It was a hybrid attack. I had to drive a short bus until it lost its brakes, reverse, drive, overdrive, power steering, and dodge both severe cyberattacks and road blockages and advanced forms of sabotage (likely designed to either strand me on the roadside or burn me alive). I call this my “car chase” era that followed my “zersetzung” era and was before my “asylum” era. Throughout all these stages advanced high altitude drones were present. Just watch all my reels- those aren’t UFOS or weather balloons. These same “star-like” drones have been involved in attacks on airports and other infrastructure targets in Europe since (often places I’ve passed through incidentally). They’re terrifying technology. I have plenty of evidence posted.
But to answer your question, I managed to deescalate to some degree while still being subjected to ghost detainment and war crimes. It’s a clandestine apparatus—it’s exactly the thing where people would say, “We know it definitely exists. If it was happening it would look exactly like this. Still, getting the government to confirm involvement is asking it to implicate itself in war crimes on its own soil.” So that’s where we are.
I think we’re in an era of paradigms of unilateral and ubiquitous conflict that we are not trained to recognize. The US conception of “enemy combatant” and its fusion of domestic policing with global counterterror strategies and privitization (the Convergence model) makes it so there is very little distinction between technology and security cartels, state forces, and private mercenaries for hire.
[The core concept here, in essence, is that my very body is the battleground.]
Things are vague, compartmentalized, and secretive by design. They’re also hegemonic and based more than ever on data and Al (predictive and psychosocial rather than concrete and-I don’t know- kinetic?), which can make state advanced repression hard to identify for most people.
There’s a scene in True Grit where the outlaw band leader Ned Pepper says to Tom Cheney “If any harm comes to this girl-you will not get paid.” Not because he is afraid of the consequences, but because she (Hattie) can be used as a bargaining chip. That’s actually exactly the kind of era we’re in. It’s less about law or custom and decorum, and more about FUNDING and paper trails (a nexus further obscured by cryptocurrency and encrypted messaging, and an operative tech sector whose magnates increasingly see themselves as branches of transnational state / corporate / mercenary power, rather than purely consumer engines-which is why I call them cartels).
This is the problem. My issue probably started as federal, and secretive. It escalated. I found out too much. The only answer to preserve secrecy is to escalate further and hope to silence me. I found out more. I started reporting beyond immediate emergemcy services out of necessity. I created a federal paper trail and public OSINT footprint that is basically my only lifeline still. I unlocked internal investigations that probably won’t see the light of day for 40 years, if ever.
I reached the limits of oversight within the US federal government. I still received no response. I had to try to cross borders. The paradigm that was conceptualizing me as an IDEOLOGICAL threat, not based on my conduct or intentions but based on THEIR beliefs that they felt I was threatening by simply existing.
Beliefs in Al, monarchy, the Network State, and the destiny of humanity to merge with some kind of TESCREAL utopia that transcended the civic sphere by somehow hyperdeifying its corporate megaliths-all these followed me beyond traditional borders, along with a need to survive and try to reclaim my identity and basic rights as an individual, like any other forced migrant-except the US and its major allies are not just any other use-of-force group that compells people to move. They’re a vast and extremely visible, indispensinle global superpower.
When they want someone silenced, they have every means of trying more or less. It’s been a visceral crisis in the rule of law in every country I’ve stepped foot in seeking asylum and safety.
I had to contact all the major floodgates of power (which means funding) in the national and then global oversight network that is mlre used to identifying bodies and casualty counts than they are identifying refugees who can’t find anywhere practical to claim asylum.
That said, alerting the UN started a process where I could create a humanitarian papertrail (even if it is bitterly resented and controvertial within networks of global oversight, who likely have strong feelings about the fate of humanity and how my case challenges human rights, civil rights, international law, and the ideas of civic protectionism and freedom of speech and press in an era that I think many of them assumed would be mechanically apocalyptic and staged without much historicism to intervene.
It was (and is) a global tech cartel takeover, in a sense.
