Featured Image
J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building on Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, United StatesRichard Cavalleri/Shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) – This article discusses two main subjects: 1. recent laws which suggest the U.S. federal government may be using invasive surveillance (“biosurveillance”) technologies on Americans and 2. requiring covert methods, technologies, and personnel of the FBI, local covert police, and other secret police or intelligence entities in America to be publicized. The article provides the information in one location rather than separating into multiple articles. There is no medical advice in this article.

Before beginning the main subjects, it is necessary to emphasize some differences. There are covert local police, other covert law enforcement like the FBI, covert government intelligence entities, and possibly a large secret police entity in America whose main responsibility is covert, organized, and coordinated stalking of targeted persons within communities with the intent to “destroy” or remove the targets from society, potentially through directly or indirectly causing the targeted person’s death, which will be explained in a moment.

Those covert entities need to be distinguished from non-covert local police, law enforcement, etc., that wear a uniform or are otherwise clearly identified in public or otherwise publicized as government personnel. The emphasis in this article is on specifically covert government employees who may get away with secretly harming Americans, sometimes remotely, and use advanced surveillance, or “biosurveillance,” technologies to do so. 

Could biosurveillance technology be used as weapons of covert intelligence?

Potential threats to Americans include some of the U.S. federal government’s advanced innovative brain technologies and their potential remote and secret use in “biosurveillance.” Previous articles discussed the subject; this article elaborates with new information.

One way to determine whether the federal government intends biosurveillance to include the surveillance of human actions (possibly including the technologies mentioned above which can “see into” homes and buildings to surveil every human action of every human being in “real-time” throughout their whole life) is to apply the U.S. federal government’s definition of “psychiatric disorder” to the government’s definition of “biosurveillance.” The federal government defined “biosurveillance” in federal law in 2013 as follows:

the process of gathering near real-time biological data that relates to human and zoonotic disease activity and threats to human or animal health, in order to achieve early warning and identification of such health threats, early detection and prompt ongoing tracking of health events, and overall situational awareness of disease activity. (42 U.S. Code § 247d–4(j), emphasis added)

“Biosurveillance,” then, includes “the process of gathering near real-time biological data that relates to human … disease activity” for the U.S. federal government. And the government’s definition of “psychiatric disorders” includes “diseases of the nervous system which affect mental health.” (42 U.S. Code § 201(l))

When combined, it seems that the definitions imply that the U.S. government’s biosurveillance or “gathering near real-time biological data that relates to human … disease activity” includes the gathering of near real-time data of “diseases of the nervous system which affect mental health.” 

And, specifically “near real-time” mental health data could include both “near real-time” data of the human nervous system that is, human brain activity as well as real-time surveillance of human behaviors (with technologies that “see through” or “see into” buildings, houses, cars, etc.), because mental “disease activity” is often determined by monitoring or observing human behaviors. To “achieve early warning of…[mental] health threats” could be interpreted to imply the use of advanced brain technologies for brain surveillance and other advanced technologies that monitor the every action of every human being throughout their whole life.

Also, a 2016 federal law discusses the U.S. government providing money to “develop, implement, or expand … programs to improve the identification and outcomes of individuals with mental illness.” The law allows the Attorney General (who oversees the FBI) to award grants to be given to state or local criminal justice systems for mental health “data collection and analysis necessary to make available information required for assessment of risk” and “promotion of the use of validated assessment tools to gauge the criminogenic risk … and mental health needs of individuals.” 

Such language is very similar to language used to describe “biosurveillance”: “the process of gathering near real-time biological data that relates to human disease activity…and threats to human or animal health.” Advanced biosurveillance technologies might (falsely, because the definition of “mental illness” is often false) be claimed to improve “identification … of individuals with mental illness.”

