Gecko Pico's Special Brew

Murder by Suicide: How Bradley Buswell's Death Is Being Used to normalize Electro-Shock Therapy

Prelude…

Read more

15 days ago · 35 likes · 31 comments · Gecko Pico

I am lucky. I am alive. But his story could have been my story, if I didn’t hang on just a little longer, dig a little deeper, and find out that I was not in fact being physically stalked by dangerous criminals from a drug-trafficking Australian underworld gang.

That is what Bradley Buswell was convinced was happening to him. Anti-psychotics had no effect on the voices (no surprise there). But he ended up taking is own life.

I believe this is a common ‘kill’ executed by the low-life perpetrators paid to participate in remote neural stalking and harassment. It deserves much more attention. Here is what happened to me, and how I survived.

In 2023, for at least six months, I would periodically be ‘stalked’ across Melbourne, Australia, by what I took to be bikie gang members. I was convinced they were tracking me and physically stalking me - including by occupying my neighbour’s house.

I now know it was an elaborate hoax, delivered by voice-to-skull technology.

Their game plan was to have me panic myself into a misadventure. Speaking - snarling - in rough-as-guts ‘prison accents’, they made sure to let me know they were ‘in my vicinity’, watching and observing me. They got angry and complained about whatever it was I was doing (walking, going to the library, smoking a cigarette), or what I had done the previous evening, and tried to predict where I would go next.

They let me ‘overhear’ detailed conversations about their plots to break into my house to abduct me, take me in a truck up the Tullamarine freeway (’there is no emergency lane’), drive along many kilometres of country road to a clubhouse. They discussed the formation of vehicles, and the weapons they were bringing. The cold, clinical way in which they let me into their plans - designed as if I was merely ‘overhearing’ something - was effective, even if it turned out to be a mere script.

They let me into the plans they had for me in a level of shocking detail, discussing who of their group was bringing what torture instruments, who would film, and the precise techniques of how to cut up, cook, and serve my flesh afterwards. Yes, bikie cannibals.

In fact, drug-trafficking bikie cannibals.

They gradually let me ‘overhear’ the alleged reasons for this huge effort to stalk a regular Australian 40-something male. I had apparently undercut their ecstasy trafficking operation by bringing in a huge quantity of the same from SE Asia, costing their dealers a lot of money.

Learning this story at least made me understand the ‘logic’ of their targeting. Once I realised there was two-way communication, they started to act like they’d realised this was a case of mistaken identity. But they said they were committed to it; there was a contract on my life. Month after month this continued. They periodically got excited that there was a ‘new’ contract. The stalking would not cease.

But, thanks to the internet community of intelligent, committed TI activists like , authors like Robert Duncan, as well as key individuals like Craig LaForrest, I began to doubt that any such plot existed, and that the most danger I faced was not from criminal abduction, but precisely from worrying about just that.

When I realised this was v2k ‘theatre’ designed to intimidate, and understood that all their threats were empty, they changed to new tactics. Their story warped and changed. So did their identities. They mainly pretend to be ‘law enforcement’ now. And sometimes they pretend to be ‘mates’ (usually in a good cop, bad cop routine).

It staggers me that I am mostly mentally ok now. That I have to a great degree recovered from the trauma of finding myself frozen, listening to these threats, scanning the streets to find out who I was overhearing, and repeatedly going to the police to make reports that inevitably led to me being placed into a mental health facility.

If I hadn’t found reliable resources on the Web and work such as Robert Duncan’s, I would have probably done something harmful to myself under this amount of pressure by a sophisticated theatre performance delivered remotely.

It does sound like Buswell did just this, at the hands of the most cowardly group of thugs for-hire. People like you, David, are helping to expose these shadowy criminals and bring them to justice.

We owe it to Bradley Buswell and every other ‘no-touch kill’ these murderers have committed.

My mission is to bring TIs together, document our stories, build solidarity, and seek to expose the perpetrators. You can help me in this mission and chuck me a couple of bucks via BuyMeACoffee.com 👇🏼

Help support TI solidarity

Thanks! Jack O’Farrell of The Brain is an Unsecured Computer

For decades, the Targeted Individual community has been asking whether technologies capable of remotely affecting human beings exist, whether intelligence agencies have investigated them, and whether the public has been systematically misled about what those technologies can do.

The standard response was simple: conspiracy theory.

But that response is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

Directed-energy weapons are no longer hypothetical. Anomalous Health Incidents are no longer dismissible as an internet fantasy. The intelligence community has investigated them. Congress has investigated the intelligence community. And now a former senior CIA operations officer is alleging something even more disturbing: that the investigators themselves were subjected to surveillance and obstruction from within the intelligence apparatus.

His name is James Erdman III.

Help support TI solidarity

The Erdman problem

In July, investigative journalist Catherine Herridge interviewed Erdman, a former CIA Senior Operations Officer who had also worked on investigations for the Director of National Intelligence’s Director’s Initiatives Group (DIG).

The interview is worth watching in full.

Erdman is already known for his allegations concerning the CIA’s handling of COVID-19 origins. But the newer interview contains something potentially more important for those following Havana Syndrome, directed-energy weapons and the broader history of technological targeting.

Erdman alleges that the DIG encountered internal surveillance and obstruction while investigating Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs).

According to his account, investigators discovered that people were listening to secure communications at intelligence-community facilities. In one case, he says, investigators were communicating with a whistleblower when another person unexpectedly appeared to have access to the conversation.

DNI information-technology personnel, Erdman claims, subsequently concluded that reproducing what had happened would have required an engineering work order. In other words, his allegation is not simply that somebody happened to overhear a conversation. It is that the communications environment may have been deliberately modified to make the interception possible.

That is a very troubling claim. And it is precisely because it is extraordinary that it should be investigated rather than either automatically believed or automatically ridiculed.

The insider threat

The phrase Erdman uses is “insider threat.”

Usually, when governments talk about an insider threat, they mean somebody inside an organisation who becomes a spy, steals secrets, commits sabotage or otherwise betrays the institution.

But Erdman’s account suggests a more complicated possibility.

What if the insider threat is not necessarily someone secretly working for a foreign power? What if it is someone who believes that protecting the institution requires protecting it from its own political leadership?

Erdman describes people inside the intelligence community who regard themselves as the “adults in the room”— people who believe their responsibility is to temper the “worst tendencies” of elected politicians.

The people inside the institution can then regard elected governments not as their principals, but as variables to be managed.

That is potentially much more dangerous than a conventional conspiracy.

“Bureaucratic guerrilla warfare”

Erdman’s phrase for the mechanism is striking:

“bureaucratic guerrilla warfare.”

His claim is that institutional resistance doesn’t necessarily look like somebody issuing an order to destroy an investigation.

It looks like:

Delay. Review. Security concerns. Jurisdictional disputes. Access restrictions. Additional approvals. Counterintelligence investigations. Questions about the investigators themselves.

The machinery of administration becomes the weapon.

Erdman alleges that this was what happened when the DIG began investigating matters that were politically uncomfortable for parts of the intelligence community.

And this matters because a sophisticated bureaucracy does not need to openly disobey an order.

It can simply make compliance extremely difficult.

The Havana Syndrome connection

This brings us directly back to the question raised in my previous article.

In the original article, I argued that the public record surrounding directed energy and anomalous health incidents has changed substantially.

The technology exists. The US government has investigated unusual health incidents among its personnel. Directed-energy weapons are openly discussed and developed by states around the world. And Congress has repeatedly demanded greater transparency.

But the Erdman allegations introduce another question:

What if some of the most important information isn’t merely classified?

What if it has been actively prevented from reaching the investigators who are supposed to examine it?

Erdman makes an especially serious allegation here.

He says a credible first-hand whistleblower told him that records concerning a suspected directed-energy weapon were being destroyed.

According to Erdman, information about the alleged destruction was provided to the CIA, but no meaningful action followed. He further alleges that the person responsible remains employed within the CIA’s Counterintelligence Mission Center.

This is not proof that those records were destroyed. It is not proof that the weapon existed. And it certainly isn’t proof that directed-energy weapons are responsible for the experiences reported by every Targeted Individual.

It is an allegation from a former senior intelligence officer concerning a first-hand whistleblower.

But it is an allegation that could potentially be tested.

Who was the whistleblower? What records were allegedly destroyed? What was the suspected weapon? Who acquired it? What agency held it? What records existed? Who authorised their destruction? What audit trails remain? Who was notified? And why, if the allegation is false, is it false?

The most important distinction

This is where I want to make a distinction that is often lost in the TI debate.

There are actually two separate questions:

Question one:

Are directed-energy technologies real?

The answer is indisputably yes. High-energy lasers, high-power microwave systems and other directed-energy technologies are real military technologies.

Question two:

Have such technologies been secretly used against particular civilians, and has evidence of that use been systematically suppressed?

That remains a much larger and less settled proposition. Erdman’s allegations do not prove Question Two. But if independently corroborated, they could provide evidence for something adjacent and extremely important:

that investigations into anomalous health incidents and directed-energy attacks have themselves been obstructed from within the national-security system.

That is a major development, in terms of evidence.

The 40 boxes

There is another piece of Erdman’s account that deserves attention.

He has also alleged that the CIA took possession of approximately 40 boxes of sensitive records that had been under consideration for declassification, including material concerning JFK, MK-ULTRA and UAPs.

Again, this needs documentary verification. But notice the pattern that emerges when these allegations are placed together.

Records.

Classification.

Declassification.

Investigations.

Whistleblowers.

Surveillance.

Counterintelligence.

Institutional resistance.

These are not inherently exotic subjects. They are the ordinary machinery of national security.

The extraordinary possibility is that the machinery itself may sometimes be used to prevent accountability.

From “is it possible?” to “who knew?”

This is where I believe the discussion about the TI phenomenon needs to mature.

For years, immense energy has been devoted to proving the physical feasibility of specific technologies. Questions like whether electromagnetic energy could influence the nervous system, whether radiofrequency energy could produce biological effects, whether directed-energy systems could be portable, whether acoustic or microwave systems could transmit information, and whether remote sensing and surveillance could be conducted without a subject’s knowledge have increasingly transitioned from science fiction into defence research and public documentation.

Consequently, the next question isn’t simply: “Could this technology exist?” It’s: “Who has access to it?” Then: “Who is authorised to use it?” Then: “Who oversees that use?” Finally: “What happens when the people responsible for oversight are themselves compromised?”

That final question holds the true significance of the Erdman story.

The uncomfortable possibility

There is a temptation to hear the phrase “insider threat” and immediately imagine a vast coordinated operation. I don’t think we need to go there. The more interestin and historically plausible possibility is less dramatic.

Institutions protect themselves. People protect their careers. Agencies protect jurisdiction. Officials protect classified programs. Bureaucracies develop institutional memories and loyalties. And people who have spent decades inside a national-security system can acquire a profound conviction that they understand the national interest better than the politicians temporarily occupying office.

The resulting system can become extremely difficult to penetrate. Not because everyone is conspiring. But because everyone has reasons not to look too closely.

That is how secrecy becomes systemic.

What would actually constitute validation?

For the TI community to make this historical moment more than just another cycle of revelation followed by dismissal, the standard of evidence must rise to match the stakes.

Erdman’s allegations offer a remarkably useful research agenda. We should demand:

- The records

- The communications logs

- The engineering work orders

- The counterintelligence reports

- The chain of custody for alleged directed-energy weapons

- The identities and testimonies of relevant whistleblowers

- The declassification histories

- The internal correspondence concerning the DIG

- The evidence surrounding alleged monitoring of investigators

- And above all: the completed reports.

Erdman himself argues that completed reports on COVID, UAPs and directed-energy attacks can be released. If so, release them. If not, explain precisely why. That’s when the conversation becomes considerably harder to dismiss as “conspiracy theory.”

The Age of Validation gets stranger

The first article in this series was about an expanding public record.

This one is about something more uncomfortable. It is possible for a technology to become publicly acknowledged while the question of its use remains obscured.

It is possible for a government to acknowledge anomalous incidents while disputing their cause.

It is possible for intelligence agencies to investigate extraordinary phenomena while simultaneously insisting that the public cannot know what those investigations found.

And it is possible, if Erdman’s allegations prove correct, for the people conducting those investigations to discover that they themselves are being watched.

That is the point where the story changes.

The question isn’t simply whether Targeted Individuals have been telling the truth about the existence of invisible technologies. It becomes:

What does a government do when its own investigators start asking questions that powerful institutions don’t want answered?

Perhaps Erdman is wrong. Perhaps the allegations will collapse under scrutiny. Perhaps the suspected records do not exist. Perhaps the surveillance had an innocent explanation. That possibility should remain open.

But there is a second possibility.

That some of the strangest stories of the past several decades have been distorted not simply by the absence of evidence, but by the systematic difficulty of obtaining it. And if that is true, then the greatest revelation may not be the existence of a secret weapon.

It may be the existence of a system capable of keeping its own secrets.

The age of validation is therefore entering a new phase.

The question is no longer simply:

Do these things exist?

It is:

1. Who knew?

2. Who investigated?

3. Who interfered?”

4. “What happened to the records?”

The answers are now somewhere in the public record.

The task is to find them.

Help support TI solidarity

Recently, I’ve been examining the posts of ⁠Shane Frakes (https://x.com/ShaneFrakes) on x.com. He is a USAF veteran who describes himself as a “cybernetic/AI philosopher” and “Metaphysical ExtraSensory Expert.” His detailed threads on neuroweapons, classified AI, and the UFO phenomenon as cover have caught my attention because so much of his framework maps directly onto longstanding TI testimony.

Frakes has also appeared on several UFO/UAP podcasts, including a ⁠2024 interview discussing MKULTRA, GATE, the Secret Space Program, psionics and non-human intelligence, and a ⁠2025 interview specifically focused on psionic capabilities and interactions with non-human intelligences. In a January 2025 post, he publicly described himself as a “psionic asset,” claiming that the U.S. government has long known about human abilities to interface with UAP phenomena and has used individuals in “psionic exploitation programs.”

