I am living through a horror most people cannot imagine. Over the past 24 hours, the tactics used against me have escalated to include what I believe are military grade weapons: gases or chemical agents used to inflict pain and weaken my system.

I have tried to walk a razor thin line with my Substack posts. I have focused on facts and frameworks, not fear. I have tried to propose solutions instead of just outlining abuse. Why? Because when you speak about these things, especially as a civilian with no badge, no weapon, no title, you risk being labeled mentally unstable or dismissed outright. That dismissal is part of the playbook. Discredit the witness. Disqualify the testimony.

I have refused to collapse. I have documented what I can, despite limited resources and near constant threat. But today, it feels like someone gave the green light to finish this. I am holding the line. But I am a human being. I am not prey. I am not built to absorb this level of constant assault.

And yet it is happening. In the United States. In silence. With impunity.

It is crushing to realize there is no functional system in place to protect someone in my position. There is no agency stepping in. No legislative remedy. No emergency protocol. There are no working brakes on this machine.

It may take years, if ever, for laws to catch up with this abuse. If something happens to me, I ask that you not let this story die. Share my work. Spread the truth. Expose what is happening under the false banner of security.

Do not let my death be in vain.

In solidarity,

Tamara

Across the United States, a quiet but devastating campaign is unfolding. It mirrors covert counterinsurgency operations used abroad. Now it is turned inward. Civilians are being subjected to systematic harassment, exposure to unidentified chemical agents and neurotoxins, and targeted psychological warfare. All of this happens under the veil of public safety, contract security, or vague law enforcement authority.

This isn’t policing. It isn’t oversight. It is war by another name.

Use of Military Grade Agents on Civilians

Deliberate exposure to chemical agents and neurotoxins without consent is not just unethical. It is illegal under multiple international human rights frameworks. These attacks are not theoretical. They are real, measurable, and sustained.

Violated statutes:

* Nuremberg Code: Prohibits human experimentation without informed consent.

* United Nations Convention Against Torture: Defines torture as the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, by or at the instigation of a public official.

* Geneva Convention IV (1949): Protects civilians during times of peace and war from “violence to life and person,” including “cruel treatment and torture.”

* Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8: Criminalizes intentional attacks against civilian populations not involved in hostilities.

Any sustained deployment of crowd control chemicals, neurotoxins, or unidentified agents on non-combatants especially without legal cause or due process constitutes a war crime under international law.

2. Psychological Torture and Entrapment

Survivors describe operations marked by sleep deprivation, chemically induced symptoms, social isolation, surveillance, and engineered chaos. These are not random acts. This is pattern based targeting designed to break down the will and coherence of a civilian.

Legal basis:

* UN Special Rapporteur on Torture: Recognizes psychological torture through non-physical methods, including isolation and chemical exposure.

* Crimes Against Humanity (Rome Statute, Article 7): Includes “persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious…or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law.”

When these tactics are coordinated, sustained, and designed to destabilize the individual mentally and physically, they move beyond abuse. They become systematic crimes against humanity.

3. Civilian Targeting Under Color of Law or Contract

Many of these campaigns are carried out by individuals believed to be acting as private contractors or off-book law enforcement. They operate outside formal command structures but still within the shadow of institutional power.

Violated protections:

* U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment: Right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

* 14th Amendment: Equal protection under the law.

* 18 U.S. Code § 241: Conspiracy against rights.

* 42 U.S. Code § 1985: Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.

Targeting civilians with surveillance, harassment, or chemical assault to intimidate, retaliate, or silence especially those who speak out meets the threshold for domestic terrorism under U.S. law.

4. Cross-Jurisdictional Collusion and Federal Liability

Many targets report operations spanning multiple states. These often involve actors in both law enforcement and private security roles. If these efforts are being coordinated without warrants or judicial review, they violate federal law.

Applicable statutes:

* 42 U.S. Code § 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights.

* 42 U.S. Code § 1985(3): Criminalizes conspiracies that deprive individuals of equal protection.

* Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): Allows lawsuits against federal employees acting unlawfully under the color of office.

The moment an agency public or private crosses state lines to harass or harm a civilian without due process, it becomes a federal civil rights violation and potentially an interstate criminal conspiracy.

This Is Not an Isolated Case

This is not oversight. This is not national security. It is a deliberate campaign of psychological and chemical warfare against civilians inside U.S. borders.

