the appended data is permanent). Its form is way more sophisticated than a linear progression. Also, you have to remember the plan is for bio-chemical blockchain “economies” in the body, so the amount of appended data, if they are able to do that, will be enormous and constantly in motion.
Thanks again Leo.
Thank you. I do hope that it will start to trickle down into conversations about how people push back against the digital twin ledger agenda, because my sense it is so controlled right now.
Thank you, this helps. So when Nick Weaver makes that metaphor, I wonder whether he is deliberately trying to misdirect people’s understanding.
I’m not sure how if you read the article you might imagine he is a good faith actor. I’m at a loss.
The WHOLE article is about the intentional misdirection of that event, with the exception of my friend who didn’t realize what was happening or the true nature of the other individuals involved. Did that not come across in those 14 pages I wrote and the 150+ screen shots?
Sorry for the confusion - I am reading the article now. I made the comment about Weaver’s metaphor right after I viewed the clip. I should have waited until I finished the article before commenting.
I wonder what is holding people back on this. Someone else said something similar last week - about envisioning it. Why is it that you would latch onto the toilet paper metaphor by the guy who’s doing the cryptography for the swarm drone robotics than the image I provided five years about around smart contracts and blockchain ID targeting vulnerable people? I’m asking this in all sincerity, because I believe I painted a VERY clear and relatable picture. And yet you and this other person seem to feel the need to seek out outside authorities, people who are actually misleading us. Why is that? Is is something about me? I honestly don’t get it and it matters, because I’m not going to continue to put in my time just to hit a brick wall over and over.
That guy’s drones are going to be used to get impact data on poor villagers. It is something about perceived credentialing? I’ve been writing about Shanzhai City and IO2 / IXO Foundation literally for years. What is the blockage? Do we just not want to actually see this for what it is?
Just to be perfectly clear I spent three weeks of watching, thinking, processing, researching and writing to create that post. I hope you can see that from my perspective your comment really hurtful, especially since I said it was important to me.