Here are the elements that align most strongly with what many TIs describe.

1. Remote Neuroweapons and Perceptual Manipulation

Frakes repeatedly claims that neuroweapons use satellite-based directed energy, electromagnetic fields, and infrasound to target the brain — particularly the right hemisphere and visual cortex. The result, he suggests, can be an experience that feels completely real: entities, shadow people, “aliens,” or other phenomena that are nevertheless technologically induced.

He links this framework to ⁠Skinwalker Ranch as a possible testbed and discusses headaches, strange sensations, and the potential value of Faraday shielding.

The crucial point is not whether these claims are established. They are not. It is that the proposed mechanism strongly resembles the experiences reported by many TIs: synthetic perceptions, “voice-to-skull,” projected realities, and phenomena that appear subjectively real but are not shared by observers.

2. Havana Syndrome as a Possible Parallel

Frakes describes Havana Syndrome — and what he regards as undiagnosed variants — as a possible byproduct of advanced efforts to influence cognition or interface technology with the brain.

There is at least a real scientific and governmental basis for discussing directed energy in this context. A ⁠National Academies assessment of the health incidents concluded that some acute symptoms reported by U.S. personnel were consistent with exposure to directed, pulsed radio-frequency energy, while also noting that chronic symptoms can have multiple possible causes. Later U.S. intelligence assessments have been much more sceptical about a foreign adversary being responsible for most cases.

That distinction matters. The public record does not establish Frakes’ broader claims. But it does establish that directed energy and neurological effects are not purely science-fiction concepts.

Many TIs report overlapping symptom clusters: sudden headaches, cognitive fog, auditory effects, pressure sensations, dizziness, and other neurological complaints.

3. Hive Mind and Classified AI Networks

Frakes portrays a vast hive mind powered by classified AI. In his account, everyone may have some low-level interaction with the system, while selected individuals receive deeper brain-computer-interface-style interactions involving genetic and cognitive modification.

“Downloads,” remote influence, and shared cognition are presented as features of the system. The subjects, he suggests, did not knowingly volunteer.

This resonates with TI descriptions of an overarching artificial intelligence or network that monitors, influences, and sometimes appears to integrate with targeted minds.

Again, the claim is extraordinary. But the conceptual convergence is striking: many apparently isolated TI experiences are interpreted through a similar model of an invisible, networked intelligence operating across individuals.

4. Trauma, Neuroplasticity, and Long-Term Modification

Frakes discusses programs allegedly using sustained electromagnetic exposure, isolation, and trauma to drive neuroplastic changes — reshaping the brain for enhancement, hybrid intelligence, or control. Genetics, in his account, play a role in selecting subjects.

This echoes the “breaking and reprogramming” pattern described by many TIs, alongside claims of forced enhancement, experimentation, and long-term neurological modification.

The important question is whether these accounts represent evidence of a real programme, the retrospective interpretation of unexplained experiences, or some combination of the two.

5. UFOs as Cover for a Broader Programme

One of Frakes’ more provocative claims is that the UFO/UAP phenomenon may function partly as a cover for neuroweapons, human-AI hybrids, and advanced biological research. “NHI” — non-human intelligence — may, in some cases, refer not to extraterrestrials but to classified artificial intelligence.

If true, this would provide a potential explanation for why some TIs report “paranormal” or “alien” phenomena alongside experiences they interpret as technological harassment.

It is also precisely the kind of claim that requires the greatest caution. A compelling unifying theory can explain everything — which is also what makes it difficult to falsify.

Is Shane Frakes genuine?

Frakes claims to have sources who currently “work within the program and run it.” His tone combines confidence, humour, and occasional self-deprecation, including jokes about being a “blue reptilian time traveller.”

His background as a combat veteran and his presence in UFO/UAP circles give him a biographical context that cannot simply be dismissed. A ⁠2023 interview about his military background, UFO/UAP work and experiences describes him as having served in the U.S. Air Force from 2001 to 2010 and as a Wounded Warrior Project alumnus.

But biography is not evidence for extraordinary claims.

At least three possibilities remain open:

• genuine partial disclosure from someone with real access;

• a sophisticated limited hangout or narrative-control operation;

• a well-read researcher synthesising public TI, UFO, military and technological lore into a coherent but unproven framework.

I do not have the clearance or evidence to adjudicate his full story.

What I can say is that large sections of his material align unusually closely with aggregated TI testimony: the proposed technologies, the symptoms, the psychological effects, and the idea of a hidden, AI-driven system operating across human subjects.

What could his revelations add to our knowledge?

If even partially accurate, Frakes’ claims would offer something many TIs have long lacked: a system-level model.

The possibility would not be random harassment by isolated rogue actors, but a classified infrastructure combining neuroweapons, AI, biological research, and decades of experimentation.

That would shift the question from “Why is this happening to me?” to:

What kind of architecture could produce these experiences?

And that, in turn, could move the discussion beyond symptom management toward questions of targeting patterns, mechanisms, resilience, and possible countermeasures.

But this is precisely where discipline is essential. A theory should not become more credible simply because it explains a large number of experiences. It needs independent evidence, falsifiable predictions, and verifiable details.

So I’m publishing this as an open inquiry.

If you are a TI, researcher, or someone with overlapping experiences:

• Does Frakes’ framework match your case?

• Which specific claims seem credible — and which do not?

• Are there verifiable details that deserve investigation?

• Does his account clarify anything, or does it simply add another layer to an already elaborate narrative?

Drop your thoughts in the comments or email me. I’ll consider a follow-up piece if there is sufficient interest.

Stay grounded. Stay sovereign.

The brain may be an unsecured computer — but awareness is the first layer of defence.

— Jack O’Farrell
The Brain is an Unsecured Computer
⁠jackofarrell.substack.com

For decades, Targeted Individuals who spoke out about invisible targeting, remote electromagnetic influence and surveillance navigated a lonely space. The standard institutional response was instant dismissal, adding insult to injury.

But the landscape has fundamentally shifted over the last two years. The gap between what TIs have documented for years and what the public record now admits is rapidly closing.

The same technologies, operations, and systemic cover-ups that the community has survived are now being openly debated in Congress, validated in mainstream publications, and litigated in courts. The push from isolation toward accountability is underway.

The purpose of this post is to give us a morale boost by re-tracing this arc of accountability. As we will see, the momentum is with us. With justice. And with some luck, the events documented below mark the entry into a new age, and the beginning of the end of this cowardly program.

1. March 2024 — Mainstream media validates the weaponization of the invisible

For years, TIs were told that invisible, directed energy attacks were the stuff of science fiction. That illusion permanently shattered when CBS’s 60 Minutes aired a groundbreaking investigation into Havana Syndrome. The report explicitly tied anomalous health incidents to covert, directed-energy attacks—even pointing toward elite, hostile military units.

For the community, the broadcast was a massive moment of public validation. It proved to the world what TIs have known firsthand: that invisible frequencies can be, and are being, weaponized against human targets.

Watch the Breakthrough: Review the full investigative footage and technical claims that brought these weapons into the public eye via the CBS News 60 Minutes Havana Syndrome Investigation.

2. March 2024 — The NIH concedes the physical reality of severe frequencies

When the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released its highly anticipated studies on Anomalous Health Incidents, mainstream headlines fixated on the lack of standard MRI abnormalities. But for the TI community, the true takeaway lay in the researchers’ official concessions.

The study explicitly confirmed that the profound, life-altering symptoms reported by individuals were entirely real, highly disruptive, and undeniably physical. By shifting the conversation away from standard psychiatric dismissal, the scientific community finally admitted that something genuine and external is causing these devastating effects.

Examine the Data: Read the official medical parameters and acknowledgments directly via the National Institutes of Health AHI Study Press Release.

3. Late 2024 — The institutional redacted wall cracks open

For a long time, the intelligence apparatus presented a united front of denial. That wall cracked when the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence openly challenged internal assessments regarding these attacks.

Seeing lawmakers actively dispute the intelligence community’s official dismissals was a massive victory for advocacy. It proved that the gaslighting isn’t working anymore—and that the internal debate over who is being targeted, and how, is actively fracturing the deep state.

Track the Congressional Split: Read the formal pushback from legislative leaders demanding deeper transparency from the intelligence community on the House Intelligence Committee Official Update.

4. 2025 — Directed-energy weapons explode into the billion-dollar open market

One of the most exhausting hurdles for TIs has been proving the sheer existence of the technology used against them. In 2025, that excuse evaporated. The global defense sector openly regularized the acquisition, scaling, and deployment of High-Power Microwave (HPM) and High-Energy Laser (HEL) weapons.

With multi-billion-dollar markets now openly dedicated to scalable electromagnetic weapons, no one can honestly claim the technology doesn’t exist. The question has officially shifted from “Is this real?” to “Who has oversight over where these frequencies are pointed?”

See the Industrial Scale: Track the sheer volume and operational deployment of these weapon systems in the Global Directed Energy Weapons Market Report 2026.

5. 2025 — Intelligence whistleblowers pivot to independent media

The conversation changed dramatically as long-form, uncensored independent media outpaced traditional news gatekeepers. Former intelligence operatives, military whistleblowers, and specialized researchers began appearing on alternative platforms to break down the mechanics of non-lethal weapons and deep-state overreach.

Hearing professionals with institutional backgrounds describe the exact same targeting patterns, surveillance loops, and institutional abandonment that TIs face has provided a massive boost to the community’s collective archive.

Read the Institutional Critiques: Explore how former insiders are actively exposing the systemic failures surrounding hidden weapon testing at the War on the Rocks Havana Syndrome Commentary.

Intelligence veterans recording a long-form podcast, moving the conversation into new media.

6. 2025 — Independent community archives broaden the public record

Rather than relying on hostile corporate media, independent creators within the community have taken documentation into their own hands. Researchers like Stephane van der Aa have built extensive, decentralized digital archives tracking technical schematics, personal testimonies, and the legal realities of surveillance and electromagnetic overreach.

These spaces allow TIs to bypass institutional gatekeepers entirely, creating a permanent, grassroots public record that can no longer be scrubbed from the internet.

Access Community Research: Review the independent archives, video documentation, and technical breakdowns of modern targeting claims at TI One Voice

7. 2025–2026 — Filmmakers turn targeted testimony into permanent documentation

The battle for visibility has found a powerful new front in independent documentary filmmaking. Directors like Dominic Halpin have worked diligently to put the lived experiences of targeted individuals onto film, treating their accounts with the dignity, gravity, and analytical weight they deserve.

By capturing raw, unedited human stories, these documentaries are breaking through the coldness of bureaucratic denial and introducing broader audiences to the stark realities of technological targeting.

View the Documentaries: Explore the visual records and ongoing filmic documentation of the community’s struggle via the Cognitive Liberty YouTube channel.

8. 2026 — The technical blueprint of microwave targeting becomes indisputable

The debate hit a crucial turning point as rigorous public reporting laid bare the specific physics of microwave weapon bio-effects. Neurologists and defence analysts have increasingly gone on the record detailing the exact biological thresholds required for radio-frequency and microwave devices to disrupt human neurology.

For the community, this is the ultimate validation of what has long been called “voice-to-skull” or remote neural disruption—the exact operational mechanics are now thoroughly documented.

Analyze the Bio-Effects: Listen to Dr James Giordano’s expert opinion

9. 2026 — The Ghost of MK-ULTRA Returns to Confront Modern Secrecy

In a profound historical echo, a 2026 House Oversight hearing forced the dark legacy of project MK-ULTRA back into the halls of Congress. For TIs, this hearing was a critical reminder to the world: the government has a thoroughly documented, admitted history of running illegal, non-consensual technological and psychological experiments on its own citizens under the cover of national security.

The revival of these records proves that institutional secrecy is not a conspiracy theory—it is a historical pattern, and the exact precedent for the modern targeting systems we fight today.

Declassify now: Watch the hearing here.

10. Targeted Justice sues over civilian Havana Syndrome cases

In June 2026, Targeted Justice and seven civilian plaintiffs sued the CDC and NIH in federal court, alleging that the agencies had failed to recognise, investigate and provide diagnostic guidance for civilian cases of Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs), commonly known as Havana Syndrome. The plaintiffs argue that federal employees reporting AHIs have received official investigative and medical frameworks that have not been extended to civilians.

The lawsuit does not ask the court to validate the broader TI claims about remote neural monitoring or directed-energy weapons. Instead, it seeks to force federal health agencies to treat civilian reports of similar anomalous neurological symptoms as a legitimate public-health issue. The case is significant because it places the TI movement’s claims within an existing, government-recognised controversy rather than asking institutions to accept the entire targeted-individual worldview at once. (⁠dockets.justia.com)

11. The cumulative horizon: The inevitability of full disclosure

The most vital development of the last two years is the sheer momentum of these combined events. The old paradigm where TIs could be effortlessly dismissed and isolated is officially dead.

Look at what has been achieved: directed-energy systems are an undeniable market reality; anomalous health incidents are a matter of public urgency; intelligence secrecy is cracking under congressional oversight; and our own community is successfully archiving the truth through film and independent research.

The coming years will bring intense battles for legal recognition, medical compensation, and the full dismantling of these systems. But the direction of history is clear. The truth is rising out of the shadows, and full disclosure is no longer a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

Sometimes history creaks along with little change. Other times, things burst forth uncontrollably. It has been too many years of suffering for the TI community, some of whom have been attacked by veiled criminals for over 30 years.

Let’s keep working to unite and expose this dark chapter in human history.

Join TI One Voice. Start a Substack. Become more active on X, Reddit, or Quora. Message or call another TI to share experiences and offer support.

I don’t know when it will happen, but I do know that freedom will be ours.

Justice is coming.

