It is probably obvious that government and non-government use of secret police methods and technologies, potentially including “biosurveillance” technologies that remotely affect or monitor the human brain or body, is contrary to democracy. Some methods and technologies might be properly labeled as torture. And reasonable people might demand those within government, and non-government persons who cooperate with them, not be permitted to operate with such secrecy.
It is necessary to emphasize that “government” is sometimes wrongly discussed as if it is a non-human controlled entity. Human beings without fear of the Lord and those who do not live the Ten Commandments as authentically taught in authentic Catholicism are going to do very evil things. This may include baptized people who wrongly believe that every person, or every baptized person, goes to heaven. In other words, there are evil human beings in the world, and evil human beings often get into powerful government jobs which allow them to commit secret evil actions. 
When evil human beings are permitted to work in the government secretly, using lies, false accusations, hoaxes and deceptive schemes, committing “otherwise illegal activity,” etc., doing whatever evil they want without consequence until they stand before God on Judgment Day, many people suffer. Much of the torture, forced starvation, forced human experimentation, murder, and other crimes during World War II were committed in secret with the use of secret police or secret operations of “law enforcement” and people in the community who cooperated.
It is going to be elaborated throughout this article but previous U.S. Senate documents describe this concept by implying that those who cooperated or worked for the FBI should be evil or should participate in evil. (Page 195)
Guidelines say FBI or cooperators might cause violence, personal injury, or financial loss
When studying U.S. federal laws, guidelines, and documents, one discovers that the U.S. federal and local governments may have used secret hoaxes, methods, and technologies on Americans for many years. Such methods and technologies caused, and could currently be causing, significant harm. More on the subject needs to be mentioned in this article.
For example, the Attorney General’s Guidelines on FBI Undercover Operations apparently say that the FBI may secretly commit crimes, secretly own and/or operate businesses, secretly and/or publicly falsely accuse others (“untrue representations…concerning the activities or involvement of any third person without that individual’s knowledge or consent”), supply falsely sworn testimony or false documentation in legal or administrative proceedings, bribe others, and apparently even cause “violence or physical injury to individuals” and secretly cause targeted Americans to experience “financial loss.”
A previous article suggested the possibility of manslaughter or homicide being committed by the FBI or other secret police entities. The FBI’s guidelines appear to at least imply the possibility of the FBI being a threat or risk of violence or physical harm to Americans. The FBI’s guidelines say that the FBI may cause “violence or personal injury,” and because violence or personal injury may result in death, homicide or manslaughter may be a possible result. (Homicide or manslaughter also may result from methods implied in a U.S. Senate document or other methods which may include covert and coordinated stalking and harassment of a target over many years; such covert stalking could directly or indirectly result in death.)
The FBI’s guidelines state that
the Director, Deputy Director, or Associate Deputy Director-Investigations may approve a proposed operation if a reasonable expectation exists that… there may be a significant risk of violence or personal injury to individuals or a significant risk of financial loss
Read the words: “the [FBI leaders] may approve a proposed [secret] operation [which is reasonably expected or likely going to include] violence or personal injury to individuals or significant risk of financial loss.” The statement appears to imply that the “risk of violence or personal injury” includes non-FBI employees, or the potentially innocent targets of a secret FBI or police operation in America, because “financial loss” may apparently occur to the same “individuals.”
The FBI is funded, at least partially, by the U.S. federal government (if the FBI secretly owns local, national, or international businesses, it may also be funded by those businesses). It is unlikely that the significant risk of financial loss mentioned above refers to the FBI, because is funded by the U.S. federal government which collects and operates on $ trillions; also, the FBI allows itself to commit “otherwise illegal activity” which apparently implies the possibility of (“otherwise illegally”) making money appear out of nowhere. In other words, it seems unreasonable to suggest that the FBI is at risk of financial loss; thus, the FBI’s guidelines appear to say that the violence, personal injury, and financial loss refer to potentially innocent persons targeted by the FBI. 
Also, one should not be fooled by the above guidelines’ apparent requirement of “approval” to commit “otherwise illegal activity.” Since the FBI apparently allows itself to commit “otherwise illegal activity,” one might also expect such actions − “otherwise” illegal activity or crimes committed by FBI employees or possibly others cooperating with the FBI − to occur without approval.
