### MindNet is no longer active.

#### Back to MindNet Index

    ================================================================
         MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 41
    ================================================================
         V E R I C O M M / MindNet         "Quid veritas est?"
    ================================================================

    Notes:

    The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
    the author.

    Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
    non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
    copy remain intact and unedited.

    The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
    views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editors unless
    otherwise noted.

    Editor: Mike Coyle

    Contributing Editors: Walter Bowart
                          Alex Constantine
                          Martin Cannon

    Assistant Editor: Rick Lawler

    Research: Darrell Bross

    Editor's Note:

    The following is an excerpt from the book length expansion
    of _The Controllers_, by Martin Cannon, concerning _The
    Revolution in Military Affairs_, which was referred to by
    Julianne McKinney in MindNet Journal, Vol. 1, No. 40.

    ================================================================

    The Controllers

    By Martin Cannon

    Chapter 13

    [...]

    The Revolution in Military Affairs.

          The hard fact is: We are all potential targets. Would-be
    tyrants need only bide their time until the necessary technology
    is perfected and activated.
          Such is the lesson drawn from a startling 1994 document
    which outlines the ultimate purpose of non-lethal technology and
    mind control weaponry. "The Revolution in Military Affairs and
    Conflict Short of War" is a key paper prepared by the Strategic
    Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College. The authors are
    Dr. Steven Metz, an associate research professor who
    specializes in "military operations other than war," and LTC
    James Kievit, a Strategic Research Analyst.
          Before we examine their findings, some background: The
    Revolution in Military Affairs has recently become the new
    vogue topic among Pentagon insiders. The "RMA" (as war-wonks
    abbreviate it) is largely the brainchild of septuagenarian
    Pentagon strategist Andrew Marshall and his deputy, Lt. Col
    Andrew Krepinevich. General John M. Shalikashvili, chairman
    of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has embraced their ideas, while
    Pentagon insiders are thrashing out the details at high-level
    roundtables open only to the National Security elite.
          The revolution they are planning could change the way all
    Americans live--and it will be televised.
          Metz and Kievit outline three basic goals: 1. The United
    States government will control the planet. 2. The military
    will control the government. 3. Computer nerds will control
    the military. The result, in a word, will be technofascism.
          How to bring all this about? Through the emergent
    disciplines of ultra-high-tech warfare: Non-lethal weaponry,
    bio-warfare, mind control, unmanned flying vehicles of unusual
    new designs, and new psy-war scenarios designed to alter mass
    belief systems. With toys like these, Pentagon planners hope to
    subjugate you so stealthily you won't even know you've been
    conquered. In fact, they predict you'll welcome these new
    developments, even though the Pentagon plans to complement
    their revamped military with a revamped political structure.
    In the cyber-commando view of the-way-things-ought-to-be, no
    ethical, moral, or Constitutional restraints should constrict
    the rulers of post-RMA America. "National Security" will be the
    single constant; all else is mutable.
          Authors Metz and Kievit sketch a grim portrait of global
    events in the near future. U.S. policy in the post-Cold War era
    will doom nearly all Third World states to fragmentation, ruin
    and strife; "ungovernability and instability will be the norm."
    The American government's primary concern will be protecting U.S.
    businessmen overseas. Therefore, every citizen leaving the United
    States will receive an electronic Individual Position Locator
    Device (IPLD), which will probably be permanently implanted
    sub-dermally. These implants would not only function as tracking
    devices: Metz and Kievit believe that IPLDs could provide
    identification and "two-way communication" between the military
    and civilians.
          The authors fully understand that the public might resist
    these implants: "If a locator device could be remotely activated,
    how could Americans be sure that activation was only effective
    outside the United States?" Even more disconcertingly, Metz and
    Kievit concede that IPLDs could "monitor personal
    conversations." Arguably, the next step might well be domestic
    mass implantation, probably as a crime prevention measure.
          These implants will be used in conjunction with another
    rapidly emerging technology: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs.
    (This term replaces the familiar "Remotely Piloted Vehicles"
    [RPV].) High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAVs will communicate
    with IPLDs implanted in Americans. UAVs would also see usage as
    spy-craft, a purpose they serve at present. But perhaps Metz
    and Kievit's most mysterious--and intriguing--suggestion
    concerns the use of these unusual new aerial devices in
    support of U.S.-backed foreign insurgencies: "UAVs can be used
    for psychological operations aimed at mobilizing support and
    enhancing the legitimacy of the insurgents."
          Ufologists--at least those with an ability to read between
    the lines--might find that last sentence particularly noteworthy.
          The authors also foresee the Army developing "the aerial
    capability to broadcast and alter television signals." All
    in the name of anti-terrorism, of course. The basic idea is
    deviously clever: The military could send fake broadcasts, using
    computer-generated imagery to present real individuals in
    simulated situations. The same technology which allowed Forrest
    Gump to shake hands with JFK can also create the spectacle of an
    "enemy" leader striking a woman, masturbating in public, or
    otherwise discrediting himself. The authors concede that this
    approach has a downside, should such an operation be "blown"
    (i.e., revealed to the public). The masses might lose their faith
    in the televised image, thereby "reducing the impact of one of
    the American politician's greatest communication tools."
          We have already discussed EMP weapons, such as HERF guns,
    which can destroy the electronic systems of enemy jets. Metz and
    Kievit also recommend using soft-kill weapons against aircraft
    flown by drug importers. Or rather: "suspected narcotraffickers"
    (emphasis mine). Of course, should suspicions prove incorrect,
    people inside the aircraft will be no less dead. Fortunately,
    directed-energy weapons have the advantage of plausible
    deniability. The authors make one point quite explicit:
    "...deniability must be aimed at the American people, who do not
    sanction the imprisonment, much less execution, of individuals
    without a trial."
          Since, according to RMA planners, the United States will
    prove vulnerable to attack by foreign terrorists with domestic
    allies, Metz and Kievit insist on targeting "immigrant or
    resident alien communities" which might provide support for
    terrorism. One snag: American public opinion might stifle use of
    certain biotechnical weapons already in the works. "Most
    Americans would not support the use of a weapon designed to
    target only a specific racial or ethnic group... Could the
    government and the military of this multi-ethnic republic face
    charges that it was developing or using a weapon targeting
    Africans, Jews, Koreans, Hispanics, etc.?"
          At this point, the Pentagon planners confront the one true
    obstacle to their revolution: "American values and opinion."
    The RMA is a beast that must wear no leash if it is to protect
    us. If traditional ethics stand in the way of the Pentagon's
    plans, we must change the ethics, not the plans. Overcoming
    these constraints to make a RMA in conflict short of war would
    require fundamental changes in the United States--an ethical
    and political revolution may be necessary to make a military
    revolution.
          Metz and Kievit foresee an overhaul of the entire
    political infrastructure of the United States. The military,
    the intelligence community, and domestic law enforcement (both
    federal and local) should congeal into a single unit--a
    national security monolith. This monolith will further
    integrate itself with corporations and the courts by
    means of a "national information policy." Even public health
    should be treated as a national security issue. Interestingly,
    Metz and Kievit ask whether the RMA can occur "in some different
    type of political system not based on nation-states and
    traditional inter-state war." There's more than one way to make
    a revolution:
          Revolutionary change in our approach to conflict short of
    war may come about indirectly as we grapple with domestic
    problems such as crime and drugs. If our traditional notions of
    privacy and public security are altered to fight these battles,
    it is an easy step to change our attitudes toward intervention
    in the affairs and psyches of foreign foes.
          And now we get to the nitty gritty: "Behavior modification
    is a key component of peace enforcement." "Information warfare
    systems might influence the behavior of populations..."
    "Proposed information warfare capabilities might be ideally
    suited for helping develop desired emotions, attitudes, or
    behavior."
          Conflict short of war "is most often won or lost through
    the manipulation of images, beliefs, attitudes, and
    perceptions." Here are two other key quotes-not yanked out of
    context:

