What has 'Cognitive Liberty' ever done for us?
A recent email from British colleague John Allman, titled
"What has 'Cognitive Liberty' ever done for us?"
... which was sent to you, prompted me to visit your web site. I have to echo John's question. Especially when I read your history and mission statements on your site's cover page, which are excerpted here:
"The CCLE is dedicated to protecting and advancing freedom of thought in the modern world of accelerating neurotechnologies. Our paramount concern is to foster the unlimited potential of the human mind and to protect freedom of thought."
"Our mission is to develop public polices that will preserve and enhance freedom of thought into the 21st Century."
For more than a decade, people who have been targeted by (at first) experimental electronic technology which can do extremely invasive and debilitating things to the mind (and body) of the target, have been contacting, as a group, every agency with a name suggesting the agency might help in the fight to expose and stop this illegal use.
At every turn, every government agency, every scientific agency, every scholarly group, every social service agency, every church organization has consistently refused to even HEAR about "neurotechnologies" which have existed for some time and are capable, in criminal hands, of totally destroying the lives of targets. And doing so silently and deniably. Here are three such technologies which should be "household names" to all members of your group by now, the end of 2004:
- Joseph Sharp's voice to skull success, performed with Dr. James C. Lin's transmitter, and announced in 1974
http://www.raven1.net/v2succes.htm
http://www.raven1.net/hypno2s.gif
- Lowery's silent sound, patent 5,159,703 and used for self-help subliminal hypnosis tapes and CDs and by the U.S. Army in Gulf War One (1991).
Together with Sharp's voice to skull, Silent Sound can hypnotize a target in their bed with the target being unaware Unaware hypnosis is CLEARLY thought disruption in the EXTREME!
http://www.raven1.net/silsoun2.htm
- the Russian LIDA machine, an old medical device, a pulsed radio transmitter which can be used to make a target exhausted on the job, and with a pulse rate increase, deprive a target of sleep http://www.raven1.net/lida.htm
(Available in the 1950s)
And one device which makes aiming these silent devices through walls easy:
- through clothing (and through non-conductive wall) radar, widely used at airports and by police to look through clothing for hidden weapons
http://www.raven1.net/seethru.jpg
(Available at airports and to anyone with the money)
* So given your own mission statement, I have to ask, isn't it time you included at least those old and proven technologies in your purview, and help with the fight to educate the public that such technologies exist and need to be placed under transparent, public control?
* If you intend to exclude such technologies, may I ask you why they are not of concern to your organization? Some groups say "That's not part of our mandate." If you write back and say that, may I ask why your mandate shouldn't be expanded a very little bit to include invasive neurotechnologies?
Sincerely,
Eleanor White, P.Eng.
Hamilton, Ontario
Canada
Informant: susan
"What has 'Cognitive Liberty' ever done for us?"
... which was sent to you, prompted me to visit your web site. I have to echo John's question. Especially when I read your history and mission statements on your site's cover page, which are excerpted here:
"The CCLE is dedicated to protecting and advancing freedom of thought in the modern world of accelerating neurotechnologies. Our paramount concern is to foster the unlimited potential of the human mind and to protect freedom of thought."
"Our mission is to develop public polices that will preserve and enhance freedom of thought into the 21st Century."
For more than a decade, people who have been targeted by (at first) experimental electronic technology which can do extremely invasive and debilitating things to the mind (and body) of the target, have been contacting, as a group, every agency with a name suggesting the agency might help in the fight to expose and stop this illegal use.
At every turn, every government agency, every scientific agency, every scholarly group, every social service agency, every church organization has consistently refused to even HEAR about "neurotechnologies" which have existed for some time and are capable, in criminal hands, of totally destroying the lives of targets. And doing so silently and deniably. Here are three such technologies which should be "household names" to all members of your group by now, the end of 2004:
- Joseph Sharp's voice to skull success, performed with Dr. James C. Lin's transmitter, and announced in 1974
http://www.raven1.net/v2succes.htm
http://www.raven1.net/hypno2s.gif
- Lowery's silent sound, patent 5,159,703 and used for self-help subliminal hypnosis tapes and CDs and by the U.S. Army in Gulf War One (1991).
Together with Sharp's voice to skull, Silent Sound can hypnotize a target in their bed with the target being unaware Unaware hypnosis is CLEARLY thought disruption in the EXTREME!
http://www.raven1.net/silsoun2.htm
- the Russian LIDA machine, an old medical device, a pulsed radio transmitter which can be used to make a target exhausted on the job, and with a pulse rate increase, deprive a target of sleep http://www.raven1.net/lida.htm
(Available in the 1950s)
And one device which makes aiming these silent devices through walls easy:
- through clothing (and through non-conductive wall) radar, widely used at airports and by police to look through clothing for hidden weapons
http://www.raven1.net/seethru.jpg
(Available at airports and to anyone with the money)
* So given your own mission statement, I have to ask, isn't it time you included at least those old and proven technologies in your purview, and help with the fight to educate the public that such technologies exist and need to be placed under transparent, public control?
* If you intend to exclude such technologies, may I ask you why they are not of concern to your organization? Some groups say "That's not part of our mandate." If you write back and say that, may I ask why your mandate shouldn't be expanded a very little bit to include invasive neurotechnologies?
Sincerely,
Eleanor White, P.Eng.
Hamilton, Ontario
Canada
Informant: susan
Omega - 17. Dec, 15:58
