Gibraltar Messenger offers the official position of an important environment group in Spain – of Ecologists in Action. Perhaps it will spark further debate on 5G for the entire Campo of Gibraltar.
“What will we put at the center: life or the machine?”
Ecologistas en Acción is one of the most important environmental groups in Spain. After almost two years of investigating the issue, they have approved an official position on 5G technology.
Major Environmental Group of Spain Issues Statement on 5G
Ecologists in Action believes that the project to digitalize the world, far from being a tool to mitigate the ongoing ecosocial collapse, is building societies that are less prepared to face it and exacerbating some of its most dangerous dynamics. Given the importance of the 5G network as the infrastructural underpinning of this process, Ecologistas en Acción believes that its deployment should be halted and subjected to a thorough political, technical, ecological and health assessment.
In the age of Digital Capitalism
In recent decades we have witnessed the formation of an ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) oligopoly that concentrates gigantic power in the hands of the owners of information technology and the owners of the Internet. A few companies (Microsoft, Apple, Foxconn, Google, Amazon…) control the communications of a large majority of the population, have control over the information that people generate and put it at the service of purposes of dubious social utility, such as the creation of economic profit or the engineering of opinion.
The origin of this power has been the identification of a new accumulation niche: what Shoshana Zuboff has called the “behavioral surplus value”, which yields “surveillance dividends”. The companies involved in this Surveillance Capitalism have profited by obtaining enormous masses of data from our daily use of platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google.
Those known as GAFAM (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft) use Big Data to feed algorithms that progressively take the place of human expertise, labor or evaluation capacity. To the already known algorithms for word search, facial identification, translation, etc. are beginning to be joined by algorithms that dictate judicial sentences or evaluate the suitability of certain profiles for a job or the criminal dangerousness of certain individuals or neighborhoods.
Among the many risks that the generalization of this algorithmic logic entails, one of the most worrying is political. On the one hand, because of the way in which states such as China are using these new digital media to create what Marta Peirano does not hesitate to describe as technodictatorship. Especially now that their management of the COVID-19 pandemic has legitimized their practices, with some in the West openly inviting their imitation. On the other hand, because of the power of these algorithms to interfere in the democratic elections that these algorithms are creating. On the other, because of the power of interference in democratic elections of these algorithms that the Cambridge Analytica scandal has brought to light and that has been partially responsible for the rise to power of figures such as Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro.
Green and digital? The dangerous metabolic burden of digitalization.
In addition to its socially alarming effects, digitalization has become the industrial sector with the most explosive metabolic growth on the planet. Far from being “immaterial,” the digital economy has an immense ecological footprint.
Cloud computing alone already consumes around 2% of the electricity produced in the world. Google subsidiary YouTube is the world’s largest electricity consumer – the company, and streaming video in general, accounts for up to 80% of all Internet traffic – and, according to Greenpeace’s 2017 report Clicking Clean – which takes the entire IT sector as a benchmark and compares it to the rest of the world – it is the world’s largest consumer of electricity.
In addition to the above, there is the increasingly worrying problem of waste associated with digitization. Programmed obsolescence and the dynamic of constant renewal of computer terminals are at the root of a veritable e-waste emergency, which is responsible for water pollution and disease in areas of dumping, such as Ghana.
At cruising speed towards collapse: the digital shock doctrine
If the impacts associated with “truly existing digitization” are already alarming in themselves, the current commitment to 5G technology aims to create the conditions for the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution”. This, ideally, would set in motion a new cycle of capitalist accumulation based on automation, hyper-connectivity, deregulated work through platforms, new forms of urban governance (smart cities), the digitization of agriculture, etc.
It is an attempt at a new “Great Acceleration” that goes in the opposite direction of what we really need. The flight forward that 5G represents can be compared to the deployment of the last moais (giant sculptures) on Easter Island (Rapa-Nui). In a world suffering from a climate emergency and on a trajectory of ecological-social collapse, what we need is not to accelerate further (and ICTs in general function as accelerators of “turbo-capitalism”), but precisely the opposite: to slow down, relocate, contract the social metabolism, reconnect with nature and build a new meaning of life that is not based on the consumption of commodities.
