More Notes On The Philosophical Uses Electronic Harassment And “No-Touch Torture”
The question I pose is:
“If the culture colludes, or requires a particular formation of self, GENDERED, racialized, culturally inflected, cultures, through medical and political personnel, and through public discourse, have a stake in the maintenance of those identifications, and we know, and have observed, women — and by extension their children because children are an extension of the mother, who herself has become a dependent with a dependent, are crucial targets and pawns for warmaking, control and torture. Women can be used for sex through rape and sexual assault. And children can be used to manipulate and control the mothers. And we know from the developmental literature, shame, with its effects on the collapse of identity in war veterans, wars are inevitably waged by the malevolent psychopaths' use of emotions as a dark mirror in the psychological torture rooted in the Dark Triad/Dark Tetrad. One of the personalities prone to practice torture. Thus, trauma is incurred. When the purpose of the torture being used by the practitioner is to change personality from the “aggressive” to the slavishly docile, one must ask the question, “Whose Truth is being told?” and “Why such a vital need to “control” the narrative as well as the victim?”
When doctors, physicians, and psychologists collude with political leaders, might we not ask the question:
“Could there be unconscious motivations in the minds of practitioners of torture, in their active engagement in such perversions, in the active derangements of human rights?”
For me, I would hate to think the reasons behind such perverse torture are rooted in the shallow, superficial, infantile ego of bodily image and the maintenance of a superior sense of self, or due to a past unrequited love interest. All those motivations that are part of the archival evidence of murder and intimate partner violence and in the break down of mutual recognition.
Still, there is the paradox of resistance by psychoanalysts who consider themselves to be practitioners of a contemplative discipline, suspicious of action and more likely to pathologize protest than to call for it. This is an issue of consideration. Since, there are moral and ethical boundaries being crossed, in the private sector of U.S. citizenship bound by state and federal law, and even though the NSA and CIA essentially own the house we all live in know as the United States of America (in eminent domain), there are moral and ethical implications presented here. I believe there could be a dangerous liaison of doctors and health care practitioners in connection with a malevolent psychopath or psychopaths when it comes to explaining Electronic Harassment, Wireless Electronic Assaults and Torture, and those living as targeted individuals. And one where these health care workers are violating the hippocratic oath of their duty to “First Do No Harm" in collusion with a malevolent psychopath who is paying them off.
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights chose not to define torture and refers to Article 3 as a “living instrument.” Where the definition of a living instrument is a written document, being used as a tool, that is expected to change over time. One such a tool, for consideration, is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Illness (DSM-5). The DSM-5, which once listed “homosexuality” as a “mental illness," and which no longer classifies homosexuality as a mental illness today. Through the shifting hourglass of time, human minds move from the exclusionary to the inclusive, to the closed-off to the enlightened. In addition, to human rights issues, human technologies are changing and constantly advancing, so the malevolent ways in which these new technologies will be used will likely manifest in a myriad of different ways.
The United Nations HCHR “Interpretation of torture in the light of the practice and jurisprudence of international bodies" (2011) stated,
“Torture is not an act itself, or specific type of acts, [that is why no definition is provided in the legal instruments that prohibit torture and are subsequently called “living instruments], but is the legal qualification of an event or behavior based on the comprehensive assessment of this event or behavior.”
Nigel Rodley, former UN special Rapporteur on torture states,
“[T]he notion on the intensity of suffering" is not susceptible of precise graduation and in the case of mainly mental suffering as opposed to physical suffering, there may be an aura of uncertainty as to how … [to assess] the matter in any individual case.” But a former US Surgeon General asked rather ironically, “How loud does a scream have to be?”
Consequently, psychological torture has been considered by its practitioners as “torture-light” and”no-touch torture.” Yet, while physical and psychological torture can be separated, they cannot be divorced and it has been pointed out psychological torture still requires extensive physical manipulation (e.g. physical confinement, keeping people awake, or keeping people asleep, keeping people immobile, etc.)
Even though the definition of what constitutes human torture paradoxically eludes us, and is one of the difficulties encountered with “living instruments,” psychological torture can be defined as “an assault on the human mind.”
I have omitted the list of side effects I have experienced from wireless remote electronic assaults and torture (no-touch torture). My experience has included auditory sound harassment. There are multiple purposes for its deployment by practitioners of no-touch torture, quite possibly the remote tracking of human bodies via wireless remote linking through body implants for the purpose of viewing via a computerized platform over the Internet and the use of such wireless remote signals to the brain to sedate the target due to the frightening and aggravating aspects imposed on test subjects due to the remote wireless”no-touch” linking. Hence the purpose for keeping a person sedated and immobile (see: Elon Musk and the new technologies being developed regarding brain chips and new machine-to-brain interfaces).
Source:
John Leach (2016) “Physiological Factors in Exceptional and Extreme and Torturous Environments.” Extreme Physioiology & Medicine. Vol 5: Issue 7. June 1, 2016.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890253/
First Do No Harm: The Paradoxical Encounters of Psychoanalysis, Warmaking, and Resistance. ( 2011) Adrienne Harris and Steve Botticelli (editors). New York. Routledge.