August 2022 law on ‘real-time, cyber-enabled interfaces’ for ‘food-energy-water systems’

There is more. A U.S. federal government report on biosurveillance describes the legal actions taken by the U.S. government to attempt to “strengthen biosurveillance” in the United States. One such “Homeland security presidential directive,” “HSPD-9,” 

directed HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] and USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture], among others, to develop robust, comprehensive, and fully coordinated biosurveillance and monitoring systems for animals, plants, wildlife, food, human health, and water. (Page 3)

The “among others” apparently includes the FBI. (Page 174. The Attorney General oversees the FBI.) Thus, the U.S. federal government planned “fully coordinated biosurveillance and monitoring systems for … food, human health, and water” and the intelligence community and likely the FBI were to be included in such biosurveillance.

Now, it is necessary to emphasize that the federal government planned “fully coordinated biosurveillance and monitoring systems for … food, human health, and water” because as recent as August 2022, the federal government passed significant laws which appear to have implications on the use of biosurveillance technologies in humans indirectly through “food-energy-water systems.” Interestingly, the laws were signed by President Joe Biden on a day when most of America was being distracted by the major news was that the FBI had raided former President Donald Trump. The law is titled “Supreme Court Security Funding Act of 2022.” Don’t be fooled by the title, though.

Several significant points could be made about that law, but one of the most significant might be its legalizing of the development of technologies to be used by the U.S. federal government. Specifically, the law legalizes the development of

real-time, cyber-enabled interfaces that improve understanding of the behavior of food-energy-water systems and increase decision support capability 

The new U.S. federal law appears to use a wording method which appears to be used in other U.S. federal laws on biosurveillance and hoaxes or covert national exercises: possibly “implying authority” or using words to be interpreted as “apparent authority” or “inherent authority” by writing somewhat broad wording in the laws. This wording may attempt to legalize U.S. government actions, methods, or technologies to be used on Americans rather than clearly writing words like “the U.S. federal government may forcibly use remote medical imaging technologies for surveillance and/or miniature devices covertly delivered to the human brain from food and/or water to monitor real-time brain activity and manipulate and mitigate potential threats at the earliest possible moment.”

The law above may imply apparent or inherent authority for the government to use “real-time, cyber-enabled interfaces” on or in humans to understand “behavior,” because humans may be included in the phrase “food-energy-water systems.” Non-government scientists explain that “Food, energy, and water (FEW) are interdependent and must be examined as a coupled natural–human system.” Thus, the U.S. federal law could be implying the required development of “real-time, cyber-enabled interfaces that understand behavior of” humans directly or indirectly through as “food-energy-water systems.”

Some might say here, “yes, but does that necessarily mean that the government attempted to authorize the use of such real-time, cyber-enabled technologies for ‘biosurveillance’ in humans?” 

That may be answered with a separate federal law on biosurveillance which requires the federal government to use “the best available statistical and other tools” to “detect as early as possible” certain “events of national concern” in “as close to real-time as is practicable.” The law states that the National Biosurveillance Integration Center

shall detect, as early as possible, a biological event of national concern that presents a risk to the United States or the infrastructure or key assets of the United States, including by […]

using an information technology system that uses the best available statistical and other analytical tools to identify and characterize biological events of national concern in as close to real-time as is practicable (6 U.S. Code § 195b)

Those laws are listed as “requirements” apparently legal mandates for the National Biosurveillance Integration Center; in other words, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and other “intelligence” agencies can say they are required by U.S. federal law to “detect, as early as possible” certain “national concerns” of the United States by using “the best available statistical and other analytical toolstoidentify events of national concern in as close to real-time as is practicable.” 

This is a significant point that requires emphasis: the law implies any tool that is the best at detecting, as early as possible and in as close to real-time as is practicable, may be used, or may even be required to be used, for biosurveillance by the federal government and possibly local police entities.

As previous articles explained, and as common sense can easily determine, “as early as possible” is when potential terrorist actions are presented to the human brain initially as a suggestion and then as a planned action. Also, refer to the above-mentioned U.S. federal law which allows for “assessment tools to gauge the criminogenic risk … and mental health needs of individuals.” Such wording implies some sort of “assessment tools” used either to observe human behavior or the human brain (“mental health needs of individuals”) on apparently any or every “individual.” And it may imply biosurveillance tools, or “the best available …analytical tools to identify … in as close to real-time as is practicable” “criminogenic risk.”