Particularly in the UN, arguably the top historical human rights and international law body in the world, I faced such vehement reception that I had to call on their independent oversight network, the JIU (Joint Inspections Unit) who is for all intensive purposes an accounting and funding auditing body. (“…or you will not get paid.”)
The real question, however, seems to come down to this: How do we feel about one individual’s rights in a globally connected world, defined more by the omnipresent and ubiquitous use of technology than by democratic ideals, communism, or ethnic cleansing…
A world where climate change is an existential threat, where the mogules of urban development seem nihilistic about a planetary doom, where cops act like crooks, where reality is often just an image of itself, where titans are building feudal empires that pull us like a rip tide back to an era before the magna carta, where book burning would seem nostalgic compared to the theft and destruction of human knowledge threatened by Al and data center hegemony- where out of billions of equal people I have somehow managed to provoke the question-what is one life worth in the perspective of history as we stand and view it from a telescope today?
What were the struggles for democracy, civil rights, and freedom of religion worth if one person can be robbed of them with all the inheritors of these struggles looking on, lining their pockets with the proceeds of a power at once more real (the digital sphere) and yet unbearably hollow and ephemeral compared to one violin or handwritten poem?
My family fought for this world, like everyone elses’ did. I don’t take it lightly that I have had the opportunity to start conversations like this (trust me, they are real and heated), even if to the outside world I look empty handed and speaking into a giant chasm-if you look closely, those really are eyes staring back. The world today is strange, but unavoidable. This is where we are.
It also doesn’t hurt that there are brazenly dystopian schisms at stake. My work and my ideas are VALUABLE. As in, some of the most groundbreaking intellectual labor of the past-I don’t know, millenia, I hate to say it. I just got lucky and was looking for the right answers to the right problems at the right time. Science is not that old, if we are being honest with ourselves-we’re only just on the brink of a rational ability to understand who we are as a civilizing species seeking a collective, cumulative base of research and knowledge on our own nature and origins.
This—frankly—pisses people off. I’m literally a punk, and I cracked some of the most important codes on human cognition and phenomenology that we’ve ever set out to understamd about ourselves as a species. To make things even more dystopian, we’re right on the brink of the era where works of intellectual labor done by individuals in private is open to prying eyes of the state/corporate intelligence network, who might see revelations into the origins of things like domestication, language, culture, and even biological life on earth as ideologically challenging (that is the purpose of progressive sciences and public discourse)—but also as a potential gold mine in their field of capital: that of data, attention, and perception manipulation.
It’s brazenly discouraging and debased behavior to attempt to torture and pillage the very ideas out of someone’s head and hands after they suffered and sacrificed everything they had, and every hope they ever imagined, to build a theory of humanity that reflects reality and the cosmic scope of knowledge and human endeavor in a way that opens viable pathways to the future and also preserves the human spirit.
My work is not easy. It also isn’t obvious. That’s why they hate it. I hate to point this out, but some people are convinced that anything good in others is a reason to desecrate the sacred. It’s the hardest thing in the world to look at, which is part of why I’m having such a hard time getting other people to see it. This situation is actually vast. It’s also personal. It’s also collective. It’s ecological. It’s human. It’s confusing—and it’s also glaringly obvious. It’s everything and nothing in a sense—if you just take one person’s life, work, and human rights as disposable.
The only thing that I know is that I did not ask for it.
I just wanted to fix banjos and do my little part and marry a girl who made homemade dyes and sewed her own clothes and maybe played banjo too. Don’t ask me why I say that, but my life was never meant to be a sacrifice of labor or anything else to anyone else’s anxieties about the future. I had plenty of my own problems without being a microcosm for the reactionary insecurities of “powerful men”—whatever use that is to attach to this.
I’m not saying this because I’m trying to be grandiose, I’m saying this because I’m frustrated that such mighty characters felt so frustrated by such a normal, simple person.
It’s perfectly normal for everyday people to have aspirations that reshape our collective understanding of the world. It has to be. Especially now. That’s why I’m so frustrated that I’ve been subjected to the most unyeildingly sacreligious abuse in conscious memory.
