December 10, 2025 • 60 mins
Armin Krishnan is an Associate Professor and Director of Security Studies at East Carolina University, where he teaches foreign policy, international security, and intelligence studies. He has received his MA in Political Science, Sociology, and Philosophy at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich in 2001, his MA in Intelligence and International Relations at the University of Salford, UK, in 2003, and his PhD in Security Studies at the University of Salford, UK, in 2006. He has worked as a Research Associate at the University of Southampton, UK, before joining the University of Texas at El Paso in 2009 to teach in the Intelligence and National Security Studies program as a Visiting Assistant Professor. In 2013 he joined the Department of Political Science of East Carolina University as a tenure-track faculty. He is the author of many journal articles and six books on different aspects of contemporary warfare, such as military service contracting, autonomous weapons systems, targeted killings, neurowarfare, paramilitary operations, and fifth generation warfare. His current research interests include the political and military implications of blockchain technology, the Havana Syndrome, and hyperwar.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you have the app? It's the best way to
listen to the Fringe radio network. It's safe and you
don't have to logging to use it, and it doesn't
track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful. I
(00:28):
know I was gonna tell them, how do you get
the app? Just go to Fringe radionetwork dot com right
at the top of the page.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
I know, slippers, we gotta keep.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Cleaning these chimneys.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
By the time we reach fifty, most people have lost
nearly half their collagen.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
I've seen what it does.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Stiff joint sneakerbones, have thinning hair, and skin that ages.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Faster than it should.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
And most people are never told why this happens or
what they can actually do about it. That's why I
want to share something I personally trust, Native Path collagen peptides.
I'm extremely selective about what I recommend. I look for purity, transparency,
and science, not marketing. And here's why native Path earned
my attention. It's just one clean ingredient, no fillers, no additives,
(01:18):
no junk it's third party tested for heavy metals, purity
and potency, and over five million jars have been sold
in eight thousand and five star reviews. Tell me people
are getting real results. Many in this community are already
reporting stronger, more flexible joints, smoother, healthier looking skin, and
even fuller hair. Some are noticing changes surprisingly quickly. If
(01:41):
you're like me, you want to say strong, mobile, and
independent as you age. Replenishing lost collagen is one of
the most effective steps I found to support that. Right now,
Native Path is offering a special bundle at explore nativepath
dot com slash Sarah far below retail, and it's bad
by a three hundred and sixty five day risk free guarantee.
(02:04):
They would not offer that unless they believe in what
they're delivering. Supplies are limited, though, and I don't know
how long this discounted offer.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Will be available.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
If you've been feeling older than you should, this one
thing you can take control of today. You deserve to
feel strong again. Visit explore nativepath dot com slash Sarah.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
Shopify helps you sell it every stage of your business
like that, Let's put it online and see what happens.
Speaker 5 (02:30):
Stage and the site is live.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
That reopened a store and need a fast checkout stage.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Thanks, you're all set that.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Counted up and ship it around the globe stage.
Speaker 5 (02:39):
This one's going to Chiland.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
And that wait, did we just hit a million orders? Stage?
Whatever your stage? Businesses that grow grow with Shopify. Sign
up for your one dollar a month trial at shopify
dot com slash listen.
Speaker 6 (03:10):
They have been targeted by Russia and China. I think
there is some good evidence in the case that Russia
has been responsible at least for a couple of those
Havevana syndrome cases. And I think China is also very
likely to attack US government personnel. So there have been
(03:30):
also cases in China and cases with a China connection,
and I don't know whether the US government is using
it offensively against adversaries.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Welcome to Business Game Changers. I'm Sarah Westall. I have
doctor Armin Kirshnan coming back to the program. He was
part of my series that I did on Brandy On
on mind Control in Fifth Generation Warfare, where he says
that the military, for all practical purposes aren't that relevant
anymore because they're bypassing conventional military warfare and going directly
(04:07):
to the citizens to control your mind, and that is
a pretty profound idea that warfare has completely changed and
they're no longer traditional methods of warfare. It's really directly
to you and controlling your mind.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
And we're living in it right now.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
And he's going to come back and he's going to
talk about Havana syndrome and neurostrike and the different frequency
weapons that have been deployed in the past and by
governments all over the world that can harm people's minds
and bodies, and specifically he wrote a book on Havana
(04:46):
syndrome and military neuro weapons and what is available, what
isn't and where is Congress and the different governments at
for acknowledging that this technology exists?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
And what can we do.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
To protect people within the government and outside the government?
How do you protect targeted individuals? Do targeted individuals exist?
Which is pretty clear that they do, because you need
to develop these weapons somehow, and the only way that
you can develop them is through you know, covert targeting,
and that's what we're seeing.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
And so we're going to talk about that.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Who's doing it He's not going to he doesn't say
who's doing it, but he's from a university professor standpoint,
he's going to talk about the research and what he
can talk about.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
He says, this is his own opinions. It doesn't represent
the university he works for.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
You know.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
He has to be.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Careful because there's always that is that the universities don't
frown upon anything that puts them out there and makes
them look bad. So he's saying this is from his
own opinion. And he also it's worth noting that he
has trained military personnel and people in intelligence on what
(06:03):
is going on, and it's a great honor to have
him back and to be working with me on this.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
And the most important thing.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Is to bring the awareness to the people so that
we can demand some protection for not only the people
in the government, but for average citizens. I advocate for
if there are already solutions developed within the military and
they aren't allowed to talk about it openly, please leak
(06:30):
it to some private organizations, private companies. Leak that those
solutions the technology that can help average citizens, and let's
figure out.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
A way too.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
It doesn't have to be open. The government doesn't have
to acknowledge it. But these solutions can work for the
average citizen and we can bring some relief to targeted individuals.
I think that is a reasonable way to deal with
some of this. But before I get into this, I
want to remind you that I have a series of
exclusives that I've been putting up on my substack, from
(07:02):
the Peptide webinar I did with Diane Taser, to my
second part with Darius Wright, who is someone that talks
about near death experiences and out of body experiences which
is really fascinating, and then also with Scott Ketterson, who
has extensive experience in information warfare within the military and
(07:24):
with the Department of Defense. I think you will like
that conversation as well, So if you are interested in
seeing any of that, go to starirwest Hall dot substack
dot com. Okay, here is my conversation with someone who's
becoming a friend of mine, doctor Arman Curshion Hi Arman,
welcome back to the program.
Speaker 6 (07:45):
Thank you so much for bringing me back to your show.
You've done so amazing work over the last years. I
mean I really started paying attention to your shows.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Oh great, thank you for that.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Well, you were in my series that we did that
was with as a partnership with Brideyon and as the expert.
You're the first episode talking about, you know, fifth generation
warfare and mind control. But when you know, of course
we're beyond fifth generation warfare into it's there's a lot
more to what's going on. But you did a recent book,
(08:20):
and you've been doing so many, so much more really
great work, writing books, doing studies, teaching people. You've taught
people in the military, you've taught at the university on
what the warfare capabilities are when it comes to mind
control or damage to the brain, and specifically you've been
(08:42):
focusing on well not just Havana syndrome. I know you've
gone beyond that, but specifically you've brought some clarity to
Havana syndrome. Can you talk about before I get into that,
explain people what you're doing right now and what your
background is so because it's very press and then we're
going to get into some more of your research.
Speaker 6 (09:05):
Well, I'm an associate professor at East Carolina University and
I'm teaching international relations, intelligence studies, foreign policy. And yeah,
I have to say that anything I'm telling you today
is not in any way related to East Carolina University.
It's just my personal opinion, and yeah, I've done research
(09:28):
into military technology, military ethics, COVID action, and more recently
I've looked into neuro warfare and Havana syndrome. So, so
that relates to directed energy weapons, and that's kind of
the future of war.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
It really is.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
It might have actually been the near past of war
as well, right, I mean, it's pretty developed. It's not
something that is just futuristic. It's been in the works
for a while.
Speaker 6 (10:00):
Yeah, I would say it started back in the nineteen
sixties when they were looking into directed energy weapons. In particular,
they were developing lasers and microwave technology, and yeah, we've
come a very long way, and now these weapon systems
are getting put into the field, so they are real
world technology and they are operational. However, most of what's
(10:26):
publicly known about directed energy weapons is focused on anti
material applications.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
So do we mean by that, Well, for.
Speaker 6 (10:35):
Example, drone warfare, or the lasers attacking drones or aircraft
or missiles, missile defenses. So we know about the hypeout
microwaves that produce an EMP like effect, so they are
frying electronics. So all of that is known and out
(10:59):
in the public. What's not known is the anti personnel applications.
So that relates to the effects, the bio effects that
these weapons systems could have when they are targeted at people.
And obviously there is a problem in terms of the
research because of the need of human experimentation.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
That's absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
So all these targeted individuals that come forward saying they've
been targeted, you can't dismiss that because they need the
experimentation to be able to develop it.
Speaker 5 (11:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (11:34):
Absolutely, I mean we know that from MK Ultra. So
that was a CIA project from nineteen fifty three to
nineteen sixty four and was continued as an in house
project until nineteen seventy two, and they were conducting human
experiments on also unwitting test subjects. So it was non
(11:57):
consensual and in some cases they have done very grave
harm to people.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
And it's not just the US military, it's pretty much
every single major country in the world.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Right.
Speaker 6 (12:14):
Yes, there's a lot of speculation about human experimentation going
on in places like China and Russia, in the Iran.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Why would they be, right, I mean, they all are doing.
Speaker 6 (12:25):
It, yes, I mean obviously it's very secretive because.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
Of was so why wouldn't they be as obvious.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
But you know what I'm saying, keep going.
Speaker 6 (12:36):
Yeah, because of the ethical implications, no government wants to
admit to it. I mean, technically speaking, at valid's international law,
it goes against the Nuremberg Code. So that was established
after the Second World War as an ethical principle that
any human experimentation has to follow certain strict rules. One
(13:01):
of it it should not harm the human subject and
there needs to be a benefit to the human subject
for doing those experiments.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
And that's right in Japan they did all those experiments
as well.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
I mean there's proof and factual proof and.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Documentation historical that not only the United States has done that,
but so was all these other countries and.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
The United States.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
You know, we have the what the Syphilist program, I
remember with the.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Big Sybils. I mean that was kay ultra. I mean,
we've done a lot of things in.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
This country that that has Even after the the what
do you call it, the the code, Right after the
Nuremberg Code came out, we were doing it, after all
these principles were established, and we still did it. So
what is going to keep us from doing it or
(13:58):
any other country around the world. These are real problems right,
and we need to not only expose them, but we
need to start coming up with and people haven't talked
about this, but maybe you know, after we people hear
some of your information, we need to come up with
ways to protect citizens from being targets of this.
