I haven’t written in a while partially because I have embarked on my yearly endeavor, a very large vegetable garden and because I went into rehab for two weeks to recover from alcohol abuse. I have written a lot about gang stalking, electronic targeted assaults (including physical assaults with EAs), and psychotronic torture. When I say, I believe drug use and alcohol abuse has something to do with my targeting as I have experienced it, I am not lying! I believe there is a conspiracy involving experimental medicine or experimental technology involving the elements of family involvement, possible state authority involvement, and the medical field managing test subjects as an incarcerated peoples. I am being consistently managed by the biopolitics of biopower.
Judith Butler, a modern-day philosopher, summed it up in her book “The Force of Non-Violence”, drawing from Michel Foucault’s work she wrote:
“…historical schema also precedes and informs policy on world health, hunger, refugees, migration, culture, incarceration, the death penalty, intermittent bombardment and destruction, war, and genocide. . . Foucault identifies “state racism” . . . as one of the central instruments for the management of the life and death of populations . . .”
This is one of the major philosophical tenants of American democracy whose Truth can only be recognized by those marginalized and minority groups suffering state-established racism and who, lacking in resources, have been traditionally oppressed and manipulated by those with biopower and political influence. Butler further writes:
“Foucault opens up the possibility that populations who are precarious or abandoned are not yet constituted as subjects of rights, and that in order to understand who they are — that is to say, the way they are constituted within the political field — we need an alternative to the model of the subject. This opens a discussion to think about state racism as well as the modes of agency and resistance that emerge from a population that can be described neither as an individual nor as a collective subject: but sadly, that direction did not end up being the path that Foucault would take. Perhaps that abandoned project might still be revived: if, as Foucault has argued, under sovereign power a subject has a right to life only on the condition that the subject is constituted as a rights-bearing subject, then under conditions of biopower, a population has a claim to life on the condition that that population is registered as potentially grievable.”
I fall into this group as a woman because I was once a mother and manipulated because I was without financial income, dependent on others who are, not only in a position of superior power but also possess political influence and financial power. As a result, I am considered “less grievable” because I do not have a “credit history”. The defining element upon which you are defined both in the government and in secular employment.
Grievable Lives and The Violent Potential
Violent potential emerges as a feature of all relations of interdependence, and that a concept of social bonds that takes interdependency as a constitutive feature is one that perpetually reckons with forms of ambivalence, ones that Freud understood as emerging from the conflict between love and hate.
It needs to be noted that the unequal distribution of the grievablility of lives can and should transform our debates about both equality and violence. Indeed, a political defense of nonviolence does not make sense outside of a commitment to equality, and trying to make any comparison between “grievabile” groups and “non-grievable” groups makes no sense unless inequality is a key feature to its explanations.
Based on my personal perceptions and experiences, it is my opinion that those addicted, mentally ill, prostitutes, racial minorities, non-mainstream religious populations, even children may be at risk for being managed by medical biopolitics. It is not far fetched to believe that both corporate business and political powers want to further manipulate and exploit them for their own purposes, one that does not exclude a criminal conspiracy for perpetrators’ twisted justice, which suggest that who the victims are, by their very nature, establishes them as a non-grievable population and the mentally ill have historically been part of these non-grievable populations which further the interests and needs of those in possession of the biopolitical power of medicine. A philosophical discussion needs to happen regarding the phenomenon of gang stalking, electronic targeted assaults (including physical electronic EAs), and psychotronic torture in order to address the painful and humiliating effects on the victims of this experimental and heinous phenomenon in which the victims’ families may be playing a part.
What It Means To Be A Grievable Population
Judith Butler wrote:
“If and when a population is grievable, they can be acknowledged as a living population whose death would be grieved if that life were lost, meaning that such loss would be unacceptable, and even wrong — an occasion of shock and outrage. On one hand, grievability is a characteristic attributed to a group of people (perhaps a population) by some group of community, or within the terms of a discourse, or within the terms of a policy or institution. That attribution can happen through many different media and with variable force; and it can also fail to happen, or happen only intermittently and inconsistently, depending on the context and on how that context shifts.”
The point taken from this excerpt is that people can be grieved or bear the attribute of grievability only to the extent that loss can be acknowledged; and loss can be acknowledged only when the condition of acknowledgment are established within a language, a media, a cultural and intersubjective field of some kind. Or rather, it can be acknowledged even when cultural forces are working to deny that acknowledgment but requires a form of protest: one that can break apart the obligatory and melancholic norm of disavowal, activating the performative dimension of public grieving that seeks to expose the limits of the grievable and establish new terms of acknowledgment and resistance.
Consider the tremendous outpouring of support stemming from the unjustified taking of George Floyd’s life and considering further, small men lacking the proper apparatus to birth real humans, have turned to staunchly defend man’s right to arms and the destruction of further lives. To look through a different lens, the birthing of modern-day society with its advancing technological weaponry and technological medicine in which exponentially large numbers of humans, both marginalized and minority groups, as well as medical test subjects who have been deemed “non-grievable” by the use of paying low-income groups $1400 to eat a piece of jet fuel for six months to “study its possible carcinogenic effects” should be included as part of this debate.
Butler, Judith. (2021). The Force of Non-Violence. New York. Verso Publishing.