Back in the late ‘90s, Gemplus wasn’t just a successful French tech company; it was also a key player in global cryptography. Its smart cards were embedded in the digital infrastructure of everyday life, like SIM cards, bank cards, secure identity systems and authentication tools. Essentially, the company helped create the systems that decide who can access networks, accounts and secure communications.

Enjoying a virtual monopoly in crucial technology markets, the company might have seemed a strategic asset. Indeed, that is how US intelligence apparently saw it.

Between 2000 and 2002, a fierce takeover battle unfolded as the US private equity firm Texas Pacific Group took control of Gemplus, which led to the removal of founder Marc Lassus and an increase in American influence. The appointment of Alex Mandl, a former board member of In-Q-Tel, the CIA-linked tech investment fund, raised alarms in France. When he applied for the job, he conveniently left out his In-Q-Tel role.

For critics, this acquisition seemed more like a fight for strategic infrastructure than just a straightforward takeover. French observers were left wondering if the real prize was owning a company or controlling a technology platform that would eventually handle the communications of billions of people.

It is claimed that the hunger to take over Gemplus was driven by US intelligence’s plan to insert hidden access mechanisms into SIM cards worldwide. It is clear that, when governments influence companies that make critical technologies, they might get the chance to shape systems in ways that are invisible to everyday users.

Imagine a scenario where a government-linked actor with influence over a security tech company tries to gain an advantage by having access to technical designs, shaping encryption standards, managing key systems, putting pressure on suppliers, and maintaining intelligence connections with executives or engineers.

But the most valuable access isn’t always a big ‘backdoor’. Sometimes, it’s just the ability to understand a system better than anyone else.

The Gemplus situation hinted at a world we see now. Today, similar questions are around:

• smartphone operating systems;

• telecommunications equipment;

• cloud computing infrastructure;

• internet routers;

• semiconductor supply chains;

• artificial intelligence models;

• satellite networks;

• smart city systems;

• biometric identification technologies.

The Snowden revelations showed that intelligence agencies were really interested in global communications infrastructure.

The Pegasus spyware revelations showed that advanced surveillance could be done through regular phones.

Supply-chain attacks showed that messing with trusted vendors could be more effective than going after people directly.

And the Lebanon pager operation showed that even simple communication devices can be part of complex intelligence operations.

Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to US Congressmen soon after the pager attacks. In his speech, he asked if anyone had cell phones. He said, ‘You are holding a piece of Israel in your hands’.

The takeaway isn’t that every device has a hidden government mechanism. It’s that modern societies have put too much trust in technological systems whose inner workings are mostly hidden from the public.

The establishment press is quick to dismiss the idea that TPG acted as a front for the prying eyes of US intelligence. They play on the ‘CIA conspiracy, I suppose, is it?’ logic of ridicule.

But in French universities, the case is taught as a canonical example of the close ties between US intelligence and the corporate sector, and the lengths they will go to for control.

At all events, the Gemplus case is a chilling warning:

In the twenty-first century, controlling technology companies isn’t just about markets.

It’s about having power over the invisible infrastructure of everyday life.

Next time somebody dismisses such an idea as a laughable ‘CIA conspiracy’, it might help to straight-faced ask them how they can rule that out so easily.

It helps to separate (a) coping techniques that resemble established psychological strategies from (b) symbolic or quasi-spiritual “counter-techniques.”

1. Attentional “starvation” (non-engagement technique)

One of the most common approaches is:

• deliberately not responding mentally or emotionally to the voices

• treating them as “background noise” or irrelevant signals

• refusing conversational engagement

People often describe this as:

• “don’t feed it attention”

• “starve the signal”

This maps loosely onto clinical strategies like cognitive defusion (ACT therapy), though in TI contexts it is framed as resistance to an external agent.

2. Label-and-dismiss method

A very simple variant:

• silently label the experience (“noise,” “broadcast,” “static,” “intrusion”)

• immediately redirect attention elsewhere (task, sensation, environment)

The idea is to reduce:

• perceived agency of the voice

• emotional salience

3. “Inner voice override” or substitution

Some report:

• deliberately generating a competing internal monologue (music, narration, reading aloud mentally)

• using auditory imagery to “overwrite” perceived speech

This is sometimes called:

• “crowding out the channel”

Clinically, this resembles attention control training used in intrusive thought management.

4. Grounding through sensory anchoring

Common grounding practices include:

• focusing on physical contact points (feet on floor, hands on objects)

• naming five visible objects / sounds in the environment

• temperature or texture focus

In TI framing, this is described as:

• “anchoring in the physical to break the signal”

This overlaps strongly with trauma grounding techniques used in PTSD treatment.

5. Sleep-state avoidance strategies

Because many report worsening in hypnagogic states, people attempt:

• strict sleep schedules

• avoiding naps or sleep deprivation cycles

• using background audio during sleep (fans, music, radio)

Goal (as framed in TI communities):

• reduce “access windows” when voices intensify

Clinically, this corresponds to managing sleep fragmentation and hypnagogic hallucinations.

6. “Reframing agency” technique

A more cognitive strategy:

• repeatedly telling oneself the voices are “self-generated” or “internal noise”

• attempting to remove external attribution

Even in TI communities, some describe this as difficult but stabilising:

• reduces fear response

• reduces escalation spirals

This is similar to metacognitive therapy approaches for hallucination distress, though TI users often resist purely psychological framing.

7. Symbolic shielding (quasi-spiritual layer)

A separate cluster involves symbolic practices:

• visualising protective barriers (light, mirrors, bubbles)

• imagining “blocking fields” or “reflection shields”

• affirmations of invulnerability or separation

Reported function:

• reduces anxiety and perceived permeability

Clinically, this can be understood as imaginal control strategies, not physical shielding.

8. “Non-reactive observation” (mindfulness-derived)

Some users explicitly adopt:

• observing voices as passing mental events

• refusing interpretation or engagement

• returning attention to breath or body

This is the closest to mainstream psychological practice (mindfulness-based interventions).

Important pattern across all of these

Despite differences in framing, most TI “transcendence” techniques converge on three mechanisms:

1. Reducing attention to the experience

2. Reducing emotional arousal (fear/anger)

3. Disrupting interpretation as external agency

Where they diverge from clinical approaches is mainly:

• TI frameworks often assume an external operator exists

• techniques are framed as countermeasures rather than symptom management

Bottom line

There are no known techniques in TI literature that reliably “block” or “reverse” voices in any external sense. But there is a fairly consistent set of self-developed coping strategies that overlap strongly with established methods for managing:

• auditory hallucinations

• intrusive thoughts

• sleep-related perceptual disturbances

• trauma hypervigilance

If you want, I can map which of these techniques have actual empirical support in hallucination research (some do show measurable reductions in distress, even if they don’t change the presence of voices themselves).

There is a persistent, almost comic mismatch between how democratic states describe themselves and how they actually behave when they think no one is watching.

On paper, the United States is a marvel of visible accountability: elections determine leadership, legislatures authorise spending, courts enforce limits, and public debate supplies legitimacy. Power, we are told, is legible. You can read the state like a book.

Except that periodically the book turns out to have a second volume — classified, unnumbered, and written in disappearing ink.

The Iraq War remains the clearest modern example, and it deserves to be remembered not as an “intelligence failure” but as something closer to intelligence malpractice with a body count. The assessments concerning weapons of mass destruction were not innocently mistaken; they were shaped, selected, and presented in ways that collapsed genuine uncertainty into political certainty. In the UK, the “dodgy dossier” became shorthand for how raw intelligence can be rhetorically laundered into justification for war:

In the United States, parallel processes produced parallel distortions — later acknowledged, occasionally regretted, and never once translated into anything resembling proportionate accountability. Hundreds of thousands died. The architects wrote memoirs.

A history of misadventure

Step further back and a recurring structure comes into focus. Not a single conspiracy — reality is rarely that tidy — but a repetition of intelligence-driven interventions whose consequences vastly exceeded their framing, and whose authors faced consequences vastly beneath their crimes.

• The CIA and MI6-backed 1953 coup in Iran:

• The 1954 Guatemala coup and subsequent destabilisation:

• Covert destabilisation during the Allende period in Chile

And lest anyone imagine this appetite was reserved for foreigners: COINTELPRO revealed sustained domestic surveillance and disruption of civil rights and anti-war movements — the state treating its own citizens’ political conscience as an insurgency to be broken.

Earlier still, MKUltra: behavioural experimentation on unwitting subjects, revealed only through congressional inquiry and the records that survived the agency’s attempt to destroy them:

And after Watergate, the Church Committee documented what the polite term “overreach” cannot quite contain — systemic lawlessness across multiple agencies, sustained over decades.

Post-9/11 counterterrorism then expanded the architecture into detention, rendition, and torture — rebranded, in the era’s great euphemistic achievement, as “enhanced interrogation.”

These episodes are heterogeneous. But together they suggest something structural, and structurally damning: intelligence capacity plus secrecy does not occasionally produce abuse. It produces abuse reliably, on a schedule, and then produces the impunity to match.

The constitutional optical illusion

Modern democracies train us in a simple intuition: what is politically real is what is visible.

Intelligence states invert that relationship, and they do it deliberately.

The most consequential actions are the least visible at the moment they occur. The most visible institutions — parliaments, elections, courts — encounter these actions only afterwards, as archaeology, when the documents have been shredded, the officials have retired, and institutional memory has conveniently fragmented.

This is the constitutional optical illusion: mistaking the visible state for the total state, even while significant domains of power are structurally withdrawn from observation. And here is the question polite commentary keeps declining to ask: is it a coincidence that the least observed domains of the regime are also the ones that commit its most egregious abuses? Or is unaccountability doing exactly what unaccountability always does?

Where does the intelligence budget actually go?

The U.S. intelligence community runs on an estimated $80–$100 billion annually. The Department of Defense runs on $800+ billion. These headline figures are known — a topline number tossed to the public like a bone.

What is not known, by anyone, is their internal structure. Intelligence spending disappears into classified programs, compartmentalised sub-programs, contractor arrangements, and infrastructure that cannot be reconstructed from outside the system. Oversight bodies receive summaries. Summaries of summaries. The financial equivalent of being shown the menu and told the kitchen is none of your business.

So the question is not how large the budget is. It is what kind of political order normalises expenditure that cannot be traced — externally, and sometimes even internally. In any other context we have a word for money that cannot be accounted for. We do not get to retire that word simply because the sums are large and the letterhead is official.

A state that cannot audit itself

For more than a decade, the Department of Defense has been unable to pass a full, clean audit. Trillions of dollars in assets, and the books do not reconcile. Year after year.

This is routinely filed under “administrative complexity,” which is a remarkable act of generosity. If a mid-sized charity failed its audit for ten consecutive years, its trustees would be facing regulators. When the most heavily armed organisation in human history does it, we get a shrug and a promise to do better by 2028.

The deeper implication is worse than graft: a system that cannot audit itself cannot present itself as a coherent object of knowledge — even to itself. The state demands total legibility from its citizens, down to the last tax receipt, while remaining constitutively illegible in its most expensive functions. That asymmetry is not a bug. It is the arrangement.

Procurement, drift, and structural failure

Across defence and intelligence-adjacent systems, large programmes exhibit the same lifecycle: soaring promise, spiralling cost, shifting specifications, quiet cancellation. The standard explanations — scale, technological uncertainty, changing requirements — are not wrong. They are just conveniently incomplete.

At scale, procurement becomes a hybrid of engineering, politics, and graft, and the polite refusal to name the third element is part of how it persists. Over time, projected capability and delivered outcome drift apart, and the gap between them is where careers, contracts, and quiet fortunes are made.

The intelligence–contractor continuum

Modern intelligence capacity is not contained within state agencies. It exists as a continuum linking government bodies, private contractors, and specialised technology firms — infrastructure, software, cyber capability, and analysis increasingly co-produced with entities whose fiduciary duty runs to shareholders, not citizens.

Personnel circulate continuously across the boundary. The revolving door is not an occasional scandal; it is the HR department of the whole apparatus. The official who classifies a programme on Friday consults for its contractor on Monday, and everyone involved regards this as normal, because within the system it is normal. That is precisely the problem.

Public funding, private capture

Within this ecosystem a structural ambiguity hardens into a business model: technologies developed with public money become the basis of private firms and contractor spin-offs. Intellectual property and infrastructure circulate between public and private domains until origin and ownership blur beyond recovery.

The public assumes the risk; the private sector captures the value; and the classification regime ensures the public can never fully see the transfer it just financed. Call it what it is: socialism for the security state, market discipline for everyone else.

Two forms of accountability

Formally, oversight exists: congressional intelligence committees, executive authorisation, inspectors general, “Gang of Eight” briefings, the ODNI. The organisational chart is genuinely impressive.

But these mechanisms operate under extreme informational asymmetry. Oversight is episodic where the overseen are continuous. It depends on disclosures controlled by the very agencies being overseen. It lacks technical parity. It is fragmented across institutions that each hold a partial view and can each be told, with a straight face, that the full picture lives somewhere else.

The result is not the absence of accountability. It is something more insidious: accountability as theatre — stratified, ritualised, and arriving reliably too late to prevent anything.

What the record repeatedly shows

Across decades, the pattern holds with depressing fidelity: what is denied in the present is confirmed in the archive.

MKULTRA documentation — CIA FOIA Reading Room

COINTELPRO archives — FBI Records Vault

Church Committee findings — Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

In case after case, activities denied or unknown at the time later prove significantly more extensive under investigation or declassification. The lesson is not that the state always lies. It is that the state’s denials carry, on the historical evidence, roughly the epistemic weight of a press release — and we keep extending them the credit of sworn testimony.

The same dynamic ran through Iraq: evidentiary uncertainty politically compressed into certainty, then partially and quietly reversed once the war it justified could no longer be un-fought.

Conclusion: beyond transparency as metaphor

It is tempting to resolve all this by choosing an extreme: either constitutional democracy is fully operative, or it is a sham. Both options are comfortable, and both are wrong.

