Gangstalking Chronicles 2

Tag: Post

  • Department Of War Finally Addresses Directed Energy Weapons

    The Department of Defense, formerly Department of Defense has finally come out publicly and addressed the Directed Energy Weapons question. In a rather surprising tweet on 01/23/26, the Department declared: “Yes, the [Dept of War] has directed energy weapons.

    Prior to this declaration, defense department officials have been cagey about this particular topic, probably because a lot of this technology still remains classified.

    Targeted individuals have long pressured Congress to look into the use/abuse of such weapons to no avail—again probably due to classification issues.

    The dam however broke with the recent military incursion into Venezuela to arrest their president for a criminal prosecution in the United States. Reports from Venezuela indicated that the stunning raid carried out by the U.S. military involved some “magic weapons” which incapacitated and even killed Maduro’ s security. Some of the physical symptoms exhibited by Maduro’s security staff matched those previously discussed by victims of Havana Syndrome, leading to new media focus on the topic.

    As a result of the media pressure, the Trump administration quietly admitted the use of such exotic weapons in the Venezuela raid. They recently disclosed to the public that towards the end of the Biden administration, an undercover investigation into Havana Syndrome led to the purchase by the US government of a portable device the government believed, could cause Havana Syndrome symptoms, and that the government has been testing it for a year.

    That understandably shocked a lot of people because prior to that, the government had been very dismissive of such weapons, especially the fact portable versions of such weapons were already in circulation in the United States.

    Bottom line, it appears that after the directed energy weapons revelations in the Venezuela raid, the Trump administration has been trying to get ahead of the Havana Syndrome debate. The latest tweet by the Department of War is just the latest manifestation of that.

    Will the Trump administration finally address the elephant in the room regarding directed energy weapons—the lingering questions about targeting civilians—aka targeted individuals—in the United States who claim they have long been assaulted with such weapons?

    One hopes that the transparency the Trump administration has demonstrated thus far regarding this topic will eventually lead to the lingering question surrounding targeted individuals.

  • Is MSM Waking Up To The Dangers Of Neuroweapons?

    An interesting NY Post article recently explored what has become a growing issue of privacy, public safety, and national-security concern: the uneasy intersection between the remarkable benefits of neurotechnology and its potential for misuse. As the piece notes, advances in brain-computer interfaces, neuro-monitoring tools, and cognitive-enhancement research hold enormous promise for medicine and rehabilitation. Yet those same tools, if left unregulated or developed in secrecy, could be exploited by hostile actors in ways that raise troubling ethical and geopolitical questions.

    For years, mainstream discussion of neurotechnology focused almost exclusively on its medical potential, while any mention of misuse was often dismissed as fringe speculation. That posture has shifted as prominent neuroscientists and biosecurity experts—most notably Dr. James Giordano, a professor of neurology and bioethics and a long-time advisor to the U.S. military—have publicly outlined the real risks emerging at the intersection of neuroscience and national defense. Dr. Giordano has repeatedly warned that neurotechnology can be “weaponized” not only in the traditional military sense but also through subtler means: tools capable of influencing cognition, degrading decision-making, targeting vulnerable populations, or exploiting neurological data. He emphasizes that while these capabilities are still constrained by scientific limits, several countries are actively researching them, and the U.S. should take that fact seriously. His point is not that science-fiction mind-control devices exist, but that neuro-enabled tools—chemical, biological, digital, or data-driven—can be adapted in ways that create new forms of coercion, surveillance, or tactical disruption.

    The NY Post article raises the central policy question of whether Congress is exercising meaningful oversight in this domain. The concern is that many lawmakers are only dimly aware of how far neurotechnology has advanced, and even fewer grasp its defense implications well enough to legislate around it. Those with the deepest knowledge—typically members of intelligence committees—operate under heavy classification restrictions, which discourages open debate and leaves the public largely unaware of how these technologies may be used or misused.

    The article’s broader message is that it is time for Congress to engage this issue with urgency and transparency. Neurotechnology is advancing whether policymakers address it or not, and without clear guardrails, the same tools that promise extraordinary medical breakthroughs could also be adapted in ways that threaten civil liberties, public health, and global stability. The call, essentially, is for lawmakers to act before the risks outpace the regulations designed to contain them.