They’ve violated everything-and it’s still just petty. It’s far less grand than they hoped it would be, I think. A theif is just a theif. I don’t care if they wear ribbons or aspire to glorious destruction. They’re just wrong.
If there’s a moral to the story—and I hope there is—I think it’s that the most valuable things in the world are weightless but contained in the living of life itself. In the mind, in rationality, in relation, in knowledge, in memory and in hope for the future. Selflessness actually is a metaphysical reality, whether we want to believe it or not. Our own little lives are in vain compared to the seeds they plant for the coming generations-should we be so lucky to see them grow and thrive.
You really can’t buy happiness, but you can spend a fortune seeking to soothe your misery with balms and oils of the intangible. Still, you’ll never get your hands on them.
My work is valuable because I taught myself to think-not because any one puzzle I have solved fills the void that self-understanding does. This is the troubling thing. These people think they’ll be happy stealing my theories, but they need God. It seems corny to say, but that’s exactly what this is—or has become, somehow. It’s oddly pitiful. Insatiable need meets eternity, and nothing can satisfy it.
This is the issue at stake.
By declaring a single individual a target for state repression even when they are unaffiliated with an organized (or even decentralized) movement, or a nation state, or any concrete geographical boundary or soveriegnty struggle—
you create a paradigm where the impliments of conflict (bodily intrusion, violation, surveillance, dispossession, and repression) are focused on the nexus of an individual.
We are not just skin and bones, however. The concept of colonizing (or surpressing) an individual extends to all their relationships by necessity. Their food, home, water, writing, medicine, family, friends, and property.
Oddly, this is somewhat a logical extension of internalized colonial conflict. The fact that it becomes absurd (expensive, depraved, meticulous, illegal, and paranoid) to focus the entire apparatus of state repression on a single individual, regardless of their combatant status or their location, is nevertheless actually the ultimate logic of a flawed paradigm afraid of its own shadow—yet pursuing a concept that is ultimately self-negating to the bitter end.
It is really a theory of personhood and self borne out of a necessity to rationalize and justify the escalation of an invisible, imagine war of all against all. There is no justification. There is no logic. There is no rationale. Nevertheless—the pursuit of a notion of ultimate logic is justifying a formulaic repetition compulsion.
Ultimately, this is just the outward expression of a need to commit destructive acts and violations against those perceived as outsiders, as threats, and as sources for exploitation.
The core concept, to summarize, is that my body itself is the battleground.
It is simply hell.
In a way, it’s a philosophical condemnation of every ideal that the system is founded on and built with—it’s an attack on the very notion of individualism, citizenship, property, and autonomy.
The logic seems to be that instead of state-aligned corporations enjoying THE SAME rights as individuals, as aids to their legal fiction, that ONLY corporations will enjoy the rights of individuals—and thus the individual will become a legal fiction.
We reach this point exactly where consumer technology (that serves no direct survival purpose) is not demanded—it is compelled.
Rent may be a necessary evil of the market economy—but it serves to generate wealth, labor, production, and culture. We may leave homes empty, but their shelter made all other branches of life able to grow from their sanctuary. People need shelter—that is a rather fair trade off for compelled investment.
Being compelled to participate in the economy through the mediation of digital technology imposes a hard hollowness that is filled with a vacancy of function, a global dependency on near nothingness but shifting light, that it creates by its own internal logic, and demands to maintain as needing continuous supplication and dissociation from the real world.
It is an engine of its very own ephemerality.
If we feel as though we are screaming into an abyss as the whole real world attempts to contort itself around the demands of corporations that we digitize, it’s exactly justified because there are no real walls to refract an echo. Digital mediums are not real, and they can not be real by their very nature.
AI companies are trying to locate this paradox within the personification of machine “learning” systems, but they are failing because the compelled landscape lacks exactly the presupposed conditions of all personality—
THE PREREQUISITE OF BIOLOGY.
