If There Was A System Of Control In Place – Who Would Control It?

Introduction

As mentioned on other pages, I stumbled across TI’s as I was researching how to remotely extract biological signals, and have become quite fascinated with the idea – especially since I have been able to align a significant number of their reported symptoms with those reported by the US Diplomats in Cuba and China, and more recently some US CIA agents.

As I continue my research, one of the things that I do is look for holes, and try to understand the ‘bigger picture’. In this case – I wonder as to why this would be done? Why would a grouping of people be remotely ‘harassed’ by ‘someone’ or a group of people? And why would these people single them out – and not just take their lives? I spent a little bit of time reviewing this, and offer the below for your review. I open the floor to ANYONE wanting to engage in a discussion.

From the perspective of the TI’s – this section solutions towards determining the answer to the following two questions: Why Would This Be Done? And By Whom? In my review, I have broken this down to the following discussion points:

  • benefits in deploying a technology like this positively or negatively?
  • deployment risks – how would they be mitigated?
  • public perception – would it matter?
  • how would you keep control of the technology? stop it from being used on you?
  • who would have the cash to deploy it?
  • would you have an exit plan? especially if people revolted en masse?
  • what would some possible benefits in using / having this type of technology?
  • would it be used to dominate others?
  • who would best benefit from the deployment of the technology considering the above?

Let’s start!

How Would You Deploy This Technology

Positive or Negative Deployment?

As per my nature, I would use a positive approach. People more-so openly accept technology when it is associated with positivity. Negativity could be quelled by disclosing how it works to everyone, thus enabling those unwilling to use it with an ability to continue their lives as they have become accustomed. A positive approach could open this up to the commercial market. Doing so would foster public trust, and would generate a stronger nation!

Unfortunately in what I’ve read thus far, and since I’ve never seen any documents or literature about this technology being available, I believe this to be a negative deployment:

  • all I read are negative statements regarding this technology from victims of abuse
  • the only people talking about it are ‘Targeted Individuals”, who are almost immediately discredited by society
  • there are whistle-blowers who state they have worked on parts of the technologies being used – but they cannot advise as to how the technologies work, so they are also discredited
  • there are news articles from reputable sources citing the use of directed energy weapons – and the investigating doctors are speaking out about it – but later reports attempt to discredit their initial findings – thus they are trying to hide it
  • in fact in North America ANY research surrounding parapsychology is openly discredited by researchers and civilians – note that this is not the case in other countries (like Russia)

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that this deployment is meant to control people. Therefore, these Targeted Individuals are: being used as examples (show its capabilities), or for experimenting on, or just simply to be eliminated in a rather nasty way. This would also imply that they are considered as being ‘disposable’ – which is a disturbing concept to anyone respecting human life, dignity, and equality. And I understand children are being targeted. Note that the remaining sections will be based on a negative deployment strategy.

Deployment Risks

  • it would be expected that a certain percentage of society would fail
    • obviously those being targeted are failing, thereby negatively affecting families, the companies these individuals work at, etc., etc..
  • the research would have needed to have been conducted in one of two ways: a) all of it performed and monitored by an extremely tight-knit group of people, or b) pieces of the research performed by multiple teams and then combined into the final product via a tight-knit group of people
    • if research was not kept somewhat secret, then someone would be able to put the pieces together and duplicate it
    • the more people who know, the harder it is to keep the secret

Public Perception of Technology

  • it seems obvious they do not care whether the technology will ever be positively perceived by the general public
    • with all of the posted information, it would no longer possible to change public perception from the negative to the positive without an extreme or severe action of some type forcing a change of public opinion (thus exonerating current activities)
  • a lack of morals – trustworthiness
    • I am to understand that children are even being targeted, and people are being harassed to the point where they cannot function normally – basic human rights are being violated
    • I am therefore concerned about the overall lack of respect
    • therefore those ‘in charge’ are untrustworthy
    • therefore people would never be able to trust those having used or owning these systems, in case they later decided to use it on them in the future
    • based on the functional principles of the brain and the tolerances of the biological materials that make up the body, with each time someone is ‘harassed’ they are being affected mentally and/or physically – this must be thought as a form of retarding and could lead to permanent physical damage
  • so I am unsure as to how this could be reversed?

