Testimony to Mass. State Legislature on Bill Restricting Electronic Weapons
Included list of 250 terms and technologies of Political Control Technology
Edited excerpt from book MC Realities: Understanding, Detecting, and Defeating Political Control Technologiesby H.Michael Sweeney, copyright©2006 proparanoidpress, all rights reserved reproduction by request and approval only, to pppbooks at century link net
I write to the honorable legislative committees as a friend of the State and of all its citizens, volunteering the material contained herein as an expert witness on electronic weapons, electronic harassment and related technologies of political control. It is hoped that this material will be entered into the public record at your hearings and become useful in your final determinations…
Because of my knowledge on topic after a decade of helping victims of such technology, I must protest at the committee’s choice of language in the bill with respect to the first sentence… referencing control of these weapons only in the hands of the public by means of the phrase ‘no person’. This is to miss the entire purpose and intent of these weapons, and to fail to address the virtually sole possessor and users of the worst of the technology, which is government itself. The public does not need legislation to protect itself from itself, but from its own government. Language must specifically and clearly include government agencies and government personnel of all manner, Federal, State, and local…
In like manner, your definition of weapons is far too simple and narrow to avoid legal confusions. For example, the very same technology which is found in radar guns and FLIR can be used as a weapon of political control or harassment by mere abuse thereof. How will you protect against such abuses? How will anyone be able to determine by the wording of this Bill when the technology and application are legal and appropriate and when they are abusive and invasive?
The victim is not protected if the burden of proof rests on such simplistic language. The abuser, especially if governmentally authorized to access such technologies for normal uses, is not at risk where such loop holes exist. Your language must define and articulate to the complexities of the matter, which are illustrated by the technology reviewed in my (included) materials on topic. Merely adding ‘definitions’ section should address these concerns.
Finally, your legislation makes no provision for detection and enforcement. Can you imagine the local police arresting someone because a neighbor claims to have symptoms of attack? Without a means of detection, there can be no enforcement; all which remains is mere lip service, legislation not to protect the people from the weapons, but to protect the establishment from the people. The primary question is this: Is there anyone in our national or state governments who will stand up for the Constitution, support the Bill of Rights, live by the morally correct principles of humanity and of God, and resist the evil which stares you squarely in the face?
The challenge before your committee and, ultimately, for your entire legislative body, is not only formidable, but it is absolutely pivotal to determining the future of this nation…
Until one empowered sector of our own society, such as yourselves, makes an official protest and stand against this growing draconian onslaught, those things for which our nation stands come closer and closer to being silently crushed within a velvet totalitarian glove. Without such understanding… without laws to protect citizens from the dangers involved… and without any means of enforcing those laws… political control will be assured. The price for such control will be dear. It will be the surrender of that thing godly men call ‘free will’, and which the patriot calls ‘freedom and the pursuit of happiness.’
…May I propose three key concepts or points which should be a part of your deliberations?
1) The first is that any such legislation should be broadened to cover most, if not all non lethal weapons, not just electronic. The very same people who developed electronic weapons were responsible for the development of other non lethal weapons, and for the same unsavory reason: political control. All such weapons further have the same attendant risks to life and liberty and lend themselves to the same abuses and excessive draconian applications.
Perhaps just as important, a review of all such weapons makes the relationship between the weapon, the intended use, and the greater political control strategy which drove its development that much easier to grasp. In support of this notion, my report herein addresses the full spectrum of non lethal weapons, the greater portion of which are, perhaps surprisingly, the more hi-tech electronic variety.
2) The second point I would like to make is that your considerations and final findings must include and provide for public awareness. Only by educating the citizens of the realities of the existence and use of these technologies, can your efforts be well served. If the citizens do not understand the technology and the symptoms it generates, they cannot report the crime or well defend against it. In like manner, your law enforcement, the legal system, media, and the professional communities must also be educated, or the victims will have no place to turn without being labeled as insane.
Of even more value, such promotion and education will, more than any threat of punishments, deter actual use of the technology in the first place. All such technology is currently used in an extremely covert manner. The last thing an attacker using electronic weapons wants, is to be discovered. Such discovery puts not just the mission at risk, but also puts at risk the entire infrastructure of the non lethal weapons industry, and their leadership both in and out of government. Education will, in my opinion, prove to be your best weapon, in the end. But education in and of itself does not provide an adequate deterrence, because unless an attack can be proven, it is merely an accusation which, due to the sophisticated nature of the attack, can too easily be ignored by unconvinced authorities.
3) Therefore, the third and final point, perhaps the most important, is that if you are to have any true success in this matter, you must necessarily include funding for the exotic equipment required to detect and analyze the telltale electromagnetic fields, energy bursts, and radio frequency signatures which are the calling cards of these technologies. In fact, I remind you, it is precisely the output of these detectable indicators which makes this matter one of general concern to the population at large.
The leakage, overshoot, and reflection of these signals, energies, and fields created by these weapons have a great potential for harmful physical, mental and physiological effects on all citizens within a given radius of the intended principle target under attack. The collateral damage to these citizens is not now understood, nor can it be so understood until the actual weapons are captured and tested by independent laboratories. Even the most conservative estimates talk about dire health consequences associated with these weapons. If a particular cell phone can be found by scientists to cause a brain tumor, then what must we face when the signal strengths are many hundreds or even thousands of times stronger, and deliberately designed to cause physiological and mental effects?
If you fund the needed equipment, you will need to further fund appropriate training of technicians on how to use the equipment, as well as in general procedures and skills in the area of covert counterintelligence operations and general law enforcement procedures. This is exactly what will be required in order to be successful against those who use electronic weapons, and no less.