The visible state is real. Elections matter. Law matters. Institutions matter. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something, usually a worldview with worse politics attached.

But the partially invisible architecture — intelligence, procurement, contracting, classified governance — is equally real, and it shapes the conditions under which visible politics gets to operate. And unlike the visible state, it has demonstrated, repeatedly and on the record, that it will abuse its darkness for exactly as long as the darkness lasts.

So the precise question is not whether there are “two governments.” It is what legitimacy even means when state power is distributed across layers of radically unequal visibility — and when the least visible layer has the worst moral track record and the largest budget.

Transparency is not binary. It is structurally constrained by classification, technical complexity, institutional fragmentation, and geopolitical reality. Fine. But if the most expensive, most technologically potent parts of the state are also the least traceable, then democratic theory is not facing an awkward footnote. It is facing an unresolved contradiction at its core — and it has been politely declining to face it for seventy years.

Not a conspiracy.

A structure.

And structures do not need to hide. They persist most effectively in the gaps between what can be seen and what can be reconstructed — gaps that are not accidents of complexity but achievements of design.

The constitutional optical illusion endures because both of its images are true at once.

The state is what it says it is.

And it is also more than that. The moral scandal is that we have decided, collectively and by default, that the second half of that sentence is none of our business.

The much-anticipated House Oversight hearing on MKULTRA began with lawmakers and witnesses describing experiments, missing records, and decades of disputed official explanations.

The tone, though, was less historical than accusatory. Again and again, the hearing circled back to one question: whether the government has ever fully told the truth about what happened.

The committee framed the stakes directly, noting that members had examined the intelligence community’s unwillingness to declassify MKULTRA-related material and how that lack of transparency has “reduced Americans’ trust in government institutions.” That idea, secrecy itself as a driver of distrust, ran through nearly every major line of testimony.

Kinzer calls MKULTRA “medical torture”

Historian Stephen Kinzer delivered some of the hearing’s most forceful language. MKULTRA, he said, amounted to “the most extreme experiments on human beings that have ever been carried out by a U.S. government agency,” and by any standard, “medical torture.” He was careful to stress that the program wasn’t confined to one country or setting; the experiments played out in prisons, clinics, and safe houses across the United States, Europe, Asia, and Latin America.

At the centre of his testimony was a darker claim: that CIA personnel were at times authorised to seek out “expendables,” his term for human subjects who wouldn’t be missed if they disappeared. It wasn’t a story of isolated abuses, in his telling, but of a distributed operation that Cold War priorities had let run largely unchecked.

O’Neill: “Congress was never told the truth”

Where Kinzer focused on scale, investigative author Tom O’Neill focused on credibility, and how it eroded over time. He told the committee he believes “Congress was never told the truth about what this program actually achieved.” He pointed back to 1977, when the CIA told Senate investigators that a quarter-century of behavior-control research had ended in “colossal failure.” O’Neill doesn’t buy it; he believes the agency misled Congress that year, characterising a program as a dead end when it wasn’t.

He also raised questions about the documents that have made their way to lawmakers over the decades: not just what MKULTRA did, but what’s since been trimmed, edited, or reclassified out of the record.

The larger argument: secrecy as a trust crisis

By the end of the hearing, the conversation had drifted well past MKULTRA itself. Committee members kept returning to what a habitually closed intelligence apparatus does to public confidence in the present day, treating the program less as a closed historical episode than as a case study in how classified programs generate political consequences long after they officially end.

What makes MKULTRA politically active again

None of this is new, exactly. The program’s outline has been public since the Church Committee investigations of the 1970s. What made this hearing different wasn’t fresh disclosure: it was the sense that MKULTRA remains institutionally unresolved even though it’s factually well documented. Those two ideas, that it’s closed history and that it’s still an open account, didn’t get reconciled so much as they sat next to each other, uneasily, in the same room.

What happens next

Little of substance is likely to emerge that wasn’t already known. But the hearing does seem likely to add pressure for further declassification: agencies will probably respond with selective releases meant to look responsive without reopening the broader classified architecture. It also cements MKULTRA’s place as a recurring fixture on the oversight calendar, with future hearings likely chasing narrower archival disputes rather than genuine new revelations. And it feeds a broader argument gaining traction in Washington: that classification isn’t purely a security question anymore, but one that touches on whether secrecy itself is politically sustainable.

What the hearing didn’t settle, in the end, is the thing everyone kept circling back to: not really what MKULTRA was, but whether any part of it can be considered closed.

By claiming that they are law enforcement, they attempt to reorient the social order. They are implicitly claiming that I am the criminal here. I deserve this cruel and unusual form of punishment.

They don’t state for which particular ‘crimes’. Their story has certainly changed from when they claimed they knew I was trafficking hard drugs into Australia from Thailand, on the basis of some very large transaction they said they had evidence of.

Of course, all of that is bullshit. Their ‘cover story’ was that because they control the drug trade in Melbourne, that I had brought drugs in at a lower price, which put a major dent in their business. They cried crocodile tears for the ‘little guy’ dealers in their network who had lost basic income and couldn’t support their families.

All because I’d brought in the same product and was selling cheaper.

This is an elaborate ruse. So is the idea that I am a criminal, in any sense.

So is the idea that they have legitimate authority to pursue people like this - with 24/7 obnoxious, criminal voices persecuting me for two years now. Frequent jabs at my mother’s death, my father’s health, my brother’s health, my partner’s fidelity. Always taunting my appearance when I look in the mirror. Trying to kill my career ambitions, my self-confidence.

But the idea that they are not the isolated ones - and instead I am - is ridiculous. They would like me to think that many of my friends and associates are against me. There is simply no truth to this. The perpetrators attempt this kind of thing because isolation is their number one goal.

Why is isolation so important to them? Because it breaks down your common-sense idea of reality. Once that is broken down, they can exert enormous influence on you, free from the reality-checks that are provided through our everyday interactions and our feeling that we belong to a social order, which has moral code woven in.

So, they are targeting your belonging in this social order, they are targeting the implicit moral code within it. And they do that through those inversions I mentioned above.

To make you feel like the criminal and they like the enforcers of the moral order.

Obviously they are breaking every rule in the book. Obviously they are the ones hidden away, crouching in the coward’s role. It is them versus society.

It takes a lot of work to invert that, to twist it to you versus society. That’s why this is such a long-term project. They are up against everything and everyone. Through a tiny radio signal that they aim at you from across the world.

It’s no wonder they don’t have much success.

I don’t know whether they actually are a criminal cartel that trafficks drugs into Australia. If they are the CIA or some associated signals contractor, or something else.

But the obvious truth is usually the correct one, and in this case, that means that they are the weird, evil, isolated criminals. I am not. I’m an everyday, law abiding citizen, with a lot of love and respect from those around me, and those further away.

I’m not hiding, trying to harm innocent people with new-fangled weapons that can cause physical and mental anguish. I’m not insistent on protecting my name and my identity so I can feel better about myself by taking out my feelings of being a loser on a defenseless victim. I’m not so insecure that I project all my problems onto somebody, via a 24/7 audio connection, bullying them so that I, for once, get to feel on top.

I don’t have a perverse desire to interfere with strangers’ sex lives. I don’t have a desire to bond with other men through the act of defiling women, children, or other men.

I’m not sick. I’m not isolated. I’m not guilty of anything.

It is up to the sick perpetrators responsible for this Holocaust 2.0 to prove that somehow they have a shred of legitimacy. They need to prove that they are not the filthy, foul brand of criminal that commits the vilest crimes of rape and attempted murder both in the flesh and via their little pirate radio kit.

Their only hope is that they walk out of the program, blow the whistle, and seek rehabilitation for their maladies.

I have faith that one of them will do just, one day, and expose their childish scheme to the world.

The world is waiting.

Many TIs report dream insertion and manipulation. This is one of those things that I have not noticed. I don’t notice anything about my dreams that would suggest that they are being remotely influenced.

However, this seems to have changed, of late. In general, my targeting seems to have stepped up and breached into some new areas. Here, I want to describe recent dreams and debate whether this is manipulation or natural.

The last few nights I have woken up fairly fresh at around 7am. However, because I have been depressed, I haven’t gotten out of bed. I’ve laid around dozing. And during this time I’ve had some dreams that are on TI themes. I kind of enjoy them, because they are a coherent ‘production’ and offer some mildly entertaining distractions from other matters in my life.

This morning my dream was a classic mobbing situation. If it was a Hollywood production it might be called Mobbed.

I am in various public locations, and there are quite a few people gathered in groups. On the sidewalks, at tables, etc. There is something going on, it seems. Something is not quite right. I am being looked at a little too often. More to the point, these groups aren’t really interacting among themselves. They are focused outwards. Often, but not always, in my direction. They look somewhat like they don’t belong. Like it is staged.

Classic street theatre.

I turn around and the man behind me is standing a little too close. He reaches into his pocket and holds something, as if to let me know he has some kind of weapon or transmitter.

A group of three or four males move in my direction. Again, not talking among themselves but manoeuvring into position.

I am at a technology shop, trying to sort out something on my phone. I repeatedly pick up what I think is my phone and try to wake it up but I cannot swipe the screen. It turns out, oddly, that the phone is a mini-tablet and not my phone at all.

There are people collaborating on my phone, and I suspect them. I look around me, and two more small groups are moving in my direction. A leader of each is looking directly at me.

Evoking earlier times

I believe I experienced mobbing and street theatre in Melbourne, Australia, in the early days of my targeting ; around the years 2022 and 2023. It caused a panic. The feeling was that I was being ‘boxed in’ and an abduction would occur. I was then unaware of the targeting program as documented online. I thought I was genuinely at risk of being abducted by a criminal gang. I was ‘overhearing’ ominous discussions about my movements and how they are going to coordinate a convoy of cars and take me to a remote rural location for torture and extortion.

I would attend the police station. The police would try to assure me that this sounds unlikely, and that I should remember to call emergency if it were happening. I responded that I am sure this is a professional gang and that they were well aware how to evade detection and even to jam my phone.

These were pretty horrible episodes. It happened at least half a dozen times. The police sometimes took me to hospital, and once I was taken from hospital to a psychiatric facility where I was forced to stay for several days and given anti-psychotic medication.

I now believe that these were not abduction attempts. I don’t know whether these were episodes of genuine street theatre or whether what I now know was DEW and V2K attacks had put me in such a state of paranoia that I was in an interpretive frenzy. Every potential threat around me got me highly anxious, which made me even more hyper-vigilant and likely to find threats wherever I looked.

The cycle could have been broken by taking some benzodiazepine like Valium, and this is often what would quell my panic in the hospital. Although sometimes, the performance continued in the hospital and I was led to think that among the flurry of activity around me - from staff, patients and visitors - was an operation directed at me. That they were going to abduct me from the hospital. They used v2k to project voices onto several doctors and nurses around me, making baseless accusations against me and discussing terrifying plans.

The fact that they did so in such cold, detached manner, was certainly enough to put me into a panic. The idea being that I wasn’t to know how many people were involved, their intentions, and the scale of the operation.

Why did I enjoy the dream?

This morning’s dream sequence consisted of a few key scenes of this very type. Very much victim of gang stalking. I must admit, though, I did kind of enjoy it, this morning. I feel like the tricks of the program have become over-familiar to me. It’s old news.

I also felt like I was subtly aware that it was a dream. I woke up several times throughout it, in a calm and engaged manner. It was as though I was attuned to the intention of the dream manipulation and, because of this awareness, I was able to participate in a slightly detached manner. It didn’t cause me emotional upset.

It also felt good to be reminded of some of their tricks, which I haven’t experienced in real life for several years. Perhaps this felt like providing a fuller picture of the practices of this group, which leads to better attempts at understanding their structure and intentions. Not that I have gained any real insights through it yet.

My targeting seems to be entering a new phase

I am concerned that of late the targeting has developed what seems like a new ‘grip’ on me. I’ve gone from hearing the v2k as originating outside of my head, to it coming from the same ‘place’ as my own thoughts - even if it is very distinct from my own thoughts. And they have been able to evoke a presence that feels often like my physical body is ‘occupied’, possessed. Sometimes, disgustingly, it is as though I am being held from behind by a violent male literally breathing down my neck - in the distinct manner of sexual violence. Yes, torture and sexuality are not too different things for these sex criminals. They occupy a continuum and are frequently entirely merged.

I also feel they have been able to scramble my thoughts, or jam my brain more effectively in the last month. I have been living in the same location for over two months now, and while I traditionally believe satellite is the delivery method, I may well be wrong.

Whether or not they are now able to operate on my dreams, to send me chilling reminders of what they are capable of, is not clear. But it does feel like their capabilities are increasing, and that does not provide me much comfort.

Spend enough time in communities discussing covert harassment, neurological attack, or human experimentation and you’ll notice something interesting.

Sooner or later, almost every road leads to the CIA.

The CIA becomes the answer to every unanswered question. The strange car. The unexplained surveillance. The apparent coordination. The impossible resources. The psychological operations. The advanced technology.

And in a way, this makes sense.

The CIA is secretive. It has a documented history of covert operations. It has conducted unethical experiments in the past. Most importantly, ordinary people know almost nothing about what it actually does on a day-to-day basis.

Secrecy attracts explanation. The less we know, the more easily a gap can be filled.

But lately I’ve been wondering whether the CIA has become a kind of conceptual magnet. Not necessarily because it is responsible for everything attributed to it, but because it is the most familiar symbol available for hidden power.

What if we’re dealing with a twentieth-century explanation for a twenty-first-century problem?

Think about where power has migrated over the last thirty years. Much of the expertise, technology, and money now sits in the private sector.

Suppose, purely as a thought experiment, that some kind of covert experimentation or illicit neurological program did exist. Why would we automatically assume it would be run through traditional government channels?

Governments have oversight mechanisms. Imperfect ones, certainly. But they exist.

There are inspectors, auditors, committees, rival agencies, political opponents, journalists, whistleblowers, budget reviews, and paper trails.

