Featured Image
The rising smoke cloud after authorities released chemicals from a train derailment in February as seen from the ground in a nearby neighborhood in East Palestine, Ohio. RJ Bobin.

(LifeSiteNews) — What would you venture is the most diabolical weapon that could possibly be wielded against a human being? 

Toxic chemicals like the vinyl chloride released during the Ohio train derailment that can cause fatigue, nervousness, disorientation, and even memory loss when inhaled? Fluoride in the water supply that lowers IQs? A rapid-progression, fatal neurodegenerative disease that could be caused by an mRNA “vaccine”?

What all these harmful agents — and potential weapons — have in common is that they don’t aim to immediately kill, they are invisible to the naked eye, and they impair mental as well as physical functioning.

If chemical and biological agents can affect the brain, is it possible that these and other means can be weaponized to more precisely attack our very thoughts, our perception, our emotions — some of the most precious and intimate parts of ourselves — in ways that can powerfully drive decisions, and thereby threaten, at least in the eyes of those who wield such weapons, the very seat of our autonomy, our will?

This very scenario is not mere science fiction but is “science fact,” according to senior Pentagon advisor Dr. James Giordano.

Giordano admitted in 2021 that a disturbing array of neuroweapons, ranging from brain scanning technologies to neurotoxins to electrical devices, are “viable if not already uptaken” by U.S. defense. Such neuroweapons, he explained, can be divided into two broad categories: technologies that can “assess,” or “read” the brain, and those which “intervene” in the brain’s processes.

Stop Pentagon advisor Prof. Giordano from further developing neuro-weapons Contact Congress TODAY!

As an example of a kind of crowning achievement of such technologies, Giordano described how the collection of “neurobiological data” coupled with artificial intelligence (AI) can not only assess what’s going on in your brain but can “immediately” turn that assessment “into effect.” In other words, neurotech can adjust its influence on your brain according to your given brain state.

He also alluded to tech that typically uses magnetic coils to influence the brain’s electrical activity, and “non-invasive or minimally invasive” implantable devices to “create next-generation neural modulation” and allows “real time access to read from the living brain …remotely.”

Even more unsettling is Giordano’s suggestion that individual autonomy, as we know it, is being called into question by these weapons. He euphemistically describes influencing the brain as “manipulating the data,” going so far as to claim that by manipulating the data on large scales it may be possible to literally paint a new reality of what an individual is.

Does this really mean “mind control”? There is an important caveat to such claims. I believe the reason Giordano says that such technology can “perhaps control thoughts, emotions, and behaviors remotely” is because while it is possible that neurotechnology can influence our emotions and even our thoughts, our will is not synonymous with our thoughts and feelings

In fact, it is nothing new for human beings to have “intrusive” thoughts and unwanted feelings. I would argue that while it may be possible to coerce certain decisions if an effect on the brain is strong and persistent enough, that nonetheless the core of our will, which is essentially what makes us an individual, will always remain independent, remain our own, at least with the grace of God.

That such weapons would be used against foreign powers, or by foreign powers against U.S. citizens, is disturbing enough. Directed energy neuroweapons has been acknowledged by the mainstream media for years, after doctors testified it was the most likely source of sudden-onset acute neurological symptoms, dubbed “Havana Syndrome,”  that afflicted at least 25 U.S. officials in Cuba, as well as other U.S. officials on White House grounds later on. In fact, there have been over 1,000 such incidents that have been reported since the Cuban episodes, which were initially dismissed in an FBI report as mass hysteria.

This raises the critical question: Who are the subjects of the experimentation needed to develop such neuroweapons and ensure their effectiveness? 

Are we to believe that human subjects gave consent to receiving neurotoxins, targeted energy intended to weaken or disable them (we would be naive to think we are not in possession of technology used by Cuba), and other forms of neuroweapons with a potentially vast array of effects ranging from confusion and impaired memory to induced psychological disorders? Are we to believe that such experiments were carried out on, say, animals alone? 

These questions demand answers from our intelligence agencies. 

Stop Pentagon advisor Prof. Giordano from further developing neuro-weapons Contact Congress TODAY!

