The US Air Force’s New Mind Control Wing
It would seem that full spectrum dominance of the TV message wasn't enough for them in the end. There's new covert 'targeted broadcasting' going on and you could become the antenna on the receiving end. Ask Newt Gingrich.
The US Air Force's New Mind Control Wing
Tools for Peak Performance?
Or covert 'behavior modification' through torture?
Warning: This article contains ideas that may conflict with your programming.
It would seem that full spectrum dominance of the TV message wasn't enough for them in the end. There's new covert 'targeted broadcasting' going on and you could become the antenna on the receiving end.
Weapons R&D that's Good for You
To take at face value the PR material put out by the Pentagon for public consumption (never a good idea), you would think that the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program (JNLWP) conducts a lot of research aimed at optimizing pilot performance and the like. Though you wouldn't normally associate weapons research with such things, you would be forgiven for believing it after reading the various divisions' websites, "pdf" factsheets and other literature, and even the research documentation itself, which are all peppered with references to "centers of excellence," "human-centered" work, etc. For example:
..."advances in biotechnology, biobehavior, and neuroscience are used to enhance and extend the human performance of our Airmen." AFRL Factsheet, AFD-090324-032, Biosciences and Performance Div.
In this context, it's easy to forget (or to discover) that the Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate is all about fielding and employing weapons to immediately incapacitate targeted personnel or materiel," according to the same AFRL literature.
The predominant focus on performance enhancement (in the literature) has some credibility thanks to past Air Force research lab work concerned with bioeffects of things like the influence of G-force on jet pilots; while claims of research for purposes of meeting safety guidelines are bolstered by the weapons' non-lethal nature--their design must ensure they fall short of fatal effect.
But the positive uses of bioeffects research that are very often hinted at are ethical and legal worlds away from the kinds of darkly exotic military research conducted for much more than a decade now under the cover story of "human effectiveness" or safety, which has necessarily filtered into the research descriptions themselves.
Still, closer inspection of research and contract descriptions as well as FOIA-obtained declassified material concerning radio frequency (microwave) directed energy weapons (RFDEW) in particular belie this pervasive pretense, revealing an altogether different story:
"Disruption of neural control, ...convulsions, ...seizure induction, ...working memory loss, ...fatigue, sleep induction, ...disorientation, ...power required to heat a human, ...difficulty breathing, induced Parkinson's s-like symptoms, ...cataracts, ...blocking of executive functioning, foreshortening of time perception, ...incapacitation."
--from "Bioeffects of Selected Non-lethal Weapons"
USAINSCOM, Fort Meade, 1998
To go a step further, it's hard to imagine how actual studies done on how human brain response to certain RF stimuli may mimic schizophrenia [McMurtrey, John J., 2002] are intended for purposes other than inducing psychopathology in the targeted person in this case. Or if the aim of research like this were truly to protect armed forces from exposure, as sometimes implied, and not to inflict such nefarious if non-lethal effects, surely a more effective route would be to work towards a ban of these weapons, rather than establishing a new military wing with a $24b lab to operate them, as has been done.
Despite the PR, the character of much of the research belies the assumed pretense and leads to a different, more straightforward conclusion, especially for RFDEW. The weapons research seeks ways in which RF directed energy can be used to degrade the human effectiveness or performance of targeted individuals. But this is not technology that is only under development; it has been fielded and is operational, integrated into the day-to-day functioning of the US military; Military radar and microwaves are being trained on tracked individuals through the operations of the JNLWP divisions. These operations are covert because they constitute torture, which is illegal under the Conventional Weapons Convention, the Convention Against Torture, Geneva Convention and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Hence the need for a cover story.
The Guantanamo Precedent
One need only look to Guantanamo to find an egregious example of the fact that the US, especially since 2001 has more or less openly embraced torture as an element of its "non-lethal" arsenal, with the camp's simulated drownings (endorsed by current US presidential candidates), psychological torture, forced injections and medication, sensory deprivation or saturation, and multiple alleged suicides among the untried inmates.
Surely no one should be surprised at the new policy, or that the US is a human rights violator, despite its hypocritical, righteous posturing, coming as it does from a perpetrator of serial genocides, now on the verge of its fourth illegal war of aggression in a blitz the likes of which have not been seen since the days of the Nazis.
RF Directed Energy Weapons--the Military's Long Range Taser for Dissidents
Just as non-lethal 'tasers' have been widely adopted in law enforcement to temporarily (reversibly) disable those targeted, microwave directed energy weapons for remote incapacitation of a human target have been adopted by the US military--amid a total news blackout--with a new military wing (the non-lethal weapons wing of the USAF) created for the purpose. The use of RF Directed Energy Weapons in the military is loosely analogous to the police taser, with an important exception being that the low voltage RFDE may be applied to the targeted person, such as a political dissident, over the long-term.