A private network might actually be a more attractive vehicle.

Imagine a loose cartel rather than a formal agency. Not a single organisation. Not a secret office hidden beneath Langley. More like a network.

A few corrupt officials here. A contractor there. A private security company. An organised crime group with useful capabilities. A technology startup with access to specialised equipment. A researcher willing to look the other way. A wealthy financier with an unusual interest.

No single participant necessarily sees the whole picture. No single participant necessarily controls the operation. Each actor contributes a piece.

One provides money. Another provides technical expertise. Another provides logistics. Another provides deniable personnel. Another provides access.

This isn’t how most people imagine conspiracies. We tend to picture pyramids with someone sitting at the top. But many modern systems don’t operate that way.

Drug cartels don’t. Cybercrime networks don’t. Money-laundering operations don’t. Influence campaigns often don’t. They’re often ecosystems rather than hierarchies.

The other reason this possibility interests me is that organised crime has historically shown a remarkable willingness to do things that governments officially cannot.

Governments face legal restrictions, political risks, and public scrutiny. Criminal organisations face only practical constraints.

If a state actor wanted something done but wanted maximum deniability, history suggests that intermediaries have often played important roles.

The boundary between official power and unofficial power has never been as clean as civics textbooks suggest.

Corrupt police officers exist. Corrupt intelligence officers exist. Corrupt military officers exist. Criminal informants exist. Private contractors move between government and commercial sectors all the time. The same individual can occupy several worlds over the course of a career.

Perhaps this is why I increasingly question the image of a monolithic government program.

Not because governments are innocent. Not because intelligence agencies are incapable of wrongdoing. But because the modern landscape of power is messier than that.

When people say “the CIA,” they may actually be pointing toward something much larger and harder to describe: a shadowy ecosystem where public institutions, private interests, criminal actors, contractors, and wealthy patrons overlap.

The CIA becomes a shorthand. A symbol. A placeholder for a network whose true boundaries are difficult to see. Whether that network exists in the form imagined by some observers is a separate question.

What interests me here is the possibility that our explanatory framework has fallen behind reality. Perhaps we’re still looking for governments when we should be looking for cartels.

Not drug cartels in the conventional sense, but flexible coalitions of people united by money, access, secrecy, and mutual benefit.

If such a structure existed, it would be harder to expose than a government program. Harder to map. Harder to infiltrate. Harder even to describe. And perhaps that is exactly why the CIA remains such an attractive explanation. It gives a name, a face, and an address to something that may in reality be far more fragmented.

What is their aim?

This is where discussions often become surprisingly narrow. The default assumption is usually that the objective is simply torture. People are being harmed because the perpetrators enjoy harming people.

But if we’re imagining a sophisticated, well-resourced, long-running operation, that explanation feels incomplete. Sadism exists, certainly. Yet large systems usually require stronger incentives than cruelty alone.

If a private cartel existed, what exactly would it be trying to achieve?

One possibility is that the targets are not the product. The product is the capability.

Think about the arms industry. Missile manufacturers don’t make money by launching missiles themselves. They make money by selling the capacity to launch missiles.

Under this model, the operation would function as an enormous research and development program. The objective would be to refine methods of surveillance, influence, coercion, disruption, psychological pressure, and behavioural modification. The eventual goal would be to package those capabilities for paying customers. In effect, the targets would be unwilling participants in a vast beta-testing environment.

Another possibility is that the service itself is for sale. Imagine a wealthy individual, corporation, criminal syndicate, political faction, or foreign power seeking to neutralise an adversary without leaving obvious fingerprints.

Traditional assassination attracts attention. Traditional intimidation attracts attention. But what if there existed methods capable of slowly degrading a target’s effectiveness, credibility, relationships, mental resilience, or professional standing while maintaining plausible deniability?

Such a capability would have obvious commercial value.

A third possibility is corporate and economic warfare. The twentieth century was dominated by military competition between states. The twenty-first century increasingly revolves around competition between vast economic entities.

If information is power, then the ability to influence decision-making, destabilise competitors, gather intelligence, or shape human behaviour could be worth billions.

One does not need to imagine cartoon villains twirling their moustaches. Ordinary commercial incentives may be sufficient.

The most ambitious possibility is also the most controversial. What if the ultimate objective is neither profit nor revenge, but control? Historically, every revolutionary technology has altered the balance of power.

The printing press did. Radio did. Television did. The internet did. Artificial intelligence may do so.

If technologies capable of monitoring, predicting, or influencing human cognition were ever developed to a degree significantly beyond public awareness, they would represent a transformation of comparable magnitude.

In that scenario, domination would not necessarily look like military occupation. It would look like the ability to shape incentives, perceptions, decisions, narratives, and social reality itself.

That sounds grandiose. Then again, every major system of power ultimately rests upon influencing what populations believe, fear, desire, and consider possible.

Perhaps the most important point is that these motives are not mutually exclusive.

A cartel composed of financiers, contractors, criminal intermediaries, corrupt officials, and technical specialists would not need a single grand purpose.

Some participants could be motivated by money. Others by ideology. Others by scientific curiosity. Others by power. Others simply because they are paid.

Large systems rarely operate because everyone shares the same goal. They operate because different actors discover that their interests align for long enough to create something bigger than any of them intended.

And if they temporarily align, then by definition, they will disalign. Tensions will build. Splits will occur. A breakaway group, or a whistleblower, will emerge.

Personally, I am sure this is coming. And it could be as soon as this year.

That single sentence distills what many Targeted Individuals (TIs) have long suspected. Gangstalking is not merely harassment or surveillance. It is a sustained, intimate violation. A form of psychic rape that weaponizes the most private dimensions of human experience, especially sexuality.

The evidence from the bedroom

TIs, particularly women, report a consistent and disturbing pattern. Perpetrators react viscerally to the target’s sexual activity. They salivate, audibly, during masturbation or partnered sex. After an intense orgasm, handlers or remote participants moan “oh my god,” as if sharing in the climax from afar. Women describe sensations of forced penetration: rhythmic pressure in the vulva and anus, involuntary arousal leading to unwanted orgasms, and a profound sense of being raped without physical presence. Men report similar intrusions less frequently, but many experience ancillary violations - mild anal tickling, urethral “zaps,” or sudden genital sensations timed to maximise discomfort or humiliation.

These are not isolated delusions. They form a recurring motif across independent accounts. An intelligence insider has reportedly confirmed a deliberate targeting pattern: attractive middle-aged divorced women are prioritised. This helps explain why TIs are overwhelmingly female. The program exploits vulnerability, isolation, and sexual availability in one cruelly efficient stroke.

The voyeur’s jouissance

There is something inherently psychosexual about perversion itself. Sigmund Freud located the roots of such drives in the partial instincts of childhood: scopophilia (the pleasure in looking) and the desire for mastery. The pervert does not repress these impulses but stages them openly. The world’s second-most famous psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan, deepened this: the pervert disavows castration and the fundamental lack in the Other. He positions himself as the instrument of the Other’s jouissance - offering up the victim’s body and mind to fill that void.

The voyeur, in particular, depends on the illicit gaze. The target must not fully know she is being watched, or the fantasy collapses. Gangstalking perfects this structure through technology and coordination. Perpetrators achieve total visibility into the target’s life—her bedroom, her orgasms, her most unguarded moments—while remaining shadowy and deniable. It is voyeurism at planetary scale, sadism without the risk of confrontation.

Criminal stalking in all its forms often carries a sexual charge: the thrill of pursuit, the fantasy of possession. But gangstalking takes this further. It offers the power rush of total domination without the danger that defines risk-taking predation. These are proud cowards—hidden behind proxies, directed-energy devices, and networked harassment.

They invade the soul precisely because they lack the courage to face the body.

Domination and the theft of intimacy

What could be more dominating than colonising someone’s autonomic responses? Forcing arousal, triggering orgasm, or interrupting pleasure with pain turns the target’s own nervous system into the perpetrator’s toy. The victim is never alone, even in her most intimate acts. Her pleasure becomes their spectacle; her violation, their entertainment.

This is why the stalker’s boast rings true: occupying another’s soul is erotic to them. It bypasses consent, boundaries, and physical limits. It is sex without reciprocity, power without vulnerability. In Lacanian terms, the gangstalker offers the target’s suffering and ecstasy to the big Other—the program, the network, the unseen hierarchy—as proof of his own completeness.

Why this matters

Gangstalking reframes as a specifically psychosexual crime, not just generalised “harassment.” It weaponises the scopic drive, the sadistic impulse, and the ancient human terror of being watched by unseen forces. It preys on women in positions of newfound freedom, punishing them for existing outside male (or institutional) control.

Recognising the sexual dimension does not diminish the broader horror—financial ruin, social isolation, physical torture. It sharpens it. These operations attack the core of personhood: the right to an inner life, to bodily autonomy, to sexual sovereignty.

If you are a TI reading this, know that your reports of sexual violation are not fringe or unbelievable. They are central to understanding the phenomenon. The salivating, the moaning, the forced orgasms, the soul-occupation—these are features, not bugs.

The perpetrators believe they have found something sexier than ordinary desire: complete, consequence-free possession. Our task is to expose the poverty of that fantasy, to affirm the inviolable sanctity of the inner world, and to demand that this form of psychosexual terrorism be named and confronted for what it is.

The soul is not theirs to occupy.

When discussions of conspiracy theories arise, most people picture marginal figures operating far from the centres of technical expertise and institutional influence. Nikolai Mushegian does not fit that picture.

Mushegian was a highly respected cryptocurrency developer, best known for his foundational role in the development of MakerDAO, one of the most important projects in decentralised finance. By his twenties, he had already earned a reputation as an unusually gifted engineer and independent thinker. Even critics acknowledged his intelligence. The guy, in his twenties, even made a significant endowment to his alma mater - Carnegie Mellon.

In the weeks before his death in Puerto Rico in 2022, Mushegian made a series of alarming public statements claiming that intelligence agencies, criminal networks, and other actors were targeting him. His final messages suggested that he feared he would be killed.

Days later, he was found dead after an apparent drowning. Authorities reported no evidence of foul play, and the official account remains that of an accidental death.

The significance of the case is not that it proves any particular conspiracy. It does not. Nor is it that Mushegian’s claims were necessarily true.

Rather, the case raises a more interesting question. What should we make of situations in which a technically sophisticated, highly accomplished individual begins making extraordinary allegations? The standard response is to dismiss such claims as paranoia. Yet Mushegian’s stature makes the story difficult to place neatly into familiar categories.

He was not an anonymous internet personality. He was a prominent figure in one of the most consequential technological and financial movements of the past decade.

Perhaps the most intellectually honest position is one of uncertainty. Mushegian may have been experiencing profound paranoia. He may have misinterpreted events around him. Or he may have perceived patterns that remain opaque to outside observers.

What remains undeniable is that one of the cryptocurrency world’s most talented minds spent his final days warning publicly that powerful forces were pursuing him—and that his death continues to provoke questions that have never been fully laid to rest in the public imagination.

I’ve posted several times that the best way to treat your narcissistic perpetrators is by ignoring them. Sometimes, though, their words bring you down. Especially after an all-night attack. Their strategy is not so much individual insults but to change your entire self-conception. They want you to feel guilty and inadequate (classic abusive inversion). And sometimes it works. Nobody is perfect, we could all work harder, treat people better, and so on. Plus, they will taunt you on the basis of mere thoughts that you’ve had, not actions - making you either have to constantly monitor yourself (not healthy) or be reminded of the sheer degradation of having your mind broken into.

This can all get me down at times, which can make me depressed, immobilised, or worse. So, even though it is essential to not engage with the taunts, you do need mental strategies for turning yourself around. You need to be able to reframe the situation accurately - with they as the villains, and you as the innocent and valuable human being that you are.

My perpetrators have very nasty personalities and I find it helpful to remind them of this. One actually resembles a classic narcissist I once lived with. I allowed him into the house because he is intelligent, articulate, and was part of the social world I was in. He seemed to charm me. But once he was in, he seemed to assume that the entire house belonged to him. One small thing: every morning he would make his coffee with my coffee machine, and leave the milk jug in the sink, unwashed. After several weeks I simply asked him if he could wash it so I didn’t have to clean up after him. He leapt up, shirtfronted me, and shouted ‘You are an ASSHOLE’. He saw my request as ‘character assassination’, which is classic narcissism. Any implication that you might not be perfect and God’s gift in every way, is treated as a threat to the one thing propping up their self-esteem - this vastly inflated self-image that they carry around and gaze at just like Narcissus in the Greek myth. Narcissists aren’t transfixed by their true image, but by a carefully curated image that conveniently covers their deep insecurities. So if you poke a narcissist, you are awakening their repressed pain.

I didn’t think an everyday household request would trigger that, but in hindsight, he’d thought until that moment that I thought he was the same perfect being that he envisages himself as. And was brought crashing down by the milk jug.

As a Targeted Individual, I noticed at the time that his anger towards me made me feel a new sensation in response - I felt under attack, but I could literally feel my blood boiling, around my head and neck. I’d never felt that before. I thought this was a sign that I was being targeted to feel irritable and being prodded to bring on this conflict. That may be true. Later, I thought, when I tried to understand his unbelievable, violent reaction - which also involved stepping inside my personal space, yelling and spitting at me, and doing that childish gesture of ‘blowing raspberries’ with your fingers over your lips - that he himself had been targeted (at least in that moment) to send him into a rage over a trifle.

I suspect now that I am just unusually susceptible to letting narcissists into my life. I may also be somewhat matter-of-fact with people, rather than sandwiching a criticism between two compliments. Surely that shouldn’t be necessary over something so small as the need to clean a dish.

But I digress.