Control of Research, the Government, the Military, Organized Crime, and the General Public – perhaps World Domination?

  • they would need to have control of the Military or have the capacity of throttling (slowing) their research
    • otherwise, this would be discovered via Military research – lending the Military to become a threat to their control
  • they would need to have some form of control or influence over the Government
    • Government research could also lead to the same conclusion as the Military
    • the Government could use the Military to eliminate this threat
    • the Government could work to expose the individuals in an attempt to regain control of the nation (power)
  • they would have need to partner with or somehow control organized crime
    • organized crime always find their way in somehow
    • organized crime would figure out that they were somehow being monitored and retaliate
    • organized crime would want an ability to control and would not want to be controlled
  • they would need to have the ability to steer public research, otherwise they would lose control
    • they would want to extend their time in power for as long as possible
    • one way to do this is to discredit research that supports the technology or lead to its discovery. If well implemented, then any individuals citing discredited science would also immediately be discredited
    • I’ve noticed that any research supporting this is almost immediately disregarded in North America. But in referencing de-classified CIA documents, I have learned that this type of research is generally regarded as legit science in other countries
  • they would need to be able to control those who are part of the overall plan in any way possible and by any means required
    • people ‘in the know’ of this capability would need to be appeased or kept quiet somehow
    • individuals could be targeted by rival ‘like’ groups (if there are any), hoping to recruit them in a bid for dominance

Cash Flow

  • they would need to have tremendous cash flow that can be diverted or hidden from public view
    • this research would have costed a lot of money – along perhaps with its deployment
    • how would they hide their spending from public or government view?
  • they would need to hide any wealth generated by this in a way that is not visible to inspection by financial audits (if they apply)

Exit Plan

  • in a negative deployment strategy you do not need an exit plan – which seems to be the case
    • they would see a need to defend their future
    • they would not wish to disclose the use of this technology
    • if found, they would not want to be associated with the technology (for fear of retribution)
    • they would not want to lose their power

Benefits From Use

  • they would need to somehow benefit from its use! Otherwise, why use / have it?
  • in the case of a negative deployment strategy, one would assume that the benefits would not be for the general public, but for a select group of people – probably why the technology is being hidden from public view

Domination

  • they would be working towards, or will have already gained, world domination with this being deemed a critical step forward towards maintaining their dominance – this would eliminate any potential threats to their power
  • world governments, powerful people, and world-wide agencies would be viewed as threats – needing to be brought under their control
  • an illusion of a division of people would still be required – this could lead to wealth generation, deter research into competing sciences, steer people’s focus, and reduce belief in the possibility of one grouping of people ‘running the show’

So Who Is Doing This?

What group of people, or single person, has the power, will, need for dominance, financial capability, level of controls, etc., to do something like this? Most people seem to say it’s the Government, the Ultra Rich, or another ‘like’ grouping of powerful people – but I disagree. I’d suggest it was organized crime – or all of them. Perhaps the best way to go about this is answer the following question: What Grouping Of People Have Grown Immensely In Strength And Power Consistently For The Past 40 Years?

ConsiderationIf it was GovernmentIf it was the Ultra-RichIf it was Organized Crime
How would you keep it hiddenTargeted Individuals are starting to talk about their experiences but are being discredited. Even recent attacks on diplomats are being discredited.

Could hide the technology in many locations.

Targeted Individuals are starting to talk about their experiences but are being discredited. Even recent attacks on diplomats are being discredited.

Could hide the technology in many locations.

Targeted Individuals are starting to talk about their experiences but are being discredited. Even recent attacks on diplomats are being discredited.

Could hide the technology in many locations.
Deployment risks / ramification of detectionIndividuals are unimportant as cash flow from many sources.

Have access to a tremendous number of research facilities and public research companies, which could then be combined.

Could be dismissed as a conspiracy theory or regarded and treat as a National Security concern
Individuals are unimportant as cash flow from many sources.