And what “real-time” analytical tools might the U.S. federal government use on, or in, humans? One such tool may be the “real-time, cyber-enabled interfaces that improve understanding of the behavior of [human] food-energy-water systems and increase decision support capability.” 

(On the subject of “criminogenic risk,” or the likeliness of a person or covert government entity to commit crimes, it should be mentioned that the FBI themselves apparently admits to secretly committing “otherwise illegal activity” or what other people might refer to as secret “crimes.” It is unclear if local police are also allowed to secretly commit crimes which they can then say is “otherwise illegal activity.” Or, think of it this way: is a secret employee of the FBI or local police a risk of committing crimes if they think they can commit crimes and not be punished? Sure appears as though such persons are significant risks to the public.

It might be worth keeping such subjects in mind when voting and participating in public activities. Although, there again, if the FBI can commit crimes, and if the U.S. federal government labels certain voters as “threats” to America or “criminogenic risks” would the FBI or others illegally falsify or rig an election? It is a reason why Americans might want to demand that the methods and technologies of the FBI and other covert entities be publicized. That may not prevent their crimes or “otherwise illegal activity,” but in the future there may be more honest people in government or the judicial system who may be able to do something about the harm that such government entities may be doing in secret.)

August 2022 law requiring development of neuromorphic computing and machine learning

“Mind-reading” or human brain monitoring to understand potential threats or “criminogenic risk” might require significant machine learning algorithms and systems and/or advanced computers which monitor human behavior, the electrochemical activity of the brain, or the spatial and temporal movement of elements, water, or other substances in the brain. The same August 2022 federal law requires developing machine learning systems and other technologies.

The law does not specifically say the machine learning systems are going to be used on the human brain. However, the 2022 law above requires the development of “neuromorphic computing” systems. Developing neuromorphic computing systems would likely require machine learning of the human brain.

Scientists apparently describe “neuromorphic computing systems” as making biosensors or (apparently extremely small) computers which mimic the human brain. Of course, it might be suggested that uniqueness of each human being results in every human brain being different; very intelligent scientific brains and less intelligent human brains are different. Very good musicians’ brains may be different from those with less musical talents. The brains of athletes, actors, and actresses would likely be of interest to the U.S. government in developing such “neuromorphic computing systems.” Women’s brains are different from men’s, brains of those born and raised Indiana or Alabama may be different from those in New York City, and so on. For the government to develop “neuromorphic computing systems” to mimic human brains would seemingly require monitoring a significantly large number of human brains, if not every human brain on earth.

And this is another significant point: human brain activity (reasoning, planning, reacting to stimuli, learning, controlling body movements, etc.) is likely significantly different when a human knows that their brain is under “biosurveillance” or being monitored or observed to help “develop neuromorphic computing systems.” Thus, if the federal government is attempting to achieve “neuromorphic computing systems” which mimic, say, the combined brains of, or partial brain activity of, judges, scientists, lawyers, doctors, researchers, military officials, covert personnel in law enforcement or intelligence entities, or athletes, actors, actresses, journalists, media personnel, etc., then it is likely that the U.S. federal government would attempt to do such research secretly, on millions of human brains, for many years. 

That’s not all. It is likely not simply “monitoring,” “observing,” or “recording” of brain activity which is used on such human brains. Such “development of neuromorphic computing systems” which implies a thorough scientific understanding the human brain also may imply intentionally harming, confusing, or otherwise modifying brains or bodies to observe how such brains react to and modify behavior during adversity, chaos, rejection, loss, injury, etc. 

Some might say, “the government cannot do that without consent!” To which one might simply respond: vaccine mandates and COVID lockdowns for “national security” reasons. And, the FBI can apparently secretly commit “otherwise illegal activity.” There are other laws or regulations which may attempt to provide legal coverage for such brain research or biosurveillance without consent, but they are not going to be mentioned in this article.

In other words, the August 2022 U.S. federal law above which requires the development of “neuromorphic computing systems” to mimic the human brain may imply the use of secret human brain monitoring, observing, and manipulation or intentional harm or confusing the brain to observe how such brains react to and modify behavior during adversity, chaos, rejection, loss, etc. It is another reason why the specific methods and technologies of law enforcement, biosurveillance entities, intelligence agencies, etc., should likely be required to be public knowledge.