The massive digitalization that 5G aims to make possible would exacerbate each and every one of the problems we face. On the one hand, politically, because the project of the elites is the extension of algorithmic logic and surveillance capitalism far beyond the screens of our computers and cell phones. The so-called “internet of things” (IoT) aims to make almost all our domestic objects data collectors that continue to fatten the surveillance dividends of the large telecommunications multinationals. Autonomous cars, smart refrigerators, interconnected clothing, smart cities… All of these would be synonymous with an explosion of sensors that would record our explosion of sensors that would register our movements, our consumption patterns, etc. In short, the bulk of our daily lives.
Such a scenario launches worrying projections in areas such as privacy, but above all it would conceal a major challenge for our already limited democracies. The combination of such a flow of data with opaque algorithms invading more and more areas of our lives promises to draw a scenario in which our decision-making capacity will be strongly diminished. It would seem that this Fourth Industrial Revolution (IVRI) has the pretension of giving shape to the longed-for Machine of Ruling that replaces popular decision and human judgment with a sum of objective parameters, technical decisions and algorithmic calculations. Today, digitalization has become a key tool of Capital and States both for increasing social control and for settling the different geopolitical disputes that cross an increasingly multipolar world.
But, in addition, the metabolic impacts of such a social transformation would be on a monstrous scale, and would undoubtedly go in the opposite direction to the kind of emergency landings that the present ecosocial collapse requires. It is not unreasonable to say that the IVRI is a genuine ecosocial disaster in the making.
For one thing, energy consumption promises to explode due to skyrocketing data traffic. Although today only a few objects can connect to the Internet, the energy consumption of devices and servers, and their associated emissions, are already comparable to those of entire countries. What to expect from scenarios in which the number of interconnected objects would reach, as projected, the number of 1,000,000 per km2? What other interpretation remains possible in light of the fact that 1,000,000 autonomous cars would require a level of data exchange equivalent to that of 3,000,000,000,000 people using their smartphone? Already today, the power consumption of the few 5G antennas installed in China is so high that the companies responsible for them are being forced to turn them off during the night…
On the other hand, it is also easy to foresee that the impact of this 5G world on climate change would also be profound. Especially because the increase in energy consumption that it would generate would be difficult to separate from the burning of fossil fuels that are not as easy to replace with renewable energies as some would like to defend.
In addition, private companies and governments have already launched hundreds of satellites linked to the deployment of 5G and the launch of thousands more has already been approved. Astronomers warn that this massive deployment will not only completely change our firmament (which should be the heritage of humanity), but will also interfere with astronomical observations and affect weather forecasts at a time when they are crucial for the fight against the Climate Emergency. In conclusion, and as Ben Tarnoff reminds us, to decarbonize we need to de-digitize and decomputerize.
In short, the world’s digitalization project is building societies that are not very resilient. Especially because, as Jorge Riechmann reminds us, making everything depend on the large telecommunications multinationals (the GAFAMs) and their digitalization proposals leads to scenarios of enormous social fragility. First, because of the tremendous defenselessness in which States and individuals are left as they depend in more and more areas of their lives on private companies that make use of opaque algorithms to achieve their own ends. But, above all, because the extreme digitalization proposed by the Fourth Industrial Revolution will not be viable in contexts of energy decline such as those we have before us. Every time we surrender a facet of our social activity or our productive capacity to these new digital proposals, we reduce the possibility of building emergency exits that, while assuming some of the inevitable impacts of the collapse, allow us to lead lives that are as dignified, fair, egalitarian and autonomous as possible.
It would also be a mistake to think that the systemic constraints that will accompany the ecosocial collapse will make the generalization of the 5G world impossible, so we should not be unconcerned about this issue. In addition to the fact that its degree of advancement will be inversely proportional to our chances of a good life, as we pointed out earlier, there is a very real risk that its resources will eventually remain in the hands of reduced layers of society who will be able to use them for control and repressive purposes. A scenario of energy decline can be transformed into a social sector that is forced to lead undignified lives and elites that use high-tech paraphernalia to maintain social inequality. A fear that is quite justified in light of the fact that around 70% of the projected investment in 5G will be in the hands of security and video surveillance companies…
Finally, it is more necessary than ever to question the 5G and its world because there is no greater imaginary block today for the construction of just, ecofeminist and degrowth societies than the idea that thanks to technology we will be able to solve all the problems that our industrial capitalist societies have generated. To build a genuine culture of limits that allows us to embrace individual and collective self-restraint, a New Earth Culture, we need to abandon once and for all the technolatry that is leading us step by step towards collapse.
