Denial
I have noticed in the past couple of days or weeks that there are certain people on the internet and on social media who make it appear as if they are knowledgeable about organized stalking and targeted individuals. They go on to state (in effect) that the only surveillance that WE as targeted individuals experience is audio, visual, internet, and mobile device surveillance. Yet, they are unwilling to accept or believe that Remote Neural Monitoring exists and/or is being used against Targeted Individuals.
The technology to perform Neural Monitoring does exist:
In my case the effect of 10 years of continuous remote neural monitoring has made me dumber, less creative, less quick, less innovative, less able, less insightful, more forgetful, less rational, more reactive, in other words it has made me less of what I was. In my opinion this isn't only true for myself but for the U.S. society at large.
What you see of me today is but a tiny, insignificant remnant of what I used to be.
The technology to perform Neural Monitoring does exist:
[Public
technology] "Researchers develop device that can hear your inner voice"
(The ability to hear a targeted individual's inner dialogue is a
capability of remote neural monitoring technology, "Silent speech")
[Public
technology] "UC Berkeley researchers have succeeded in decoding and
reconstructing people's dynamic visual experiences." (The ability to see
people's thoughts and vision is a capability of remote neural
monitoring technology, "Decoding visual images") :
These two publicly acknowledged technologies do exist and they do work. This is technically not remote neural monitoring since both of these technologies require sensors to be in contact with the subject. Though, with advanced sensor technologies and processing it IS possible to perform the same sensory reconstruction at a distance.
Many if not most in the media, politics, sciences, the arts, etc have been given access to information gathered from the mass remote neural monitoring of the general public. Furthermore, they claimed the ideas surreptitiously gathered as being a product of their own talents and effort. Hence, in order to make it appear as if they are talented, original, deserving of the money, fame, or awards received they believe they must deny the existence of organized stalking in general and remote neural monitoring in particular.
This is among the other things they (those in media) may have done behind closed doors, like human sacrifice, baby sacrifice, etc. Of course they don't want the general public to know that they ate human baby back ribs, smoked baby, baby beef jerky, baby BBQ sauce, deep fried baby, etc. (Humor helps me deal with organized stalking, it puts me a good state)
This is among the other things they (those in media) may have done behind closed doors, like human sacrifice, baby sacrifice, etc. Of course they don't want the general public to know that they ate human baby back ribs, smoked baby, baby beef jerky, baby BBQ sauce, deep fried baby, etc. (Humor helps me deal with organized stalking, it puts me a good state)
Someday, the existence of organized stalking will be publicly acknowledge. It will also be publicly acknowledged that many, if not most, of the people in the media, politics, sciences, the arts, etc. received money, awards, public exposure, acclaim, book deals, etc for ideas that didn't originate with them. It will be publicly acknowledged that many if not most of "their" ideas, concepts, notions were given to them by "the surveillance system". If so, then we may have to go back to every piece of their work and put a note or a citation stating that this person received ideas, notions, concepts, work from the mass surveillance of the general public.
In my case the effect of 10 years of continuous remote neural monitoring has made me dumber, less creative, less quick, less innovative, less able, less insightful, more forgetful, less rational, more reactive, in other words it has made me less of what I was. In my opinion this isn't only true for myself but for the U.S. society at large.
What you see of me today is but a tiny, insignificant remnant of what I used to be.
Comments
Post a Comment