1. After you visited your son yesterday, you received a message on your phone which conveyed that you could "kneel or die." Where do you think that message originated from?
Answer: I'm assuming it originated with Brandan Pesa, Tom Lyons, and President Biden, the three people who are allegedly the most directly implicated by materials due to me in my FOIA report.
2. These men certainly appear to have the power to mete out life and death decisions toward the American public and they appear to be comfortable in that territory.
Answer: I agree.
3. So what is your response when powerful people within the nation's de facto or official governance tell you to "kneel or die"?
Answer: Truthfully, I don't believe in public profanity. But my first response, metaphorically, would be to tell these gentlemen to take a long walk and clear their minds.
4. Without going into any of the details at all, does it seem as though the deployment you documented for others yesterday can be utilized to cause brain damage?
Answer: No question. And I suspect it can be utilized to cause heart attack, kidney failure, and the failure of myriad other organs in the body as well.
5. So when Brandan Pesa, Tom Lyons and President Biden appear to tell you to "kneel or die," they are probably sincere.
Answer: I have no doubt about their sincerity when threatening the lives of their superiors in character and integrity. I'm sure they do it all the time.
6. Do you have other thoughts about the command to "kneel or die"?
Answer: I think it's an interesting approach, because, theologically, even God does not tell us to "kneel or die." For those who possess a faith of any kind, they know that free will is central to our decision between kindness and malevolence, virtue and predation, goodwill and malice. God doesn't force us to choose the precepts of a faith. He allows us to discover our path for ourselves. And there's a reason for that allowance. In the absence of free will, faith has no meaning at all.
Totalitarians are always going to shout "kneel or die," because they feel extremely threatened by any questioning of their power over others.
But totalitarians are not God. And with certain crimes against innocents, they demonstrate conscious and determined malevolence.
So we may need to recognize that men who demand the deference we would ordinarily extend to God may possibly have terrible motives.
7. They don't hope for our well-being.
Answer: Totalitarians generally seek control through harming, which is a fundamentally psychopathic drive. So, no, they don't hope for our well-being.
8. When you visited your son yesterday, you were told that thirty police cars were waiting somewhere in Portola Valley, ready to intercept you under certain circumstances. What were those circumstances?
Answer: I'm assuming those circumstances involved public disclosure of some of the activities of the DoD, which I was not about to make, and which others would not have made unless I was egregiously harmed.
9. The FBI alleges that the DoD managed to coerce false statements from your older son during the afternoon even though you possess full documentation of his acknowledgement that neither you nor your husband has ever been involved in "espionage," "terrorism," capital crimes, "trafficking," "soliciting," or child abuse.
Answer: I do possess that full documentation.
10. What is your response to the DoD's rushed coercion of your son given their removal of his sovereign will?
Answer: It's highly illegal, and anything my son signed would be completely invalid in any court of law.
11. Were those false statements intended to justify an attempt to take your life?
Answer: I believe they likely were. I received specific threats of an unjustified law enforcement raid overnight, and I'm sure those invalid statements were being utilized to trespass and threaten us further.
12. What is your conclusion about the most pressing concerns for the men involved?
Answer: Honestly, I think this is about the fact that Brandan Pesa wants his Presidential pardon for having murdered the four innocent college students in Moscow, Idaho. After that, I think President Biden is quite intent that his a priori approval of that crime should not become broadly public knowledge.
13. So these men appear to be highly intent on getting away with the murder of innocents.
Answer: Yes, they do. Otherwise, I'm sure I would have received contact from an attorney through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 by now.
14. And your sons and MX?
Answer: We're all being treated like pawns that can be sacrificed to the objectives of the powerful, and I think that idea is appalling.
15. You have been standing up for the human rights of Americans over the long term, and, in fact, the human rights of all people over the long term. Should your government be attempting to reward your courage with schemes of profiteering from first-degree murder?
Answer: I don't think it should.
16. What is your perspective on the Moscow, Idaho murders on November 13, 2024?
Answer: If the government wants me to be quiet about the guilty parties concerning that tragedy, then my concern for the families of the victims, including the family of the accused, should be discussed through an attorney. Otherwise, no one is demonstrating remorse or accountability on any level. And that is not acceptable to me.
17. Even though these murders were connected to a secret government program?
Answer: Historically, many murders have been connected to secret government programs. A successful civilian society depends upon individual human beings insisting on ethical and benevolent conduct from their government. And I think that if we give up that requirement at this juncture, we may not ever recover it.
18. What are the implications of the DoD possessing several tools that enable the military to co-opt the individual human will?
Answer: Tremendous.
19. Why?
Answer: How difficult would it be for the DoD to silence an ethical whistleblower by co-opting her free will? How difficult would it be for the DoD to co-opt the ethical leader of a foreign nation or our own nation, for that matter?
