An Incredible Opportunity

No law names Zersetzung, but its methods are crimes, and a US court has punished them. In August 2019 members of eBay's security team ran a campaign against Ina and David Steiner, who published a newsletter in Natick, Massachusetts, that was critical of the company. They sent live insects, a bloody pig mask, a funeral wreath and a book on surviving a spouse's death. They posted the couple's address with invitations to strangers, sent threats under invented identities, followed them, and planned to break into their garage to put a tracker on their car. Then they deleted evidence and lied to police. Seven former employees were convicted; the security director was sentenced to 57 months in prison. eBay admitted the facts in a deferred prosecution agreement and paid a $3 million criminal penalty, the statutory maximum, under three years of independent monitoring. In July 2026 the couple's civil suit settled for a reported $55.7 million. The charges map onto Zersetzung's methods: stalking through interstate travel and electronic means (18 U.S.C. § 2261A), conspiracy (§ 371), witness tampering (§ 1512) and destroying records (§ 1519). The same conduct is criminal harassment and stalking under Massachusetts law, and stalking and harassment in Colorado. When two or more people conspire to intimidate someone out of their rights, federal law (§ 241) applies. Germany never made Zersetz

Acoustic weapons are real, commercially sold, and owned by American police departments. Genasys, formerly LRAD Corporation, markets long-range acoustic devices to law enforcement, and what they do to people has been litigated. In Edrei v. Bratton the Second Circuit held that using one against non-violent, non-resisting protesters can violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The device in that case, a Model 100X, produces up to 136 decibels at one metre; the NYPD's own testing recorded 110 decibels at 320 feet in area-denial mode, and hearing loss can follow short exposure at 110 to 120 decibels. Plaintiffs reported tinnitus, vertigo, migraines, and in one case nerve damage requiring steroid treatment. The court's reasoning was that novel technology does not escape proportionality review. So the general question is settled: the devices exist, police own them, and a federal appeals court has held their use can be excessive force. The Denver question is answered differently by the public record. The largest adjudicated case of Denver police force against citizens is Epps v. City and County of Denver, where a federal jury awarded $14 million in March 2022, upheld by the Tenth Circuit in April 2026 at $14.75 million. The force documented there was shotgun rounds, flash-bang grenades and chemical agents. Acoustic devices are not part of that record. One property matters for anyone trying to

You will not find the neurotech bullhorn in the transcripts. This archive runs from 27 February 2025 to 6 May 2026, and the term belongs to what came after it — it names something the record has not caught up with, which is the reason it needs naming rather than a reason to leave it out. What it names is a civilian experience rather than a private one: less a voice in one head than a loudspeaker mounted at every intersection, putting the same disintegration conversation in front of everyone in earshot, subject or not. The nearest named thing is voice-to-skull, or V2K — a claimed one-to-one channel, speech delivered to a single head with no external acoustic source. The bullhorn is what V2K would be if it stopped being private: the same claimed delivery, addressed to a street rather than to a person. That is why bullhorn and not implant, transmitter or voice — the word is about reach and the absence of consent, not about hardware. And it runs both ways, which is the part most easily missed: a channel a population can hear is a channel that population can talk on, local law enforcement included. One distinction decides everything else here. Aimed AT a person, the claim is V2K: nothing sounds in the room, and nothing could be recorded there. Aimed NEAR a person — at a house, so that windows and walls are driven and the conversation becomes a whisper through the building — the clai

Partly, under conditions that are worth stating precisely. In May 2023 Jerry Tang and Alexander Huth published a semantic decoder in Nature Neuroscience that reconstructed continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings. A person lay in an fMRI scanner; a transformer model turned the blood-flow signal into text that captured the gist of what they were hearing or imagining, matching the intended meaning roughly half the time. It is a real result and it was replicated in the paper across participants. The conditions are as important as the finding. The decoder required about fifteen hours of scanner time per person to train, and it worked only for the individual it was trained on — run against an untrained person, it produced unintelligible output. It worked only with willing participants. And when a trained subject deliberately resisted, by counting, naming animals or telling themselves a different story, the decoder failed entirely. The researchers tested that on purpose and reported it. So the honest answer is that meaning can be partially reconstructed from a cooperative, individually-trained person lying still inside a superconducting magnet the size of a small room. That is a genuine advance in decoding, and it is a long way from reading a mind that does not wish to be read.

A hypothetical system, suggested to be a military deployment, that supports telepathic communication. Its suggested purpose is to give an invading force full transparency over all communication within enemy territory. That transparency would cover more than speech: through the Diving process, with or without a computer, it would reach the memories of people inside that territory. This concept is the author's speculation. It describes a hypothetical system and does not assert that the system exists. Every statement recorded in the journal is an external communication; read this concept under the Critical Disclaimer. Do not reward their presence: the author's caution In the author's experience, the system is generally used to provoke people and draw them out of their homes. When it began, in 2023, the voices presented themselves as the spirit world. Once the author researched neuroscience and realised they were human beings, he ended every relationship with any so-called invisible friend, anyone communicating on the system. The author's view is that it is vital not to reward their illegitimate presence. Rewarding it erodes the constitutional rights of everyone around you, and your own most of all, and it puts your life at risk. Their refusal to share contact details through any public, accountable channel is a serious red flag. For anyone experiencing this kind of communicatio

Diving is the process of establishing a brain-to-brain connection with another human being. According to statements, and to human experience, it can be done with a computer or without one. This concept sets out the author's hypothesis of how it works without a computer, and why that matters. This concept is the author's speculation. It does not assert that the process exists as described. Every statement recorded in the journal is an external communication; read this concept under the Critical Disclaimer. The author has had no training. Everything here is hypothesis, drawn from his own experience and from what he has heard on the bullhorn. It is offered as a set of questions more than a set of instructions: is this how it works? The first rule: permission. Never enter someone's body, or connect to someone neurologically, without their permission. There is one exception. If you are being harassed, and someone is pressing you to raise your hand, to let them into your home with offers of "relief from suffering" or "assistance," do whatever you can to capture a physical description of them, so that you will recognise them if they come to your door without permission. If they do, do not open the door; call 911. Speak only for yourself. None of this has been confirmed or verified, and it needs to be. The author can speak for himself, but not for you. On this subject, never speak