Speaker 5 (14:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
Absolutely, I mean it seems to affect a larger number
of people.
Speaker 5 (14:22):
I don't know how many.
Speaker 6 (14:23):
I mean, I've been contacted obviously by a lot of
people who want to share their story and they give
me information, and that is also driving some of my research.
And obviously it's difficult to estimate or evaluate whether people
are suffering from mental illness or whether there's some truth
(14:45):
to what they're saying. But if you take into account
the history of unethical experimentation on humans, the fact that
we have directed energy weapons and that they have bio
effects that are poorly researched, at least in the public,
(15:06):
and yeah, there are accounts that seem to be very credible.
And when you look at the Havana syndrome, we have
very credible people talking about getting targeted with likely directed
energy weapons. So we know about.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
That I was at the targeted. Yeah, we do know
about that.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
I was at the Targeted Individual conference and I stayed
with the board and lend Bear was there, and he's
been claiming he's been a target of havanas or you know,
directed energy weapons, and even Girodonne himself wrote a letter
on his behalf and don't target civilians. And he was
formally diagnosed with Havana syndrome. And I was at this
(15:50):
conference at the house staying and when we were staying there,
he was being tortured, like every fifteen minutes. He was
going into this tortuous state of being blasted with something.
And I don't think somebody could fake that, I said,
and we experienced it.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
I sat there and watched him be tortured every.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Fifteen minutes, and it was he truly was affected by something.
And it's incredible to watch this. I agree with you
that some people it's very hard to distinguish the difference
between somebody who maybe has a mental illness and people
who are seriously targeted. And then the people that are
(16:34):
seriously targeted can develop some mental illness or can even
come across as mentally ill. So this whole thing is
one big gray area.
Speaker 6 (16:44):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean, it's it's very difficult in terms
of the psychiatric diagnosis, because sometimes the people doing it
may try to create the impression that the person is
act mentally so that it fits into the diagnosis in
(17:05):
psychiatry for schizophrenia and other kinds of mental illnesses.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
And it does cleanly in a lot of cases, like
if you're hearing voices in your head, or if you're
hearing some of these things that could which isn't that
difficult of a technology now to direct the sound frequency
to your ear.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
People should research it.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
The technology isn't all that complex, and it's not it's
been around for a while now, decades now, that same
technology and that same real ability actually comes across as
a mental schizophrenia or another mental illness that is cleanly
defined by a mental illness.
Speaker 6 (17:47):
Yes, I mean that was also an aspect in the
mk Ultra research. In order to cover that tracks, they
created situations that were so absurd that any person talking
about it would come across as mentally ill.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
To somebody who hasn't seen it themselves or experienced it.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
Yeah, exactly. I mean that's also the argument against Havana
syndrome as a deliberate attack. So the claim is that
people may be making it up that it's psychosomatic, that
they may have pre existing conditions, so that the major
claim here is that it's mass psychogenic illness, so that
(18:35):
people believe that they've been exposed to some external harm
and then they materialize the symptoms of what they think
they have been exposed to, and in some cases that
maybe the the truth of the matter, and in others
it's much more difficult to explain it away in that manner.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
So well, and let's talk about the history of Havana syndrome.
I know that when I started doing this work, it
was pretty available. I could get so much research on
Google and elsewhere. Now some of the ais you can
get that as well, or you need to go to
a browser outside of the United States to get some
more detailed information in some of the university studies outside
(19:20):
the US unfortunately, but it exists if you want to
dig a little bit more. But when I first started
doing this work, it was much more accessible, and I
could read where the science was and what was going on.
Is it in your research and what you're doing? Did
you have to did you find a little bit of
walls that were up or were was it easily accessible
(19:43):
to you?
Speaker 5 (19:45):
Well?
Speaker 6 (19:45):
There has been a lot of media reporting on Havana syndrome.
I mean there have been lots of documentaries, shows, newspaper articles,
magazine articles. I mean, a couple of the victim prominent victims,
have spoken out and they've given interviews. So we have
a lot of information on Havana syndrome, which is set
(20:09):
to only affect government personnel. So that's the focus on
Havana syndrome. So we are looking at people who have
worked for the US government also in a national security capacity,
and those stories seem to be quite credible because they
(20:29):
are also high level people who have been affected by this.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
And it's people that were in Cuba that were targeted
with directed energy weapons while they were in Cuba.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Right, that's why it's Havana syndrome.
Speaker 6 (20:42):
Yeah, it apparently started in December twenty sixteen, so that
was kind of the first case, and then there was
a whole wave of cases in spring twenty seventeen, and
in August twenty seventeen it made the news media and
so there was a story by Associated Press and they
(21:03):
speculated about a sonic weapon that may have been used
to harm diplomats on Cuba. And yeah, at the time
there were twenty one American individuals, embassy personnel and their
dependence affected, and fourteen Canadian diplomats and dependents affected, and
(21:24):
many of them had to be taken out of the
country and had to receive medical care in Miami. And
they've received a diagnosis of concussion or concussion like effects,
so it's a whole pattern of symptoms. It's mostly known
(21:45):
for the audible effects, so they've heard some strange noises,
some chirping or buzzing sound. It was very loud, so
that was the first thing they experienced. There were the
panic attack, so a psychological effect, and then the vestibular
(22:11):
disturbances so that balance issues, vertigo and visual distortions, blurred vision,
and very strong headaches and tenators and later also memory loss,
brain fog and yeah, general no degenerative issues, so that
(22:38):
didn't go away afterwards. The exposure time was probably just
thirty seconds or a few minutes, and then the effects
continued over months years, so some people are still affected
after a long time by this attack.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
Well, and I think the fact that like Glenn Bear
being a civilian who is officially diagnosed.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
By the same Miami.
Speaker 3 (23:10):
Doctors and facility is a major problem because it shows
that civilians and that's what ger O'Donnell wrote a letter
forum saying we should not be targeting civilians. He is
an inconvenient person that shows that civilians might be being
targeted too. Because it's one thing if government employees are
(23:30):
targeted and it's a foreign government such as Russia, which
they're claiming on the blame for the Savannah syndrome going
on in Cuba, it's a whole other deal when we're
talking about civilians in our country being targeted.
Speaker 6 (23:46):
I think these could be different issues, and there could
be different perpetrators, different contexts in which that is happening.
I don't know, but I think it's plausible that there
is some unethical human experimentation going on in this country
and in many other countries, and then there's also something
(24:07):
else going on. So we have adversaries targeting key US
government personnel to destabilize the US government, to cause US harm,
and to test their weapons. I think that the Havana
syndrome weapon is very sophisticated. It's far ahead of anything
(24:28):
we've seen in previous times. So there were previous episodes
where there was a speculation about directed energy attacks so
that was the Moscow signal, and that was in the
nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Yeah, because there's a well documented case of in Moscow
themselves having an issue, because I remember writing about it
and adding it into a mini documentary I have. So
it's been around since at least the sixties. I'm sorry,
keep going.
Speaker 6 (24:57):
Yeah, but I think it's a much more sophisticated weapon.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Yep.
Speaker 6 (25:01):
And there's a there's a big mystery how it actually works.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
So that is the problem.
Speaker 6 (25:07):
When you're researching Havana syndrome, you come across a variety
of technologies and ways of it could be possibly done,
but the the.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Actually multiple ways. I mean could it be multiple ways?
Because we know there's different a whole bunch of different weapons.
Speaker 6 (25:29):
Yeah, there are different types of weapons, and James Giordano
has suggested that there are at least two different types
of ultrasonic type weapons, and then there's one type of
microwave type puls microwave weapon. So so that can account
for the different ten of experiences that people had, so
(25:53):
that we are talking about actually very different types of
weapons and exposures.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Yeah, multiple different types of weapons.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
It was just like the voice to skull weapon, which
there was an infamous TED talk where the CEO of
the company said, yeah, we did it, and that was
during the Iraq War where all these soldiers surrendered. He
it was a TED talk that's now I can't find
so they.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Must have pulled it.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
I was, you know, hindsight being twenty twenty, I would
have downloaded it. But he admitted that his company developed
it and this is what it did, and all these
Iraqi soldiers surrendered. That is probably in the family of
the weapons we're talking about.
Speaker 6 (26:38):
Yeah, I'm aware of that. There was an ITV report
from nineteen ninety one about psychological warfare in the Gulf,
and the way it worked was that they were attacking
the Iraqi soldiers in the tanks. They had their headphones
on to listen to radio and they were transmitting some
(26:59):
ultrasound signal, the subliminal messages that was inducing extreme fear
and they were supposed to constant listening to the radio
and a consequence of that was that they were surrendering,
that they were panting, and yeah, I think that's a
(27:20):
very plausible story.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
Well, unless the CEO that came up and said that
was lying and he did a Ted talk. You know,
it was pretty amazing, you know when you look back
on it, knowing how much censorship there is now, how
open the Internet was back then is pretty profound.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
The difference. But where are we right.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
Now with the in middle, you know, being admitting that
Havana syndrome is real.
Speaker 6 (27:51):
Well, we are getting closer to it. So the current
administration seems to be taking some action towards uncovering the
miss history of Havana syndrome. So there has been a
notable shift from the Biden administration which tried to bury it.
You know about the odin I Updated Assessment on Anomalous
(28:13):
Health Incidents from March twenty twenty three, where they were
saying it was very unlikely that there was an adversary
targeting US personnel, And now they are well, at least
Congress is putting some pressure on them to revise that.
And I'm hoping that Tulsi Gabbard and Marco Rubio would
(28:36):
be also moving the thing further along. So I see
some positive signs that there is a greater billingness to
uncover the mystery. But apparently there's also a claim of
a cover up by the intelligence community.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Well, I'm sure right, they're going to cover it up.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
I would like to see them not only admit to
it identified, just like with so many of these other issues,
admit that this is happening and identify it, and then
make efforts to protect not only government employees but civilians.