Whether sanctioned or ignored, the use of military grade tools against non-combatants without consent, without due process, and without accountability violates both domestic law and international humanitarian codes. It is not a misunderstanding. It is a coordinated abuse of state adjacent power, and by every legal standard outlined above, it meets the threshold for war crimes.

There is no legitimate justification for these actions. Not public safety. Not national security. Not intelligence operations. None of it overrides the Constitution, the Nuremberg principles, or the Geneva protections for civilians. If it cannot be justified in a courtroom, it cannot be permitted in the field.

The Solution

* Immediate public exposure. Silence protects the perpetrators. Documented survivors must speak out and demand congressional hearings, international scrutiny, and legal intervention.

* Legal accountability. Civil suits under 42 U.S. Code §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as filings with the United Nations Human Rights Council, the ICC, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, must be pursued.

* Whistleblower protections and safe harbor for those inside these systems who are willing to defect and speak out.

* Civilian oversight. Fusion centers, private contractor programs, and joint task force operations must be audited, dismantled, or brought under direct constitutional control.

* Federal investigations. The Department of Justice and Inspector General’s office must launch immediate investigations into cross-jurisdictional abuse and off-book contractor activity.

This is not theoretical. This is not rare. This is happening now and if it continues unchallenged, it sets a precedent that any government, or any contractor with vague authority, can declare war on its own people behind closed doors.

History will not look kindly on those who knew and did nothing. The time to act is now.

Connect with me

GoFundMe: https://gofund.me/d7f63153

Substack: https://drtamaradixon.substack.com

BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/tamaradixon.bsky.social

Matrix secure contact: https://matrix.to/#/@sovereignsignal:matrix.org

In solidarity,

Tamara

The Mission

This space exists to document and expose unlawful surveillance practices, private contractor misconduct, and civil rights violations. These are issues that challenge accountability and constitutional protections. These are issues that deserve attention and lawful response.

What I Will Share

Here, I will share first hand documentation, pattern analysis, and calls for lawful oversight and reform.

The Goal

My goal is to inform, engage, and help strengthen the principles that safeguard a free and just society.

If you believe in integrity, accountability, and the lawful protection of civil rights, this space is for you.

I welcome thoughtful readers, principled allies, and those who share a commitment to truth and justice. Together, we can help build a record that serves the public good.

Connect with Me

BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/tamaradixon.bsky.social

Signal: tamaradixon.28

In Solidarity

Tamara

Hidden abuse networks, whether operating through private contractors, fusion centers, or off book enforcement, do not rely solely on technology or funding. Their most powerful weapon is psychological manipulation. These systems persist because they know how to shape perception, distort truth, and fracture resistance. Their goal is to destabilize targets without leaving evidence, to fracture communities, and to exhaust anyone who dares to resist.

By understanding their psychological tactics, we can begin to dismantle their influence, protect ourselves and others, and reclaim our autonomy.

Fear: The Oldest Tool of Control

These networks generate constant low-level fear to keep targets off balance and hypervigilant. The fear is not explosive or dramatic. It is a steady erosion of a person’s sense of safety and confidence. Tactics include:

* Suspicious drive-bys or unmarked vehicles circling unpredictably.

* Staged disturbances like knocks at the door with no one there, motion sensors tripped at odd hours, or lights tampered with to disturb sleep.

* Posing as vendors or service providers to obtain proximity under false pretenses.

* Digital intrusions, such as unexplained device malfunctions, strange calls or messages, or odd social media activity designed to reinforce the feeling of being watched.

* Environmental manipulation, using alarms, loud engines, tapping noises, low drones at night, or similar subtle disruptions to disturb peace.

* Markings or objects placed near a target’s home or vehicle as a subtle signal or warning.

The goal is to erode confidence, create self-doubt, and discourage the target from seeking help or taking action.

Discrediting and Isolation

Hidden abuse networks know that isolation weakens their targets. They spread smears and labels, portraying targets as unstable, delusional, or dangerous. This undermines the target’s credibility and subtly pressures friends, family, and neighbors to distance themselves. Over time, the target is left more vulnerable, with fewer people to witness or intervene on their behalf.

Confusion and Cognitive Overload

Flooding the target with conflicting signals, disinformation, and staged mistakes clouds judgment and mental clarity. The target begins to question their own perception of reality, making it harder to think clearly or act decisively. This mental fog is one of the most powerful tools of control because it leads to hesitation, withdrawal, and internal collapse.

