by Stefan Stanford, All News Pipeline:
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.”
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
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.”
Read More @ AllNewsPipeline.com