These trillions of dollars that you spend, you know, are
billions of dollars you spend on defense, Actually spend it
(29:15):
on some defense for our civilians who are being targeted
by this.
Speaker 6 (29:21):
Well, there are a couple of explanations why there could
be a cover. So the first thing I can think
of is that they understand that yours personnel is vulnerable,
but they don't have any way of protecting them. So
they don't want to admit the vulnerability and give enemies
(29:42):
further ideas that they can be attacked.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
And they know, I mean, come on, they know, keep going,
They're not they know.
Speaker 6 (29:53):
Yeah, but it's still a problem for the government to
admit that they can't protect their own people. And the
other thing is it's very hard to find evidence for
the attacks.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
So somewhere attacking from or who is coming from.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
Yeah, exactly, you would need to catch the perpetrator in
the act, and that can be very difficult because an
attack can occur in any place at any time, and
then you have only a couple of minutes to figure
out that you are an attack and where the attack
(30:27):
is coming from. So the odds of catching somebody doing
it are very slim. And that was the main argument
by the CIA that they couldn't find any evidence that
any adversary was involved because they only start investigating after
the fact, so the attack is already over, and then
(30:48):
they tried to find traces or people who were there
at the time, and that can be very difficult to
come to any conclusions. And then the dilemma for the
government and is can you accuse another government of attacking
your personnel if you don't have any evidence for it,
because technically it's an act of war.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
That is, yes, it is an act of war. But
what about the civilians who are being targeted? They should
be they know and they can easily identify that, and
you know, why are they not? Are there are there
groups within that you know of, that are within the
government that are developing a defense for civilians who have
(31:30):
no protection.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
Well, I think that there are some research underway within
NATO countries about protecting personnel against ducted energy attacks. So
they are certainly aware of the vulnerability that exists, but
they don't like to talk about civilians at the moment.
They like to keep it at the level of national
(31:53):
security and protecting the military. And yeah, one issue is
that they may have those weapons already, so they may
be hiding that technology, I mean the intelligence community, so
they don't want to admit that they have it and
that they may be using those weapons as well. So
(32:16):
that's another motivation for the cover up that I can see.
And the other thing that is obvious is the possibility
of human experimentation going on in the realm of national
security that is unethical and that would be a problem
if it was disclosed to the public.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
But historically speaking, that all comes out right and they
end up looking worse in the long run, and then
the people that were targeted of this, whether it's a
syphilis experiment or mk ultra, the public at large knows
it exists, they look worse in the long run, and
then people are just the trust in the institutions actually
(32:58):
erode further.
Speaker 6 (33:02):
Well, I mean, you have to look at it from
the perspective of the people who are responsible. They may
be legally accountable for what they've done, so they may
have broken some laws in doing that, and they would
certainly try to avoid that accountability. And I think it's
(33:26):
also very highly classified, so very few people are read
into those programs and they are under secrecy oaths and
so they are not allowed to talk about it, and
if they would be talking about it, then they may
face prison for.
Speaker 3 (33:48):
Yeah, you're going to face prison for violating your secretcyos,
for disclosing the fact that we're targeting and hurting doing
something unethical that isn't legal. But I think if you
disclose something that's not legal, that you're protected from it
from that standpoint. But we know when we're dealing with
the corrupt government, it's not it's kind of messy in
(34:09):
that area.
Speaker 6 (34:10):
Well, there's a vis will blow up protection for ordinary
government people, but it's different than the intelligence community. If
you want to be a viscile blower, the only recourse
you have is that you can contact a member of Congress.
You're not allowed to talk to the press or leak
(34:30):
documents to the public. You're not allowed to do that.
If you do that, you still face prison time. And yeah,
and if Congress is not responsive, then you are out
of options.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
That's really too bad because we have obvious people that
are targeted that need some help.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
What is a neurostrike? You're right about that as well.
Speaker 6 (34:58):
Yes, And that is the concept developed by Robert mccrade.
And so he was working for the State Department, and
he was closely involved with several of the Havana syndrome investigations,
and he developed that concept to describe a weapon that
(35:20):
causes Havana syndrome. So he described it as a neurodisruptor.
It could be a handheld device that can remotely attack
people and disrupt their brain and central nervous system and
cause a permanent harm to them and have cognitive effects.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
And how broad of an implementation does he think it is?
Is it something that the military is already doing to
our adversaries in active combat area or is it also
within like spy organizations, where they're doing it for critical
or not even critical, for missions for whatever agenda they're
(36:09):
trying to get across and across the world, not just
our government but other governments.
Speaker 6 (36:15):
Well, I don't have any information about that. We can
only speculate obviously, I mean.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
I don't either.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
I'm asking you because I don't know either.
Speaker 3 (36:24):
But if I was going to speculate, I would think
that's pretty widespread and it's being used where ever they
think that they can further their agenda.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
That's my assessment. But what do you think.
Speaker 6 (36:37):
I don't know whether the US government is using that technology.
I think that they have been targeted by Russia and China.
I think there is some good evidence in the case
that Russia has been responsible at least for a couple
of those have Anna syndrome cases. And I think China
(36:58):
is also very actually to attack US government personnel. So
there have been also cases in China and cases with
a China connection. And and I don't know whether the
US government is using it offensively against adversaries.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
We'd like to think that our government is more has
higher ethical standards.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Historically they really haven't if you look at it compared
to you know, mk Ultra and the syphilis program they ran.
But you know, a China has been caught doing involved
the government of China doing organ harvesting. Right, if a
government has let organ harvesting go on in mass which
(37:47):
there's evidence of that, there would be no ethical line,
and this is not that far. I mean, this is
a very easy ethical line for them across because they
already went blue past it for when they were doing
organ harvesting.
Speaker 5 (38:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (38:02):
Absolutely, I don't think that China or the Chinese government
would have a problem with respect to using that technology
offensively and covertly. And I think that the same applies
to Russia, sadly. So in Russia they have also a
history of an ethical experimentation and they are also likely
(38:28):
to use that offensively and correctly.
Speaker 3 (38:32):
So and if there's any rogue organizations within our government
who are involved in human trafficking or origan trafficking or
anything like that, who also happen to have access to
this technology, they already will blew past the red line
of ethics, so, you know, and that's what we don't know.
Speaker 5 (38:51):
Yeah, I mean it's very highly.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
Yeah, but that's the reality of the situation, right.
Speaker 5 (39:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (39:01):
I think that there are some better checks and balances
in the United States compared to other countries. I mean,
I've heard really bad things happening in Germany with respect
to that technology. I mean, you've heard about the candidates
dying out of the election, and there's the allegation that
(39:26):
the German government may be using directed energy for harming people,
torturing people, and killing people. So there could be even
Western countries where it's much worse compared to the United States.
Speaker 2 (39:46):
What do you think is necessary?
Speaker 3 (39:49):
Maybe you haven't thought about this yet, but what do
you think is necessary from a civilian protection standpoint? We
need our government employees, our military needs protection, and so
do especially the civilians who have been targeted.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
What do you think needs to be done?
Speaker 5 (40:06):
Well?
Speaker 6 (40:07):
The first thing is people need to be aware of
the danger. So they need to understand that there is
this technology and people can get harmed and doing that,
and it can be covert, it can be deniable, and
they need to understand the least part of the technology
(40:29):
involved and that may be an opportunity to protect yourself.
At the moment, the government isn't doing much in terms
of protecting civilians. I mean that seems to be sad reality.
And yeah, what we can try to do is just
to uncover more about the technology itself.
Speaker 5 (40:52):
And the more we.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
Can uncover, the more people are aware, the more there's
an urgency to come up with tools to protect innocent individuals.
Speaker 6 (41:02):
Yeah, I mean the free market might provide some solutions.
I mean, there are companies that are offering especial equipment
and materials and things for people to protect themselves against
directed energy attacks. I mean, there seems to be already
a market for that.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
There is a market for that.
Speaker 3 (41:24):
I would like the military, if they have this technology,
to somewhat quietly leak every single thing they possibly can
to some of those companies so that they can, if
they know how to protect people, figure out how to
leak it to these companies and develop solutions.
Speaker 2 (41:41):
And maybe they already have I don't know.
Speaker 6 (41:44):
Yeah, you can only hope that. I mean, there should
be more pressure on the government in terms of doing
something about it, because the problem is not going to
go away. I don't think that they have aner syndrome.
Cases have stopped. I think that at some point they
(42:05):
have to address it because their own people are getting armed, that's.
Speaker 3 (42:09):
Right, And they can't afford for high level diplomats, and
they can't afford for civilians who are speaking loudly of
it to just go on protected.
Speaker 6 (42:21):
Yeah, I think so. I mean, I'm hopeful that something
is still coming out of the newer investigations into Havana syndrome.
Speaker 5 (42:31):
So there was a.
Speaker 6 (42:34):
Recent House Prominent Select Committee on Intelligence report from December
last year where they were complaining about the lack of
cooperation that they've received from the intelligence community regarding the
release of documents and records about the anomalous health incidents.
(42:56):
And yeah, a recent thing I've heard is that the
director of the DIA got fired because he was mishandling
the investigation into the anomalous health incidents. So perhaps the
Trump administration is trying to do something.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
Well, that's good. I mean, if he was mishandling it,
then that's great. Hopefully there is more pressure. I know
that Telsea Gabbert seems like because she was targeted herself
with the Quiet Skies program, and nothing gets you motivated
more than being personally targeted.
Speaker 6 (43:33):
Yeah, I mean there are also members in Congress who
have taken an interest in that. So there was a
Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing in twenty twenty four where they
had some high level witnesses. So that was Greg ed Green,
(43:54):
who was in charge of the investigation in the DIA
on the announces health incidents. And then there was Crystal
Grossev who was the journalist who conducted the investigation into
the connection with gru Unit two nine one, five five,
(44:14):
And then there was Mark said he is a national
security lawyer who has represented several victims of Havana syndrome,
and they gave very interesting testimonies that you can find
on the internet, and their conclusion was that there are
at least sixty eight credible cases altogether, and they've recorded
(44:38):
over fifteen hundred cases, but at least sixty eight there
there's apparently very good evidence that people have been targeted
and harmed. And they also spoke about the device that
could cause the Havana syndrome, and Crystal grossev was said
(45:00):
that he has seen an earlier version of the weapon
from nineteen ninety one and that it was not very big,
so smaller than a backpack, so it could be used
from a car and it would have at least a
range of tens of meters or hundreds of meters.