Government intelligence entities secretly harming others

A previous article described how covert law enforcement, police, or other entities like the FBI used “vicious tactics” to secretly and intentionally harm Americans, while Americans had no way of challenging such persons. (Pages 2-3) The U.S. Senate document discussed in the article mentions what could accurately be labeled as U.S. government employees secretly torturing Americans. If the FBI or other government entities used secret torture on Americans for several years, they might do so now also.

It is an important point that requires emphasis: the FBI, intelligence community, and/or covert local police entities were able to get away with secretly harming other people and the targeted person could not do anything about it. Since the writing of the previously cited U.S. Senate document, it appears as though such entities like the FBI, the government intelligence entities, and covert local police have only achieved more power, more secrecy, and might be argued to operate in many ways as separate non-American, and potentially anti-American, entities (in that they apparently do not require themselves to follow the criminal laws that Americans are required to follow, and they apparently are able to commit such crimes in secret, while Americans cannot challenge their illegal, and potentially deadly, actions).

With extreme anti-Catholic and anti-freedom beliefs currently prevalent in America, it seems reasonable for Americans to be demanding that the FBI, intelligence agencies, and even local police be required to publicize the methods, technologies, and covert employees and non-employees that they have used in the past, currently use, or plan to use. This includes the hoaxes, ruses, ploys, and other covert schemes of the FBI and other law enforcement entities, the businesses which are covertly owned and/or operated by the FBI (page 1) or other covert police or intelligence entities, “national security” drills and exercises that are falsified, and biosurveillance technologies which may include advanced innovative technologies that remotely and covertly act on the human brain and/or body.

Some have said that America’s enemies would be more of a threat to America if they knew the methods and technologies of entities like the FBI or even local covert police. That is not necessarily true. There are only so many methods and technologies that the FBI or law enforcement could use. It may not require advanced intelligence to determine what those possibilities are. And, America’s enemies, if they don’t know what technologies or methods are currently in use, probably prepare for every possible method and technology and then operate as if those methods and/or technologies are used in America.

In other words, requiring the methods and technologies of the FBI and local covert/secret police to be publicly known does not necessarily make other countries more of a threat to America. Requiring covert FBI or secret police personnel to be publicized is a slightly different subject but still does not necessarily make it easier on America’s enemies.

Instead, one could actually argue that the secrecy of the methods, technologies, and covert personnel of the FBI and local secret police makes it easier for America’s enemies to hide within the FBI or local secret police and secretly harm Americans. The covertness and secrecy of U.S. federal government entities like the FBI or Department of Homeland Security and even local covert police may make the government itself more of a threat to Americans.

In other words, keeping the methods and technologies of the FBI and local covert police entities secret does not necessarily make things easier on non-government employed criminals, but the secrecy surely makes it easier for the FBI or local covert police to commit secret crimes against people in America. Requiring the publicizing of methods, technologies, and personnel of the FBI, local covert police, and others could be helpful to prove certain persons to be innocent targets of corrupt government employees. Americans harmed by such secret methods, technologies, and personnel might also be able to challenge the government (although this also is nearly impossible, due to the government’s power and ability to provide themselves with almost endless amounts of money).

Covert government stalking also used extensive surveillance

It is going to be elaborated in a moment that the FBI apparently used secret and coordinated stalking methods to harm Americans in the past. One might ask, how is a method like covert and coordinated stalking relevant to the surveillance technologies of the FBI or covert local police?

An example is the following scenario, which may or may not be hypothetical. Say the U.S. federal government and local government law enforcement and intelligence entities have a technology that allows them to “see into” (or “see through the outside of”) houses and other buildings as a method to monitor the behaviors of humans within those houses or buildings. Multiple technologies have the potential to be advanced enough to be used for such a purpose, possibly including the “real-time” monitoring of every action and/or movement of every human being in America at every moment of their life.