20. What about the argument that these modalities may be useful for co-opting the sovereign will of dangerous leaders?
Answer: This is no doubt the argument the DoD is making at this time. But clearly the modalities are being misapplied against the public at large. It's not as though the DoD possesses these extremely powerful tools that are being held in reserve for our encounter with an unbalanced despot. Instead, the DoD wants to use these tools against millions or billions of people.
21. What are the implications if they succeed in that endeavor?
Answer: The implications are that we would have a highly stratified human society, with many people who are functionally enslaved at the bottom of that pyramid. These people would believe they were making decisions for themselves, but their will would in fact be entirely co-opted. So we would see all manner of predation against these people. They would be trafficked, without question. They would be experimented upon without question. And they would not live particularly long lives. After that would be a mezzanine layer of people with certain privileges owing to their role within the totalitarian state. These people would be entitled to good health, careers of their choosing, advanced educational access, and moderately longer lives. At the top would be a ruling political class of a few hundred to a few thousand people. These individuals would enjoy immense privileges, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, sovereign will, robust health, burgeoning careers, extremely long lives, and extensive control over life and death decisions toward those who were lower in the societal hierarchy.
22. Is this a science fiction scenario?
Answer: Not at all. We're well on our way to this societal structure. The public simply doesn't know it.
23. What is a better alternative?
Answer: The best societal structure would share advances across the spectrum of political, economic, racial, ethnic, religious and personal preferences. We might have a lower population overall, but every person would be highly valued and enabled to develop to his or her full potential. Diversity would be celebrated, not persecuted. And the best of our human characteristics -- discovery, innovation, artistic expression, deep bonds to one another, faith, epiphany, intellectual and spiritual growth -- would be greatly heightened. Each person would be seen as a rather miraculous gift with unlimited potential, and we would be consistently amazed by our new heights of achievement, knowledge, connection, compassion, communication, spiritual capacity, and learning.
24. There would not be an enslaved class with a more democratic structure for society?
Answer: No, this would be expressly prohibited by the Constitution, a living document which would continue to grow as we ourselves grew in capability and gifts.
25. What will determine the nature of the human society we ultimately create?
Answer: The decisions we're making now. The Supreme Court's determination on these issues is enormously important. And while the DoD would prefer that the Court defer to a covert war footing, I believe the Supreme Court needs to contemplate the longterm future of humankind in assessing these issues.
Martial law represents its own realm.
But the Supreme Court is making decisions that pertain to civilian governance, and these decisions will become yet more important over time.
26. You believe that the Supreme Court's decisions pertaining to the primacy of sovereign will are central to the architecture of future human society.
Answer: I do, yes. These decisions will become the landmark opinions that determine how we live in the future, whether in a state of autocracy and suffering or democracy and renaissance. The contrast is that stark.
27. Do you wish that you had contact with your attorneys so that you could better express these critical inflection points regarding the Supreme Court's rulings?
Answer: Oh, yes. My deprivation of open representation represents a profound handicap that limits my ability to communicate all that is at stake for us as human beings. Without open communication with an attorney, it's impossible for me to know what the most critical issues are at any moment in time. I'm too busy fighting for my life and the lives of my family members.
28. That has been a daily struggle, hasn't it?
Answer: Yes, and it continues to be. No one should be experiencing that type of predation while trying to advocate for the freedoms of all.
29. Your family members should be separated from all demands for false reporting from the government. Is that correct?
Answer: One thousand times over. Yes. That is correct.
30. Can the Supreme Court halt this endless cycle of false reporting?
Answer: Brandan Pesa, President Biden and Tom Lyons would need to agree to halt it. That's why I'm exposing them daily in the hope they'll have an incentive to engage constructively with the country's future, not destructively, which appears to be their default.
31. Can they be allowed to understand what is at stake for everyone? And are they capable of caring about it?
Answer: If a lawyer is allowed to reach out to me in compliance with FRCP 23, then we'll know they care about the nation as a whole.
32. In the absence of that?
Answer: In the absence of that, they're dreaming of their Bitcoin accounts and nothing more.
33. Thank you for speaking with us today about these astonishing challenges.
Answer: You are quite welcome.
Lane MacWilliams
P.S. -- Please allow me to once again extend the disclaimer that some threats received by me and extended by the FBI are unsubstantiated by me at this time. I regret that I am unable to assess the credibility of every threat extended by this agency or its affiliates, and also that I am not in a position to judge the likelihood of manifestation. Having said that, many of the FBI's threats toward my family in the past have manifested in real-world harms. As a result, I believe that FBI threats extended to me must be viewed as potentially substantive.
No comments:
Post a Comment