Speaker 3 (45:20):
And it'll be interesting as this comes out and more
people are aware of it, and hopefully it'll bring more
whistle blowlers out to say about what other kinds of
weapons are actually ready to go from affecting our emotions
to all sorts of other applications that are being used.
Speaker 6 (45:46):
Yes, I mean there have been whistle blowers. I mean
there have been lots of leaks. The problem with the
leaks is just they tend to be anonymous, and then
it's very hard to confirm, and often there is no
documentary evidence behind it, because even if you work in
the intelligence community, you can't really take any documents it
(46:10):
can classified documents and give them to the public, So
that would be a major crime. So they can only
leak a little bit of information here and there, and
then we have to piece it together.
Speaker 3 (46:25):
Do we think that Okay, the fact that and I
understand from one perspective, but we almost need to deconstruct
the fact that it's a crime to be transparent, and
that the whole notion of making everything classified also allows
criminal activity to absolutely flourish within our government.
Speaker 2 (46:47):
And so the.
Speaker 3 (46:48):
Laws themselves are made to protect criminals if they exist
in that community. And so we have an issue of
a structural issue, a flaw with just how that is established.
The fact that it's illegal to even talk about activities
that could be highly illegal is a flaw.
Speaker 6 (47:11):
Well, the intelligence community will tell you that they have
to protect sources and methods that all their work couldn't
and that they couldn't operate without that amount of secrecy,
and that secrecy serves a clear purpose.
Speaker 3 (47:29):
It also serves a clear purpose of covering up government crime.
Speaker 5 (47:33):
And so.
Speaker 2 (47:35):
You know, what do you think of that?
Speaker 6 (47:40):
Well, I think that in the area of in the
realm of national security, you need to have a certain
degree of secrecy because it relates to vulnerability and it
relates to your ability to collect on others. And yeah,
I understand that this is a problem for themocratic accountability.
(48:02):
And the way we tried to solve this dilemma is
by way of intelligence oversight. So we have the intelligence
overside committees in Congress that are supposed to look into
potential abuses by the intelligence community. The flaw in this
system is that the intelligence community can just refuse to
(48:24):
provide complete and accurate information to Congress, and Congress has
no ability to really check whether they've received everything and
whether it's accurate what they've received. And yeah, we've seen
that with the NSA surveillance debate. In the end, it
(48:44):
looks like the intelligence community violated our constitutional rights and
got away with it.
Speaker 3 (48:51):
Well, it's kind of like the call me thing there's
a whole room of additional FBI files that they found
that we're that weren't disclosed.
Speaker 2 (49:02):
So the it's just this continual.
Speaker 3 (49:05):
Thing where Congress is not able to do proper oversight
because they don't allow those documents forward.
Speaker 2 (49:14):
So is what I'm talking about.
Speaker 3 (49:17):
I understand the national security because we're not We can't
be so naive that we aren't dealing with enemies such
as China or Russia or even criminal cartels whatever it
is that will harm us, right.
Speaker 2 (49:30):
So they have to be smart.
Speaker 3 (49:31):
But the same standpoint, if they aren't able to have
proper oversight, then the criminals can flourish with inside those organizations.
Speaker 2 (49:40):
And there's evidence that they have.
Speaker 5 (49:43):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 6 (49:45):
I mean originally, when the intelligence community was founded in
nineteen forty seven, it was fairly small, and it was
easier to have some oversight over them or to to
keep track of what they were doing because it was
still relatively small. But now it has gotten so big,
(50:06):
and government secrecy has gotten so enormous that nobody knows
all the secrets. I mean, it's a huge problem for
the government itself to keep track of its own secrets.
Speaker 2 (50:19):
It's just this mess isn't it.
Speaker 5 (50:22):
Yeah, And.
Speaker 6 (50:25):
There's only a very small number of people who have
access a high level access to information and yeah, and
most people in the government they just are not read
into those secrets.
Speaker 3 (50:41):
Well, and the problem is when there's only a small
number of people that even have access to it, we
are dependent on those people even being ethical individuals and
not criminals themselves.
Speaker 5 (50:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (50:52):
What kind of process do we go through to make
sure those people are even ethical?
Speaker 6 (51:00):
Yeah, that's a huge problem. I mean, that's why we
are talking about the deep state. So that is the
assumed network of mid level to high level intelligence officials
and national security officials who have access to the secrets
and who can determine national security policy and who can
(51:22):
and well, who are in a position to sabotage the
elected government or simply not respond to the directions of
the elected government.
Speaker 5 (51:34):
And we've seen that.
Speaker 3 (51:36):
What do you think about the deep state being spun
from a political.
Speaker 2 (51:39):
Standpoint to just mean the Democrats.
Speaker 3 (51:41):
I think that is a mistake by some political operatives
to spin it to just mean deep state equals Democrats
versus deep state equals deep state, like what you're.
Speaker 6 (51:53):
Talking about, Well, there is a very good book by
Michael Glennon. He is a political scientists I think a
Tought university. He wrote a book The Double Government from
twenty fourteen and he claims that there is the Medicinian government,
the elected government, and then there's the so called hidden
(52:16):
government or the Trumanite network. So that was penally established
early in the Cold War, and that is a network
of those mid level to senior national security officials who
share the same ideology and they are sharing the same experiences,
(52:38):
and they believe that in the name of national security,
they have special rights to do whatever it takes to
protect the United States. So they are not bound by
the law, and they are very influential and they can
oppose presidents because they the power.
Speaker 5 (53:00):
Well, they have careers that are very long.
Speaker 6 (53:02):
So if you look at people like John Brannan or
Michael Hayden or James Clapper, they've been in there for
decades in senior positions, right, so they have access as
they've had access to a lot of secrets, and that.
Speaker 3 (53:21):
Gives and the president going in for four years or
even eight years, they they have more power than them,
or they ride them out for a certain amount of time,
or they right, I mean, how do they override them.
Speaker 2 (53:35):
Do they override them through just bureaucratic means.
Speaker 6 (53:41):
Yeah, I mean as bioucratic resistance. I mean, you can
simply delay implementation of decisions. That's the easiest way you
can ignore.
Speaker 5 (53:51):
You can.
Speaker 6 (53:54):
Shape the information that the senior decision makers, the elected
government receives. I mean, we've had the stories of people
stealing documents from Trump's desk because they didn't want him
to see that information. I mean, if you are a president,
you have no ability to read or process all the
(54:18):
information that you theoretically access to, and they can give
you only certain pieces of information and leave out a
major part of that, and there's no ability to check
really well.
Speaker 3 (54:33):
And if you it's like anything else, if you go
on you run an organization and the majority of the
people under you don't want to follow you, and they
won't follow you, and they have their own agendas, that's
extremely difficult. That's why executives come in and they get
rid of the entire you know, managing organization and bring
in their own people for that very same reason.
Speaker 6 (54:56):
Yeah, but you can't really do that national security because
it's very disruptive. It's very hard to replace people. I
mean if you have a career national security spanning several decades,
you represent a body of knowledge and expertise that is
very hard to replace.
Speaker 2 (55:14):
It doesn't work that way, right, So that.
Speaker 6 (55:18):
Makes it difficult to simplifire everybody because if you do that,
then the organization also becomes dysfunctional.
Speaker 3 (55:25):
Well, but they do fire if they do that with
their own cabinet and everything else. So the philosophy was that,
but it's morphed than something so much larger and something
so much deeper that essentially it doesn't matter.
Speaker 5 (55:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (55:40):
So, I mean the deep siate goes into the mid
level of the bureaucracies as well. So even if you
fire people at the top, the people under them will
get into the top position and they will follow the
same agenda.
Speaker 5 (55:56):
So you're not really improving the situation here.
Speaker 2 (55:59):
Yeah, that's exactly what's going on.
Speaker 3 (56:01):
And when the president comes in, they are they I
don't know if you know or not, but some people
tell me that when they come in that they're kind
of read the rules and that essentially this is the
way it is, and you're going to have to listen
to what there truly are people with more power than
the president.
Speaker 6 (56:21):
Yeah, that's very luckily. I mean, it seems that the
president is so powerful, but in reality there are huge
limitations on presidential power. I mean, it's the office of
the president that's powerful, but the person is not really
the office. So the person can be replaced, will be
(56:44):
replaced after four or eight years, but the office remains.
And it comes down to access to power. It comes
down to access to information, and it comes down to
having so support from the bureaucracy, and if that's lacking,
(57:04):
then the president can't do that much.
Speaker 3 (57:07):
Gosh, that would be so frustrating for somebody who wants
to make a difference. I think it would be extremely frustrating. Right,
you want to make a difference and you have this
wall that's in front of you. You can't do anything
because they have more money or there's so many different
ways that those that people can be influenced to do
(57:30):
the bidding of others.
Speaker 5 (57:33):
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (57:37):
Right.
Speaker 3 (57:38):
Okay, So you have multiple books out on different topics.
Can you talk about where people can find your books?
I know a lot of them are for academic reading,
but what do you have and where can people learn
more about your work?
Speaker 5 (57:53):
My life?
Speaker 6 (57:55):
I've written seven books, so I'm working on an eighth book,
and I've written a book on autonomous weapons, so that
was from two thousand and nine, got reprinted in twenty
sixteen and it seems to be still popular. And I've
written a book on military neuroscience and that's from twenty seventeen.
(58:20):
And more recently, I wrote on fift generation warfare. And
the last book was on Havana syndrome and it's available
on Amazon.
Speaker 2 (58:32):
Thank you so much. I'm going to have you.
Speaker 3 (58:35):
I know I'm going to have you back because I've
had you back many times, and thank you so much.
And I hope you have a great holiday season with
your family and Thanksgiving, which is coming up. I don't know.
This will probably air after Thanksgiving, but thank you so much, Arman,
and thank you for everything you're doing to inform the
public on the realities of just what it is that
(58:57):
we're dealing with.
Speaker 6 (58:59):
Thank you so much for I think it has been
a pleasure to be on your show, and I wish
you a happy Thanksgiving too.
Speaker 1 (59:23):
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you.
Speaker 2 (59:33):
Have the app?
Speaker 1 (59:35):
It's the best way to listen to the Fringe Radio network.
