thehoodcompany

The United States is explicating a neurology through an innovation. You are studying a neurology and an innovation. Is the United States explicating a neurology through an innovation because the neurology matters, or because the innovation matters? Which? How would the neurology affect the United States? If the United States is responsible for explicating the neurology, the neurology is anodyne--harmless. Why would the United States explicate a neurology anyway? If the neurology were bad for the United States, why explicate it? On the other hand, if the explication is of an innovation, the website will publicize the innovation. The neurology was introduced by the United States. Therefore, the neurology is neutral or better to the United States--otherwise the United States would not introduce it. Therefore, the innovation is what the United States is broadcasting--the innovation matters.

The ideal resolution to the neurological expertise of the United States is the publication of the facts--that is to say the publication of the website you are reading. Objections are as stated: 1.  Publicizing the website dismantles national security. National security entails destruction. The website ignores destruction. The lethal and technological capacities of the United States remain unknown--I'm alive, I'm not a nuclear missile. 2.  Publicizing the website disables another experiment. Experiments like this rely on neurology eclipsing whatever else people are--every study will advance unusually now and then. The United States wickedly aborted an idea--neurology, the lure of neurology, invalidated the benefit of the country. 3. Publicizing the website is extreme. Again: pertinent capacities are irrelevant and therefore unknowable, and neurology eclipsing everything is disastrous demonstrably, invidious theoretically, and repudiable immediately. The gratitude to the United S

You are next. Precedent is policy and you are next in the application of military technology to life. Congressman Grijalva is vermin and the police are also but they are next as well. Wait.

The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reports 366 contacts via ICIGHotline@dni.gov for the April – September 2019 monitoring period. Approximately 107,000 people compose the Intelligence Community. Your participation will both defend the reality of the intentions of the subjects and defend the relationship between intentions and results. Please complete this form today.

The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community provides the sympathetic and institutional opportunity for leniency with regard to the individuals responsible for this statement. That opportunity depends on you.  Here is the form to introduce the Inspector General to the activities of the individuals aforesaid. Please use fifteen minutes over the weekend to finish the form, and mail on Monday to ICIGhotline@dni.gov. Lawful considerations will eventually determine the situation. An intra-agency perspective necessarily differs from an external perspective. You can apply lawful considerations and sympathetic perspective by communicating with the Inspector General. I revere your cooperation. The Semiannual Report of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community notes on page 4:        More than anything, the future of whistleblowers' rights and protections in the                federal government will depend on integrity. In this sense, integrity means