This post was about information systems, or, the approximate width, bredth, mass, density, and temperament of the average camel in relation to the eye of a needle.
However, it’s also about a weaponization of cryptography that is meant to approach cognition and semiotics as a way of non-linguistic associative programming.
The fact that—I imagine—it’s ordained as an elite way to approach mysticism through the fields of symbolism and coersive psychology doesn’t change the ways that we render meaning from associative scaffolds naturally, nor does it change the underlying fabric of reality.
It simply instrumentalizes a field of medicine (Jungian psychoanalysis) as a way to corrupt natural significance and to hijack representation as a means of manipulating areas of perception that consequently become shell-like and meaningless when subjected to conscious alteration.
If you’ve never been exposed to the type of AI that I’m describing that’s probably because it’s considered top shelf, likely a quasi-religious use of the technology that allows for non-linguistic communications by the elites through the medium of archetypal imagery—including its weaponization.
The theory is probably the closest thing to a commercialization of the raw human psyche, as a kind of paralogical religion, that anyone would ever want to imagine.
It seems to have missed the premise of ingenuity and authenticity altogether—that originality refers both to origins and to novelty. It is an existentially bankrupt misuse of semiotic philosophy.
As a cryptographic framework, it’s probably supposed to be beyond transcendence—un-deconstructable, because its medium is four dimensional material realism. This doesn’t make it real.
You have to be trained to read this jargon, for the record—which again, means it is simply a construction of symbolic edifaces and a certain way of scaffolding communications. Anyone can learn art literacy and basic Jungianism as a non-linguistic communication style, but being subjected to this (often, apparently, in place of reality) is not a metalogical framework bordering on mysticism.
It’s antisocial and asocial (autistic, in the true sense) reliance on Jungian material to use the world as a kind of transitional object—like a commodity fetish, but embroiled in the psychosocial fabric of a world turned into an image of itself.
Correspondance to the ICRC in this regard:
21.08.2026 – 18:58 Created by: Reporter
I want to add the weaponization of Jungian themes of archetypal semiotics and synchronicity are being used as an abusive form of de facto detainment, interrogation, and torture—and have been for years now.
I am uncertain if the prevailing theory is that semiotic scaffolding and coersive psychological abuse under the guise of hyperrealism is supposed to represent an undecipherable medium of manipulation, or perhaps one that is working as a branch of reality itself in a cultish formulation of symbolic essentialism, but the abuse of Jungianism to perpetrate attacks leaves me without any means of response, affirmation, self-defense, mediation, medical attention, or remedy as the state and its proxy agents have repeatedly used this form of cryptographic cover (clearly assisted by AI and medical/surgical abuses as noted here) to interrogate, tortue, and detain me—all clearly with lethal and dehumanizing intent.
I would implore Geneva to initiate a dialogue or interview on my behalf to initiate a remedy of due process or of moves towards safety and rehumanization. It seems clear to me that the instigation of this use of force was either a false assertion of being indiscernable from authentic social reality, and/or a conscious weaponization of potent medical theory as a form of coersive detainment and abuse. This was possibly spurred by my work in this field, but for beneficent reasons and where theories of existential importance are at stake.
I do not consider vindictive hostility caused by subjugating oneself unwelcomed to rhe scrutiny of competing metalogical theories (like breaking into another’s personal study and reading their diary on the nature of religion, and developing a complex about it) to be a credible cause for feeling in any way threatened or victimized.
The danger is a normalization of medical and surgical torture and malpractice where no civic or humanitarian systems can function—or perhaps can pertain to function as arms of demographic control and social engineering without true beneficence.
Anything can be a weapon. Any medical impliment, any access to technology, and any guise of secrecy. I am not an aggressor, I have to impress again, and I never have been. I’ve been experimented on as a victim of cognitive and semiotic warfare simply because I am trying to develop the field in positive directions that may stain the conscience and grandiosity of state actors bent on cultish essentialism around their chosen weapons and fields of authorization.
Please initiate remedies and discourse on my behalf, again. My only options are to suffer immense indignity under the guise of my captors’ innocence or to allow myself to be unwillingly provoked into a humiliatingly futile attack where I will be framed as delusional and left to suffer twice more for the aggression of the state against its own citizen—all without warrant or probable cause, much less declaration of war against me as an individual, or on my work, beliefs, and religion, as far as I can discern.
21.08.2026 – 19:15 Created by: Reporter
Postscript on my prior message.
One must assume that the perpetrators of these attacks are misappropriating medical knowledge, philosophy, and technology to perpetrate attacks under guise. My strongest claims to perfidy involve active malicious practice of medical personnel acting under cover of their theraputic capacity—but the massive, transnational scale of this medium of attack implies a far more general misappropriation of medical knowledge for the purpose of psychosocial and surgical (cognitive) warfare.
This paradigm MUST be openly defined and mediated. If it is a possible weapons system that is capable of violating the Geneva Conventions not only by its widespread application but by its very nature—the danger to civilian populations through the weaponization of the medical field and of civic institutions and infrastructures could be cataclysmic and existential.
21.08.2026 – 19:53 Created by: Reporter
I want to note that no medical / communications medium (arguably what Jungian weaponization is outside of inflicting harm) is intrinsically pathological or prone to abuse. It can serve a relatively benign (or one could even imagine theraputic) purpose and still be no replacement for authentic social reality or environmental/cognitive wholeness.