It's safe and you don't have to log in to
use it, and it doesn't track you or trace you,
and it sounds beautiful. I know, I was gonna tell him, how.
Speaker 2 (59:49):
Do you get the app?
Speaker 1 (59:50):
Just go to Fringe radionetwork dot com right at the
top of the page. I know, slippers, we got to
keep cleaning these chimneys.
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you have the app? It's the best way to
listen to the Fringe radio network. It's safe and you
don't have to logging to use it, and it doesn't
track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful. I
(00:28):
know I was gonna tell them, how do you get
the app? Just go to Fringe radionetwork dot com right
at the top of the page.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
I know, slippers, we gotta keep.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Cleaning these chimneys.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
By the time we reach fifty, most people have lost
nearly half their collagen.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
I've seen what it does.
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Stiff joint sneakerbones, have thinning hair, and skin that ages.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Faster than it should.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
And most people are never told why this happens or
what they can actually do about it. That's why I
want to share something I personally trust, Native Path collagen peptides.
I'm extremely selective about what I recommend. I look for purity, transparency,
and science, not marketing. And here's why native Path earned
my attention. It's just one clean ingredient, no fillers, no additives,
(01:18):
no junk it's third party tested for heavy metals, purity
and potency, and over five million jars have been sold
in eight thousand and five star reviews. Tell me people
are getting real results. Many in this community are already
reporting stronger, more flexible joints, smoother, healthier looking skin, and
even fuller hair. Some are noticing changes surprisingly quickly. If
(01:41):
you're like me, you want to say strong, mobile, and
independent as you age. Replenishing lost collagen is one of
the most effective steps I found to support that. Right now,
Native Path is offering a special bundle at explore nativepath
dot com slash Sarah far below retail, and it's bad
by a three hundred and sixty five day risk free guarantee.
(02:04):
They would not offer that unless they believe in what
they're delivering. Supplies are limited, though, and I don't know
how long this discounted offer.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Will be available.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
If you've been feeling older than you should, this one
thing you can take control of today. You deserve to
feel strong again. Visit explore nativepath dot com slash Sarah.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
Shopify helps you sell it every stage of your business
like that, Let's put it online and see what happens.
Speaker 5 (02:30):
Stage and the site is live.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
That reopened a store and need a fast checkout stage.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
Thanks, you're all set that.
Speaker 4 (02:37):
Counted up and ship it around the globe stage.
Speaker 5 (02:39):
This one's going to Chiland.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
And that wait, did we just hit a million orders? Stage?
Whatever your stage? Businesses that grow grow with Shopify. Sign
up for your one dollar a month trial at shopify
dot com slash listen.
Speaker 6 (03:10):
They have been targeted by Russia and China. I think
there is some good evidence in the case that Russia
has been responsible at least for a couple of those
Havevana syndrome cases. And I think China is also very
likely to attack US government personnel. So there have been
(03:30):
also cases in China and cases with a China connection,
and I don't know whether the US government is using
it offensively against adversaries.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Welcome to Business Game Changers. I'm Sarah Westall. I have
doctor Armin Kirshnan coming back to the program. He was
part of my series that I did on Brandy On
on mind Control in Fifth Generation Warfare, where he says
that the military, for all practical purposes aren't that relevant
anymore because they're bypassing conventional military warfare and going directly
(04:07):
to the citizens to control your mind, and that is
a pretty profound idea that warfare has completely changed and
they're no longer traditional methods of warfare. It's really directly
to you and controlling your mind.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
And we're living in it right now.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
And he's going to come back and he's going to
talk about Havana syndrome and neurostrike and the different frequency
weapons that have been deployed in the past and by
governments all over the world that can harm people's minds
and bodies, and specifically he wrote a book on Havana
(04:46):
syndrome and military neuro weapons and what is available, what
isn't and where is Congress and the different governments at
for acknowledging that this technology exists?
Speaker 2 (05:00):
And what can we do.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
To protect people within the government and outside the government?
How do you protect targeted individuals? Do targeted individuals exist?
Which is pretty clear that they do, because you need
to develop these weapons somehow, and the only way that
you can develop them is through you know, covert targeting,
and that's what we're seeing.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
And so we're going to talk about that.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Who's doing it He's not going to he doesn't say
who's doing it, but he's from a university professor standpoint,
he's going to talk about the research and what he
can talk about.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
He says, this is his own opinions. It doesn't represent
the university he works for.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
You know.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
He has to be.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Careful because there's always that is that the universities don't
frown upon anything that puts them out there and makes
them look bad. So he's saying this is from his
own opinion. And he also it's worth noting that he
has trained military personnel and people in intelligence on what
(06:03):
is going on, and it's a great honor to have
him back and to be working with me on this.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
And the most important thing.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
Is to bring the awareness to the people so that
we can demand some protection for not only the people
in the government, but for average citizens. I advocate for
if there are already solutions developed within the military and
they aren't allowed to talk about it openly, please leak
(06:30):
it to some private organizations, private companies. Leak that those
solutions the technology that can help average citizens, and let's
figure out.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
A way too.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
It doesn't have to be open. The government doesn't have
to acknowledge it. But these solutions can work for the
average citizen and we can bring some relief to targeted individuals.
I think that is a reasonable way to deal with
some of this. But before I get into this, I
want to remind you that I have a series of
exclusives that I've been putting up on my substack, from
(07:02):
the Peptide webinar I did with Diane Taser, to my
second part with Darius Wright, who is someone that talks
about near death experiences and out of body experiences which
is really fascinating, and then also with Scott Ketterson, who
has extensive experience in information warfare within the military and
(07:24):
with the Department of Defense. I think you will like
that conversation as well, So if you are interested in
seeing any of that, go to starirwest Hall dot substack
dot com. Okay, here is my conversation with someone who's
becoming a friend of mine, doctor Arman Curshion Hi Arman,
welcome back to the program.
Speaker 6 (07:45):
Thank you so much for bringing me back to your show.
You've done so amazing work over the last years. I
mean I really started paying attention to your shows.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Oh great, thank you for that.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
Well, you were in my series that we did that
was with as a partnership with Brideyon and as the expert.
You're the first episode talking about, you know, fifth generation
warfare and mind control. But when you know, of course
we're beyond fifth generation warfare into it's there's a lot
more to what's going on. But you did a recent book,
(08:20):
and you've been doing so many, so much more really
great work, writing books, doing studies, teaching people. You've taught
people in the military, you've taught at the university on
what the warfare capabilities are when it comes to mind
control or damage to the brain, and specifically you've been
(08:42):
focusing on well not just Havana syndrome. I know you've
gone beyond that, but specifically you've brought some clarity to
Havana syndrome. Can you talk about before I get into that,
explain people what you're doing right now and what your
background is so because it's very press and then we're
going to get into some more of your research.
Speaker 6 (09:05):
Well, I'm an associate professor at East Carolina University and
I'm teaching international relations, intelligence studies, foreign policy. And yeah,
I have to say that anything I'm telling you today
is not in any way related to East Carolina University.
It's just my personal opinion, and yeah, I've done research
(09:28):
into military technology, military ethics, COVID action, and more recently
I've looked into neuro warfare and Havana syndrome. So, so
that relates to directed energy weapons, and that's kind of
the future of war.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
It really is.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
It might have actually been the near past of war
as well, right, I mean, it's pretty developed. It's not
something that is just futuristic. It's been in the works
for a while.
Speaker 6 (10:00):
Yeah, I would say it started back in the nineteen
sixties when they were looking into directed energy weapons. In particular,
they were developing lasers and microwave technology, and yeah, we've
come a very long way, and now these weapon systems
are getting put into the field, so they are real
world technology and they are operational. However, most of what's
(10:26):
publicly known about directed energy weapons is focused on anti
material applications.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
So do we mean by that, Well, for.
Speaker 6 (10:35):
Example, drone warfare, or the lasers attacking drones or aircraft
or missiles, missile defenses. So we know about the hypeout
microwaves that produce an EMP like effect, so they are
frying electronics. So all of that is known and out
(10:59):
in the public. What's not known is the anti personnel applications.
So that relates to the effects, the bio effects that
these weapons systems could have when they are targeted at people.
And obviously there is a problem in terms of the
research because of the need of human experimentation.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
That's absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
So all these targeted individuals that come forward saying they've
been targeted, you can't dismiss that because they need the
experimentation to be able to develop it.
Speaker 5 (11:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (11:34):
Absolutely, I mean we know that from MK Ultra. So
that was a CIA project from nineteen fifty three to
nineteen sixty four and was continued as an in house
project until nineteen seventy two, and they were conducting human
experiments on also unwitting test subjects. So it was non
(11:57):
consensual and in some cases they have done very grave
harm to people.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
That's right.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
And it's not just the US military, it's pretty much
every single major country in the world.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Right.
Speaker 6 (12:14):
Yes, there's a lot of speculation about human experimentation going
on in places like China and Russia, in the Iran.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Why would they be, right, I mean, they all are doing.
Speaker 6 (12:25):
It, yes, I mean obviously it's very secretive because.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
Of was so why wouldn't they be as obvious.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
But you know what I'm saying, keep going.
Speaker 6 (12:36):
Yeah, because of the ethical implications, no government wants to
admit to it. I mean, technically speaking, at valid's international law,
it goes against the Nuremberg Code. So that was established
after the Second World War as an ethical principle that
any human experimentation has to follow certain strict rules. One
(13:01):
of it it should not harm the human subject and
there needs to be a benefit to the human subject
for doing those experiments.
Speaker 3 (13:10):
And that's right in Japan they did all those experiments
as well.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
I mean there's proof and factual proof and.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
Documentation historical that not only the United States has done that,
but so was all these other countries and.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
The United States.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
You know, we have the what the Syphilist program, I
remember with the.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Big Sybils. I mean that was kay ultra. I mean,
we've done a lot of things in.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
This country that that has Even after the the what
do you call it, the the code, Right after the
Nuremberg Code came out, we were doing it, after all
these principles were established, and we still did it. So
what is going to keep us from doing it or
(13:58):
any other country around the world. These are real problems right,
and we need to not only expose them, but we
need to start coming up with and people haven't talked
about this, but maybe you know, after we people hear
some of your information, we need to come up with
ways to protect citizens from being targets of this.
Speaker 5 (14:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
Absolutely, I mean it seems to affect a larger number
of people.