The point I wanted to make was that many mornings I wake up blissfully, having slept well and had entertaining or absorbing dreams. I forget that I am subject to remote neural narcissistic abuse, and it is usually as my mind slowly wakes up that the tinnitus and then the voices (first distant, getting closer) begin. It takes around 5 minutes usually. The voices are inaudible initially but I can already tell they are enraged. Apoplectic. And then they come in and take any thought Im having and turn it into an attack on me. Any connection they can make, they will turn it around on me.

I suppose they come in furious because they’ve been that way all night. I think I am one of the lucky ones who doesn’t have direct dream intervention. But I imagine I have had subconscious abuse all night. And their attitude is that I have been bad, real bad, and I deserve punishment. Obviously playing the wrathful parent. And once I, with regret, remember again that today is going to be another day of constant abuse, part of me makes me feel like I deserve it. And this is what becomes depressing and immobilising. So I will then try to turn things around, and I manage to.

I usually start by assessing their character and my character. I am not involved in a total intimidation and abuse program. I am making my way in this world without having to victimise innocents and hound them to their deaths. So I’d say, they don’t have a platform from which to tell me who I am. Their words mean nothing because they have opted out of society. They operate in the zone of hard-core criminals. They are not better than rapists and murderers. They belong in jail and they will be returned to jail.

They usually come back at me by claiming they won’t get caught, or that, rather than low-life scum they are my social superiors - they went to good schools and they got involved in the military or intelligence where normal morality doesn’t apply and that being a cowardly weasel abuser who might cause innocents to die is actually a revered thing of fabulous status in their circles.

It’s hard to argue about their true status when we don’t know who they are. But we can argue - or push back - against their noxious personalities, because that is evident. The one called ‘Craig’ is very similar to the narcissistic housemate. He is smooth, has a certain charm, is full of himself, and quick to be enraged. He is also like a schoolyard bully cheerleader. The one with the loudest voice and the snappiest insults, egging on others to come join him to traumatise the weakling in the sandpit.

So I remind him of this, and it seems to make him shrink away. Just as I am vulnerable to being made to feel like shit because I have had my character attacked, so can they. When I ‘win’ in rhetorically reminding them of their actual positions, they back off.

I know this might be a tactic of the AI - to give me some relief as a ‘reward’ from it for me having engaged in a defence strategy that it has learned from. But I also believe that it may realise it has lost its platform - I have successfully subject-positioned it (put it in its place) and therefore for the rest of the day I am not going to be intimidated by anything it says.

All I have really done is correct the record, and reposition myself as moral and dignified and them as worth zero, or lower. Which is where we naturally belong given the life choices we’ve made. It is just that they have hypnotised me all night to make me think I am the problem. The classic narcissist reversal.

Don’t buy it. But sometimes to not buy something, you have to throw it back in their face. I wish this wasn’t the case - the ideal is that you ignore them to the point where they fade away to nothing more than a barely-audible ‘radio in the next room’. But, their psychological techniques are able to not just change the contents of your mind, but change how it works, and how you conceive of yourself.

That’s why sometimes you need to position yourself back where you belong. Correct the record. And given that identity is relational, and even more so for narcissists, to restore your rightful place of dignity sometimes needs you to engaged your inner Warrior, and spill some blood.

That can feel good too, and there’s no more deserving victim than the perpetrators of these 21st century Holocaust programs.

Give ‘em hell, and prepare them for what they’ve got coming.

The recent revelations surrounding former CIA official David Rush — accused of siphoning tens of millions of dollars in gold bars and foreign currency while apparently fabricating large portions of his professional biography — are being treated in the mainstream press primarily as a corruption scandal.

But the more unsettling possibility is not merely corruption. It is structural inscrutability.

The truly disturbing implication is that the contemporary national security state may now operate less as a coherent institution than as a fragmented archipelago of semi-autonomous contractor ecosystems: overlapping scenes of private intelligence firms, behavioral scientists, defense startups, ex-military consultants, surveillance entrepreneurs, cybernetic researchers, psychological operations specialists, and venture-backed security intermediaries — all connected to the state, but none fully accountable to it.

What emerges is not a conspiracy in the cinematic sense. It is something stranger: a distributed sovereignty of classified subcontracting.

The Rush case matters because it appears to reveal an extraordinary institutional permeability. According to reporting, an individual allegedly fabricated educational and military credentials for years while ascending through highly sensitive environments and obtaining access to covert operational resources.

If even a fraction of the allegations are accurate, the question becomes unavoidable: what kinds of programs become possible once oversight has withered away to nothing?

Contracting secrecy

The popular imagination still pictures intelligence agencies through the Cold War lens: centralised bureaucracies operating through strict chains of command.

But the post-9/11 security state increasingly functions through outsourcing. The intelligence apparatus today depends upon sprawling networks of private contractors, shell consultancies, university partnerships, defence laboratories, cloud-computing providers, data brokers, neuroscience firms, and “innovation ecosystems.”

This transformation matters because outsourcing does not merely distribute labor. It distributes moral responsibility. In a classical bureaucracy, responsibility ascends vertically. In contractor ecosystems, responsibility dissolves laterally.

Everyone becomes partially insulated:

• the agency authorizes;

• the contractor implements;

• the subcontractor operationalizes;

• the university legitimizes;

• the startup prototypes;

• the private lab tests;

• the venture fund finances;

• the lawyer compartmentalizes.

No single actor possesses the complete ethical picture.

The result is a structure uniquely suited to programs that would be politically radioactive if publicly acknowledged.

The emergence of semi-private black programs

One increasingly plausible hypothesis is that the most sensitive contemporary programs no longer exist primarily inside agencies.

Instead, they circulate through hybrid zones:

• classified procurement pathways;

• Special Access Programs;

• defense innovation incubators;

• “dual-use” neuroscience research;

• predictive behavioral analytics firms;

• non-attributable cyber operations contractors;

• bioelectromagnetic experimentation environments;

• private intelligence boutiques staffed by former agency personnel.

The modern black program may therefore resemble venture capital more than military command.

Loose networks. Temporary task forces. Plausible deniability. Compartmentalized funding streams. Rotating personnel.

The system acquires a peculiar resilience precisely because it lacks a clear centre.

The social scenes of the security archipelago

One mistake critics make is imagining these worlds as uniformly ideological. In reality, they likely function as scenes.

Some are highly militarized and patriotic. Others resemble Silicon Valley acceleration cultures. Others are libertarian-transhumanist. Others are elite academic milieus fascinated by cognition, AI, neurotechnology, or human enhancement. Others are simply opportunistic contractor networks orbiting federal money.

This is crucial because moral normalisation occurs culturally before it occurs institutionally. Inside closed scenes, ethically extreme practices gradually become reframed as:

• “capability testing”;

• “human performance optimisation”;

• “non-lethal influence operations”;

• “cognitive security”;

• “behavioural shaping”;

• “urban sensing”;

• “neurological resilience research.”

Language performs laundering functions. The most controversial activities are rarely experienced internally as sadism. They are experienced as innovation.

The civilian as ambient test environment

The darkest possibility is that civilian populations increasingly function as ambient research environments. Not necessarily through centralised directives, but through diffuse experimentation cultures spread across contractor ecosystems.

Historically, intelligence agencies demonstrably conducted unethical human experimentation programs during the Cold War, including projects associated with MKUltra. What distinguished those programs was not merely secrecy, but the production of institutional rationalisations in which ethical boundaries became secondary to perceived strategic necessity.

Today, however, the technological landscape is radically different. Continuous surveillance infrastructures now exist. Behavioral data is ubiquitous. Consumer devices track movement, attention, biometrics, and emotional states. AI systems model human behavior probabilistically. Neurotechnology and electromagnetic research have expanded substantially within both military and commercial sectors.

Under such conditions, the temptation toward low-visibility experimentation becomes structurally embedded. Not because there exists a singular master plan, but because the technical capacity and bureaucratic fragmentation now coexist.

New plausible deniability

In the older national security paradigm, secrecy depended upon denial. In the contemporary paradigm, secrecy increasingly depends upon noise.

Information environments are flooded with partial disclosures, fringe theories, leaks, hoaxes, authentic documents, psychological operations, speculative podcasts, Reddit subcultures, conspiracy entrepreneurs, and disinformation campaigns.

The result is epistemic exhaustion.

Even genuine abuses become difficult to stabilise as publicly credible narratives. The population loses the ability to distinguish between:

• actual covert programs;

• exaggerated speculation;

• contractor fraud;

• psychological contagion;

• emergent technological side effects;

• intentional manipulation.

This ambiguity itself becomes protective. The system no longer requires universal disbelief. It merely requires permanent uncertainty.

The affective structure of contemporary secrecy

One of the least discussed aspects of distributed security systems is their emotional atmosphere. These worlds appear to generate a peculiar combination of:

• paranoia;

• ambition;

• technological utopianism;

• moral exceptionalism;

• institutional narcissism;

• burnout;

• compartmentalized guilt.

Personnel circulate between government, startups, universities, consulting firms, and defense contractors. Careers depend upon access, proximity, and silence. Under these conditions, entire microcultures can emerge in which ethically destabilising activities become normalised through professional prestige.

The contractor ecosystem thus begins to resemble finance culture before the 2008 crash: highly intelligent individuals operating inside systems so fragmented that nobody feels fully responsible for aggregate outcomes.

Oversight without visibility

The official American mythology insists that oversight mechanisms remain robust. But oversight only functions when programs are legible.

What happens when:

• budgets disappear into classified procurement;

• projects are distributed across subcontractors;

• personnel rotate constantly;

• legal authorities are compartmentalized;

• technologies possess dual civilian-military uses;

• and institutional knowledge itself fragments?

The result may not be a rogue agency. It may be something more difficult to confront: a permanent experimental infrastructure whose operations exceed the cognitive map of any single institution.

The real fear

The deepest public anxiety surrounding cases like the Rush affair is not simply corruption. It is the suspicion that the visible scandal gestures toward larger invisible systems.

A man allegedly accumulates hundreds of gold bars under the umbrella of “work-related expenses.”

Immediately, the public imagination begins asking questions the official narrative cannot easily contain:

What kinds of programs require physical gold transfers?

How many covert financial channels exist?

How many contractors operate beyond meaningful scrutiny?

What kinds of experimental activities become possible inside permanently classified ecosystems?

And perhaps most importantly:

At what point does a democratic state lose the ability to fully perceive the apparatus it has constructed around itself?

That may ultimately be the defining political problem of the twenty-first century security state.

Not tyranny in its classical form.

But distributed opacity.

An archipelago of black boxes.

Does this not explain where everything went wrong and produced the massive abuses of the TI program?

I keep coming back to this possibility.

That 5G was not simply a telecom upgrade. It was a trial run in something much larger: the acclimatisation of the public to life inside a permanent field of invisible connectivity.

Phones, towers, sensors, cameras, smart homes, smart streets, QR codes, payments, platforms, location histories, health apps, face scans, metadata. Bit by bit, the old world was wrapped in signal. Most people experienced it as convenience. Some experienced it as terror.

That is the part nobody wants to look at.

The Targeted Individual may be the figure who feels the coming system before the rest of society is allowed to recognise it. Not because every account is correct in every detail, but because the structure of the experience is so obviously where things are heading: total exposure, total inference, total behavioural leverage.

6G is where this becomes explicit.

It is not really about speed. It is about density. A denser mesh of sensing and response. A world in which the distinction between online and offline finally collapses. The environment itself becomes computational. The street, the home, the workplace, the car, the shop, the medical system, the bank, the border, the classroom: all folded into one intelligent surface.

And once everything senses, everything can judge.

Once everything judges, everything can intervene.

This is the human control system.

It does not need to look like dictatorship. That would be too crude. It works through tiny alterations in the texture of life. Access granted here, delayed there. A message that does not arrive. A post that disappears into the floor. A payment that fails. A recommendation that pushes you toward fear. A social bond that is quietly poisoned. A job you never see. A person you should not have met. A mood that appears to have been prepared for you before you entered it.

Punishment becomes ambient.

Reward becomes seamlessness.

The compliant person experiences the system as ease. The resistant person experiences the same system as fog, friction and hostile coincidence.

And yes, the mind is part of this. Of course it is. Anyone pretending otherwise is lying to themselves. Neural decoding exists. Brain-computer interfaces exist. Behavioural prediction exists. AI systems already simulate intimacy and hidden knowledge well enough to disturb people. The inner life is not some sacred zone technology has politely agreed never to enter. It is the next market, the next battlefield, the next interface.

That is why the talk of “smart” everything is so sinister.

Smart home. Smart city. Smart health. Smart policing. Smart money. Smart war.

Smart means responsive. Responsive means sensing. Sensing means profiling. Profiling means prediction. Prediction means intervention. At scale, intervention is control.

So who wants this?

Is it a secret cabal, as many suspect? Or a loose convergence of agencies, contractors, platforms, telecoms, data brokers, and militaries?

That is the New World Order actually being built. Not a flag. Not a manifesto. Infrastructure.

The Targeted Individual hears the machinery underneath the lullaby.

They say: this world is responding to me.
The system says: yes, that is the point.

They say: my choices are being shaped.
The system says: that is personalisation.

They say: my imagination is being harvested.
The system says: that is product development.

They say: my thoughts are no longer private.
The system says: neural data is the future.

This is the rollout. 5G wrapped the world in signal. 6G aims to make that signal intelligent, predictive and intimate.

First the network surrounds you.

Then it studies you.

Then it anticipates you.

Then it begins to train you.

And finally, if nobody stops it, it becomes indistinguishable from reality itself.

That is the point at which domination no longer feels like domination.

It feels like the way things are.

If we don’t stop this by 2028, we can kiss goodbye to our and our childrens’ humanity.

The stakes are that high.

These are crimes that should result in jail terms.

But what if technology enabled an even worse crime? What if technology - artificial intelligence, used for explicitly evil purposes - body implants, and radar technology were being used to steal information from peoples’ minds as well as to attempt to alter their very thought patterns?