I should note that I can intuit maliciousness in the weaponization of Jungian mediums just as one could with any exchange—but one does not need intuition when it comes to real damage to one’s person and their rights to freedom from malice.
I want to note that on my way into Switzerland for the first time, on a commercial plane from Seattle to Zurich, in my first attempt beyond repeated attempts on the Canadian land border to claim asylum, one of the plane engines seemed to smoke and stop functioning on our way into the airport—an attack vector I was familiar with as a victim of extreme cyberattacks and advanced drone warfare.
This not only put me and the entire civilian population on that flight in potential danger, it prevented me from trusting in the beneficence of international protections and the integrity of national borders and international law as such.
I refrained from reporting this to Swiss authorities because I assumed that any attacks on a commercial flight would have been documented and investigated at levels far surpassing those appropriate for assessing attempts on my life alone—but in retrospect this was foolhardy. I simply feel too small for what I’ve been subjected to beyond my control.
That may have been an undocumented breach of airspace and an act of international terrorism. I’ve experienced in the past a mixture of drone warfare and localized cyberattacks that could have accomplished this kind of disruption on multiple commercial airlines, in personal automobiles, and notably once on a passenger train between Guadalajara and Mardid / Atocha in Spain, where I did try to alert authorities after I pulled the emergency lever, when I realized that smoke resultimg from suspected cyberattacks effecting the mechanical systems was not recognizable to other civilians or perhaps the operator of the train.
I believe the intention was to cause serious civilian casualties as a form of targeted killing of me as an individual, using civic infrastructure as a weapon.
I wish that I had the opportunity to clarify this earlier, but one does not anticipate this scale of hostility coming from level of affairs in their own personal lives, in a small town in Oregon.
21.08.2026 – 20:29 Created by: Reporter
Postscript.
I maintain that it would have been cheaper to buy a bullet.
I had no defense that prevented summary execution using traditional methods of state violence.
Furthermore, I had already reported similar attacks to US authorities, Inspectors General, and to the United States Congress—with extreme difficulty and with direct attacks aimed at my life, I should add.
I also reported to the UN (UNHCR Special Procedures) prior to the attacks on civilian infrastructure in Spain. There should have been no precedent for allowing innocent lives to be put in danger.
This is a highly formalized weapons system that is relying on the presumption that it is immune from identification. It may be a paradigmatic response to improvised weapons technology and transnational organized terror, but the artifice itself is anything but a proportional and sane response or deterrance strategy, one has to presume, if it subsumes all of civic reality as a weapon, and degrades the very borders, commercial systems, and citizenries it was designed to protect against rogue attacks.
I refuse to die as a victim of artiface. I would prefer a traditional execution with at least the fascimile of due process and habeas corpus attached as prerequisites. I will submit to detention at any time.
Regards.
21.08.2026 – 21:36 Created by: Reporter
In synopsis:
This report details both advance forms of perfidy and methods and frameworks for advanced informations systems weaponization.
These tactics sound theoretically harmless, until you consider the transfer of data governing the transmission of thrust between an engine and transmission or drive line—just for instance.
The entire global economy and all its moving parts are now mostly governed by some form of data transfer.
Data technology does not just toggle nano-scale binary switches on silicon boards and servers. It also writes the laws of engineering and momentum for civilian infrastructure on a mass scale—one that includes individual identifiers and the implicit threat of mass surveillance and its weaponization in the form of social engineering practices.
This is the tactical domain of the Network State movement.
The bottom line is that our organic biology and neurology is not the medium of representation—be it language, number, art, belief, or image.
Our bodies are the origin and end point, not the tools of cognition in the middle (the media or mediums of symbolism and recognizance).
Organic biology does not represent anything. It is the source of representation.
The body and mind are not something between awareness and reality. We are born of reality. All human life begins with reality.
Consciousness is not a representation. It is life.
What I’ve done here is to meticulously extricate the Network State movement (ie the NRx / monarchist / technofeudalist movement) from any claims that they may portend to have
•of representing a praxis grounded in metaphysical reality,
•of advocating for civic order and rational democracy,
•of acting on thorough logical or philosophical merit,
•of warranting any true relationship with rationalism and the sciences (outside of commercial engineering),
•of any claims to abiding by or protecting civil law,
•of any pretense of exceptionalism when they distrupt or violate the law—especiqlly International Humanitarian Law or the Geneva Conventions,
•of their pretensions of pragmatism and futurism,
•of their paradigm for of labeling individuals as “enemy combatants” using preemptive algorithmic or ideological designations, of their institutional legitimacy,
•of their claims to be acting in the public trust or for the public welfare, and
•of their right to invert consumer protections and relations as an arm of extremist idealism and economic abuse as a consumate ritual of corrosive lazzeis-faire capitalism—
which in turn negates their premise for engaging in mass surveillance based on data aggregation, market hegemony, and cooperation with authorities based on any premise other than being a useful force for ideological extremism and instrumentalized terror.
Their proposal was that they had reached a level of wealth where they could effectively enforce a paradigm where property, liability, individualism, and even the nation state with its arcane architecture no longer exist—
that this was all a proprietary relic compared to the privatized use of force.
This was the monopoly of technofeudal oligarchy.