If the FBI guidelines require approval but also allow FBI employees to commit “otherwise illegal activity,” then the guidelines appear to imply that the FBI might also commit “otherwise unapproved activity.” “Otherwise unapproved otherwise illegal activity” appears to be implied in the FBI’s guidelines.
It is also possible that those whose approval is necessary approve all “otherwise” crimes to be committed by the FBI or others involved in their operations. A person who truly follows the Ten Commandments could not work in such a job that falsely represents the actions of others or either commits or approves of some “otherwise illegal activity.” In other words, a reasonable person might expect a person who commits or approves “otherwise illegal activity” to be, simply, evil. It is yet another reason why the actions and locations of all previous “covert agents,” others working for the FBI, or other local or federal secret police and their technologies and methods should likely be required to be publicized, and future secret operations, hoaxes, ruses, ploys, etc., should be prohibited.
(As mentioned previously, continuous specifying is sometimes needed; in this article the FBI is the main subject of discussion. However, there are several government entities which could be doing similar secret operations, committing “otherwise illegal activity,” bribing, coordinated stalking, secretly owning businesses, causing financial loss, etc. Those government entities are implied in this article with the criticism of the FBI.)
“Unapproved otherwise illegal activity” also appears to be implied in The Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations:
Departures from these Guidelines must be approved by the Director of the FBI, by the Deputy Director of the FBI, or by an Executive Assistant Director designated by the Director. If a departure is necessary without such prior approval because of the immediacy or gravity of a threat to the safety of persons or property or to the national security, the Director, the Deputy Director, or a designated Executive Assistant Director shall be notified as soon thereafter as practicable. (Pages 14-15; see also page 34)
Thus, unapproved otherwise illegal activity may be committed. Really, though, who is going to tell their FBI or local secret police boss that they used advanced surveillance technologies to surveil or torture someone, they entered several peoples’ houses with the help of advanced technologies, damaged peoples’ property while intoxicated (another major point which cannot be elaborated on: secret police or FBI employee use of mind-altering substances while having control of advanced surveillance or torture technologies), or committed other crimes “without such prior approval” from their FBI boss? And what FBI boss really wants to know those things, be required to write them down, and potentially risk losing his job or get in trouble if Congress or potentially honest future government officials seek justice?
In other words, there is no conspiracy theory in the previous suggestions of this article: the U.S. federal government’s words can be interpreted to say that the FBI may be expected to secretly commit acts of violence or “personal injury” or “financial loss” “to individuals.” A reasonable person might also conclude that those injuries in secret operations might result in death.
If the FBI’s guidelines say the FBI and others who cooperate with the FBI may perform operations in which “a reasonable expectation exists” that “there may be a significant risk of violence or personal injury” to Americans and commit crimes or what they refer to as “otherwise illegal activity,” are they not saying that the FBI and others involved in secret operations are a “criminogenic risk” and an actual threat (not merely a “potential threat”) to Americans? Such guidelines are apparently currently in use and have apparently been in use since at least 1992. That means there is potential for significant amount of “otherwise” crimes committed by the FBI or their cooperators.
It should also be mentioned here that the FBI might teach state or local police the FBI’s secret methods. Thus, one might reasonably conclude that local or state secret police might also commit acts of violence or cause personal injury or financial loss to others. Lawless, secret, and extremely powerful government entities are likely going to eventually be operated by the criminals.
Additionally, the FBI claims that many murders in America are unsolved; some have used such claims to suggest that the FBI and other government entities need more power. However, if the FBI says that the FBI, other government entities, or others who participate in “undercover operations” might commit violence or cause personal harm, shouldn’t they be suspects in many, if not most, crimes up to and including homicide?
(It may also be possible that the FBI and/or government crime statistics are falsified; it seems that government falsifying of statistics may be legal for the FBI, intelligence community, and even local “law enforcement.”)
The FBI, similar secret government entities, and some who cooperate with the FBI could have almost unlimited weapons, the FBI could have almost unlimited money, the FBI is an international secret entity, and the FBI’s guidelines apparently say the FBI might commit acts of violence or cause personal injury. A reasonable person might say the FBI, and probably the intelligence community and other specifically secret, covert, or clandestine government entities, as they apparently operate now, are clearly a threat and contrary to democracy.