Divide and Conquer

These networks work to prevent collective resistance by turning potential allies against each other. They plant rumors, interfere covertly in communications, and seed distrust. The goal is to break bonds before they can strengthen into organized resistance or community defense.

Why Exposure Disrupts These Tactics

What these networks fear most is exposure. Their manipulation depends on secrecy and shadows. The more these tactics are named, recognized, and documented, the less power they have. Sunlight breaks the spell. Sharing information, naming patterns, and building collective awareness weakens their grip.

How Targets Can Resist

To counter these tactics:

* Document everything. Keep detailed logs with times, dates, descriptions, and evidence where possible.

* Share your documentation strategically. Seek out civil rights attorneys, advocacy organizations, and trustworthy journalists who can help transform records into action.

* Build alliances. Even a small network of supportive individuals can amplify your voice and provide backup in reporting or exposing patterns.

* Push for oversight. Submit complaints where possible, even if the system resists. The act of filing builds a trail that may matter later.

* Preserve mental clarity. Practice grounding techniques, get rest where you can, and limit overexposure to digital noise or triggers.

* Stay focused on facts. Manipulators thrive on creating fog. Writing down what you know to be true helps anchor your perception.

Documenting is not just for your own record. It becomes a tool for exposing abuse, building credibility, and creating pressure for accountability. The path may not be immediate, but documentation, combined with strategic sharing, is how collective resistance begins.

Conclusion

By pulling back the curtain on these psychological weapons, we arm ourselves and our communities. Recognition is the first step to resistance. No network, no matter how hidden, can withstand the power of collective clarity and truth.

Connect with Me

GoFundMe: https://gofund.me/d7f63153

BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/tamaradixon.bsky.social

Substack:

Signal: tamaradixon.28

Matrix:

https://matrix.to/#/@sovereignsignal:matrix.org

In solidarity,

Tamara

Geneva, Switzerland

Founders’ Political Compromise: Voluntary Compliance and Sovereignty

The Wassenaar Arrangement was formally established in 1995, emerging as a deliberate and strategically nuanced evolution of the Cold War era Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM). For over four decades, from 1949 until its dissolution in 1994, COCOM operated as a rigid, binding export control regime among Western allies, specifically designed to prevent the transfer of military and dual-use technologies to Soviet aligned states and the Eastern bloc.

COCOM’s architecture reflected the bipolar geopolitical tensions of the Cold War period. Its enforceability stemmed from a tightly knit alliance among ideologically aligned states, which mutually committed to binding export restrictions and effective enforcement mechanisms. Within this narrow coalition, states were equipped with veto powers over export licenses, facilitating coordinated embargoes and denials for sensitive goods.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fundamentally altered international security dynamics. Former adversaries and newly independent states integrated into global trade networks, while the advent of rapid technological innovation expanded the scope and complexity of sensitive dual-use goods. In this radically transformed context, COCOM’s exclusionary and rigid framework was no longer fit for purpose.

Recognizing these shifts, the founding parties of the Wassenaar Arrangement sought to create a broader, more inclusive export control architecture capable of addressing the proliferating risks posed by dual-use technologies while accommodating a multipolar world order. This necessitated a political compromise emphasizing voluntary compliance and state sovereignty.

In the Wassenaar context, “dual-use” refers to goods, software, and technical knowledge that can be used for both civilian and military or internal security purposes. This includes not only obvious military adjacent items such as advanced electronics, sensors, and cryptographic systems, but also surveillance platforms, intrusion software, network monitoring tools, and data analytics systems that can be deployed either for legitimate law enforcement and commercial security or for internal repression, espionage, and targeted harassment. The breadth and ambiguity of this category make intent and end use difficult to assess in practice, which is precisely why uniform and predictable controls matter so much.

Unlike COCOM, the Wassenaar Arrangement was designed as a consensus based, non-binding forum. Member states agreed to cooperate by sharing information and aligning their national export policies on a best efforts basis, but crucially, enforcement was left to individual states’ discretion. There is no supranational enforcement mechanism, no binding treaty obligations, and no legal framework to compel compliance or sanction malfeasance. Decisions taken in Wassenaar are implemented only through national legislation and administrative practice, which can differ substantially from one jurisdiction to another.