    This makes psychological technology [italics in original]
    much more important than strike technology. Ways must be found
    to use emerging technology...to help military strategists
    develop, implement, and continually improve methods of
    influencing opinion, mobilizing public support, and sometimes
    demobilizing it.

    Today, two RMAs may be underway simultaneously. The first
    (and more mature) is electronic... The second (and potentially
    more profound) RMA is biotechnological, including genetic
    engineering and advanced behavior-altering drugs. Because of the
    compression of time and the shortening of historical patterns,
    the biotechnical revolution is totally enmeshed with the
    electronic. It may ultimately be the combination of the two that
    proves truly revolutionary.

          This is hardly the sort of revolution Washington or Jefferson
    would have recognized or endorsed.

    Looking Ahead

          Metz and Kievit predict that troops sent to the
    Third World will be exposed to strange, resilient new diseases;
    by law, returning soldiers will face long-term quarantine.
    Corrupt leaders of "friendly" third world countries will prove
    unable to stand up to either narcotraffickers or "spiritual
    insurgents." In short: traditional methods of projecting American
    might may no longer suffice.
          Thus, the military will embark on a course of "Dynamic
    Defense"--a plan designed to abolish the Department of Defense,
    the Department of State, the CIA, the NSC, and all other arms of
    the intelligence community. Instead, there will be just two
    organizations--one devoted to preventing conflict, the other
    devoted to containing it. The division between the military and
    traditional law enforcement will vanish.
          To create the appropriate "attitudinal vessel" for RMA, the
    Dynamic Defenders will use high-tech means of "consciousness
    raising" in order to undo the citizenry's "old fashioned notions
    of personal privacy and national sovereignty." Also to be
    eliminated: "Old-fashioned ideas about information control and
    scientific inquiry." Preserving American technological advantage
    will be far more important than quaint notions of free
    information exchange. Computer hackers will be enemies.
          The doctrine of national security will dictate U.S.
    responses to ecological threats (even those within other nations)
    and "psychological threats." There should be "no
    distinction-legal or otherwise" drawn between problems within and
    outside our borders. The United States should regard its allies
    (Britain, France, Australia, etc.) as little more than
    "encumbrances." Indeed, the American military will preemptively
    disable any potential opponent with the ability to disrupt the
    U.S. in any way.
          Metz and Kievit predict that the Dynamic Defenders may
    metamorphose into "the Eagle Movement," in which the military
    finally escapes the constitutional restrictions placing the
    armed forces under civilian control. The traditional parties
    will be "to put it lightly, intimidated by the Eagle Movement,"
    and will succumb to its demands.
          It's a scenario that should appeal to anyone who rooted
    for Darth Vader during Star Wars. Fortunately, other published
    RMA theorists haven't proven quite so "visionary" as the
    world-devouring Metz and Kievit. We can only hope the Joint
    Chiefs opt for a revolution that is much more cautious--and
    less disdainful of democracy.