Speaker 5 (14:22):
I don't know how many.
Speaker 6 (14:23):
I mean, I've been contacted obviously by a lot of
people who want to share their story and they give
me information, and that is also driving some of my research.
And obviously it's difficult to estimate or evaluate whether people
are suffering from mental illness or whether there's some truth
(14:45):
to what they're saying. But if you take into account
the history of unethical experimentation on humans, the fact that
we have directed energy weapons and that they have bio
effects that are poorly researched, at least in the public,
(15:06):
and yeah, there are accounts that seem to be very credible.
And when you look at the Havana syndrome, we have
very credible people talking about getting targeted with likely directed
energy weapons. So we know about.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
That I was at the targeted. Yeah, we do know
about that.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
I was at the Targeted Individual conference and I stayed
with the board and lend Bear was there, and he's
been claiming he's been a target of havanas or you know,
directed energy weapons, and even Girodonne himself wrote a letter
on his behalf and don't target civilians. And he was
formally diagnosed with Havana syndrome. And I was at this
(15:50):
conference at the house staying and when we were staying there,
he was being tortured, like every fifteen minutes. He was
going into this tortuous state of being blasted with something.
And I don't think somebody could fake that, I said,
and we experienced it.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
I sat there and watched him be tortured every.
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Fifteen minutes, and it was he truly was affected by something.
And it's incredible to watch this. I agree with you
that some people it's very hard to distinguish the difference
between somebody who maybe has a mental illness and people
who are seriously targeted. And then the people that are
(16:34):
seriously targeted can develop some mental illness or can even
come across as mentally ill. So this whole thing is
one big gray area.
Speaker 6 (16:44):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean, it's it's very difficult in terms
of the psychiatric diagnosis, because sometimes the people doing it
may try to create the impression that the person is
act mentally so that it fits into the diagnosis in
(17:05):
psychiatry for schizophrenia and other kinds of mental illnesses.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
And it does cleanly in a lot of cases, like
if you're hearing voices in your head, or if you're
hearing some of these things that could which isn't that
difficult of a technology now to direct the sound frequency
to your ear.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
People should research it.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
The technology isn't all that complex, and it's not it's
been around for a while now, decades now, that same
technology and that same real ability actually comes across as
a mental schizophrenia or another mental illness that is cleanly
defined by a mental illness.
Speaker 6 (17:47):
Yes, I mean that was also an aspect in the
mk Ultra research. In order to cover that tracks, they
created situations that were so absurd that any person talking
about it would come across as mentally ill.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
To somebody who hasn't seen it themselves or experienced it.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
Yeah, exactly. I mean that's also the argument against Havana
syndrome as a deliberate attack. So the claim is that
people may be making it up that it's psychosomatic, that
they may have pre existing conditions, so that the major
claim here is that it's mass psychogenic illness, so that
(18:35):
people believe that they've been exposed to some external harm
and then they materialize the symptoms of what they think
they have been exposed to, and in some cases that
maybe the the truth of the matter, and in others
it's much more difficult to explain it away in that manner.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
So well, and let's talk about the history of Havana syndrome.
I know that when I started doing this work, it
was pretty available. I could get so much research on
Google and elsewhere. Now some of the ais you can
get that as well, or you need to go to
a browser outside of the United States to get some
more detailed information in some of the university studies outside
(19:20):
the US unfortunately, but it exists if you want to
dig a little bit more. But when I first started
doing this work, it was much more accessible, and I
could read where the science was and what was going on.
Is it in your research and what you're doing? Did
you have to did you find a little bit of
walls that were up or were was it easily accessible
(19:43):
to you?
Speaker 5 (19:45):
Well?
Speaker 6 (19:45):
There has been a lot of media reporting on Havana syndrome.
I mean there have been lots of documentaries, shows, newspaper articles,
magazine articles. I mean, a couple of the victim prominent victims,
have spoken out and they've given interviews. So we have
a lot of information on Havana syndrome, which is set
(20:09):
to only affect government personnel. So that's the focus on
Havana syndrome. So we are looking at people who have
worked for the US government also in a national security capacity,
and those stories seem to be quite credible because they
(20:29):
are also high level people who have been affected by this.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
And it's people that were in Cuba that were targeted
with directed energy weapons while they were in Cuba.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Right, that's why it's Havana syndrome.
Speaker 6 (20:42):
Yeah, it apparently started in December twenty sixteen, so that
was kind of the first case, and then there was
a whole wave of cases in spring twenty seventeen, and
in August twenty seventeen it made the news media and
so there was a story by Associated Press and they
(21:03):
speculated about a sonic weapon that may have been used
to harm diplomats on Cuba. And yeah, at the time
there were twenty one American individuals, embassy personnel and their
dependence affected, and fourteen Canadian diplomats and dependents affected, and
(21:24):
many of them had to be taken out of the
country and had to receive medical care in Miami. And
they've received a diagnosis of concussion or concussion like effects,
so it's a whole pattern of symptoms. It's mostly known
(21:45):
for the audible effects, so they've heard some strange noises,
some chirping or buzzing sound. It was very loud, so
that was the first thing they experienced. There were the
panic attack, so a psychological effect, and then the vestibular
(22:11):
disturbances so that balance issues, vertigo and visual distortions, blurred vision,
and very strong headaches and tenators and later also memory loss,
brain fog and yeah, general no degenerative issues, so that
(22:38):
didn't go away afterwards. The exposure time was probably just
thirty seconds or a few minutes, and then the effects
continued over months years, so some people are still affected
after a long time by this attack.
Speaker 3 (22:59):
Well, and I think the fact that like Glenn Bear
being a civilian who is officially diagnosed.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
By the same Miami.
Speaker 3 (23:10):
Doctors and facility is a major problem because it shows
that civilians and that's what ger O'Donnell wrote a letter
forum saying we should not be targeting civilians. He is
an inconvenient person that shows that civilians might be being
targeted too. Because it's one thing if government employees are
(23:30):
targeted and it's a foreign government such as Russia, which
they're claiming on the blame for the Savannah syndrome going
on in Cuba, it's a whole other deal when we're
talking about civilians in our country being targeted.
Speaker 6 (23:46):
I think these could be different issues, and there could
be different perpetrators, different contexts in which that is happening.
I don't know, but I think it's plausible that there
is some unethical human experimentation going on in this country
and in many other countries, and then there's also something
(24:07):
else going on. So we have adversaries targeting key US
government personnel to destabilize the US government, to cause US harm,
and to test their weapons. I think that the Havana
syndrome weapon is very sophisticated. It's far ahead of anything
(24:28):
we've seen in previous times. So there were previous episodes
where there was a speculation about directed energy attacks so
that was the Moscow signal, and that was in the
nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Yeah, because there's a well documented case of in Moscow
themselves having an issue, because I remember writing about it
and adding it into a mini documentary I have. So
it's been around since at least the sixties. I'm sorry,
keep going.
Speaker 6 (24:57):
Yeah, but I think it's a much more sophisticated weapon.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Yep.
Speaker 6 (25:01):
And there's a there's a big mystery how it actually works.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
So that is the problem.
Speaker 6 (25:07):
When you're researching Havana syndrome, you come across a variety
of technologies and ways of it could be possibly done,
but the the.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Actually multiple ways. I mean could it be multiple ways?
Because we know there's different a whole bunch of different weapons.
Speaker 6 (25:29):
Yeah, there are different types of weapons, and James Giordano
has suggested that there are at least two different types
of ultrasonic type weapons, and then there's one type of
microwave type puls microwave weapon. So so that can account
for the different ten of experiences that people had, so
(25:53):
that we are talking about actually very different types of
weapons and exposures.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Yeah, multiple different types of weapons.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
It was just like the voice to skull weapon, which
there was an infamous TED talk where the CEO of
the company said, yeah, we did it, and that was
during the Iraq War where all these soldiers surrendered. He
it was a TED talk that's now I can't find
so they.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
Must have pulled it.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
I was, you know, hindsight being twenty twenty, I would
have downloaded it. But he admitted that his company developed
it and this is what it did, and all these
Iraqi soldiers surrendered. That is probably in the family of
the weapons we're talking about.
Speaker 6 (26:38):
Yeah, I'm aware of that. There was an ITV report
from nineteen ninety one about psychological warfare in the Gulf,
and the way it worked was that they were attacking
the Iraqi soldiers in the tanks. They had their headphones
on to listen to radio and they were transmitting some
(26:59):
ultrasound signal, the subliminal messages that was inducing extreme fear
and they were supposed to constant listening to the radio
and a consequence of that was that they were surrendering,
that they were panting, and yeah, I think that's a
(27:20):
very plausible story.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
Well, unless the CEO that came up and said that
was lying and he did a Ted talk. You know,
it was pretty amazing, you know when you look back
on it, knowing how much censorship there is now, how
open the Internet was back then is pretty profound.
Speaker 2 (27:40):
The difference. But where are we right.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
Now with the in middle, you know, being admitting that
Havana syndrome is real.
Speaker 6 (27:51):
Well, we are getting closer to it. So the current
administration seems to be taking some action towards uncovering the
miss history of Havana syndrome. So there has been a
notable shift from the Biden administration which tried to bury it.
You know about the odin I Updated Assessment on Anomalous
(28:13):
Health Incidents from March twenty twenty three, where they were
saying it was very unlikely that there was an adversary
targeting US personnel, And now they are well, at least
Congress is putting some pressure on them to revise that.
And I'm hoping that Tulsi Gabbard and Marco Rubio would
(28:36):
be also moving the thing further along. So I see
some positive signs that there is a greater billingness to
uncover the mystery. But apparently there's also a claim of
a cover up by the intelligence community.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Well, I'm sure right, they're going to cover it up.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
I would like to see them not only admit to
it identified, just like with so many of these other issues,
admit that this is happening and identify it, and then
make efforts to protect not only government employees but civilians.
These trillions of dollars that you spend, you know, are
billions of dollars you spend on defense, Actually spend it
(29:15):
on some defense for our civilians who are being targeted
by this.
Speaker 6 (29:21):
Well, there are a couple of explanations why there could
be a cover. So the first thing I can think
of is that they understand that yours personnel is vulnerable,
but they don't have any way of protecting them. So
they don't want to admit the vulnerability and give enemies
(29:42):
further ideas that they can be attacked.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
And they know, I mean, come on, they know, keep going,
They're not they know.
