New America: Guilty Until Further Notice

This article continues a discussion on the U.S. government’s use of neuroscience and directed energy to develop weapons which can secretly affect the brain and body from a remote location without requiring surgically implanted neural technologies.

Government scientists during the Obama-Biden Administration described plans for large remote surveillance systems which determine a person’s intentions, potentially including surveilling and affecting brain activity.

Importantly, U.S. government scientists suggested the remote detection of covert intent technologies and their planned “larger systems of systems” could have dual uses in the civilian economy, including “crowd control, antidrug and anticrime operations, border security, and ensuring the security of government and private personnel and property.”

Emphasis should be on the use of remote and secret technologies for “anticrime operations” in the previous quotation; the U.S. government suggested using remote and secret technologies which potentially affect the human brain and/or body to prevent crime, not necessarily to solve crimes already committed. (Although such a use would also be problematic; innocent persons might be deliberately wrongly investigated and investigations can cause life-destroying harm.)

In other words, such potentially remote and secret brain surveillance systems were suggested to be used by law enforcement and investigation entities like the FBI for “anticrime operations.” 

Directed Energy Weapons are similar to those suggested to be used by U.S. government scientists for surveillance and anticrime operations and are also relevant to this discussion; such weapons could remotely and secretly harm the brain and body. Those technologies, according to a U.S. government publication, could cause one to “suddenly hear voices in one’s head” and mimic schizophrenia. In a moment it will be explained how such technologies might be used for “anticrime operations.”

Now, before getting to the main point, an incomplete discussion on national security and law enforcement is necessary.

One often hears government national security and local security employees say things like, “we take every threat seriously.”

Things have gotten a bit absurd in America, though. National and local security employees now often talk about going after “potential threats” or a “risk to the public.”

Communist China has a similar approach, only using different language; the Chinese use preventive arrests for “social dangerousness.” The FBI’s “risk to the public” and China’s “social dangerousness” do not seem to be much different.

Local police and entities like the FBI also use preventative policing or anticrime methods. One often hears police and FBI claim they are taking risks to the public “off the streets.”

It should be emphasized that there is more than one way to get a person “off the streets.” Arresting a person and putting them in jail, or physically restraining them, is not the only way to prevent a person from going out in public.

For example, U.S. Federal regulations (in the context of controlling the elderly but applicable here) describe both “physical restraint,” which is obvious, and “chemical restraint,” which includes medications “used to control behavior or to restrict the … freedom of movement.”

Chemical restraints are often medications and might include antipsychotics, antidepressants, and others which are prescribed for schizophrenia, anxiety, and depression. Many of those medications can cause lack of ambition and increased appetite for food and sleep, ultimately resulting in restriction of movement.

While none of this article includes medical advice or any other type of advice, one should be made aware of how government might use a remote and secret technology which causes symptoms to “mimic schizophrenia” for “anticrime operations” — that is, to take a person off the streets, control their behavior, and restrict their freedom of movement.

Basically, remotely operated directed energy technologies might be used to cause continuous distress or other mind-altering symptoms (also known as torture) to “nudge” a person to visit a health care professional who then prescribes behavior-controlling and movement-restricting medications. The end result is getting the targeted person off the streets.

Of course, distress and some medications can indirectly result in a person’s death, which also gets the person off the streets.

Now, with regards to law enforcement targeting “risks to the public”: almost every human being could be arbitrarily described as a risk to the public or potential threat and thus could become a target of government national and local security employees.

Humans have an automatic and reflexive-like response system known as the “fight or flight” response. An experienced psychologist or sociologist can likely plan secret schemes or tricks to provoke the “fight or flight response” and deliberately (without the targeted person knowing a planned and coordinated scheme is ongoing) cause almost automatic anger in most people.

Also, Americans might wrongly think the law enforcement phrase “potential threat” or “risk to the public” only refers to the jihadist or gangster. Many are probably familiar with the House of Representatives discussing how the FBI uses FBI employees and cooperators as a weapon against Americans; this was described as the FBI’s weaponization of law enforcement.

What many might not know is who the FBI described as “potential” threats, or “potential domestic terrorists.” The House of Representatives reported that:

[T]he FBI singled out Americans who are pro-life, pro-family, and support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction as potential domestic terrorists.

The FBI also said that targeting such people presented “new mitigation opportunities.” Some, or many, might interpret that to mean, “an opportunity to target people and get them off the street.” In the previous scenarios, it might imply targeting those who support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction to “get them off the streets.”

Now, one also might not realize the significance of being labeled a potential threat by the FBI and local law enforcement. It is apparently a big deal. This might be implied by the FBI Director who stated that “the FBI recognizes proper and thorough handling of civil rights crimes does not begin the moment they are reported—it begins before they occur.” This apparently implies preventative policing.

The FBI Director also said that the FBI uses “all available lawful investigative techniques and methods to combat these threats.”

(The FBI Director’s claim of using “lawful investigative techniques” might be misleading, because the FBI guidelines apparently allow FBI employees, cooperators, and potentially local police — or as the guidelines on secret FBI operations say, “local law enforcement organization working with the FBI” — to commit “otherwise illegal activity” during anticrime operations.) 

Now, putting it together, the FBI “singled out Americans who are pro-life, pro-family, and support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction as potential domestic terrorists” and, if the other statement applies, used “all available lawful investigative techniques and methods to combat these threats.”

Simply suggesting that a man is a man might have gotten the FBI to use “all…investigative techniques and methods to combat” you.

And, if U.S. government plans were achieved, remote and secret technologies which affect and surveil the human brain might be used for such anticrime operations.

Now, some might say something like, “why would the FBI or local police target me? Even though I believe that a man is a man, I don’t tell anyone, and I don’t bother anyone. Plus, I do everything the liberals tell me to do!”

One answer might be that police and FBI employees likely have performance indicators or statistics which are used to determine if their job is even needed or if they can keep their job. One such performance indicator might be simply the number of targeted people (“risks to the public,” “new mitigation opportunities,” etc.) whose behavior is controlled, movement is restricted, and are therefore, taken off the streets.

In other words, U.S. government scientists’ recommendation for potentially using remote and secret brain surveilling and affecting technologies for “anticrime operations” should be taken seriously.