FBI director says agency seeks ‘institutional change,’ suggests those who reject LGBT agenda are ‘potential threats’
Here some might say that the FBI’s committing crimes, falsely accusing others, causing others to have financial loss, or potentially even homicide is unlikely to affect them. Even if it does not affect them, such persons should care about others who the FBI or other government secret police entities are harming. Even if a person dislikes, is annoyed by, or otherwise does not get along with another, such a person should still defend another from false accusations and punishments resulting from false accusations.
Still, the FBI and other secret government entities may be more of a threat to the average American than most realize. In 2009, the Obama-Biden Administration enacted the Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2009, which required the Attorney General (the FBI is responsible to the attorney general) to establish a section within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (which includes the FBI) with responsibility of the enforcement of laws against “suspected participants in serious human rights offenses.”
Notice the wording: “suspected participants.” The law apparently does not define such “suspected participants.” And the law, similar to other laws which appear to be craftily written, provides only a partial definition of “serious human rights offenses.”
Such “human rights offenses” might be interpreted to include simply believing the truth of biology which is that homosexuality, “gay marriage,” and transgenderism are contrary to science (and mortally sinful; the point here is that basic human biology teachings might now be labeled as potential threats and/or “crimes.” Of course, contraception, abortion, and other evils are also contrary to science and also mortally sinful.)
Elsewhere U.S. federal law says that it is a crime
if two or more persons conspire to…oppress…any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same
“Oppress” is apparently not defined either. However, the two previously mentioned laws might be interpreted by such secret police entities as the FBI to include simply believing human biology. Such concepts may be implied in the words recently used by the FBI director, which unfortunately require extensive quotation:
The investigation of hate crimes is the number one priority within the FBI’s civil rights program due to the devastating effect these types of crimes can have not just on the victims and their families, but also on entire communities. A hate crime is a criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by the individual’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic/national origin, sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity. …
Beyond investigative work, the FBI recognizes proper and thorough handling of civil rights crimes does not begin the moment they are reported—it begins before they occur, with a solid and trusting relationship between the community and law enforcement. Each FBI field office will be taking specific actions to combat civil rights crimes in their area of responsibility to encourage systemic change. These actions include identifying appropriate partner agencies and local groups to develop outreach relationships at all levels, especially those that will spark institutional change; increasing civil rights-focused working groups and task forces with state, local, private, public, and non-profit partners; and providing increased training for state and local agencies and community groups centered on color of law investigations and hate crimes statutes to provide education about civil rights violations, promote increased reporting of hate crimes, and rebuild community trust in law enforcement.
The statement appears to be significant. The FBI Director says the FBI currently goes “beyond investigative work” and each FBI field office (to be explained in a moment) is “taking specific actions … to encourage systemic change” and “spark institutional change.” “Beyond investigative work,” the FBI field offices (in most states in America) are attempting to change institutions; this cannot be emphasized enough. This is important because it is known that in the past the FBI “often” used ruses, ploys, and “strategic deceptions” (Page 132) to achieve their goals, potentially including their goal of destroying groups or institutions. (Page 5)
One might also keep in mind that, apparently, the FBI might secretly own and operate businesses; thus, the FBI director’s statements about “private, public, and non-profit partners” and “local agencies and community groups” might actually be the FBI or other secret police entities in plain-clothes or otherwise covert and falsified appearances. The FBI secretly owning or operating businesses could easily be used to attempt to manipulate institutions or individuals through the threat of “financial loss,” which the FBI guidelines apparently mention as a potential result of FBI operations.
Also, the above statement from the FBI uses the word “including.” It is important to emphasize that when reading U.S. federal laws, documents, and other communications, the word “including” also implies the words “not necessarily limited to.” It is easy to misread the word “including” wrongly to mean “only.” “Including” does not mean “only,” and there could be many more actions or operations than what are mentioned after the word “including.”
Could the FBI field offices be doing more than what is mentioned in the above statement “beyond investigative” operations, possibly secret operations in favor of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to forcibly cause “systemic” and “institutional” change?
Again, the FBI and potentially other secret police or “intelligence community” entities are known to use hoaxes or use secret operations to attempt to secretly get into “institutions” and secretly harm the “institutions” from within; the FBI may also attempt to completely “destroy” those groups or “institutions.” (Page 5)
A reasonable person might ask if the FBI and other secret police are really political enforcement entities that go “beyond investigative work” to forcibly coerce “institutions” into propagating every false political belief imposed by the government. Other countries have attempted to openly try to abolish Papal Authority and form an “official state church.” Secret attempts at making a state church might also be a possibility.