Speaker 6 (29:53):
Yeah, but it's still a problem for the government to
admit that they can't protect their own people. And the
other thing is it's very hard to find evidence for
the attacks.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
So somewhere attacking from or who is coming from.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
Yeah, exactly, you would need to catch the perpetrator in
the act, and that can be very difficult because an
attack can occur in any place at any time, and
then you have only a couple of minutes to figure
out that you are an attack and where the attack
(30:27):
is coming from. So the odds of catching somebody doing
it are very slim. And that was the main argument
by the CIA that they couldn't find any evidence that
any adversary was involved because they only start investigating after
the fact, so the attack is already over, and then
(30:48):
they tried to find traces or people who were there
at the time, and that can be very difficult to
come to any conclusions. And then the dilemma for the
government and is can you accuse another government of attacking
your personnel if you don't have any evidence for it,
because technically it's an act of war.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
That is, yes, it is an act of war. But
what about the civilians who are being targeted? They should
be they know and they can easily identify that, and
you know, why are they not? Are there are there
groups within that you know of, that are within the
government that are developing a defense for civilians who have
(31:30):
no protection.
Speaker 6 (31:33):
Well, I think that there are some research underway within
NATO countries about protecting personnel against ducted energy attacks. So
they are certainly aware of the vulnerability that exists, but
they don't like to talk about civilians at the moment.
They like to keep it at the level of national
(31:53):
security and protecting the military. And yeah, one issue is
that they may have those weapons already, so they may
be hiding that technology, I mean the intelligence community, so
they don't want to admit that they have it and
that they may be using those weapons as well. So
(32:16):
that's another motivation for the cover up that I can see.
And the other thing that is obvious is the possibility
of human experimentation going on in the realm of national
security that is unethical and that would be a problem
if it was disclosed to the public.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
But historically speaking, that all comes out right and they
end up looking worse in the long run, and then
the people that were targeted of this, whether it's a
syphilis experiment or mk ultra, the public at large knows
it exists, they look worse in the long run, and
then people are just the trust in the institutions actually
(32:58):
erode further.
Speaker 6 (33:02):
Well, I mean, you have to look at it from
the perspective of the people who are responsible. They may
be legally accountable for what they've done, so they may
have broken some laws in doing that, and they would
certainly try to avoid that accountability. And I think it's
(33:26):
also very highly classified, so very few people are read
into those programs and they are under secrecy oaths and
so they are not allowed to talk about it, and
if they would be talking about it, then they may
face prison for.
Speaker 3 (33:48):
Yeah, you're going to face prison for violating your secretcyos,
for disclosing the fact that we're targeting and hurting doing
something unethical that isn't legal. But I think if you
disclose something that's not legal, that you're protected from it
from that standpoint. But we know when we're dealing with
the corrupt government, it's not it's kind of messy in
(34:09):
that area.
Speaker 6 (34:10):
Well, there's a vis will blow up protection for ordinary
government people, but it's different than the intelligence community. If
you want to be a viscile blower, the only recourse
you have is that you can contact a member of Congress.
You're not allowed to talk to the press or leak
(34:30):
documents to the public. You're not allowed to do that.
If you do that, you still face prison time. And yeah,
and if Congress is not responsive, then you are out
of options.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
That's really too bad because we have obvious people that
are targeted that need some help.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
What is a neurostrike? You're right about that as well.
Speaker 6 (34:58):
Yes, And that is the concept developed by Robert mccrade.
And so he was working for the State Department, and
he was closely involved with several of the Havana syndrome investigations,
and he developed that concept to describe a weapon that
(35:20):
causes Havana syndrome. So he described it as a neurodisruptor.
It could be a handheld device that can remotely attack
people and disrupt their brain and central nervous system and
cause a permanent harm to them and have cognitive effects.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
And how broad of an implementation does he think it is?
Is it something that the military is already doing to
our adversaries in active combat area or is it also
within like spy organizations, where they're doing it for critical
or not even critical, for missions for whatever agenda they're
(36:09):
trying to get across and across the world, not just
our government but other governments.
Speaker 6 (36:15):
Well, I don't have any information about that. We can
only speculate obviously, I mean.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
I don't either.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
I'm asking you because I don't know either.
Speaker 3 (36:24):
But if I was going to speculate, I would think
that's pretty widespread and it's being used where ever they
think that they can further their agenda.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
That's my assessment. But what do you think.
Speaker 6 (36:37):
I don't know whether the US government is using that technology.
I think that they have been targeted by Russia and China.
I think there is some good evidence in the case
that Russia has been responsible at least for a couple
of those have Anna syndrome cases. And I think China
(36:58):
is also very actually to attack US government personnel. So
there have been also cases in China and cases with
a China connection. And and I don't know whether the
US government is using it offensively against adversaries.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
We'd like to think that our government is more has
higher ethical standards.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Historically they really haven't if you look at it compared
to you know, mk Ultra and the syphilis program they ran.
But you know, a China has been caught doing involved
the government of China doing organ harvesting. Right, if a
government has let organ harvesting go on in mass which
(37:47):
there's evidence of that, there would be no ethical line,
and this is not that far. I mean, this is
a very easy ethical line for them across because they
already went blue past it for when they were doing
organ harvesting.
Speaker 5 (38:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (38:02):
Absolutely, I don't think that China or the Chinese government
would have a problem with respect to using that technology
offensively and covertly. And I think that the same applies
to Russia, sadly. So in Russia they have also a
history of an ethical experimentation and they are also likely
(38:28):
to use that offensively and correctly.
Speaker 3 (38:32):
So and if there's any rogue organizations within our government
who are involved in human trafficking or origan trafficking or
anything like that, who also happen to have access to
this technology, they already will blew past the red line
of ethics, so, you know, and that's what we don't know.
Speaker 5 (38:51):
Yeah, I mean it's very highly.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
Yeah, but that's the reality of the situation, right.
Speaker 5 (39:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (39:01):
I think that there are some better checks and balances
in the United States compared to other countries. I mean,
I've heard really bad things happening in Germany with respect
to that technology. I mean, you've heard about the candidates
dying out of the election, and there's the allegation that
(39:26):
the German government may be using directed energy for harming people,
torturing people, and killing people. So there could be even
Western countries where it's much worse compared to the United States.
Speaker 2 (39:46):
What do you think is necessary?
Speaker 3 (39:49):
Maybe you haven't thought about this yet, but what do
you think is necessary from a civilian protection standpoint? We
need our government employees, our military needs protection, and so
do especially the civilians who have been targeted.
Speaker 2 (40:03):
What do you think needs to be done?
Speaker 5 (40:06):
Well?
Speaker 6 (40:07):
The first thing is people need to be aware of
the danger. So they need to understand that there is
this technology and people can get harmed and doing that,
and it can be covert, it can be deniable, and
they need to understand the least part of the technology
(40:29):
involved and that may be an opportunity to protect yourself.
At the moment, the government isn't doing much in terms
of protecting civilians. I mean that seems to be sad reality.
And yeah, what we can try to do is just
to uncover more about the technology itself.
Speaker 5 (40:52):
And the more we.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
Can uncover, the more people are aware, the more there's
an urgency to come up with tools to protect innocent individuals.
Speaker 6 (41:02):
Yeah, I mean the free market might provide some solutions.
I mean, there are companies that are offering especial equipment
and materials and things for people to protect themselves against
directed energy attacks. I mean, there seems to be already
a market for that.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
There is a market for that.
Speaker 3 (41:24):
I would like the military, if they have this technology,
to somewhat quietly leak every single thing they possibly can
to some of those companies so that they can, if
they know how to protect people, figure out how to
leak it to these companies and develop solutions.
Speaker 2 (41:41):
And maybe they already have I don't know.
Speaker 6 (41:44):
Yeah, you can only hope that. I mean, there should
be more pressure on the government in terms of doing
something about it, because the problem is not going to
go away. I don't think that they have aner syndrome.
Cases have stopped. I think that at some point they
(42:05):
have to address it because their own people are getting armed, that's.
Speaker 3 (42:09):
Right, And they can't afford for high level diplomats, and
they can't afford for civilians who are speaking loudly of
it to just go on protected.
Speaker 6 (42:21):
Yeah, I think so. I mean, I'm hopeful that something
is still coming out of the newer investigations into Havana syndrome.
Speaker 5 (42:31):
So there was a.
Speaker 6 (42:34):
Recent House Prominent Select Committee on Intelligence report from December
last year where they were complaining about the lack of
cooperation that they've received from the intelligence community regarding the
release of documents and records about the anomalous health incidents.
(42:56):
And yeah, a recent thing I've heard is that the
director of the DIA got fired because he was mishandling
the investigation into the anomalous health incidents. So perhaps the
Trump administration is trying to do something.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
Well, that's good. I mean, if he was mishandling it,
then that's great. Hopefully there is more pressure. I know
that Telsea Gabbert seems like because she was targeted herself
with the Quiet Skies program, and nothing gets you motivated
more than being personally targeted.
Speaker 6 (43:33):
Yeah, I mean there are also members in Congress who
have taken an interest in that. So there was a
Homeland Security Subcommittee hearing in twenty twenty four where they
had some high level witnesses. So that was Greg ed Green,
(43:54):
who was in charge of the investigation in the DIA
on the announces health incidents. And then there was Crystal
Grossev who was the journalist who conducted the investigation into
the connection with gru Unit two nine one, five five,
(44:14):
And then there was Mark said he is a national
security lawyer who has represented several victims of Havana syndrome,
and they gave very interesting testimonies that you can find
on the internet, and their conclusion was that there are
at least sixty eight credible cases altogether, and they've recorded
(44:38):
over fifteen hundred cases, but at least sixty eight there
there's apparently very good evidence that people have been targeted
and harmed. And they also spoke about the device that
could cause the Havana syndrome, and Crystal grossev was said
(45:00):
that he has seen an earlier version of the weapon
from nineteen ninety one and that it was not very big,
so smaller than a backpack, so it could be used
from a car and it would have at least a
range of tens of meters or hundreds of meters.
Speaker 3 (45:20):
And it'll be interesting as this comes out and more
people are aware of it, and hopefully it'll bring more
whistle blowlers out to say about what other kinds of
weapons are actually ready to go from affecting our emotions
to all sorts of other applications that are being used.