Conclusions: to decrease (and collapse better) we need (also) to de-digitalize
The way in which today the bulk of society assumes the deployment of the 5G network, and the world that would accompany it, as an inevitable phenomenon is nothing more than the umpteenth expression of a technological sleepwalking that actually involves the widespread assumption of an undesirable determinism. Society seems to believe that more devices, more power, more connectivity, more coverage, etc. is little more than the natural trajectory of a social progress that is confused with technological progress, and this prevents us from understanding that almost every technical decision is, in reality, a political decision.
There is nothing rational or inevitable about the implementation of 5G and a hyper-digitized world; it can and must be exposed to criticism and subjected to democratic debate. No technology is neutral: in its emergence and extension, our political structures, our work, our personal relationships, our health… are at stake.
A socio-technical scenario such as that of 5G (consisting of connecting billions of objects, multiplying data centers, intensifying mining extractivism and enabling unprecedented levels of social control) seems undesirable to us. We are inundated with propaganda about how automatic vehicles will reduce traffic accidents, we will be able to lower the blinds at home from work, or the refrigerator will warn us that the yogurt is about to expire, but what is the point of all this if it accelerates our trajectory of ecosocial collapse? What good will the supposed liberation (of time, of the need for organization) offered by computerization do us if along the way it erodes any possibility of a free life, or of a life at all?
Taking into account all of the above, and within the framework of a necessary global reconsideration of the trajectory of computerization, digitalization and automation of our societies, we conclude that:
- It is common for social ecologists to assume that the computerization of society is irreversible. While we do question technologies such as those associated with nuclear energy production or, recently, the electric car, demanding the need for a democratic debate on their desirability and dangers, we do not usually extend this demand to ICT or the new 5G technology.
- It is in this context that the debate on informatization and digitization arises. In light of the large number of impacts (consumption of resources, mining of scarce materials, technological junk, erosion of democracy, social control, etc.) we understand that the use of computing devices must be limited in a sustainable, just and democratic society. Social control over major technological developments (those that have the power to reshape the economy, society and their relationship with the biosphere) remains a basic democratic requirement.
- Furthermore, and taking up the confederal consensuses of the 2018 Ecologistas en Acción Environmental Program, we affirm that there is sufficient evidence to put into practice the precautionary principle against the deployment of the 5G network, according to the legal principles of the European Union.
- In line with the above, governments should oblige companies to have liability insurance to respond to possible damages caused by 5G deployments, as already suggested in 2009 by the European Parliament in the face of the generalization of the opposite practice. Allowing the idea of uninsurable risks to take root means accepting that the benefits of these transformations go to companies while the costs are borne by society…
- In the hardware dimension, we must abandon the “one person, one device” paradigm. To reduce the enormous environmental footprint of ICTs, it is imperative to separate devices from the dynamics of permanent renewal and think of them as community goods. To this end, it would be necessary to look more closely at models of shared use such as municipal computers or telephone booths.
With regard to telephony and the Internet, we believe it is necessary to opt for a return to wiring to the detriment of wireless technologies. Therefore, there should be a generalized commitment to landline telephones and the use of wired Internet connection.
Finally, it is necessary to promote advances in the design of modular models of telephones and computers, not dependent on rare raw materials, durable and easy to repair.
- In the software dimension, and in order to erode the enormous power accumulated today by the large technology companies, we would focus on the development of less cumbersome operating systems and programs. This, in turn, would be in harmony with a commitment to free and open formats.
A second key element would be the advancement of the digital commons, on the basis that this is a field that is already well established (open source, free software, p2p networks, etc.).