FBI field offices in cities throughout America
It might be helpful to know that there are FBI field offices throughout America, FBI “resident agencies” in many other cities, and offices in many different countries. It cannot be thoroughly elaborated here, but is worth mentioning then-Senator Biden’s law which significantly increased “career law enforcement officers” for “community-oriented policing across the Nation” and who are “involved in activities that are focused on interaction with members of the community on proactive crime control and prevention.” (108 STAT. 1809) There is more than one possible interpretation; one interpretation may be that “career law enforcement officers” are secret or not-in-uniform police officers, FBI employees, etc. appearing as if they are normal, non-law enforcement citizens involved in everyday community interactions.
It seems possible, or even likely, that such “career law enforcement officers” may be persons in any “career,” or who work both in non-law enforcement jobs in the community but also potentially secretly work for the FBI or local police in coordinated stalking schemes, hoaxes, ruses, “strategic deceptions,” or other falsified government activities, some which will be explained in a moment. Their jobs in the community allow them to blend in with others.
Such persons might commit to a lifetime career of being secret “career law enforcement officers” to do what they label “community oriented policing” while also having a non-secret job in the community, appearing to most as normal citizens. Most FBI or other government hoaxes and other secret government strategic deceptions or operations likely require the availability of such people in everyday jobs in the community but also secretly committed to do whatever the hoax or falsified government exercise requires.
Unless there are local secret police entities which work for the FBI, there must be hundreds of thousands, or more, people in America and throughout the world who are dependent on the payments from the FBI directly or indirectly as government employees in different departments controlled by the FBI. This may be one reason why few people criticize the secrecy, hoaxes, potential falsifications, and “otherwise illegal activity” of the FBI and potentially other secret police.
Arbitrary use of the label ‘potential threat’
There is another significant point which needs to be discussed about the FBI and other government secret police entities in America. It appears as though the FBI and possibly local secret police may target human beings that they may arbitrarily determine to be “potential threats.” Such approach appears to be suggested by the FBI Director saying that “beyond investigative work, the FBI recognizes proper and thorough handling of civil rights crimes does not begin the moment they are reported—it begins before they occur.” Are groups (“institutions”) or individuals who believe the simple facts that homosexuality and transgender ideologies and “gay marriage” are contrary to science labeled as “potential threats” requiring “institutional change?”
To emphasize again, the FBI Director says that the FBI is involved in attempting to cause “institutional” and “systematic” “change.” The FBI is known to use hoaxes or use secret operations to attempt to secretly get into “institutions” and secretly harm the “institutions” from within or completely “destroy” those groups or “institutions.” (Page 5) And the FBI Director specifically mentions “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” which are false ideologies and contrary to science. This seems to be significant; can anyone or any group that simply believes in scientific facts be determined to be “potential threats?”
“Potential threat” is a phrase sometimes used by the FBI and local law enforcement and other government officials. (Page 133) “Potential threat” could be arbitrarily used to describe most people in different scenarios; for example, many, if not most, human beings get angry and could “potentially” harm others as a result of their anger, especially if they are targeted with carefully planned covert coordinated schemes or other types of stalking and tricks. Most people can probably be provoked, at least verbally, if they are stalked or harassed enough with thoroughly planned, coordinated, and supervised entrapments or provocations.
But the FBI, other law enforcement or other government employees might use the “potential threat” label arbitrarily against people they want to target with false investigations. It is described in a U.S. Senate document:
the Justice Department has advanced a theory to support broad power for the Executive Branch in investigating groups which represent a “potential threat to the public safety” or which have a “potential” for violating specific statutes. These same instructions added that there need not be a “potential” for violation of any specific statute. (Pages 133-134)
The false investigations of “potential threats” may be intended to stalk, intimidate, and otherwise harm or provoke the targeted person or groups. (Pages 5, 183, and 317)
Again, intimidating or stalking with coordinated falsified activities or tricks could make most people angry; in other words, if the FBI’s or local secret police’s own methods were used against FBI or local police employees, those government employees could also be provoked to anger and/or violence, especially because they likely carry weapons.