The United States and its institutions are certainly not above experimenting upon our own citizens. Dr. Henry Beecher, who wrote a “bombshell” study published in 1966 on medical research’s harm on non-consenting subjects, said his findings indicated that “unethical … procedures are not uncommon” in the U.S.

Beecher had uncovered, among a sample of 22 examples he described, the deliberate infection of children with hepatitis under the guise of a vaccination program; the withholding of penicillin from soldiers with rheumatic fever; and the transplanting of a melanoma tumor from one patient to another. He moreover reportedly cited “hundreds” of other examples of such unethical studies in his text.

Then there were the “several thousand” radiation experiments carried out on U.S. citizens beginning in 1945 and continuing at least into the 1970s, most of which were covered up by the U.S. government until 1993. These experiments often exploited the most vulnerable, including disabled children and pregnant, poor women.

It wasn’t until reporter Eileen Welsome wrote a series on these experiments for The Albuquerque Tribune that President Bill Clinton ordered an Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, which culminated in a weak, controversial 1995 report. At times, the report appeared to minimize the gravity of the evils committed, stating, for example, that “wrongs were committed by very decent people who were in a position to know that a specific aspect of their interactions with others should be improved.” 

The committee, moreover, claimed that physicians were “less blameworthy” for failing to obtain consent “to the extent that such experiments were conducted within the moral environment of the doctor-patient relationship,” when the doctor determined “it was in the patient’s best interests to be enrolled in the research.”

Such moral gymnastics, as well as the committee’s division on whether to issue a public apology, seriously weaken its other protests that immoral experiments were committed. They rather reinforce the impression that scientists and doctors and government officials will always be finding excuses to exploit human beings, even at risk of serious harm, for their allegedly “greater purposes.” 

This common tendency to subordinate human rights to “greater” state objectives is well summed-up in the committee’s reference to other state-sponsored human experiments, such as those involving LSD as part of Project MK Ultra, which was geared toward mind control:

“In its report on the CIA and Army psychochemical experiments, the U.S. Senate found that [i]n the Army’s tests, as with those of the CIA, individual rights were … subordinated to national security considerations; informed consent and follow-up examinations of subjects were neglected in efforts to maintain the secrecy of the tests,” the advisory Committee observed.

With all of its weaknesses, the advisory committee had an important insight that we should take to heart today: “The best safeguard for the future is an informed and active citizenry.”

We need to contact our congressmen and urge them to demand answers from our intelligence agencies: How are our neuroweapons being tested and developed? Have there been non-consenting subjects of these experiments, either in our country or abroad? How are we to trust any assurances that this is not the case, in light of our country’s history of medical experimentation?

There is another legitimate question that comes to mind regarding neuroweapons. If we grant the possibility that the government could experiment upon its own citizens, then it is not too far a leap to speculate that U.S. citizens could also be targeted by fully developed neuroweapons for “national security” purposes.

Possibilities as to how targets might be chosen and influenced are better discerned when we consider the National Security State’s history of attempted political and cultural interference, as this sheds light on its objectives.

Take, for example, Big Tech, which is flooded with former employees of U.S. intelligence agencies, which have in turn attempted to control Big Tech’s platform for election-related info, evidencing that the social media giants are essentially an extension of the National Security State. Since this is evidently the case, we have some clues to the objectives of intelligence agencies based on Big Tech’s arc of political censorship.

Big Tech has a history of “de-boosting” conservatives like Mike Cernovich, Steven Crowder, and the Daily Caller, according to a whistleblower, without comparable censorship of politically liberal content. Similarly, evidence has emerged that Google has manipulated search results to shift potentially millions of votes to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, according to Harvard-trained research psychologist and Democratic voter Robert Epstein.

There has also been a pattern of Big Tech censorship that transcends party lines and suggests more specific National Security State objectives, such as population control. Pro-life content has been targeted by Facebook, for example. In February, YouTube deleted an interview conducted by LifeSiteNews’ editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen with Dr. Wahome Ngare, a Kenyan OB-GYN who shared how a World Health Organization (WHO) tetanus vaccine was used to sterilize young women of childbearing age in Kenya.

We can only speculate at this point as to what is possible. But this is just why U.S. citizens need answers.