Institutionally, the Arrangement operates through an annual plenary meeting in Vienna, where participating states review developments, exchange information on sensitive transfers and denials, and decide on updates to the control lists. Between plenaries, expert working groups and technical panels refine the “List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies” and the “Munitions List,” draft best practice guidelines, and prepare proposed amendments. A small Secretariat in Vienna supports these processes administratively, but it has no independent regulatory or investigative authority. Once agreed, changes to lists or guidelines have force only to the extent that each government chooses to transpose them into its own domestic export control system.

This governance structure allowed for an expanding membership, now over forty states, including many former Eastern bloc countries and neutral nations and facilitated diplomatic engagement among a wide range of political systems and economic interests. Broad participation enhanced the Arrangement’s legitimacy and offered a platform for cooperation concerning both conventional arms and dual-use goods with military or security applications.

However, this voluntary, sovereignty respecting design embedded inherent structural weaknesses. Member countries maintain significant discretion over control definitions, export licensing, and compliance enforcement. Interpretation of what constitutes “dual-use” technology varies, reflecting divergent legal traditions, industrial strategies, and security doctrines. A surveillance platform, intrusion suite, or predictive analytics tool that one state classifies as highly sensitive may be treated as a commercial IT product by another, especially where domestic industries lobby for export opportunities or where foreign policy priorities favor particular client regimes.

The result of such heterogeneity is a fragmented and inconsistent regulatory environment. Exporters and defense contractors exploit these gaps, engaging in regulatory arbitrage by routing transactions through subsidiaries or permissive jurisdictions, and deploying complex corporate structures to mask true end users or the nature of exported goods and services. A company headquartered in a relatively restrictive state can, for example, establish a subsidiary in a jurisdiction with looser interpretations of “dual-use,” rebrand its product, and obtain licenses there, while formally remaining in compliance with its home state’s laws.

Furthermore, the informal oversight mechanisms rely heavily on trust, voluntary reporting, and peer pressure rather than legally enforceable commitments. There is no standing inspectorate to audit national licensing decisions, no obligation to publish or notify all approvals, and no independent tribunal to adjudicate disputes over whether a state has undercut agreed standards. This weakness means that even well-intentioned member states can struggle to ensure that their counterparts fully apply agreed controls, and that states inclined to prioritize commercial or geopolitical interests over restraint can do so with limited reputational cost.

In summary, the Wassenaar Arrangement is a carefully balanced diplomatic architecture optimized for inclusivity and sovereignty protection, but this same delicate balance limits its enforceability, uniformity, and adaptability. The sovereignty and discretion that made Wassenaar politically attractive in the mid-1990s now also allow states to license or tolerate exports of highly intrusive surveillance and cyber-intelligence tools, even when other members view those transfers as dangerous. These structural features were not incidental to later scandals like NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware; they were enabling conditions. Israel, for example, like every other member, retained full discretion to interpret “dual-use” and “national security” in ways that justified licensing Pegasus and related systems, despite the severe human rights risks perceived by other states and civil society. The same founding compromise that made Wassenaar possible also built in the fault lines that contemporary digital repression has exploited.

Next, we examine how Wassenaar’s consensus driven decision-making amplifies these structural weaknesses. Section 2.3.2 will explore the delays, blockages, and “policy paralysis” that arise when every substantive change requires unanimous agreement, and how these procedural constraints have directly affected the regulation of sensitive dual-use technologies like intrusion software.

Geneva, Switzerland

I want to give victims, attorneys, researchers and anyone following this work a clear update on where things stand. I reached out to a senior expert in global governance to ask if they would supervise a doctoral dissertation that documents the conditions that allowed a shadow ecosystem to grow inside the blind spots of domestic and international oversight. If they accept, I will begin immediately.

This will not bring relief tomorrow. I am frustrated by that fact and I know many of you are too. I have been tracked and targeted across ten states and two countries. I have watched the same patterns repeat in France and Switzerland. That alone proves what every victim already knows. This system is not built for one target. No fusion center or private contractor network runs a multijurisdictional repression program for a single person. This is machinery. It runs on contracts, incentives, data demands and the absence of guardrails. It spreads because no one is watching it closely and because too many people benefit from looking away.