And the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations allow the FBI and entities or persons that cooperate with the FBI to potentially harass, intimidate, and stalk through “investigations” for an unlimited number of years. (Page 18) That is contrary to democracy.
It is important to mention again that the FBI says that “beyond investigative work, the FBI recognizes proper and thorough handling of civil rights crimes does not begin the moment they are reported − it begins before they occur.” It appears to imply that the FBI currently does more than merely “investigative” operations. Is the FBI currently secretly getting into and attempting to destroy, discredit, or change the teachings and beliefs of “institutions” from within to “combat” what FBI employees or others may wrongly believe to be possible “civil rights crimes” or “potential threats as the FBI did for many years previously? Such “beyond investigative work” could continue indefinitely and harm many people.
This is yet another reason why it seems that Americans should be demanding that there be no secrecy in U.S. federal, state, and local government “law enforcement,” intelligence community, homeland security, and other entities, and all current and previous employees, cooperators, methods, and technologies should likely be required to be publicized. Cooperators who were coerced or otherwise felt pressured into participating in schemes, hoaxes, or other falsified occurrences should be rewarded for informing potential victims of the names of the government and non-government persons who plan and enact schemes, hoaxes, or other falsified occurrences. Government employees should likely be rewarded for publicizing secret “biosurveillance” and other technologies which may remotely and secretly affect or torture the human body.
Communist stalking methods used by secret police entities in America?
The article could have concluded at the previous paragraph. However, because the previous statement from the FBI director discusses “institutional change” with the FBI collaborating with the “community,” it might be helpful to discuss what might be meant by U.S. federal laws describing “community-oriented policing.” (108 STAT. 1808) The U.S. federal and local governments’ “community oriented policing” may be similar to a somewhat covert or secret torture method that was apparently developed in East Germany and may include the participation of many people in a neighborhood, city, or community, with participants possibly being unaware that they are participating in a type of torture which results from continuous coordinated stalking with deceptive schemes or tricks. (The previous source is not completely endorsed due to bad language and other concerns.)
This discussion is going to be incomplete and somewhat theoretical because such coordinated stalking or “community oriented policing” may be a mostly covert government method which may include unpublished advanced psychological torture methods and potentially remote government biosurveillance or other technologies which have yet to be publicized. Even an incomplete and theoretical discussion may be helpful to some, so it is provided here; others may find it to be strange but may want to read if in the future the FBI or a different law enforcement or police entity requests cooperation in such coordinated stalking schemes which may falsely be labeled as “investigations.”
The East Germans’ secret police apparently developed a method which they described as Zersetzung which apparently can be translated into “decomposition.” The method appears to be similar to “bullying” or targeted, pre-planned harassment schemes, stalking coordinated by large numbers of people, and tricks with the participation of almost everyone that a targeted person communicates or interacts with, everywhere the person goes, including work.
Such pre-planned deceptive schemes may be similar to some descriptions of hell, because one purpose of the schemes may be to make the target feel as if everyone is against them and no person can be trusted. Bullying has a similar effect, although government bullying or “community oriented policing” is likely more extensive and intense than other bullying due to the government’s potential use of advanced surveillance technologies and thoroughly planned, coordinated, and supervised schemes involving almost everyone in the targeted person’s community, including family. It is apparently also an attempt to destroy the targeted person’s mental state, which can result, or may be intended to result in the use of prescription or illicit chemicals.
There are very few sources on the subject, with one not-fully endorsed source providing some information. Another reference, which, again, may not be completely accurate but provides some helpful discussion, explains it in this way:
The Zersetzung of individuals was usually carried out by systematically undermining the target’s quality of life (both socially and in the workplace) with the intention of simply destroying the target’s confidence. The tactics took various forms, such as spreading slanderous rumors, causing trouble at work etc. Rumors and information (such as about unacceptable political viewpoints, inappropriate behavior, the possibility they may be an informant etc) that were passed on to work colleagues, bosses and social circles might be based on true facts, but were often plausible untruths that were difficult or impossible to refute.
“Destroying the target’s confidence” is not accurate; slanderous false accusations discussed among groups of people do much worse to the slandered person than “destroy confidence.” Again, it is said to be similar to what is done in “bullying.” Bullies often stalk the bullied person with hints and suggestive language or suggestive actions with the intent that the bullied person will psychologically interpret the suggestive language or actions as a false accusation. When this is done everywhere a person goes for many years (potentially achieved with the use of significant numbers of covert “career law enforcement officers” in the community) it apparently causes significant harm.