- The type of measures outlined above would imply, de facto, the impossibility of developing measures of social control and massive monitoring such as those that currently characterize regimes such as the Chinese one. Moreover, a process of selective de-digitization would imply important advances in antimilitarist positions (today there are already autonomous killer robots) and in the construction of autonomy (reduction of the possibility of repression and surveillance). limiting the scope of state bureaucracy, increasing food, technological and energy sovereignty).
In order to adapt to this metabolic transformation, it would be imperative to deinform many areas of life (bureaucracy, entertainment, culture, etc.) by returning to their previous organizations or inventing new ones. In this way, we would make our societies more resilient to the transformations of the ongoing ecosocial collapse which, if it follows its most destructive trajectories, would in the near future call into question universal, high-speed access to the Internet. And, therefore, it would weaken economies and institutions dependent on it for their day-to-day functioning.
Economically, minimizing the use of automated technology would not only reduce GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions and the consumption of materials and energy, but would leave room for a greater presence of human labor and contribute to the construction of a New Gaian Earth Culture and the exercise of individual and collective self-limitation. This need is especially pressing in areas such as finance, today absolutely dependent on automated algorithms.
In contrast, a modular and convivial design of communication and information technologies would allow a democratic management of both their production and their use and disposal.
In conclusion, in view of the deployment of 5G and the transformations that will accompany it, it is inevitable to ask ourselves: what kind of world do we want to live in: a hyper-digitalized, robotized, monitored, controlled and manipulated society, or a society where human relations, care, the common good and democratic debates on key issues for our future take precedence?
In other words, what will we put at the center: life or the machine?
The Gibraltar Messenger also offers the European Union report – Health impact of 5G for review. Because the report is lengthy, only a few excerpts will be included.
The introduction of 5G fraught with uncertainty concerning both health issues and forecasting/monitoring the actual exposure of the population.
European Parliament requested a research report “Health Impact of 5G” released in July 2021, concluding that commonly used RFR frequencies (450 to 6000 MHz) are probably carcinogenic for humans and clearly affect male fertility with possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, fetuses and newborns. 5G will increase ambient levels of wireless radiofrequency radiation.
The first page summary:
The upcoming deployment of 5G mobile networks will allow for significantly faster mobile broadband speeds and increasingly extensive mobile data usage. Technical innovations include a different transmission system (MIMO: use of multiple‐input and multiple‐output antennas), directional signal transmission or reception (beamforming), and the use of other frequency ranges. At the same time, a change is expected in the exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) of humans and the environment. In addition to those used to date, the 5G pioneer bands identified at EU level have frequencies of 700 MHz, 3.6 GHz (3.4 to 3.8 GHz) and 26 GHz (24.25 to 27.5 GHz). The first two frequencies (FR1) are similar to those used for 2G to 4G technologies and have been investigated in both epidemiological and experimental studies for different end points (including carcinogenicity and reproductive /developmental effects), while 26 GHz (FR2) and higher frequencies have not been adequately studied for the same end points.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency (RF) EMF as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 2B) and recently recommended RF exposure for re-evaluation ‘with high priority’ (IARC, 2019). Since 2011 a great number of studies have been performed, both epidemiologicaland experimental. The present review addresses the current knowledge regarding both carcinogenic and reproductive/developmental hazards of RF as exploited by 5G. There are various in vivo experimental and epidemiological studies on RF at a lower frequency range (450 to 6000 MHz), which also includes the frequencies used in previous generations’ broadband cellular networks, but very few (and inadequate) on the higher frequency range (24 to 100 GHz, centimetre/MMW).
The review shows:
1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz): a) limited evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence of reproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d) sufficient evidence of reproductive/developmental adverse effects in experimental animals;
2) 5G higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate studies either in humans or in experimental animals.
Conclusions:
1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies;
2) reproductive developmental effects: Zionists Installed Hitler to Establish IsraelFR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencie
Also notable is Section 7.4 (page 153) – Promoting multidisciplinary scientific research to assess the long-term health effects of 5G and to find an adequate method of monitoring exposure to 5G.
The literature contains no adequate studies by which to exclude the risk that tumours and adverse effects on reproduction and development may occur upon exposure to 5G MMW, or to exclude the possibility of some synergistic interactions between 5G and other frequencies that are already being used.