Is it likely or unlikely that the U.S. federal and local governments would inform Americans before beginning to use the technology? Or would government entities like the FBI or local law enforcement secretly use the technology and then do everything they can to prevent Americans from knowing about their covert use of such technology? Even if such technologies were illegal, is it likely or unlikely that government entities would continue to use such technology?

Some might say, “who cares! I have nothing to hide.” Such persons may not realize that advanced technologies may not be used to know who does bad things and then prevent such persons from harming others.

Instead, such technologies could be used for coordinated covert stalking, harassment, and intimidation methods and such technologies could be used on many Americans at the same time. Secretly placing false evidence, which the FBI and potentially local police are apparently permitted to do, is also much easier with advanced surveillance methods and technologies. Not to mention that simply speaking or believing biological truths, not necessarily even the Truth of the Word of God (although biology and Truth are inseparable), might make one a target of covert U.S. government surveillance and coordinated stalking methods and technologies. There are many such reasons why everyone should care about the methods and surveillance, or “biosurveillance,” technologies of the FBI, secret police, and others.

A U.S. Senate document describes that the FBI used “intensive campaigns” of specifically covert stalking and/or harassment on persons with the intent to “secretly attack and destroy” targeted persons in the past. (Pages 11-12) The intent of the FBI was to “destroy” and “neutralize” the target (Page 11), apparently in part by causing severe psychological distress. This is important to emphasize: the government has a past of intentionally and secret causing of psychological distress in apparent attempt to “destroy” a person.

Ultimately, the FBI may have intended to secretly stalk and harass the target to get the targeted person to destroy themselves to cause the person’s death through self-harm. (Page 11) And that secret method used by the FBI (and potentially local law enforcement entities) relied on “extensive surveillance.” (Page 11)

In other words, surveillance can be used as a covert weapon by entities like the FBI and local covert police; when combined with other methods like covert and coordinated stalking methods or technologies which remotely and covertly act on the human brain or body, the intended destruction of targeted persons could be achieved by the FBI or local covert police for many years without most people realizing.

It is worth quoting the U.S. Senate report which describes the FBI, intelligence entities, law enforcement, and other government entities intentionally and covertly, harming American citizens:

intelligence activity in the past decades has, all too often, exceeded the restraints on the exercise of governmental power which are imposed by our country’s Constitution, laws, and traditions. Excesses in the name of protecting security are not a recent development in our nation’s history…Intelligence activity, on the other hand, is generally covert. It is concealed from its victims and is seldom described in statutes or explicit executive orders. The victim may never suspect that his misfortunes are the intended result of activities undertaken by his government, and accordingly may have no opportunity to challenge the actions taken against him. (Pages 2-3, emphasis added)

If, throughout the history of the U.S., there were victims that “never suspected that his misfortunes were the intended result of activities undertaken by his government,” is it possible that some people may have died as a result of intentional covert harm of the FBI, intelligence entities, or covert local police?

Is it really a question of “national security” (again, likely a false reason) to keep secret the methods, technologies, and personnel of the FBI, intelligence entities, and local covert police? Or is the real reason for keeping FBI and local covert police methods, technologies, and personnel secret to protect the criminals within such government entities?

The FBI also has a past of using indirect methods to potentially cause the death of targeted persons, like provoking “target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths.” (Page 5) Similarly, covert and coordinated stalking could be used to attempt to indirectly harm the target. (Not all of the information in the previous citation is endorsed; it is provided in part to explain that stalking by the government can be done in secret and coordinated ways that many people may not know about.)

One way is by forcing targeted persons onto prescription “chemical restraints,” or powerful prescription chemicals which may be intended by law enforcement to “control behavior or to restrict the … freedom of movement.” (U.S. federal regulations discuss “chemical restraints”; the regulation is not the same context as this discussion but is provided to explain how chemical restraints could be the intent of coordinated stalking methods.)

The suggestion is not mere speculation; the U.S. federal government supported physical lockdowns and forced COVID vaccinations. Government entities that forcibly vaccinate and lockdown might also support what might be described as “chemical lockdowns.” The concepts are very similar; government forcing people to use chemicals (vaccines, or prescriptions chemical restraints) and government forcing people to restrict their movements (lockdowns, or prescription chemical restraints).