It seems that bullying, Zersetzung, coordinated, supervised, and covert stalking with tricks, and similar methods used by secret police entities use words, sounds, actions or movements, stalking with things (secretly placing things in the person’s path) and falsified schemes or “tricks” with one intent of stimulating the targeted or bullied person’s “fight or flight” response. The “fight or flight” response in humans is an automatic response in the human brain and other areas which causes stress, anger, fear, and even chemical alterations in the body.
The “sensitization” and suffering apparently occurs after a targeted person is stalked and/or tricked several times with whatever thing, word, number or numbers, color, noise, or other stimuli. Once the targeted person learns that others around them are targeting them with tricks or schemes, the targeted person can apparently become sensitized to many different stimuli. This appears to be what is known as a “conditioned response” or an almost automatic response in the brain caused by coordinated and continuously forcing most often ordinarily neutral stimuli into a targeted person’s senses (most often sight and sound). It is evil.
For some or many people this may appear to be impossible. One is suggested again to learn from what apparently occurs in bullying. It is the stalking and often the surprise which cause the target stress, not necessarily the thing, noise, numbers, or words which the coordinated and supervised bullies or stalkers use.
It seems that knowing that everywhere you go you have to expect to be prepared for others to be participating in deceptive tricks directed at you causes suffering to the bullied person. The coordinated and supervised schemes apparently may include continuously stalking by placing things in your path, deliberately engaging in suggestive and hinting conversations intended for you to overhear, surveilling you in your house and using advanced remote technology to make noises when you move around in your house, etc.
The continuous and repetitive deliberate stimulation of the “fight or flight” response appears to cause an almost “automatic” psychological suffering, a conditioned response, in the targeted person. (A reference on the “fight or flight response” is not provided because commonly available references are not good.) In this way it may become torture.
Obviously, it is sinful and criminal to physically “fight” such coordinated stalking tricks or schemes, and continuous “flight” from social or work situations ultimately results in homelessness and in some situations inhibiting chemical use and death. Most employment situations require socializing, and if co-workers cooperate with planned schemes, the targeted person often might continuously quit until there are no other employment or vocational opportunities. The targeted person is then, in a way, “decomposed,” with freedoms taken away, unable to provide for oneself or others, or in some situations “locked down” with powerful chemicals and unable to freely move about. Such results may be the intent of the method.
And if the targeted, bullied, or stalked person speaks up and says something like, “this is a falsified scheme, you are tricking me,” those participating in the scheme are apparently likely to respond with “no, you are mentally ill, get help.” Again, the targeted person is not mentally ill, though, and such statements are intended to be provoked to cause the targeted person worse suffering. The targeted person is correctly describing reality, whereas those participating in the schemes are lying and saying the other is mentally ill.
There are some things that sound strange unless one has studied such things closely, and this may be one of them. Someone might say, “How can a person be caused to suffer from, or be sensitized to, common interactions, noises, numbers, or other human actions?” Some hypothetical examples might be helpful.
Imagine the following scenario: a government secret police entity or other entity which uses advanced surveillance technologies is able to predict where a targeted person is going to be at every moment of their life. The government entity then forces, coerces, or asks the targeted person’s family and other acquaintances (at work, Church, etc.) to secretly participate and cooperate in pre-planned and falsified schemes using specific buzzwords, noises, or other stimuli which cause sensitization.
After years of repetitive falsified schemes, the targeted person eventually determines that almost everyone around them, including strangers, is participating in these “tricks.” Again, in this scenario this is possible because of advanced surveillance technologies and the many people in a city, neighborhood, parish, or community that participate in the schemes. In this scenario, the secret police entity might want to use the continuous “tricks” or coordinated stalking to entrap the target into anger − which is a common human response when a person is the target of continuous tricks and/or coordinated stalking. Or the secret police entity may attempt to use such tricks or coordinated stalking to cause the target to continuously become saddened and withdrawn from work and other situations.
