Like a Dog That’s Been Beat Too Much

Gonna take yet another stab at simplifying the “Manchurian candidate” stuff. Reminder again, this is not leisurely daydreaming conspiracy hobby for me. This is part of what I’ve experienced and I know the people responsible are American.

It’s simple, isn’t it? The factors are:

RAGE

In some cases, people are chosen because they are already exhibiting anger management issues. In mine, it stemmed from being harassed and ruined by most likely both government agencies and their private counterparts. There were many points of weakness exploited, not the least among them, having trusted Obama and the Democrats. I would say that I regret that, but if I genuinely had not done so, I would not know for certain that they were untrustworthy where I’m concerned. Additionally, as I’ve noted before, the intentional destruction of my longterm relationship followed by the obliteration–forget burning–of the bridge. The night he came home from work at his job with Deep State partner Google in an unnaturally bad depression was one chip. There were many others. Suffice to say that even if I knew then what I know now, I don’t think I’d have been able to achieve much more than delay the inevitable. Having your head pounded with ideas not your own coupled with dealing with the same being done to those around you and knowing that that is what is happening will only get you so far. We are accustomed to acting upon what’s in our heads. Having that interfered with takes a toll even if you know it’s possible and it definitely is.

CONFUSION

This is really for two purposes. First, it obscures what is actually happening. This plays a role in misdirecting the RAGE toward a specific target or, in some cases, any target other than the one actually responsible. You can have a look again at GCHQ’s “Gambits for Deception” at top. I’ve added it to the reference links.

The other point of confusing the target is so they cannot hope to cope with the psychological harassment coming their way. Let’s take a look at the Marks book CIA quote on that again:

It was planned destructiveness. First, you’d check to see if you could destroy a man’s marriage. If you could, then that would be enough to put a lot of stress on the individual, to break him down. Then you might start a minor rumor campaign against him. Harass him constantly. Bump his car in traffic. A lot of it is ridiculous, but it may have a cumulative effect.

That’s basically all that is necessary. Most of us are under the impression that in order to turn someone into an angry, violent weapon requires having them in custody for a time and physical torture. Most likely that was true at one time. It’s not unlike training for attack/fighting dogs in that respect. Teach a dog or a human that there is no kindness in the world, alter their perception of life into one that resembles a living hell, and you alter the behavior. It’s not about a remote control with a button labeled “KILL.” It’s about conditioning. And that conditioning can now be done from a distance. The national security state can pore over your records and find any possibility that you owe money, for example. Then make sure that those you owe find you. They can lure away your spouse, get you fired, ruin your friendships, start rumor campaigns, spread rumors to law enforcement that get you harassed by them, all under the veil of secrecy. As was recently noted about Canadian surveillance, it’s not a lie if you believe it. That’s how it operates. RUMINT gets spread about political enemies, protestors, potential and actual whistleblowers, and the machine automatically takes care of the rest if for no other reason than those carrying it out have only to do one small seemingly insignificant swipe; the next one taken by the next operative. The effect is cumulative with the guilt spread around through multiple organizations and individuals.

Overall, it would qualify for being called torture by anyone actually experiencing under common usage of the word. Yes, I am stating unequivocally that the US not only tortures, it tortures its own citizens, albeit typically in a non-traditional manner.

The legal definition of torture, however, requires:

Intent – which can be obscured any number of ways. Audits, for example, said to be looking for terror ties get used to harass and ruin. Only the boss may know that the real intent is to set someone on a rampage and will likely use RUMINT, frameups, poison pen, to hide this true goal.

Custody – the addition of psychological harassment techniques, as described in the quote above, all happen “in the street,” dodging the letter of the law while actually being a strictly controlled covert operation environment.

Physical Damage – most of the damage is emotional and psychological. Once the individual does an act of violence and is arrested or killed, their past is trotted out to explain it. What is not explained is the cause of the long run of exceedingly bad luck. This is what makes nonlethal weapons such an important tool in the proxy war arsenal: many of them don’t leave obvious physical traces. Think of a battered spouse without the bruises as physical evidence.