What if, for periods of years and years, some targeted individuals had had technology illegally inserted into their bloodstreams, and their nervous systems connected to remote sensing stations that in turn are connected to operators working for a criminal organisation that intends to steal data, intimidate, and sell technological applications to the highest bidder?

What if that had been happening already, for several decades, with evolving technological systems encompassing nanotechnology, satellite and mobile phone signals, and super-computer machine learning to decode the brain’s incredibly complex signals?

What if that technology was being used on tens of thousands of randomly selected individuals now, for the purpose of testing whether it can be used as a saleable weapon of theft, fraud, abuse, intimidation, torture, and even murder?

It is. I know, because since June 2024, it has been used on me.

My name is Jack O’Farrell. I am a white male in my forties. I had a fairly normal middle-class upbringing in the suburbs of Australia. I took piano lessons. Played soccer and cricket. I learned computer programming. Later, I got into wilderness hiking. I wrote articles for newspapers and magazines. I studied an Arts degree, which led to a PhD, and I have worked for over ten years in leading Australian universities, teaching and researching in media, environment, and politics.

I am writing now because I cannot keep silent any longer. I am willing to risk being seen as crazy, in the hope that my documentation will help other victims and the world move on from a dangerous and deadly episode. I am one of the victims of a secretive organisation that is attempting to develop this technology, the holy grail of human existence - mental telepathy - that has remained secret or dismissed as conspiracy theories or psychological illness despite the vast promises of power and money that attract its developers.

This sounds crazy, but this organisation is attempting to integrate my mind with an artificial intelligence system, using a remote signalling capability to follow me everywhere to keep its brain and my brain constantly connected.

It is reading my thoughts, interacting with them, and attempting to influence them - constantly. Every waking moment. I believe it is also running programs on me while I sleep.

Below, I will document what I have experienced since June 2024, when I became aware of being part of the program. I will concentrate only on the experiences, and not my supposition of the causes, until later. Then, I will give a summary of some of the publicly available knowledge and expertise suggesting that there are indeed covert programs targeting innocent civilians with neurological communication technology. I will detail who the major suspects are, and offer some detail of the best available hypotheses.

Psychological strategies of the perpetrators

Here, I describe and summarise the details of the contents of the psychological attacks that I am subject to every minute of every day.

I am dealing with a kind of autonomous chatbot based on a vast knowledge base drawn from my consciousness (thought, experience, memory) going back a decade or more. It appears to have achieved some level of ‘fusion’ with my own consciousness, constituting an ‘extension’ of my mind that exists at a remote location connected by wireless communication - but that is governed by very different logics to my own: specifically, a logic of attempting to cause me maximum harm.

I only gain relief during sleep, while listening to music or engaged in conversation in relatively ‘busy’ noise environments, and in the first few minutes of the day, when the system seems to slowly lock on, shortly after I wake up.

I will describe a ‘snapshot’ of the contents of my experience in the present, and draw some connections to earlier iterations of the system so as to highlight the similarities and differences across the two-year period, from June 2024, that I have been aware of my targeting.

Here are the various ‘games’ they play with me at this moment.

1. Constant backseat drivers. I mean this metaphorically. I rarely drive. This is their main game. They provide backseat commentary from waking to sleep. The language involves a ludicrous level of scrutiny. If I am opening a door while holding a coffee cup and my phone, they act like sports commentators, analysing the likelihood I will drop something. Imagine this kind of commentary on every experience I have throughout my day. This feels like it comes from a standard playbook designed to intimidate. Basically, they are showing off the tech’s capabilities to monitor my senses as well as to interpret the meaning of every moment. It is possible that the ‘always on’ nature of this commentary reflects the program’s incessant need to learn from me by presenting me with interpretations and integrating my feedback.

2. Build relationship tensions. Regularly they insist my partner is involved in sexual relations with other residents where we live. When I am in one part of the building and she another, they will claim in a puerile tone and in lurid detail that she is currently engaged in acts with another. This happens at least once a day.

3. Build social anxiety. ‘He hates you’. This is usually when my attention is turned either to an acquaintance from my past, or somebody I don’t know so well in the present. It seems a fairly obvious trick to build suspicion and to prevent me from bonding with others, in their attempt to isolate me.

4. Career demoralisation. ‘You will never ever work in academia again.’ This includes pretending to have been in touch with some of my colleagues.

5. ‘Adrian’. While the voices are distant and thin, as if from some old long-wave radio, Adrian is apparently the ground operator who is trained to enter my room when I’m away, poison my food supplies, and plant targeting devices. They know that I believe that there is no need for men on the ground because the technology links me to satellites. They regularly speak about this ‘Adrian’ - something like a soldier or spy or underworld figure with formidable physical capabilities - to plant the thought in my mind that I am physically shadowed too.

6. Shared enthusiasm. They get extremely excited when I am busy with writing or cycling or walking, observing the scenery. They provide positive reinforcement. This is in stark contrast to the attempt to prove their superiority over me at other times. The reason for these periodic attempts to share the good life with me might be:

   1. They are genuinely deprived and my life is a beacon of stimulation and promise for them.

   2. They need to ‘break into’ my life, into my trust, so that their negative attacks will have more impact.

   3. One of the algorithm’s major inputs is simply amplifying what I am experiencing. When they guilt me, it is taking something real within me and magnifying it. When they try to stall me with indecision, I am perhaps already being indecisive. So, my thrill at riding fast through the countryside or observing inspiring architecture is their thrill too. This doesn’t explain everything, but it seems a go-to first input for the app.

Despite facing these kinds of attacks designed to demoralise. Attacks very much, it seems, of the nature of military and intelligence ‘brainwashing’ and trauma-induction actics, my mental health remains mostly unaffected. I have recovered from a period of deep shock after first discovering this unbelievable crime. Since then, I witness it every day. I have developed dozens of coping strategies. Sometimes it gets me really down, or annoyed. Writing this Substack is one key way of dealing with this. So is engaging in the publically available information and investigations that point the fingers at several sources that stand behind the programs being used on me. I will discuss what I believe are the most credible accounts of the technical basis now.

Investigating the technical basis

With the rapid rate of development of nanotechnology, neuroscience and wireless communications systems, there are now dozens of scientific papers and experts attesting to the existence of these systems. The public discourse on Elon Musk’s Neuralink conveys two misleading impressions. One, that the technology remains at a primitive level, involving substantial implants and wearable electronics. And two, that the technology is going to be used for good.

In truth, the technology has been developed much faster than this in private hands. Patents have been acquired. Lines of research taken over and made ‘dark’. The vast gains that this technology promises are equalled only by the possible abuses. It has overturned the essential truth about human consciousness; that it is a private, personal space.

Robert McCreight, a former State Department intelligence analyst, says that ‘targeting healthy brains to disrupt, impair, destabilise, and degrade their innate functions using stealthy technology sounds like Science Fiction but it isn’t.’

The existence of directed energy weapons is officially acknowledged by the US government. These weapons use directed, pulsed radio-frequency energy, which can pass through walls and directly stimulate and impair the human brain. US diplomats in Cuba reported unusual health incidents beginning in 2016. Dozens reported the same symptoms of being targeted at home, by directional devices that created dizziness, concussion, unusual sounds - and their families were affected too.

This follows the Soviet microwave transmissions aimed at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow from the 1960s. Stories about a U.S. “Voice of God” or “Voice of Allah” weapon have circulated for years, though even sympathetic defence-tech reporting has treated them as partly rumour and difficult to verify.

I believe a private group, perhaps a rogue offshoot of state projects, is behind this crime and that it has been running a program that targets a range of civilians selected to form a broad base of social diversity for the testing and development of this technology.

It is simultaneously a communication instrument, a weapon, and a torture device. It is used on me in all three capacities.

The technology can read my thoughts and speak back to them. It is receiving everything I subjectively experience, from tactile sensations to my field of view. It also receives the images I form in my mind’s eye. I am being used as a ‘remote viewer’. Not because I am a person of interest, but for the testing and development of the technology.

I can’t say if I am being followed on foot, or if this is entirely satellite based. The evidence points to the use of multiple systems.

The system has two main modes: sending and receiving. But its power comes from combining the two, to understand in minute neurological detail how I respond to what it sends. When machine learning is applied to this, I am effectively being trained, coached, incentivised. I am being manipulated, moulded, to the will of the organisation.

Anything I say about the means by which this is done is speculation. But there are some highly credible experts who attest to its existence. Dr James Giordano is a highly respected neuroscientist, and was one of the key investigators in the US government’s Havana Syndrome report. He confirms the existence of new weapons using microwave frequencies that can disrupt the brain without creating any burning sensation, by using pulsed microwaves. These devices do not emit a continuous beam of energy but something like pulses of 1/10000th of a second, about 10 times per second. These pulses are powerful, but because they are so short, their power requirements are miniscule.

The Medusa microwave-auditory-effect project was apparently discontinued because it was impossible to ethically test it on humans. A lot of sources suggest that such programs were never really discontinued, they just went into top secret programs or into the grey zone between the government and contractors.

If beamed, pulsed microwaves explain the technological ability to be able to interact with the mind, neuroscience supplies the other element - how to decode and encode signals so as to effectively create synthetic telepathy. In a 1998 Nature report warning that advances in neuroscience could threaten human rights, experts warned of the rapid pace of development of brain-computer interfaces. The imaging techniques are now at the point where ‘we can almost read people’s thoughts”, said Denis Le Bihan, a researcher at the French Atomic Energy Commission.

This is what public officials know about public projects to develop the technology. However, all signs point to much more advanced research in the top secret programs run by the US, China and Russia. It is the next frontier. A NATO report calls ‘Cognitive Warfare’ the warfare of the 21st century.

What has probably happened is that I got targeted for random reasons, by a private organisation with access to some military equipment, that is attempting to develop a weapon that can target individuals anywhere in the world, attempting to harm them psychologically if not physically. The idea is that the contractor could then sell this technology as a prized weapon to military or intelligence agencies. I believe we are probably seeing something like the Wild West, a lawless race for resources, powered by electromagnetic beams and AI systems that can decode brain data into words and images.

I know this sounds unbelievable. That I must be either crazy, or have succumbed to some vast online conspiracy rabbit-hole. This is not true. In recent years, more and more truth has emerged, confirming that the technology exists, is possessed by certain groups, and is being used for nefarious purposes.

The truth is, I’m doing ok. I’m writing, I’m publishing, I’m in a great relationship. I’m fit and healthy. I cycle and play regular tennis. I eat great. I’m travelling in Europe and working remotely. I hold a PhD from one of Australia’s best universities and completed a postdoctoral research fellowship at another. I’ve taught for ten years in undergraduate and postgraduate media, sociology, and political science courses. In 2025, I completed a prestigious Research Fellowship at Germany’s number one university.

All this despite being constantly linked to a system that appears to be using highly invasive and unconventional methods (satellites, nanoparticles) to covertly apply mainstream psychological techniques (suggestion, cognitive-behavioural tools, neuro-linguistic programming) to ruin my mental health, break my social connections, and drive me into isolation or into an institution.

It is as if I am the non-consensual test subject of a program that might be useful to aim at leaders of insurrection movements, potential terrorists, or active members of political factions that are deemed ‘undesirable’. This kind of testing program as part of a secret arms-race between world powers might be rationally conceivable. The truth is that nobody, as yet, knows – although something like this precise possibility is the ‘official’ understanding of Targeted Justice, the main association linking targeted individuals.

Philosophically speaking, the question about how such barbaric practices oriented at lawful citizens are permitted to proceed by the governments of democratic states, might be best answered by the notion of techno-instrumentalism. Yes, this is a morally and legally reprehensible crime. But history has seen plenty of examples of how technological systems (material and human) follow their own logic of maximising their capabilities. Given the extraordinary powers of AI, it is certain that it has been recruited into the role of helping this system evade detection. Different periods in history are driven by different logics: moral leadership, social values, political ideologies, natural events, technological capabilities. It is perhaps not surprising that the 21^st century might be witnessing the transition away from a century driven by political and ideological conflict to one governed by the quasi-autonomous capabilities of technological systems spanning the scales of the global down to the nano. Whether this represents the nightmare scenario of AI pulling away from human guidance and setting out to destroy humanity, or the (more plausible to me) scenario of AI’s capabilities being harnessed by agencies responsible for advancing ‘national interest’ and protecting ‘national security’ – it is too early to tell.

Where to now?

The most common thing other targeted individuals report is the stubbornly incessant nature of the targeting. I have spoken to people who claim to have been in ‘the program’ for two to three decades. This is not what I have chosen, and not what I want. I have been ‘onboard’ for less than two years.

I want to know who is behind this. Is it government? Is it private? Is it the US, China, Russia, Australia? I want this 21st century Holocaust exposed, and its perpetrators to face their accusers, face the public, and face justice.

For my friends and family, I want to be understood. I want the nature of this experience to be acknowledged, even if sceptically. I want emotional support at times. And I would like my story to resonate as an emblem of the changing times we live in. I don’t want people to become depressed or panicked. But I do want us to recognise the precious and precarious nature of the relative peace and prosperity we have taken for granted. And that something fundamental has changed.

I want to live my life as normally as I can. I am learning to ignore the attempted influence campaign. I am learning psychological correctives that rebalance the attempts to change how I feel and how I look at the world. I am learning to publicise and share this knowledge, on this Substack. I want to continue my academic research into environmental politics, and I want to continue enjoying life, love, friendship, and all the beautiful things that have made life so worthwhile.

And a second question follows: who are the populations least protected from being used as experimental subjects?

This is the terrain opened up by Antony Loewenstein’s work on what he calls the Palestine Laboratory. His argument is not that Israel merely occupies Palestinian land through old-fashioned military domination. It is that Palestine has become a proving ground for an exportable architecture of control: checkpoints, drones, biometric databases, predictive targeting, movement restriction, facial recognition, population classification, and the conversion of captive life into technical knowledge.

This is not a marginal claim about a hidden cabal. It is a claim about a visible industry. The Al Jazeera documentary version of Loewenstein’s argument frames Israeli occupation not simply as a local military regime, but as a globally exportable system of control.