What is the normal human response to coordinated stalking or being stalked with coordinated “tricks?” The normal human response to being tricked might be stimulation of the “fight or flight” response. “Anger,” “fear,” and/or “sadness” are almost automatic responses to such tricks or coordinated stalking. And what is the common human response to continuous and forced stimulation of the “fight or flight” response? The common human response to continuous and forced stimulation of the “fight or flight” response is suffering. Continuous stimulation of the “fight or flight” response is torture.
It might be compared to the psychological response experienced by a person who has their foot intentionally stepped on almost everywhere they go. Much of the suffering of having one’s foot intentionally stepped on might be the psychological suffering caused by the surprise attack, or the human body’s automatic “fight or flight” response, rather than the physical pain itself. What would be the common response if one continually had their foot stepped on everywhere they went, for several years?
After only a few days such a person would properly label such actions as torture. After several years such a person would undoubtedly be “sensitized” to going out in public, and that might be one intent of secret “community oriented policing” with covert “career law enforcement officers” and others in the community who are coerced into participating in intense coordinated and supervised stalking schemes.
Unless the stalked person determines that the things going on around them are coordinated and supervised by a secret police entity and/or the FBI, it seems that the person is likely to eventually visit a counselor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. Such counselors, psychologists, or psychiatrists may also participate in the coordinated and supervised schemes, further intensifying the suffering. This also appears to be an intended result.
It appears as though the East Germans development of Zersetzung and whatever it may be labeled in the United States and several other countries is likely intended to either cause death or “lockdown” of the targeted person. The “lockdown” of the targeted person can result from being prescribed powerful chemicals which cause a person to not have ambition to take care of oneself or others. Or the “lockdown” of the targeted person can result from the psychological aversion to being in public places which results from the intense and supervised coordinated stalking and forced sensitization to noises, words, numbers, shapes, colors, and otherwise neutral stimuli.
Such strategies might be used against Church leaders in more than one country. The intent might be to pressure the targeted person to either preach in favor of liberal evils, to pressure the target into discontinuing their vocation, or the intent might be much worse.
Potentially targeted Church leaders should stay strong in their vocation and be aware of potential entrapment schemes. Some might say, “entrapment usually involves the committing of a crime, and I am not going to commit a crime.” Entrapment schemes might include traps or tricks for what can then be falsely labeled as “probable cause.” Entrapment with false “probable cause” evidence is different and might be easier to achieve by those doing schemes, especially if “probable cause” is subjectively defined.
For example, some of the previously described intense, coordinated, and supervised schemes might use hints and suggestions − either through the use of words, planned schemes, or other actions by those around them − which are intended to provoke the targeted person into saying “I didn’t do [such a crime].”
It is apparently a method used by undercover or secret law enforcement in questioning of potential suspects: they never specifically mention a specific crime, location, person, or other detail during questioning, but they instead use leading hints and suggestions which the normal person subconsciously interprets as hints and suggestions with the intent that the questioned person then says something like, “I didn’t [commit such a crime against such a person],” “I wasn’t at [such a place],” etc. The questioner then says, “we never said anything about [such a crime or other detail], therefore, you must have committed [such a crime]!” It is an absurd conclusion but such a method is apparently sometimes used.
There is probably a clearer description of such occurrence or questioning but a reference cannot be found. It is basically deceptive leading questioning using hints and suggestions with an “undercover” or secret “career law enforcement officer” involved with “community oriented policing.” With proper pre-planned schemes and potentially advanced remote and covert technologies, a targeted person might be able to be provoked to say just about anything that a covert law enforcement officer wants them to say.
Because the intense, coordinated, and supervised stalking schemes can apparently cause the targeted person to experience pressure and significant stress, the schemes might also be used in attempt to pressure a targeted person to admit to doing actions that they did not do. The targeted person might be misled into thinking that if they say they did something that they did not do, then the coordinated schemes and other covert pressure might stop. From what is written about this method, it appears as though the schemes likely continue no matter what the targeted person says or does. The intent is often “decomposition” of the targeted person.
Again, one might not understand some of what is written about intense coordinated and supervised stalking, coordinated tricks, or similar methods which were seemingly implied by the U.S. Senate as methods used by the FBI, intelligence community, and potentially local secret police entities. Maybe one will never experience such tortures covertly used by cowards. Others who might be experiencing such methods might practice and prepare to not respond and keep quiet in many situations and not quit one’s mission, vocation, etc., much like Jesus did when similarly cowardly persons attempted to provoke and entrap Him during His Passion. Practicing being silent and stoic might be helpful. Completely ignoring the provokers and keeping one’s mind busy may also be helpful.