    A Few Modest Questions About the RMA.

    1. According to the Metz/Kievit scenario, the RMA process
    culminates in the military openly assuming a dominant role in
    politics. What is to stop the militarists from "kick-starting"
    the process? How do we know they won't clandestinely aid and
    abet the terrorism, insurgencies, drug trafficking and other
    problems used to rationalize the revolution?

    2. As the national security monolith grows in scope and power,
    what will prevent the use of "non-lethal" weapons--such as
    sedative-laden food supplies and televised subliminals--against
    the domestic population?

    3. Who determines what constitutes a "psychological threat"?
    Which ideas or beliefs shall be damned as threatening?

    4. Metz and Kievit make repeated reference to unusual new
    diseases which will afflict foreign populations. These diseases
    will lead to greater restrictions on immigration and travel:
    Anyone setting foot in certain nations would have to undergo a
    period of quarantine before mingling with the U.S. populace.
    Foreigners--even foreign tourists--might be denied entrance
    altogether. The political impact of such restrictions would be
    enormous: Americans would have minimal exposure to individuals
    from Third World countries, and thus minimal access to
    first-person accounts of conditions elsewhere.
          But where will these new diseases come from? How can Metz
    and Kievit predict their appearance so confidently? Do these
    mysterious diseases have anything to do with those
    much-trumpeted developments in biotechnology?

    5. Metz and Kievit assert that "UAVs can be used for
    psychological operations aimed at mobilizing support and
    enhancing the legitimacy" of Third World combatants favored by
    Washington. Just what do they mean by this? Obviously, a gray
    piece of military hardware, bearing stars-and-stripes
    identification markings, won't have much of a psychological
    impact as it buzzes over the head of a favored rebel leader.
    Perhaps these flying devices will come disguised or
    misrepresented in some way?
          In all likelihood, these vehicles will be camouflaged and
    misidentified-and the question "Misidentified as what?" won't
    detain any thinking person for very long. Ufologists should be
    very concerned about the clandestine use of UAVs in
    psychological operations.

    6. Re: "The Eagle Movement." Is the eagle American? Or is this
    the same bird that once perched above the swastika?

    [...]

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    MindNet Journal Archive Filename: [mn141.txt]
    ================================================================

    To receive the MindNet Journal via email:

    Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: .

    To unsubscribe:

    Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: .

    Back issues of the MindNet Journal are available at our
    FTP Archive site:

     [/pub/users/vericomm/mindnet/]

    MindNet Journal Publication Index: [mnindex.txt]

    Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet
    Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy
    weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions,
    bioelectromagnetics, hypnosis, and other related topics
    will be accepted with the author's statement of permission
    to publish. The editor reserves the right to accept or
    reject for publication. Send articles for submission to:

    , or VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303, or VERICOMM,
    POB 32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.

    The MindNet mailing list is owned and maintained by Mike Coyle,
    , VERICOMM / MindNet, POB 32314 Oakland, CA
    94604-2314 USA.

    The MindNet Journal is published by VERICOMM / MindNet in
    cooperation with the Freedom Of Thought Foundation, POB 35072,
    Tucson, AZ 85740-5072 USA.

    VERICOMM / MindNet and its agents disavow any and all
    responsibility or liability for any and all claims and/or
    guarantees, express or implied, and delivery of products,
    merchandise, and/or services offered for sale by
    advertisers and/or authors within the MindNet Journal.

    ================================================================

    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    ||||  ||||  |      |       |  |      |      |   |   |   |   ||||
    |||||  ||  ||  |||||  |||  |  |  |||||  ||  |  | |  |  | |  ||||
    ||||||    |||  ,,,,|      ||  |  |||||  ||  |  |||  |  |||  ||||
    |||||||  ||||      |  |||  |  |      |      |  |||  |  |||  sm||
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||  VERICOMM / MindNet : MindNet@c2.org  |||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||