Speaker 6 (45:46):
Yes, I mean there have been whistle blowers. I mean
there have been lots of leaks. The problem with the
leaks is just they tend to be anonymous, and then
it's very hard to confirm, and often there is no
documentary evidence behind it, because even if you work in
the intelligence community, you can't really take any documents it
(46:10):
can classified documents and give them to the public, So
that would be a major crime. So they can only
leak a little bit of information here and there, and
then we have to piece it together.
Speaker 3 (46:25):
Do we think that Okay, the fact that and I
understand from one perspective, but we almost need to deconstruct
the fact that it's a crime to be transparent, and
that the whole notion of making everything classified also allows
criminal activity to absolutely flourish within our government.
Speaker 2 (46:47):
And so the.
Speaker 3 (46:48):
Laws themselves are made to protect criminals if they exist
in that community. And so we have an issue of
a structural issue, a flaw with just how that is established.
The fact that it's illegal to even talk about activities
that could be highly illegal is a flaw.
Speaker 6 (47:11):
Well, the intelligence community will tell you that they have
to protect sources and methods that all their work couldn't
and that they couldn't operate without that amount of secrecy,
and that secrecy serves a clear purpose.
Speaker 3 (47:29):
It also serves a clear purpose of covering up government crime.
Speaker 5 (47:33):
And so.
Speaker 2 (47:35):
You know, what do you think of that?
Speaker 6 (47:40):
Well, I think that in the area of in the
realm of national security, you need to have a certain
degree of secrecy because it relates to vulnerability and it
relates to your ability to collect on others. And yeah,
I understand that this is a problem for themocratic accountability.
(48:02):
And the way we tried to solve this dilemma is
by way of intelligence oversight. So we have the intelligence
overside committees in Congress that are supposed to look into
potential abuses by the intelligence community. The flaw in this
system is that the intelligence community can just refuse to
(48:24):
provide complete and accurate information to Congress, and Congress has
no ability to really check whether they've received everything and
whether it's accurate what they've received. And yeah, we've seen
that with the NSA surveillance debate. In the end, it
(48:44):
looks like the intelligence community violated our constitutional rights and
got away with it.
Speaker 3 (48:51):
Well, it's kind of like the call me thing there's
a whole room of additional FBI files that they found
that we're that weren't disclosed.
Speaker 2 (49:02):
So the it's just this continual.
Speaker 3 (49:05):
Thing where Congress is not able to do proper oversight
because they don't allow those documents forward.
Speaker 2 (49:14):
So is what I'm talking about.
Speaker 3 (49:17):
I understand the national security because we're not We can't
be so naive that we aren't dealing with enemies such
as China or Russia or even criminal cartels whatever it
is that will harm us, right.
Speaker 2 (49:30):
So they have to be smart.
Speaker 3 (49:31):
But the same standpoint, if they aren't able to have
proper oversight, then the criminals can flourish with inside those organizations.
Speaker 2 (49:40):
And there's evidence that they have.
Speaker 5 (49:43):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 6 (49:45):
I mean originally, when the intelligence community was founded in
nineteen forty seven, it was fairly small, and it was
easier to have some oversight over them or to to
keep track of what they were doing because it was
still relatively small. But now it has gotten so big,
(50:06):
and government secrecy has gotten so enormous that nobody knows
all the secrets. I mean, it's a huge problem for
the government itself to keep track of its own secrets.
Speaker 2 (50:19):
It's just this mess isn't it.
Speaker 5 (50:22):
Yeah, And.
Speaker 6 (50:25):
There's only a very small number of people who have
access a high level access to information and yeah, and
most people in the government they just are not read
into those secrets.
Speaker 3 (50:41):
Well, and the problem is when there's only a small
number of people that even have access to it, we
are dependent on those people even being ethical individuals and
not criminals themselves.
Speaker 5 (50:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (50:52):
What kind of process do we go through to make
sure those people are even ethical?
Speaker 6 (51:00):
Yeah, that's a huge problem. I mean, that's why we
are talking about the deep state. So that is the
assumed network of mid level to high level intelligence officials
and national security officials who have access to the secrets
and who can determine national security policy and who can
(51:22):
and well, who are in a position to sabotage the
elected government or simply not respond to the directions of
the elected government.
Speaker 5 (51:34):
And we've seen that.
Speaker 3 (51:36):
What do you think about the deep state being spun
from a political.
Speaker 2 (51:39):
Standpoint to just mean the Democrats.
Speaker 3 (51:41):
I think that is a mistake by some political operatives
to spin it to just mean deep state equals Democrats
versus deep state equals deep state, like what you're.
Speaker 6 (51:53):
Talking about, Well, there is a very good book by
Michael Glennon. He is a political scientists I think a
Tought university. He wrote a book The Double Government from
twenty fourteen and he claims that there is the Medicinian government,
the elected government, and then there's the so called hidden
(52:16):
government or the Trumanite network. So that was penally established
early in the Cold War, and that is a network
of those mid level to senior national security officials who
share the same ideology and they are sharing the same experiences,
(52:38):
and they believe that in the name of national security,
they have special rights to do whatever it takes to
protect the United States. So they are not bound by
the law, and they are very influential and they can
oppose presidents because they the power.
Speaker 5 (53:00):
Well, they have careers that are very long.
Speaker 6 (53:02):
So if you look at people like John Brannan or
Michael Hayden or James Clapper, they've been in there for
decades in senior positions, right, so they have access as
they've had access to a lot of secrets, and that.
Speaker 3 (53:21):
Gives and the president going in for four years or
even eight years, they they have more power than them,
or they ride them out for a certain amount of time,
or they right, I mean, how do they override them.
Speaker 2 (53:35):
Do they override them through just bureaucratic means.
Speaker 6 (53:41):
Yeah, I mean as bioucratic resistance. I mean, you can
simply delay implementation of decisions. That's the easiest way you
can ignore.
Speaker 5 (53:51):
You can.
Speaker 6 (53:54):
Shape the information that the senior decision makers, the elected
government receives. I mean, we've had the stories of people
stealing documents from Trump's desk because they didn't want him
to see that information. I mean, if you are a president,
you have no ability to read or process all the
(54:18):
information that you theoretically access to, and they can give
you only certain pieces of information and leave out a
major part of that, and there's no ability to check
really well.
Speaker 3 (54:33):
And if you it's like anything else, if you go
on you run an organization and the majority of the
people under you don't want to follow you, and they
won't follow you, and they have their own agendas, that's
extremely difficult. That's why executives come in and they get
rid of the entire you know, managing organization and bring
in their own people for that very same reason.
Speaker 6 (54:56):
Yeah, but you can't really do that national security because
it's very disruptive. It's very hard to replace people. I
mean if you have a career national security spanning several decades,
you represent a body of knowledge and expertise that is
very hard to replace.
Speaker 2 (55:14):
It doesn't work that way, right, So that.
Speaker 6 (55:18):
Makes it difficult to simplifire everybody because if you do that,
then the organization also becomes dysfunctional.
Speaker 3 (55:25):
Well, but they do fire if they do that with
their own cabinet and everything else. So the philosophy was that,
but it's morphed than something so much larger and something
so much deeper that essentially it doesn't matter.
Speaker 5 (55:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (55:40):
So, I mean the deep siate goes into the mid
level of the bureaucracies as well. So even if you
fire people at the top, the people under them will
get into the top position and they will follow the
same agenda.
Speaker 5 (55:56):
So you're not really improving the situation here.
Speaker 2 (55:59):
Yeah, that's exactly what's going on.
Speaker 3 (56:01):
And when the president comes in, they are they I
don't know if you know or not, but some people
tell me that when they come in that they're kind
of read the rules and that essentially this is the
way it is, and you're going to have to listen
to what there truly are people with more power than
the president.
Speaker 6 (56:21):
Yeah, that's very luckily. I mean, it seems that the
president is so powerful, but in reality there are huge
limitations on presidential power. I mean, it's the office of
the president that's powerful, but the person is not really
the office. So the person can be replaced, will be
(56:44):
replaced after four or eight years, but the office remains.
And it comes down to access to power. It comes
down to access to information, and it comes down to
having so support from the bureaucracy, and if that's lacking,
(57:04):
then the president can't do that much.
Speaker 3 (57:07):
Gosh, that would be so frustrating for somebody who wants
to make a difference. I think it would be extremely frustrating. Right,
you want to make a difference and you have this
wall that's in front of you. You can't do anything
because they have more money or there's so many different
ways that those that people can be influenced to do
(57:30):
the bidding of others.
Speaker 5 (57:33):
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2 (57:37):
Right.
Speaker 3 (57:38):
Okay, So you have multiple books out on different topics.
Can you talk about where people can find your books?
I know a lot of them are for academic reading,
but what do you have and where can people learn
more about your work?
Speaker 5 (57:53):
My life?
Speaker 6 (57:55):
I've written seven books, so I'm working on an eighth book,
and I've written a book on autonomous weapons, so that
was from two thousand and nine, got reprinted in twenty
sixteen and it seems to be still popular. And I've
written a book on military neuroscience and that's from twenty seventeen.
(58:20):
And more recently, I wrote on fift generation warfare. And
the last book was on Havana syndrome and it's available
on Amazon.
Speaker 2 (58:32):
Thank you so much. I'm going to have you.
Speaker 3 (58:35):
I know I'm going to have you back because I've
had you back many times, and thank you so much.
And I hope you have a great holiday season with
your family and Thanksgiving, which is coming up. I don't know.
This will probably air after Thanksgiving, but thank you so much, Arman,
and thank you for everything you're doing to inform the
public on the realities of just what it is that
(58:57):
we're dealing with.
Speaker 6 (58:59):
Thank you so much for I think it has been
a pleasure to be on your show, and I wish
you a happy Thanksgiving too.
Speaker 1 (59:23):
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you.
Speaker 2 (59:33):
Have the app?
Speaker 1 (59:35):
It's the best way to listen to the Fringe Radio network.
It's safe and you don't have to log in to
use it, and it doesn't track you or trace you,
and it sounds beautiful. I know, I was gonna tell him, how.
Speaker 2 (59:49):
Do you get the app?
Speaker 1 (59:50):
Just go to Fringe radionetwork dot com right at the
top of the page. I know, slippers, we got to
keep cleaning these chimneys.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.