Think about it for a moment; if there is a specific covert method of secret policing in America in which person is covertly stalked by many different people in the community, or if the same person, as the above quotation says, has “misfortunes” that “are the intended result of activities undertaken by his government,” what do such persons sometimes do? Do they go to a psychiatrist and/or other doctor and tell them that they feel like they are being covertly stalked?

And is a psychiatrist or other doctor going to say, “well, maybe it is the government’s covert community organized stalking strategy which you are observing around you which is intended to secretly cause you to experience significant misfortunes. Of course, misfortunes cause psychological distress and other problems. Don’t worry, you aren’t mentally ill, nor are you imagining that you are being stalked. You really are being stalked. However, there is nothing you can do about it because the FBI and/or covert local police can basically do whatever they want and get away with it. And they can basically print as much money as they want, so you can’t challenge them in court either. They sure do pay psychiatrists and psychologists a good amount of money.”

Or is the psychiatrist or other doctor, after hearing the phrase, “it appears as though I am being stalked,” likely to automatically prescribe powerful chemicals which often have the effect of restraining freedom of movement?

This is another reason why the methods of the FBI and covert police entities should be required to be publicized; much like when the U.S. military used chemicals that harmed innocent American soldiers during previous wars, so too might the FBI or local covert police entities’ methods and technologies harm Americans presently. It is worth emphasizing that these statements are not mere speculation or a result of being “overly suspicious”; it is apparently fact that in the past, the FBI and/or others intentionally used secret methods which might have indirectly caused the deaths of Americans (Page 5) and other secret methods to intentionally and secretly harm Americans. (Pages 2-3)

Similarly, it is known through studying actions like “bullying” that stalking and harassment can cause the targeted person to use illegal chemicals or be forced on to prescription chemicals which often cause more harm. Such chemicals themselves can directly or indirectly cause the death of a person. There may be more to the so-called street-drug “overdoses” that many parts of America have experienced.

It has been explained that other countries developed similar stalking methods for the secret police in which a person is the targeted of secret, intense, and community coordinated stalking and harassment. The method intends to “destroy” a person, a goal which the FBI has apparently had in the past, (pages 5, 211, etc.) and may intend to ultimately cause the person so much psychological distress that death may result; the use of illicit chemicals or prescription chemicals which are correlated with increasing the likelihood of self-harm may hasten the death of such persons. It may be a type of covert torture and potentially a type of homicide due to the possible intent to get persons to use life-threatening chemicals.

While the FBI and potentially local covert policing entities may allow themselves to commit “otherwise illegal activity,” they are surely not exempt from manslaughter and homicide laws. How many people are unnecessarily put on prescription chemicals or attempt to use illegal chemicals as a result of such secret, coordinated, and intense stalking and harassment? Maybe there are none. However, again, the question is not based on mere speculation; the U.S. Senate document describes similar deadly actions of the FBI and others, and, though this is merely opinion, society and government persons have morally deteriorated since the writing of that document, and advanced technologies allow for more remote or secret actions of such persons. The questioning seems reasonable.

In a way it is surprising to discover that requiring the covert methods and technologies of the government to be publicized is not currently the most publicly discussed subject among politicians. In a way it is not surprising, though, because the politicians themselves may be covert government employees or may otherwise gain from the covert methods of the FBI or others. Even so, it might be said that some of the most significant threats to Americans may be U.S. federal laws that allow the FBI and potentially local police to commit covert hoaxes and propagate false information.

Also potentially threatening to Americans may be the FBI apparently being allowed to commit crimes, secretly own and/or operate businesses, bribe, etc. And it seems that most Americans might want to know if the FBI or other entities have formed a large “secret police” in America whose main job responsibility is covert and coordinated stalking, harassment, and intimidation of targeted persons. And while it cannot be elaborated here, since the FBI and local police may commit hoaxes, it seems that they might also falsify the deaths and funerals of those involved in the hoaxes.

And there is much more on the subject to discuss but it is going to require separate articles.