Own a lot of larger companies that could perform extensive and expensive private research, which could then be combined.

Would be dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
General public is of no concern.

Own a lot of larger companies that could perform extensive and expensive private research, which could then be combined. Could also perform illegal research.   Rival gangs could instigate a power struggle, thus the group using this technology would need to absorb other ‘like’ groups, while working to slowly eliminate rivals. The group would need to remain silent, and be active in money laundering efforts to keep revenue flowing. Personal attacks could be instantiated to keep those agreeing to ‘join’ appeased as they would see a benefit to their silence while the group grows.
Positive or Negative DeploymentCurrent deployment method is negative.

You’d think they would push a positive deployment method – strengthen the economy, superior military, etc?

Prior negative deployments are now public knowledge (MKULTRA).
Current deployment method is negative.

I could see them wanting to keep this secret.
Current deployment method is negative.

This fits the mentality. They might encourage negative perceptions about the technology to raise fear and gain or keep control.
Public Perception of TechnologyCould be viewed positively, but this vision is not in alignment with current deployment tactic – currently following MKULTRA project.Could be viewed positively, but this vision is not in alignment with current deployment tactic .Would benefit the most if public perception was negative. This would be used as a fear based system. Or used to get people to ‘join them’ (gang mentality), or to give people a false feeling of empowerment.
Control of InformationThe same political party does not continue to be elected – but this technology would require absolute secrecy across all of the parties. I’m not sure they would agree to this.

Public research could be steered by controlling the funding and discrediting research supporting this technology.

Could not keep organized crime out of the picture.

Have performed their own unethical experimentation, outside of agency inspection, violating any human right they deem fit, while lacking any moral code that might impede their progress.
Would have influence in every political party – but how keep members of each party quiet?

Would need to keep only specific government people ‘in the loop’ – which may not include the president.

Public research could be steered by controlling the funding and discrediting research supporting this technology.

Could not keep organized crime out of the picture.

Would be difficult to perform their own unethical experimentation, without any fear of reprisal or discovery, outside of government or agency inspection, violating any human right they deem fit, while lacking any moral code that might impede their progress.
Would have influence in every political party, which could be used to steer the military.

Would need to keep only specific government people ‘in the loop’ – which may not include the president.

Public research could be steered by manipulating government contacts to control the funding and discrediting research supporting this technology.

Could perform their own unethical experimentation without any fear of reprisal or discovery, outside of government or agency inspection, violating any human right they deem fit, while lacking any moral code that might impede their progress.
Cash FlowHave a large cash flow.
Profits generated via the tax collection from individuals, companies, investments, etc..
Have ability to fund multiple expensive projects at once.
Have a large cash flow – these are the richest people on the Earth.
Profits generated via the many companies they own or invest in – making it easy to manipulate large scale economies while maintaining a large cash flow. They could use their own companies to perform research, profiting off the research by using it in their companies, while not being required to disclose research (confidentiality).

Have ability to fund multiple expensive projects at once.
Have a large cash flow, often partnering with countries, states, and other organized crime groups viewed as our ‘enemy’.

Profits generated completely out of the view of government and public.

Have ability to fund multiple expensive projects at once.
Exit PlanUnsure – system is not positive for general public.Unsure – system is not positive for general public.They would not have one – would implement this as a way to control the general public.
Benefits From UseUnsure – there are better ways to gain financial wealth and political power with less risk.

Since deployment method is negative, then would not be intended for positive use.

Why not use this technology to gain Intelligence on enemies first, quietly?
Unsure – there are better ways to gain financial wealth and political power with less risk.

Since deployment method is negative, then would not be intended for positive use.
Perhaps they would use this technology to mentally condition the public to accept them into our every day lives? For instance, the success they are having with Money Laundering in Canada just using their regular infiltration tactics.

Perhaps to give the illusion that individuals willing to join them can have ‘power’ or ‘control’ over others (some sort of hierarchy)?

I’m going to keep adjusting / adding to the above. But I am really interested in what your thoughts are? Please send me an email, or post a comment!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.