With the above in mind, I would propose the Bill provide for creation of a joint task force of specialists in the areas of law, communications, signal processing, electronics, bioethics, medicine, chemistry, psychology, counterintelligence, military, and law enforcement be created and managed by a carefully picked oversight body. In the absence of creating a new bureaucracy, I would suggest that such responsibility might best belong to any existing state environmental agency as opposed to general law enforcement.
One reason I say this, and it is intended as a general warning concerning the selection of specialist staffing as well, is that I can virtually guarantee that law enforcement of your state and major cities has already been infiltrated by members of the intelligence community, or would immediately so become upon passage of any such legislation. For this reason, the easiest way to assure failure of any mandate against electronic weapons is to simply hand responsibility for it over to law enforcement.
Keep in mind that the more exotic technologies are hardly used for their ultimate intended purposes at this time, but more typically used only in testing on unwitting guinea pigs, citizens at large, generally from among the underclasses, those persons least likely to be able to defend themselves or obtain the expensive helps required. Therefore, most victims are targeted not because of any actual political or intelligence value, but because of the value in learning how the technology works and how to best apply it without getting caught.
Now, regarding testimony from other parties, I might presume and certainly hope that many such victims will stand before you to offer testimony, and I beg of you not only to solicit for such witnesses, but to open your considerations to citizens beyond your state borders, that you may increase your chance at hearing the full truth.
Indeed, open your doors to Canadians, as well, for these weapons do not respect national borders, and are freely exported for testing and use abroad. And for every brave soul who dares stand before you in tortured fear of what will happen to them for their bravery, and an even greater fear of what will happen to them if they do not seek your help, there are likely tens of thousands of others on the continent which cannot or dare not testify. Regarding what they say, may I further advise of three additional points.
Regardless of how wild or bizarre may be the claims found in such testimony, there will be three absolute facts I can promise to be true regarding their claims:
1) among those testifying, you will hear persons who are:
a) legitimate victims of the technology and who are telling you the truth exactly as their ability to grasp and express it allows;
b) persons who are delusional and falsely believe they are victims, telling you of imagined things which have little or no basis in fact; and
c) intelligence community plants pretending to be victims in order to provide you with deliberate disinformation and, largely, to discredit the general value of all such testimony;
2) It will be impossible for you, short of elaborate investigation and expenditures of large sums of money, to make any useful determination of which category a given testimony falls within;
3) in light of the aforementioned difficulties, you should logically come away highly incredulous and doubting of the value of the entire collective of testimony, were it to stand alone.
This phenomenon (3) is a prime example of one of the chief purposes of political control technology, that of destroying the credibility of victims who dare tell others of their experiences. Think upon that, for a moment. Electronic weapons are designed to conceal their own use by making the victim seem incredulous. The testimony you hear will prove that it works exactly as intended. Do not discard the truth encircled by lies.
In light of these facts, I am moved to insure their testimony and my own presentation does not stand alone. I herein provide some meager proofs in the form of a technology review of some 250 terms and technologies of political control. A much more substantial body of such evidence is possible should it be required, which is why I have tried to include more valuable proofs in the form of references which are, by and large, easily obtained and verified.
This includes articles and scientific papers as well as actual patents on the technology itself. Patents are used only when other experts have already connected the technology to the claimed weapon. A reservoir of additional patents which could have been used, except for space and redundancy they represent, are included at report end. But understand that for reasons of national security, many more patents exist which were unavailable.
Also realize patent descriptions need not sound like weapons, partly as a natural result of the patent application process, and partly by design. Too, like many inventions intended for good, some patents having no apparent weapon’s application have been subverted to evil ends by someone who saw the potential…
In point of fact, the great bulk of evidential resources come from military documents, a matter which is deeply troubling to all right-thinking individuals because it paints a picture not of a military set on defending the United States from enemies who would threaten it, but a military which is the threat, itself… By the following materials, may you come to similar conclusions, and may you have the fortitude and resolve to do something about it, which is something we citizens cannot of our own accord achieve short of armed revolution. Please do not leave this the only remaining option for Americans, or that may be exactly what the next generations will need consider…
It was perhaps author Aldus Huxley, who first expressed concerns about political control technology, put into words within the fictional construct of Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited, Orwellian nightmares not unlike 1984. Based on 1958 technology, Huxley projected ahead a mere 40 years to describe exactly the kind of technology and social consequence which lays at the heart of our focus, here.
In point of fact, I hope to illustrate, we are well ahead of his projections. Welcome to the New World Order. Sheep, do not be alarmed at the slaughter of your fellow sheep. As it is for their own good, so will it be for you.
~ Sincerely, H. Michael Sweeney
Unfortunately, as with all such legislation efforts at both State and Federal levels, the Bill was not passed, nor was it amended to make it more likely to pass. It was simply dropped. Too many powerful people, firms, and groups benefit from Political Control Technology to allow a mere Congressional representative the luxury of a morally correct vote or opinion. The Cogs of government work beneath and behind the visible mechanism of floor debate, and are turned by the steam of the Military-Industrial-Inteligence-Media Complex. What you and I think, need, or desire in the pursuit of freedom and happiness is irrelevant, as is anything as trivial as the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
However, in 2004, a variation of the Bill WAS passed. It can be found here. A brief reading will find that not one of my suggestions was incorporated, and in fact, it specifically authorizes government to employ such weapons, the reverse of the need. All it does is makes it illegal for you and me. Like that was ever a threat. Yet the deem this legislation as an ‘Emergency Bill.’ Go figure.
- Judy Wall (targetedindividualscanada.wordpress.com)
Posted on July 14, 2012, in Abuse of Power, Conspiracy, Crime, Political Commentary, Targeted Individuals, Technology and tagged Electromagnetic weapon, Electronic harassment, mind control, Non-lethal weapon, PCT, Political Control Technology. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.