Newt Gingrich, an old Rockefeller hand since his days canvassing in the South for the presidential campaign of Nelson Rockefeller, was an early proponent of non-lethal weapons [see following article]. During a recent 2012 presidential debate appearance, Gingrich made a pitch for brain science studies, signaling a possible shift in justifying wider research at the federal level, in the name [only] of Autism and Alzheimers studies
[as if Republicans of all people were suddenly keen to address the problem of mental illness after all these years].
The current JNLWP and its awkward pretext echo the infamous Nixon-Ford era Special Virus Cancer Program (overseen by another Rockefeller hand, Henry Kissinger), whose chief scientist, Robert Gallo, 'discovered' the AIDS virus after working in association with bioweapons contractors to 'search for the cancer virus.'
"...Nonlethal weapons have not received the priority they merit at the Pentagon. This report makes a persuasive case for changing that," said [Rockefeller] Council [on Foreign Relations (CFR)] President Richard N. Haass.
link to www.cfr.org
Rationale for 'war on terror' as framework for new conflict paradigm, to include development of non-lethal weapons
LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT AND MODERN TECHNOLOGY
Lt Col David J. Dean, USAF, _Editor_
With a Foreword by CONGRESSMAN NEWT GINGRICH
Air University Press, Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, June 1986. ----------------------------------------------------------------
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data
Low-intensity conflict and modern technology. Papers presented at a workshop conducted by Air University Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education (CADRE), March 1984. Includes bibliographies. 1. Low-intensity conflicts--Congresses. 2. Munitions--Congresses. I. Dean, David J. II. Air University (U.S.) Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education. U104.L69 1986 355'.0218 86-3537 ---
The United States is on the verge of a dramatic change in its ability to cope with low-intensity conflict. We must become a great deal better in the process of fighting this kind of "small war"; the world will not give us any choice. We may learn to adjust our current systems, procedures, and understanding quickly and intelligently, in which case we will come to cope with low-intensity conflict very rapidly. Or, we may learn this difficult art in a grudging, confused, and halting manner, in which case the next 20 years will be very painful and very expensive, both for the United States and for the case of freedom.
This book is a serious effort to make thinking about and working on low-intensity conflict easier, more understandable, and more effective. It is a major contribution to what is a growing literature and dialogue on the obligation of the United States to respond to the challenge of low-intensity conflict. This book is needed because the United States finds itself dramatically challenged by conflict below the level of full-scale war. Unfortunately, our recent intellectual and bureaucratic traditions and systems fail to address adequately the challenge of low-intensity conflict. The organization of power in the State and Defense Departments and the relationships between the Congress, the news media, and the executive branch are all unsuited to fighting a low-intensity conflict effectively.
The United States has a long history of coping rather successfully with low-intensity threats. From the opening up of the West by the US Cavalry in the face of the American Indian to the Philippine insurrection at the turn of the century to the US Army's pursuit of Pancho Villa into northern Mexico to the US Marine Corps presence in Nicaragua and Haiti in the twenties, the United States systematically subdued low-intensity threats to America's policies. Generally, these forces were used almost without debate or news coverage. The country went about the process of becoming more prosperous and more powerful in the pursuit of everyday life, while allowing its professional soldiers to engage quietly in dirty little wars in faraway places with almost no regard for legal nicety or the technical problems of international law. However, the dominant tradition of the American State Department, the American news media, and the average American intellectual community was shaped not by the American experience in the West or the Philippines or Mexico and Central America, but rather by the nineteenth century tradition of European thought.
The European tradition is based on the concept of sovereignty and formal declarations of war. Sophisticated lawyers focused on the laws of England, Germany, and France. Sophisticated academicians educated in England, Germany, and France came to shape the concept of legality which had application to Europe, but totally ignored European behavior outside of that continent. In Europe, boundaries were not to be crossed by foreign armed forces without a formal declaration of war. Once the boundaries were crossed, a formal war would immediately ensue. That practice did not pertain to most of the world. British colonial expeditions against local tribes, bandits, and guerrilla operations, for example, were routine and primarily military. These expeditions went virtually unreported except in books like those of Winston Churchill. When they were covered it was as spectacular adventures against backward local natives. The emphasis was almost always on the heroism of the British rather than on the use of overpowering force against clearly overmatched natives simply fighting for their own freedom. If the British campaigns against the Mahdi, the Zulu, and the Afghans in the nineteenth century were covered today, we would notice major shifts in emphasis and bias in that coverage. The British approach to low-intensity conflict in the nineteenth century was virtually schizophrenic. This approach had no place among the legal niceties of international laws that governed sovereign states which tended to be only European. Thus, wars could be fought in the gray area between civilized and uncivilized nations without anyone noticing.
