How to deal with the police if taken in for interrogation

Former FBI Agent Breaks Down Interrogation Techniques | WIRED

Have for over 35 years viewed body language theories as junk science because I’ve often noticed that my own body language doesn’t match the alleged feelings or intentions that I should have according to theories of body language. Therefore very happy that FBI has finally caught up with reality and science, though hopefully not using science as a tool for spreading woke values as seen in this politically motivated review here.

If you are taken in for questioning after a nonviolent sabotage operation has occurred, then keep in mind that many interrogators or forensic interviewers are very good at using “tactical empathy” to get you talking and revealing information. To be prepared for any type of advanced communication in the age of 4th- and 5th-generation conflicts read:

Never Split the Difference – Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It, by Christopher Voss and Tahl Raz.

The Tao of Negotiation, by Joel Edelman.

Verbal Judo, by George Thompson and Jerry Jenkins.

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High, by Joseph Grenny, Kerry Patterson, and Ron McMillan.

However, if you don’t like reading a lot of books, you don’t have to, because the first rule when dealing with the police is to never say anything to them. Just shut up, and then shut up some more, no matter what interrogators say or do. Remember that they may lie to get you to admit things.

Deception in the interrogation room

Western police today are so unscientific, politically biased and out of touch with reality that they even define nonviolent sabotage as “terrorism”:


“How a Movement That Never Killed Anyone Became the FBI’s No. 1 Domestic Terrorism Threat”

The geniuses in FBI are now out hunting “insurgents” and “domestic terrorists” after the Capitol riot in Washington DC (Jan 06, 2021):

As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever

Even if the police, in some states, are not legally allowed to lie, you can take it for granted that they will lie to people suspected of being “domestic terrorists“.

Getting a nonviolent saboteur convicted of “terrorism” will to a large degree depend on proving that he or she has intentions and emotions allegedly associated with “terrorism”. The goal of forensic interviewers is to get you talking until you say incriminating things, get trapped by inconsistencies and refuted by facts. The police can then create a narrative about your alleged intentions and emotions, despite this narrative being perhaps no more reliable than the result from a Rorschach test.

It’s possible for the police to misrepresent the intentions and emotions of nonviolent saboteurs and falsely portray it as being evidence of “terrorist intentions” because:

1) in all humans there is a difference between primitive emotions and our “higher self” that keeps these emotions in check (aka impulse control), so it’s natural that even a nonviolent activist will also have occasional primitive emotions that sometimes lead him or her to temporarily feel happy if thinking about something violently annihilating the enemy. For example, if a large earthquake completely destroys Silicon Valley it’s natural that even nonviolent anti-surveillance activists will have mixed feelings about it, including feelings of happiness and relief, despite knowing that such primitive emotions are wrong. These feelings are natural because we humans are carnivore hunters, so animalistic instincts can’t be fully avoided. But if you start admitting to having such emotions when talking with a “nice” but very manipulative interrogator, the police can more easily spin a story about your alleged “evil intentions”.

2) the morality of a specific militant tactic can depend on your ethical perspective, which means that even a nonviolent saboteur must recognize that violent attacks on the surveillance infrastructure of Big Tech can obviously be justified from the perspective of the Just War doctrine or from the viewpoint of Cold War doctrines, presupposing that Big Tech surveillance is in fact a tyranny, a fundamental threat to constitutional democracies. Recognizing that such violent perspectives exist is no different than Gandhi admitting that military attacks against Nazi Germany were of course morally defensible from a Just War viewpoint. But if you accidentally mix up a) your own nonviolent perspective, and b) relatively legitimate viewpoints favoring violent strategies, when you talk with a police interrogator, you may unwittingly create the impression that you actually support violent tactics.

When everything can be used against you in politically biased courts it’s better to say nothing to the police. (DSI) explicitly and very clearly state that we unambiguously distance ourselves from all violent methods used by other militant anti-surveillance activists even when sharing their basic view of Big Tech. If someone uses violent methods against Big Tech, blame it on 1) the Just War doctrine, 2) articles about Fusion AI surveillance and undemocratic Big Tech, and 3) widespread rightwing narratives about “Big Tech tyranny”.


Big Tech tyranny: Should the government intervene?

“Google is not an American company. It’s a multinational. This is a foreign threat to our country. That’s my view. It’s a national security threat.” (02:49 min)

With narratives like the above it’s surprising, at the moment of writing, that nobody in America has attacked Big Tech in a violent manner.

I assume, guess and speculate that maybe is not deplatformed yet (again at the moment of writing) because some leaders inside the police and Big Tech realize that militant activists who encourage others to only use nonviolent sabotage is a better situation than if nobody in militant movements present arguments against violent tactics.

In Cold War 2 it’s no doubt that Big Tech has other enemies to worry about than a paper tiger like drug cartels, WMD terrorists, and (rogue factions within) non-Western intelligence agencies.

And maybe that’s why the police and Big Tech allow the DSI website to exist online, because they find some value in seeing how a rational but retired militant activist reacts to their policies and inventions. Their AI can learn from that too…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s