This makes the introduction of 5G fraught with uncertainty concerning both health issues and forecasting/monitoring the actual exposure of the population: these gaps in knowledge are invoked to justify the call for a moratorium on 5G MMW, pending adequate research being completed.
Understanding The Voices of the 5G Narrative
The Environmental Safety Group (ESG) in Gibraltar has gone quiet on 5G dangers, after hosting the 5G discussion in 2020, where Gibtelecom Jensen Reyes, Director of Technology, was given ample time to regurgitate the industry narrative. Even when the official 5G launch in Gibraltar in 2021, Reyes again regurgiated “5G is safe” and cites International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) standards.
But there is another side of the story – “Overwhelming power of ICNIRP opinions through backing from GSMA, MWF & telecoms: WHO and governmental agencies, like ARPANSA, BfS, TNO, STUK et al., meekly follow and disseminate misinformation on 5G millimeter-waves’ safety research” – Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc.
Gibraltar Messenger offers a January 2024 report that explains why one side is heard ad nauseam and the other discounted. And when report mentions “industry-connected” individuals, we should think of Jensen Reyes as well as other Gibtelecom executives, who parrot ICNIRP narratives.
Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative
The report is somewhat lengthy, but noteable excerpts are included:
Researchers working at university institutions with laboratories funded by, or in partnership with telecommunication industries seem unable to maintain both their jobs and their independence from these industries.
The international advisory body, ICNIRP, has members with a history of industry affiliations, [ed. – thus creating a conflict of interest in these members]. This creates an inherent industry-bias within ICNIRP members, which has been noted by the Ethical Council at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and by the Court of Turin where evidence provided by ICNIRP was deemed biased and not reliable.
Government advisory agencies [ed. – ie. Gibraltar Regulatory Authority] are unable to make independent statements about health and exposures, because they are expected to support government plans for comprehensive internet of things (IoT) and smart cities, which are dependent on wireless technologies.
The supposedly independent international advisory body, the WHO International EMF project is strongly influenced by industry in the form of the International Telecommunications Union and ICNIRP.
Government regulatory agencies and advisory bodies may derive their income from industry via RF spectrum sales.
Such conflicts of interest make it unclear whose interests are being represented when a member of one these groups speaks into the 5G narrative. For example, when a WHO webpage on potential health risks from 5G informs that Provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are anticipated, it is uncertain who is really speaking: ARPANSA, ICNIRP, ACMA, or the telecommunications industry.
It appears that prestigious and supposedly independent health bodies along with the regulatory agencies advising on the 5G rollout have significant elements in that apparatus [that] appear to have been captured by vested interests.
Given that the stakes are very high, the public rightfully require their leaders and public servants to develop an adequate risk management policy on the issue of RF-EMF exposures and health.
3.1 Who is speaking into the narrative and what are they saying?
The above analysis shows that:
1. The public voices expressing concern are mostly well-informed and rational, with the majority of concerns focused on safety and security.
2. Highly experienced scientists and doctors have been speaking into the 5G narrative, claiming adequate evidence for risk of harm. They have organized into independent science-based advocacy groups in order that their evidence-based concerns may be heard.
3. The authors claiming no evidence of harm are mostly industry linked and affiliated with regulatory agencies worldwide. They do not advise precaution, do not change their opinions, and they downplay the results of scientists who claim that harm exists. It seems that the strategies of big tobacco are being successfully followed by the telecommunications industry to influence RF-EMF science.
3.2 Maintaining doubt
Independent scientists have been stating concerns regarding health risks from all forms of wireless radiation for several decades. Now 5G has been included in those concerns. Rather than acknowledging potential harm, industry-linked author-spokespersons continue to give the impression that the science is uncertain, and harm is not confirmed.
When two thirds of the published literature suggests biological interference and health effects from RF-EMF, the scientific foundation for assessing the health risks of 5G is not equally weighted for and against, and the evidence is not inconclusive. Rather it is suggestive of real health risks. However, industry linked authors continue to repeat the “no conclusive evidence” mantra in order to obscure real health risks.
A precautionary approach does not need to be seen to be an impediment to economic development, because industry will find a way to implement safer technologies given the necessity.