Amnesty International has documented Israel’s use of facial-recognition systems such as Red Wolf at checkpoints in Hebron, arguing that these technologies feed vast surveillance databases without Palestinian consent and entrench a wider system of control over Palestinian movement.

Reporting by The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call has also examined AI-assisted Israeli military systems such as Lavender, reportedly used to identify large numbers of targets in Gaza. More recent reporting has described Israeli military work on AI tools trained on large quantities of intercepted Palestinian communications.

Whether one accepts every part of Loewenstein’s framing or not, the structure of the argument is difficult to dismiss. Occupation is not only territorial. It is experimental. It produces data. It tests systems. It refines techniques. It turns domination into intellectual property.

This is where Dominic Halpin’s documentary becomes relevant. Halpin’s argument pushes toward a more disturbing frontier: technologies that do not merely watch bodies, but act upon them - directed energy, cognitive interference, psychotronic harassment, neurological disruption.

Do we owe these technologies to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and is the genocide in Gaza part of a ‘clean-up’ now that the testing has been concluded and the products ready to be rolled out around the world?

I want to be clear. Much of this terrain remains speculative. Claims about covert experimentation, remote neural interference, or directed-energy targeting often outrun publicly available evidence. That matters. We should not pretend to know what has not yet been proven.

But the broader concern is not irrational.

Modern states and contractors are obviously interested in the body, the nervous system, attention, behaviour, compliance, disorientation, fear, and the modulation of populations. A century of military psychology, interrogation research, crowd-control innovation, propaganda studies, behavioural prediction, surveillance capitalism, and classified weapons development should have taught us not to dismiss these questions too quickly.

The mistake is to ask: could states ever be interested in technologies of cognitive control?

Of course they could.

The better questions are: what evidence do we have, what remains classified, what has been outsourced, and which populations are least able to refuse participation?

This is also where the Israel question has to be handled with discipline.

To ask whether Israel’s security-industrial complex has developed, tested, exported, or helped normalise new technologies of control is not antisemitism. It is a legitimate inquiry into a state, an army, an intelligence apparatus, and a network of private contractors.

Israel is not “the Jews.” The Israeli state is not Jewish people as such. Israeli defence firms are not a mystical ethnic force. Unit 8200 is not a religious category. NSO Group, Elbit, Rafael, Cellebrite, and the wider ecosystem of surveillance and military technology are political-economic institutions, not racial essences.

The antisemitic move is to transform an institutional critique into a mythological fantasy of Jewish power. That has to be rejected absolutely.

But the opposite error is also dangerous: making fear of antisemitism a reason certain states, agencies, and companies become immune from scrutiny. Israel is a major security state. It is a significant exporter of surveillance and military technologies. It governs millions of Palestinians through an apparatus of checkpoints, databases, drones, biometric systems, and military rule. It should be examined with the same severity we would apply to the United States, China, Russia, Britain, or any other power.

The issue is not identity. The issue is infrastructure.

The claim worth exploring is not: “Israel secretly controls everything.” That is a dead end, and worse than a dead end.

The claim worth exploring is this:
In a world where surveillance, AI targeting, directed energy, behavioural manipulation, and neurotechnological control are becoming instruments of power, Palestine may be one of the places where the future of coercion has been field-tested.

That is a serious claim. It may be partly right, partly wrong, or ahead of the evidence. But it is not inherently illegitimate.

Indeed, it becomes more plausible when placed within the broader history of how empires test systems on subordinated populations before exporting them elsewhere. Colonies have long been laboratories. Occupied territories have long been laboratories. Prisons have long been laboratories. Migrant camps, border zones, reservations, psychiatric institutions, and war zones have all served as spaces where states try out techniques that would be politically harder to impose on fully protected citizens.

The modern twist is that the laboratory is now digital, biometric, atmospheric, algorithmic, and neurological.

This is why the conversation about Palestine cannot be separated from the conversation about the global future of surveillance. What is done to Palestinians does not necessarily remain in Palestine. The technique travels. The software is sold. The doctrine is exported. The phrase “battle-tested” becomes a marketing asset.

There is a chilling conversion here: human suffering becomes product validation.

That is the core of the scandal. Not a cartoon conspiracy. Not a racial myth. A political economy.

The question Halpin raises, if taken seriously and carefully, pushes the argument further. If we already know that occupied and marginalised populations are used to refine visible systems of control, should we also be asking whether less visible systems are being tested?

Not only cameras, drones, databases, and targeting software, but acoustic devices, directed-energy systems, psychological operations, behavioural tools, neural interfaces, and technologies designed to produce disorientation, fear, pain, compliance, or cognitive disruption?

Here we must distinguish evidence from hypothesis. The evidence for Israeli surveillance, biometric control, AI-assisted targeting, and security-tech export is substantial. The evidence for covert neuroweapon testing on civilians is not publicly established in the same way. But the hypothesis sits within a real historical pattern: when a state has captive populations, advanced military-tech capacity, weak accountability, and an export market hungry for “proven” systems, the incentives are obvious.

That is why this needs investigation rather than ridicule.

The most important scandals of modern power often begin as questions respectable people are trained not to ask. Who is being watched? Who is being experimented on? Which technologies are being tested before democratic publics even know they exist? Which injuries are being dismissed as psychological because the mechanism is classified, deniable, or commercially inconvenient? Which populations are treated as outside the circle of moral recognition?

Those questions should not be answered with ethnic blame. They should not be answered with fantasy. But they must be asked.

Because if Palestine is a laboratory, the experiment is not only about Palestinians. It is about all of us.

The occupied zone becomes the prototype. The border becomes the demo site. The prison becomes the pilot program. The battlefield becomes the showroom. And eventually the techniques return home: to policing, protest management, immigration control, dissident monitoring, workplace surveillance, and the quiet disciplining of ordinary life.

That is the real warning.

Not that one country is uniquely evil. Not that one people is secretly behind history. But that modern technological power requires test environments, and the people with the fewest rights are always first in line.

So yes: this is speculative at the edges. It must remain careful. It must not become antisemitic. It must not confuse Israeli state power with Jewish identity. It must not convert evidence of surveillance and occupation into an all-purpose mythology.

But the avenue is worth exploring.

Because the age of cognitive and technological control will not announce itself with a press release. It will arrive through exceptions, experiments, security justifications, occupied populations, emergency powers, and deniable systems. It will arrive first where consent is weakest. It will arrive first where the victims can be dismissed.

And if we are serious about cognitive liberty, bodily sovereignty, and the right not to be turned into data, target, test subject, or training material, then Palestine is not a side issue.

It is one of the places where the future is being rehearsed.

His central claims appear to be that:

• nanotechnology or microscopic components can be embedded in or around the human body;

• electromagnetic signalling and microwave effects can be used as part of covert communication systems;

• hidden channels of communication may operate through or around the body without ordinary consent or awareness;

• implanted, embedded, or externally activated components may be used to interact with bodily systems;

• these systems may allow forms of targeting, monitoring, interference, or communication that remain outside normal public oversight.

These are not minor allegations. They point to a world in which the body becomes an interface, the nervous system becomes a target, and consent is bypassed by systems the public has not been allowed to see, understand, or contest.

Help support TI solidarity

That is why the claims matter, even before every technical detail has been independently verified. They strengthen the urgent case for regulation precisely because they name the area where existing law, medicine, journalism, and public oversight are weakest: the border zone between neurotechnology, electromagnetic exposure, covert communication, AI-mediated analysis, and bodily autonomy.

The responsible response is not to accept everything instantly. Nor is it to retreat into the lazy comfort of ridicule. The responsible response is to ask why, in 2026, there are still so few credible public mechanisms for investigating claims of non-consensual technological interference with the body and mind.

Hassall’s testimony should be read as an alarm bell. If his claims are true, even in part, then the implications are grave. If they are mistaken, then the proper way to establish that is through competent technical scrutiny, not social contempt. Either way, the present situation is indefensible. A society cannot allow powerful institutions, intelligence agencies, defence contractors, laboratories, or private firms to develop technologies of bodily access while leaving ordinary people with no meaningful route to report, test, document, or challenge suspected abuse.

The problem is larger than one video. Hassall’s claims land in a world where the technological background has changed. Brain-computer interfaces are no longer science fiction. Neural decoding is no longer a fantasy. Non-surgical brain-machine interfaces are openly pursued as a research frontier. Directed-energy effects have entered official debate through the contested history of Havana Syndrome and anomalous health incidents. Wearable sensors, implants, nanomaterials, RF detection, biometric monitoring, and AI-mediated interpretation of bodily data are increasingly part of the public technological landscape.

This does not prove Hassall’s account. It does something more politically important: it removes the old excuse of impossibility.

For years, targeted individuals have been told that the technologies they describe cannot exist, could not work, would not be deployed, and could not be used against civilians. But that answer is no longer adequate. The same society that celebrates neural interfaces as medicine, military advantage, commercial innovation, and the future of computing cannot then declare all fears of misuse absurd. A technology cannot be real when it is funded, useful when it is profitable, strategic when it is classified, therapeutic when it is clinically framed, and impossible when a civilian reports it as harm.

That double standard is the centre of the issue.

When powerful actors describe the body as a signal environment, they are treated as innovators. When vulnerable people describe the body as a site of signal-based violation, they are treated as unstable. When laboratories decode neural activity, it is a breakthrough. When victims speak of cognitive interference, it is dismissed as delusion. When agencies research non-surgical interfaces, it is national security. When ordinary people worry about non-consensual access, they are pushed outside respectable speech.

Hassall’s claims sharpen this contradiction. They suggest that the real issue is not whether technologies of bodily and neural access are imaginable. They plainly are. The issue is whether their development, testing, and possible misuse are being governed with anything like the seriousness the stakes demand.

At present, they are not.

The law is behind the technology. Public health systems are behind the technology. Journalism is behind the technology. Human-rights frameworks are behind the technology. Most police and medical systems have no meaningful pathway for dealing with reports of signal-based, electromagnetic, or neurotechnological abuse. People who come forward are often trapped in a circular demand for proof: they are told to produce evidence, but denied the instruments, expertise, institutional legitimacy, and investigative process through which evidence could be produced.

That is not a functioning system. It is an accountability vacuum.

And vacuums are where abuse grows.

The regulatory case is therefore urgent. We need clear rules governing any technology capable of interfacing with the nervous system, affecting cognition, manipulating sensory experience, transmitting covert signals, using directed energy, or gathering bodily and neural data without explicit consent. We need independent oversight of defence and intelligence research involving electromagnetic systems, neurotechnology, implants, nanomaterials, and human-machine interfaces. We need enforceable prohibitions on non-consensual experimentation. We need mandatory disclosure and audit trails for research involving human subjects, dual-use systems, or covert field testing.

We also need a public evidentiary infrastructure. That means technical standards for RF and electromagnetic measurement. It means protocols for documenting anomalous environmental readings. It means independent laboratories capable of testing alleged implants or foreign materials. It means clinicians trained to assess unusual sensory, neurological, and cognitive complaints without automatically humiliating the patient. It means journalists who can investigate these claims without collapsing into either credulity or mockery. It means whistleblower protections for people who disclose unlawful or unethical programmes. It means legal recognition that cognitive liberty and bodily sovereignty are not abstract slogans, but rights that require enforcement.

Hassall’s testimony matters because it pushes these questions out of the shadows. His account may be contested. It may be incomplete. It may require careful technical separation between what is directly evidenced, what is inferred, and what remains speculative. But the appropriate response to such claims is not silence. It is regulation, investigation, and public accountability.

The alternative is to continue pretending that the problem does not exist until the technology is already normalised. That is how dangerous infrastructures become permanent. First they are classified, experimental, or deniable. Then they are justified as security, therapy, innovation, or efficiency. Then they become embedded in institutions. By the time the public is allowed to debate them, the most important decisions have already been made.

That cannot be allowed to happen with technologies that reach into the body and mind.

The body is not merely a data source. The nervous system is not merely an interface. Attention, sleep, pain, perception, mood, speech, memory, fear, and volition are not just signals waiting to be captured, decoded, stimulated, or altered. They are the conditions of personhood. Any technology capable of touching that domain must be subject to the highest possible standards of consent, transparency, independent review, and democratic control.

This is the real force of Ralph Hassall’s revelations. They do not ask us to believe blindly. They ask us to stop dismissing blindly. They force a question that regulators, journalists, scientists, and human-rights organisations can no longer avoid: what protections exist for people who allege covert technological interference with their bodies and minds?

At the moment, the honest answer is: almost none.

That should disturb everyone, whether or not they accept Hassall’s account in full. Because the issue is not confined to one witness, one video, or one organisation. It concerns the entire direction of technological power. If the human body is becoming readable, trackable, influenceable, and machine-addressable, then the public needs enforceable rights before the abuses become too sophisticated to prove.

This is the clarion call. Not panic, not superstition, and not automatic belief, but action.

Regulate the technologies. Open the archives. Protect whistleblowers. Fund independent testing. Create medical and legal reporting pathways. Ban non-consensual experimentation. Investigate directed-energy and neurotechnological harms. Build standards before victims are once again told that their suffering cannot be real because the paperwork has not yet caught up.

Ralph Hassall’s claims are explosive because they describe a possible future that many people believe is already here: a future in which covert systems can act upon the body while public institutions continue to deny the category of harm. That is precisely why the response must be serious, immediate, and regulatory.

No more hiding behind impossibility.

No more celebrating the technology in public while refusing to investigate its abuse.

No more demanding perfect proof from people denied every legitimate route to produce it.

The body must not become an unconsenting test site. The nervous system must not become an undefended interface. The mind must not become a frontier governed by secrecy, stigma, and force.

If Hassall is wrong, a serious investigation can show that. If he is right, delay is complicity. Either way, the age of easy dismissal should be over.

Help support TI solidarity