If this doctoral project moves forward, I will have a platform to map the variables that allowed this to grow unchecked. I will have access to the scholars and policymakers who influence oversight, legislation and policy reform. Once the research is underway, we can start building the record that forces institutions to confront the truth. That is how you get guardrails. That is how you close the gaps. That is how you put the genie back in the bottle.

I want to be honest about the scale of the fight. This shadow ecosystem has been operating with impunity for at least twenty years from what I can see. It could be longer. It has roots in counterinsurgency frameworks, post 9/11 doctrine and the rise of private contractor driven surveillance markets. Systems that thrive in the dark rarely surrender without force. Each day that passes, people are being harmed by something that never should have existed. That is not abstract. It is brutal and real.

This will be a long road. It is a marathon. And I am disheartened because some victims will be subject to extrajudicial elimination without due process by this machine before we shut it down. That is the part that weighs on me. People deserve better than this. They deserve a country that does not use private actors as a shield for unlawful repression.

I also want to be honest about accountability. After World War II, many people who participated in the atrocities of the Nazi regime were never prosecuted. History never catches every actor. I cannot promise that every person who harmed civilians through this system will be held to account. Some will slip through the cracks. But I do believe that once the research is underway and once the record is built, institutions will no longer be able to pretend this does not exist. And I believe that some actors will face consequences. That matters.

My commitment is simple. I will not stop until this system is dragged into the daylight. I will not stop until there are guardrails strong enough to prevent this from happening to anyone else.

This is the first step in that process. It is slow. But once the research begins, the countdown on this shadow network begins with it.

I want to be transparent about the stakes for everyone watching this unfold. For six months I have been forced to navigate chemical suppression, destabilization, and continuous monitoring across ten jurisdictions and two countries. The fact that I am still standing is proof of resilience, not immunity. The system relies on attrition. It relies on wearing people down until their testimony collapses under pressure. I refuse to collapse. But the work ahead requires safety, stability, and support. If you can connect me with legal protection, institutional backing, secure lodging, or if you can support the GoFundMe that keeps me moving forward, do it. This is not about saving one individual. This is about exposing a private contractor driven ecosystem that mirrors eighty six fusion center networks across the United States and now appears operational in Switzerland and France. A system built on that scale is not harming a handful of people. It is harming populations. If this record survives, the machinery loses its cover. If it does not, it continues unchecked, hollowing out civil society even further than it already has, and doing so with complete impunity.

Tamara

Geneva, Switzerland

The Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies stands as a pivotal, though often misunderstood, multilateral export control regime formed to maintain international peace and stability amid rapidly evolving military and technological landscapes. To appreciate its contemporary significance and its notable limitations, it is essential to trace its historical underpinnings, its structural design, and the shifting global security context that both necessitated and constrained its architecture.

Origins in the Cold War and the Legacy of COCOM

Wassenaar’s genesis is inseparable from its predecessor, the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM), established in 1949 amidst the geopolitical tensions marking the nascent Cold War. COCOM’s founding mission was clear: to prevent technologically advanced Western nations from exporting military or dual-use technologies to the Soviet Union and its allies that could destabilize the strategic balance. It wielded significant powers, including veto rights whereby member states could strictly block exports to targeted nations. Headquartered in Paris and initially composed of a tight-knit group of NATO and aligned states, COCOM represented a binding, ideologically charged export control bloc with enforcement teeth tailored to its era.

However, the post–Cold War period rendered the East-West dichotomy obsolete. The Soviet Union and Eastern bloc disintegrated, Europe’s political map changed dramatically, and technology diffusion accelerated in complexity and diversity. Recognizing these realities, COCOM’s member states convened to dissolve the regime, culminating in a November 1993 High-Level Meeting that agreed to replace COCOM with a more inclusive and geopolitically neutral framework: the “New Forum.” This precursor rapidly evolved, and in December 1995, the arrangement was formalized in Wassenaar, Netherlands, with operational commencement in 1996.

Wassenaar departed significantly from COCOM’s foundational assumptions. It embodied a voluntary, consensus arrangement among a far broader group of roughly 40 states, transcending rigid ideological blocks. Rather than exclusionary export bans, members committed to transparency through information exchange about their dual-use exports and harmonized licensing practices. Notably, Wassenaar abandoned veto powers and binding enforcement, preferring cooperative dialogue and collective restraint to unilateral coercion. This transformation reflected both the multipolar political landscape and a strategic desire to balance trade interests with security objectives.