Methods and technologies of secret government entities should be publicized, approved or disapproved by citizens in a democracy
From what is written about those methods, it appears as though they were intentionally developed to be much like bullying or workplace “mobbing” but with more people and for indefinite amounts of time and therefore to be used as a covert method of torture. It brings up the question again: in a Democracy such as the United States, why doesn’t Congress require, or why don’t “law enforcement,” intelligence, or similar local police entities themselves require, their methods and technologies and the true identities of all employees and cooperators to be publicized and approved of by the inhabitants of the United States of America? The answer cannot be “because publicizing the methods and technologies will allow criminals to commit crimes!”
For example, Americans knowing that the FBI, intelligence community, or even local police use technologies that can “see into” buildings or houses and surveil every human action at every moment of their life is not going to make it easier on criminals. (Such technology is likely available.) Knowledge of U.S. government “biosurveillance” technologies which might be able to remotely monitor and forcibly torture the human brain is also unlikely to help criminals.
Instead, one reason why U.S. federal and local government secret police entities require their methods and technologies to be kept secret might be because it allows those secret police entities to get away with crimes, or, as they refer to them, “otherwise illegal activity.” And it is likely that Americans (again, unless they get paid or are employed by the secret policing entities like the FBI) might try to at least make it illegal to use the technologies and methods that are currently in use.
Of course, if entities such as the FBI, intelligence community, and potentially local secret police can commit crimes or “otherwise illegal activity,” laws might not mean much, at least to those government employees, in America. While such persons might be able to hide behind covert, coordinated, and supervised stalking schemes, hoaxes, and advanced methods and technologies in this life, such people cannot hide from the Just Judgment of God.
 Specifying in attempt to not cause misunderstanding is necessary here, even if it results in the use of many words, as is observed by these paragraphs. The previous statements are not implying that those who wrongly teach or preach that “every baptized person goes to heaven” or sometimes even wrongly say that “every person goes to heaven” are deliberately being evil. It should be mentioned that such persons who wrongly teach such false teachings, because of potentially mortally sinful negligence, could still be condemned to hell forever for propagating the false things, though.
Many people should closely study Matthew 7:21-23, Luke 13:22-30, Revelation 21:8 and 22:15, and others on presumption and what some theologians accurately label “self-deception.” Secret police and FBI employees might want to closely study the words on “deceivers of every sort” or “every one who loves and practices falsehood” who are condemned to hell. There are different types of deception, one which includes secret policing or scheming, and such deceivers, without true repentance and discontinuing of the deception, may be condemned to hell. Philosophers sometimes describe this as “the absolute norm against lying.” Can a baptized and/or non-baptized person go through life presuming they are going to heaven and then on Judgment Day be condemned to hell forever and experience worse suffering than the tortures and deceptions they imposed on others or forced others to participate in? One might want to study those important words.
Finally, the previous statements are not directed at a specific individual, and, nobody is exempt from God’s Laws, including authors or preachers who communicate statements similar to the previous statements. Such communicators of such statements usually know that they are not exempt from God’s Laws and do not intend to appear to be saying they are better than others but instead trying to convince consciences to get out of presumption and self-deception, likely some of the most prevalent mortal sins which lead to many other sins and suffering in societies.
 Some may suggest that the above statements may “only” refer to the FBI possibly harming gangsters or others who are going to commit violence. In a moment, it is going to be explained that the FBI apparently says that it may target “institutions,” apparently implying FBI operations targeting beliefs or ideas, which might be interpreted to include the Catholic Church or individual Catholics. And it cannot be emphasized enough that good human beings would likely not work for the FBI or similar government entities due to the falsified actions, lying, otherwise illegal activity, etc., ultimately resulting in the FBI or similar secret government entities employing those with violent or otherwise criminal dispositions. Common sense suggests the criminals might eventually operate such a secret entity which is apparently allowed to commit “otherwise” illegal activity.
And it is somewhat off subject, but since the mortally sinful “ultimate fighting championship” and similar somewhat popular operations wrongly included with sports imply violence, and if the FBI is looking for excuses and “potential threats” to attempt to provoke to violence or otherwise surveil, it seems that, for more than one reason, such operations should be avoided.