RAGE + CONFUSION. Works on animals. Works on humans. Just a different set of tactics in order to hide that it is being done.

The primary problems for determining whether or not this is actually happening seem to be:

1} They wouldn’t do this.

That there is some inherent goodness or benevolence within government and corporations that prevents this from happening. This is, sadly, ludicrous and the product of political party mantra and worn out trickle down economic theory.

2} They couldn’t do this.

Also, that the law stands in the way. The law operates, especially when operating in secret, on a different basis than law applied in the open. We see this principle all the time where NSA is concerned. All I’m attempting to do here is to apply that same principle to the entire Deep State system and bring it out of the virtual and into the physical, or at least psychological, world. As you look through the GCHQ/JTRIG slides, you’ll see that that is what they were mostly attempting to do anyway: effect online discourse and opinion in order to effect the real world. A chain of effect. What I’m describing is similar, but encompasses the “bumped in traffic” type targeting described in the quote.

This is also why it is so important to understand the excesses of the past. There is some strange notion that we learned from our past mistakes, that we are more restrained in our less savory actions, that we have somehow progressed beyond it. This is utter nonsense. Though these practices predate 9/11, the momentum the event caused has brought us to an anything goes policy. Whatever you can get away with. And, according to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, the President can do anything in war time. Does it appear that war time is in any danger of ending any time soon?

Though it is of little consequence to me on a personal level, the system is designed to have checks and balances upon it, that our three branches of government, and with the aid of the news media, are supposed to be opponents. This is why understanding Mike Lofgren’s “Anatomy of the Deep State” is so important. It shows how, why, and who has shortcircuited the system and many of the effects it is having. It is dangerous to the country and the world beyond description.

Regarding the media, see again the post below on George Lardner and consider also things like Jeff Bezos owning the Post and having large CIA cloud contracts at the same time. Though I won’t say that the Post is never, won’t ever be critical of the intelligence community, it can and will affect the larger, more important problems such as the one I’m describing here.

3} That there is no insider blowing the whistle on these less cyberspace-related, more meatspace-related covert operations. Surely if this is true, some would think, there’d be someone doing just that. And that’s an excellent point. It’s one I’ve attempted to answer in various ways in the past.

First and foremost, I expect that those involved are themselves carefully selected, conditioned and, and fed no end of propaganda to justify the ends. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what some of those are. “Colonel Flagg” and his ilk are not likely to ask questions and seek the truth.

Additionally, you can see some almost legitimate operational value to keeping these means and methods secret. This is in fact the primary tension between those who support Edward Snowden and those who do not, at least on the surface. It is and never was my desire to see the effectiveness of my own country’s war machine and associated intelligence apparatuses reduced. It is that these same means and methods are being used on American soil, on Americans, first and foremost, that irks me. I question very, very strongly the wisdom, the intent, the goals, etc. of doing similar on foreign nationals, but when it is being used for purposes of domestic policy, for silencing whistleblowers, critics, investigative journalists, etc. and for the purposes of profit gained from the intentional disruption of domestic tranquility, those considerations go out the window. A successful foreign policy requires a cooperative public, or at least it should. Hiding domestic corruption behind vague fears of foreign threats appears to be the conscious act of the guilty.

Also, we have seen some reporting on this, albeit in only very general terms. Barrett Brown’s writing on government contractors planned targeting of protestors and others comes close but generally lacks specifics. “Get them,”  and sometimes they mention general methods, but not the precise planning and execution which obviously is not going to be found in emails.

4} Lack of evidence.

Though I think I can easily provide enough evidence as to the existence of some kind of targeting having been aimed at myself, there is little to describe precisely who is responsible and why. The presence of Booz Allen Hamilton employees, former Navyman Anthony Gipe, winding up a Brooklyn contemporary of Jeremy Scahill and Barrett Brown, all indicative of something, but not in itself conclusive.

We want incontrovertible proof. That’s understandable. I wish I had it. But that’s the point where deception and covert ops are concerned: to be able to do this and not leave breadcrumbs leading back to the doorstep of those responsible and sometimes leave ones that lead to the wrong address altogether.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s