The Architecture of Scope: State-Centric and Physical Goods Focus

At its core, the Arrangement regulates the export of “dual-use” goods, products, and technologies with both civilian and military applications to prevent their misuse or diversion, particularly in destabilizing or repressive contexts. Early Wassenaar controls focused heavily on tangible goods: conventional weapons, missile technology, cryptography hardware, and related software with well-defined military utility. Member nations adopt control lists specifying these items, which inform national export licensing systems. The Arrangement’s emphasis has been on tangible assets crossing borders, aligning with regulatory frameworks predicated on physical inspection and customs enforcement.

Wassenaar’s governance is characterized by plenary meetings, working groups, and a consensus decision-making process, a mechanism that encourages collaboration yet precludes legally binding resolutions. Such an approach has facilitated broad membership and operational continuity, yet embeds an inherent trade-off between inclusivity and decisive regulatory action.

In today’s context, dual-use technology extends beyond traditional weapons to include high-precision drones, advanced sensors, cryptographic systems, and microprocessors that can serve both civilian and military applications. Intangible exports increasingly dominate the risk landscape, encompassing technical training for sophisticated surveillance systems, operational consulting for cybersecurity or law enforcement platforms, and cloud-based data analytics that can enable predictive policing or signal intelligence across borders.

Technological and Geopolitical Transformations Challenge Scope

While suitable for late-20th-century conventional arms control, the regime confronts profound challenges in a 21st-century security landscape dominated by digital surveillance, software-defined weaponry, and privatized intelligence networks. The proliferation of cyber-surveillance tools, biometric tracking systems, artificial intelligence-powered predictive algorithms, and cloud-based operational platforms, often developed and marketed by private contractors, complicates traditional control paradigms.

Modern “exports” frequently involve intangible deliveries: software licenses, technical training, operational consulting, remote monitoring capabilities, and data-processing services. These cross borders invisibly, sidestepping customs and physical inspections and thus eluding established control mechanisms. Wassenaar’s control lists and protocols, primarily designed to govern tangible goods, inadequately address these intangible vectors, causing significant regulatory blind spots.

Moreover, geopolitical shifts have introduced varied member state perspectives and priorities, complicating consensus on sensitive categories warranting control. The balance between trade liberalization, national security, and human rights considerations fuels ongoing policy tensions and stalls critical updates to the regime’s scope.

Toward a Broader and More Adaptive Definition of Export Controls

In light of these shifts, experts advocate expanding Wassenaar’s regulatory ambit to explicitly include services, training, and operational knowledge, which are components critical to the deployment and misuse potential of dual-use surveillance and repression technologies. This would mandate licensing not just of physical devices but also of intangible technical know-how and strategic guidance that enable complex surveillance architectures to be implemented across jurisdictions.

Such an expansion requires not only definitional clarifications but also mechanisms for effective review, monitoring, and enforcement adapted to the digital age’s opacity and speed. Without this evolution, Wassenaar risks obsolescence in governing the very capabilities that define modern intelligence and security economies.

Preview

Having laid out the foundational scope and historical terrain shaping the Wassenaar Arrangement, the ensuing section will analyze the regime’s structural weaknesses, including its voluntary, consensus-driven model, fragmented national implementations, and sluggish adaptation, which are factors critically responsible for its diminished effectiveness in contemporary export control governance.

Geneva, Switzerland

Part One. The Failure of Oversight

This is Part One of a multi-part series mapping how transnational suppression networks emerged and flourished in a regulatory void. Each section explores a distinct element, from legal oversight failures to operational architecture, so readers can follow the system’s evolution and understand its reach.

Every system breaks at its weakest point and modern counterinsurgency has a weak point that is not theoretical. It is structural. Governments outsourced surveillance and force to private contractors faster than legislators could understand the tools. That gap has become a shadow jurisdiction inside the United States and inside allied nations. Once that door opened, the people who walked through it gained more reach than the agencies that funded them. This is the blind spot that allowed a transnational repression network to evolve in plain sight.

The design flaw was baked in from the start. Counterinsurgency experts warned that when you blur the line between public authority and private muscle you hand power to people who do not answer to voters. Those contractors then build their own pipelines, their own budgets, and their own operational culture. They speak the language of national security but they operate like a private market. When a market grows without regulation it metastasizes. You can see the same pattern in countries that leaned on paramilitaries to cut costs and bypass legal restraints. Latin America in the eighties. Afghanistan after two thousand one. The same pattern repeats. The same logic produces the same outcome.