Authors aligned with ICNIRP and/or the WHO EMF project have the ear of governments worldwide. It is this second industry-linked group who are controlling the official narrative. Members of one scientific expert group (e.g., ICNIRP) are also members of other supposedly independent expert groups (e.g., SCENIHR).
We suggest that the real problem for policymakers is that the harmful exposures that are currently being debated are created by giant global industries on which the world is becoming more and more dependent, i.e., energy and telecommunications. World dependency on any environmental toxin constitutes a “wicked problem” with uncertainty about future effects, complex interconnected issues, intractable differences in stakeholder values and resistance to change
Such problems need to be tackled using various strategies, including participatory and transdisciplinary processes, rational dialogue comprising public, scientific, political, and industry voices and the reimagining of engineering and technology practices. Denigrating or silencing those scientists who are pointing out the problem is not going to help to solve it. Rather, the input of these scientists as well as the rational public is needed for the courageous problem solving that is urgently required so as to reduce RF-EMF-induced erosion of human and planetary health.
Advocacy is less dangerous than sitting quietly on the sidelines while politicians and interest groups undermine the scientific method by perpetrating junk science. Nature 2004, p. 1,036].
Also note this report and excerpt:
Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines:
Our analysis shows that ICNIRP 2020 itself, and in practice all its referenced supporting literature stem from a network of co-authors with just 17 researchers at its core, most of them affiliated with ICNIRP and/or the IEEE, and some of them being ICNIRP 2020 authors themselves. Moreover, literature reviews presented by ICNIRP 2020 as being from independent committees, are in fact products of this same informal network of collaborating authors, all committees having ICNIRP 2020 authors as members. This shows that the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines fail to meet fundamental scientific quality requirements and are therefore not suited as the basis on which to set RF EMF exposure limits for the protection of human health. With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP contrasts with the majority of research findings, and would therefore need a particularly solid scientific foundation. Our analysis demonstrates the contrary to be the case. Hence, the ICNIRP 2020 Guidelines cannot offer a basis for good governance.
Here’s a question:
Why did NIH abruptly halt research on the harms of cell phone radiation? – The sudden end of civilian government efforts to study potential health impacts of wireless radiation constitutes a glaring abdication of responsibility. The NTP now states that no more research on wireless radiation is planned due to costs of the studies and technical challenges. One must ask what is driving this flipflop. What has led to this sudden change in priorities, so that such an exponentially growing environmental exposure no longer merits study? – Devra Davis, EHTrust. See also EHTrust’s PDF: What You Need To Know About 5G Wireless and Microcells (“Small” Cells)
Low Level Microwaves – Barry Trower
Microwave Weapons Expert Barry Trower said he read a paper from the American government that said we must set a safety limit that nobody can argue against and we can win in court… and if anyone ask, say, “this follows the safety guidelines.” Then the following sentence says, “to protect industrial output” – money. So, we are killing people to protect industry.”
Do Gibraltarians really want the ICNIRP standards and narrative to be the only one acceptable on The Rock?
While 5G has been officially launched in Gibraltar, remember that Gibraltar Messenger raised concerns in 2020 in Gibraltar’s Gamble with 5G. These two sections deal specifically with Gibraltar:
SECTION 6 – GIBRALTAR: Welcome to the 5G Trials
SECTION 7 – GIBRALTARIANS: Welcome to the 5G Human Trials
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and materialism.
“What you are experiencing now, with this fake-pandemic lock-down and mass mandatory vaccination-program, and the roll-out of the 5G surveillance and control active-denial-system, is the implementation of the last stages of their Ashke-Nazi New World Order satanic plan, to enslave and kill-off most of mankind, that John Fitzgerald Kennedy warned about and cost him his life.” – Gibraltar Messenger
“There is NO safe level of RF-EMF radiation – NONE.”
God’s first prophet Enoch warned against technology/science falsely so-called:
Enoch 68:14 Since they (men) were only created, so that, like the angels of heaven, they might remain righteous and pure.
68:15 Then death, which destroys every thing, would not have affected them;
68:16 But by this, THEIR KNOWLEDGE (science – 1 Tim. 5:20), THEY PERISH, and by this also its power consumes them.