The post-World War II United Nations declared, in effect, that all of us are civilized and have human rights. The European concepts of sovereignty and international law became applicable to all people. This new approach radically changes the approach of low-intensity conflict.
[work-around needed to circumvent human rights law --contributor]
It requires that an entire new area of international law be developed with those situations in which one state does not wish to declare war, but, nevertheless, finds itself engaged in violent action or facing the potential for violent action with other states. This area of international life lacks an intellectually adequate American tradition. Our first great challenge in the area of low-intensity conflict, is in the next 20 years, to invent a theory of law and structure of behavior that allows us to survive and win "small wars," with a framework that maintains certain basic rights for every human being.
[ = "war on terror" framework, pseudo humanitarian wars--serbia, libya, syria? ]
In addition, in the nineteenth century tradition, there was no serious consideration given to systematic organized terrorism. There were occasional acts of violence committed by specific and usually identifiable anarchists. These acts were mostly dealt with by various police forces operating quietly on the fringes of society, in situations in which the policemen were heroes. There was almost no consideration given to the possibility that a sovereign government was backing the anarchists. Thus, there was no state-backed terrorism which directly threatened a particular government. Whether it is the Irish Republican Army, the Palestine Liberation Organization, or Islamic fanatics [ US funding of mujahedin mercenaries began 1979--cont.] with direct backing from Libya, Iran, or Syria or indirect backing from Cuba and the Soviet Union, state-backed terrorism poses a new threat to the West for which we have no framework to respond. We are going to have to develop a capacity for striking at the cause of terrorism and the source [domestic phoenix program --cont.] of terrorist support if we are to survive in a free country. That is the second great challenge of our time in low-intensity conflict.
Finally, in the nineteenth century, there was no single empire systematically creating conflicts around the planet, looking for weaknesses in its opponents which could be exploited by new methods of warfare violence. The simple fact is the Soviet empire and its colonies have studied the West and have come to the conclusion that our greatest vulnerability is in low-intensity conflict. In this type of conflict, the Soviet Union suffers little if its client is defeated but gains greatly if its client wins. Since the Soviets have discovered the blind spot in our intellectual armor for competition [US achilles heel was its democratic traditions & selective respect for human rights; the baby thrown out w/ the bath water--cont.], we can expect more and more low-intensity conflict for the foreseeable future. Only when we have developed a deterrent to low-intensity conflict [= war of terror & 'the database' proxy irregulars--cont. ] as successful as our nuclear deterrent and our deterrence of conventional war in Europe will we be able to suppress Soviet efforts in this area. As long as the Soviet Union thinks it can cause the United States trouble in Central America while we do them little harm in Afghanistan, and as long as they can begin various minor wars using second and third level puppets, clients, and colonies while we are incapable of responding except by the direct use of American forces, the Soviets are going to have a great advantage. They are going to pursue this zone of international competition with great intensity and great savagery. Intellectually, politically, and professionally, low-intensity conflict may be the most serious area of competition with the Soviet Empire over the next 30 years [Newt the oracle―they went down 3 years after this writing-cont.].
The free world must find a legal, political, and diplomatic formula which enables us to cope with low-intensity conflict. Until we find a way to deal with Soviet-supported or other low-intensity conflict, we are going to remain at a grave disadvantage in the competition for survival on this planet. This book is a serious step toward grappling with the technical, intellectual, and military problems of low-intensity conflict. The breadth of topics covered clearly indicates the complexity and range of difficulties which Americans and our allies in the free world have to explore if we are to develop a successful response to low-intensity conflict. Any student of American survival and any citizen concerned with understanding how this nation can cope with the challenge of low-intensity conflict more effectively will be served by studying this work. Its authors are to be commended for a job well done and a process well initiated.
[Original signed] Newt Gingrich House of Representatives [...] (Pages 249 to 260)
[Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW), Definition:]
"Weapons, devices and munitions that are explicitly
designed and primarily employed to immediately incapacitate targeted personnel or materiel"
[from AFRL lit.]
[Excerpt from a chapter written by Capt. Paul Tyler USAF:]
"The potential applications of artificial electromagnetic fields are
wide-ranging and can be used in many military or quasi-military
situations. ...Some of these potential uses include dealing with
"terrorist groups" (as currently defined by the Clinton administration),
"crowd control, and...antipersonnel techniques in tactical warfare. In
all cases, the electromagnetic systems would be used to produce mild to
severe physiological disruption or perceptual distortion or
disorientation"(psychotronic weapons application).
"In addition, the ability of individuals to function could be degraded
to such a point that they would be combat ineffective. Another advantage
of electromagnetic systems is that they provide coverage over large
areas with a single system."
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion
view discussion from this article