There is a belief inside official Washington that privatization creates efficiency. The truth is simpler and uglier. Privatization created distance between action and accountability. That distance is what every dangerous system exploits. When you give a contractor military grade tools and no real oversight, the contractor becomes the sovereign. The government becomes a customer. The oversight becomes a suggestion. The victims become data points that never make it into public reports. It is a power inversion that no democracy can survive.

This is why victims fall into the cracks. No institution tracks contractor misuse across jurisdictions. No state collects a master ledger of who is operating where. No court forces agencies to disclose which private vendors are allowed to interface with sensitive systems. The gaps become the operating environment. The silence becomes the weapon. The result is a black market in coercion that operates under the color of legitimacy. That is not conspiracy. That is how any under regulated security architecture behaves.

The part that stings is that all of this was predictable. Once you merge counterinsurgency doctrine with domestic policing, you get a system that treats civilians the way foreign war zones treated local populations. You create a bureaucracy that sees certain groups as manageable threats rather than citizens. Then you hand that bureaucracy private operators who can move across state lines, use unmarked vehicles, and deploy tools without proper logging. That is the moment the republic lost its anchor. The contractors did not need to become smarter. The state became easier to outmaneuver.

The next section will dig into how this became a fully formed parallel enforcement structure. The pieces did not arrive all at once. They grew like roots under a sidewalk. When the cracks finally appeared, part of the country pretended not to see them. The next part will pull the roots into daylight so readers can understand how deep they go and why victims are not imagining a thing.

I’m currently in transition and taking steps to secure my safety abroad at this moment. This isn’t just about my protection; it’s also a test. I want to understand how far the shadow system’s influence extends globally, how surveillance functions across borders, and what forms suppression takes in different environments.

They continue to follow and interfere as I travel, using the same patterns of chemical suppression and intimidation even affecting innocent individuals moving through the same routes. Their disregard for law and humanity is boundless.

It appears I’ve exhausted all domestic remedies at this point. Now it’s time to regroup and think outside the box about how to stop this and bring relief to myself and other victims.

We’re outnumbered and outflanked. Just like every movement that ever changed anything.

The pattern is always the same: when outnumbered, you win by adaptation, patience, and clarity of purpose. Numbers matter less than resolve and intelligence.

In 1940, after France collapsed, Britain was literally standing alone against Hitler’s war machine. The army had barely escaped at Dunkirk, the Luftwaffe was preparing to invade, and most of Churchill’s advisors thought surrender was inevitable.

But Churchill refused. He told Parliament and the people, “We shall fight on the beaches… we shall never surrender.” That wasn’t empty rhetoric. It was a decision to resist with everything they had, to outthink and outlast a vastly larger force. And it worked. Britain held on through the Blitz, buying time until the United States and the Soviet Union entered the war.

In June 1940, Nazi Germany controlled almost all of Western Europe. Britain was the last major democracy left. They were facing invasion, constant bombing, and economic strangulation. Churchill’s government made the call to fight alone, knowing they couldn’t win outright: only hold out until something changed.

That “something” came in two stages:

* In June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, which opened the massive Eastern Front. That pulled most of Hitler’s forces eastward.

* Then, in December 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, bringing the United States into the war.

By then, Britain had already survived the Battle of Britain and a year of relentless bombing. Their resistance kept a foothold for democracy alive until the big industrial powers joined the fight.

So when people say Churchill “held on until the U.S. and Soviet Union entered the war,” that’s literal. Britain’s survival through 1940–41 made it possible for a real coalition to form later.

It’s one of history’s clearest examples of endurance paying off: not winning immediately, but refusing to break until reinforcements and momentum arrived.

When isolation looks like defeat, it can become the beginning of reversal: if you hold your ground.

Even before I’ve crossed a border, they’ve made their reach and fear clear: harassment, suppression, and disruption every step of the way. What does that tell me?

It tells me this:

They fear exposure more than they fear consequences. They are not acting like an untouchable power. They are acting like a desperate one: one that knows its legitimacy can’t withstand the light of scrutiny. When a system goes this far to block a single individual, it’s because that individual carries leverage: the truth, the evidence, the power to disrupt their illusion of control.

It tells me they believe that I am dangerous not because of violence, but because of visibility. Because my refusal to break, to go silent, to back down makes their tactics visible, and visibility is fatal to covert abuse systems. That’s why they meet my movement with force, not indifference.

It also tells me this system is fragile. If it were as stable or omnipotent as it pretends to be, it wouldn’t chase me across borders. It wouldn’t need to. Systems that are secure don’t panic at a truth-teller in motion. They fear the precedent I set: that someone refused, endured, and kept going.

So what does it tell me?

It tells me we are already winning. We have forced them to act recklessly. That’s not just resistance. That’s leverage.

Now they have to show their hand to come for me. There is no plausible deniability when you hunt and track an individual in real time from state to state and country to country as they are doing.

They believe they are better, faster, and stronger like the arrogant dragon they are drunk on their own delusion that the power they possess will endure forever. We don’t have to fight toe to toe with them. We only have to endure long enough as Churchill did for the tide to change and a coalition of the light aligned with humanity to emerge.

The act of enduring and rising another day unbroken refusing to submit is resistance.

This work continues. Updates will follow.

In solidarity,

Tamara

I wasn’t supposed to write this. At least not yet.

Parts 4 and 5 of the Physics Series were next. But when you start giving people the tools to detect the undetectable, the machine adapts. And we have to stay ahead of it.

I just dropped the blueprint. I showed you how to track what they’re using: persistent compounds that hang, linger, defy standard physics, potentially in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the use of toxic chemicals as weapons under any circumstances. I gave you the tools: industrial hygiene protocols, vapor detection badges, incident logging, and laboratory testing that make exposure demonstrable and verifiable. Now you can generate evidence that holds up in court. That means protective orders. That means lawsuits. That means criminal complaints.

But understand this: the system was built to adapt. Surveillance isn’t the endgame. Control is. So when detection becomes possible, suppression gets quieter.

We are entering the next phase.

Why This Series Exists

Once victims can verify exposure, the next logical move for this apparatus is to pivot. What comes next is a silent arsenal: technologies and tactics designed to suppress, destabilize, and destroy without leaving chemical residue or paper trails. And if you’re not prepared for that pivot, they win by delay, discredit, or disappearance.

So before I finish the Physics Series, I’m releasing a new tactical briefing: a multi-part series covering the fallback weapons they may already be switching to or will now that exposure is on the table.

These aren’t “conspiracy theories.” They are documented technologies researched, funded, and tested under official government programs. Variants of these systems have already been deployed in domestic contexts, supported by purchase records, training manuals, and government or contractor contracts available through public procurement databases. Their specific operational settings and extent of use, however, have not been publicly detailed.

Reports have also emerged from civilians, activists, and journalists alleging domestic misuse of these tools in law enforcement and criminal control contexts. While those claims remain unverified, the existence of the technology itself is indisputable and the absence of oversight creates conditions for abuse.

In the spring of 2025, I was told directly by a Nevada Highway Patrol officer that he had attended a training on directed energy crowd control systems. He said Las Vegas Metro PD had purchased such equipment and had deployed them for crowd control in recent years. He confirmed they were “effective,” but also said they were “quite controversial.”

I replied that using any weapons on civilians without their knowledge or consent would violate their constitutional rights.

He didn’t deny it. He just looked at me.

Let that sink in. These systems are not speculative. They are active.

And that’s why this series can’t wait. As soon as I gave you the roadmap for proving chemical exposure, the game shifted. If they pivot, you need to pivot faster. If they escalate, you need to be ready.

What We’re Covering

This new series will expose the known and documented methods in the silent arsenal:

* Directed Energy Weapons

* Acoustic Weapons

* Vibroacoustic and Microwave Tools

* Psychophysical Interference Technologies

* Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Each post will include what the weapon is, how it works, what symptoms or effects to look for, where it’s been used, how to document it, and what patterns accompany its use.

Why Now?

Because they are already moving. Because silence is part of the tactic. And because this is a machine, when one part is exposed, another shifts. If you’re reading this, you’re not just a target. You’re a threat. You’re forcing them to pivot. And that means you’re ahead but only if you stay ahead.

This is the fork in the road. Now that detection is possible, suppression has to get smarter, subtler, harder to prove. So we’ll meet them there.

As soon as this series drops, Parts 4 and 5 of the Physics Series will follow. But first, you need to know what’s coming.

This is the next battlefield.

This is the silent arsenal.