Comment on this article |
Email this article |
News :: Globalization
25 Dec 2005
The Threat to Civil Liberties
by Judy Wall, Editor/Publisher Resonance
Newsletter of the MENSA Bioelectromagnetics Special Interest Group
NEXUS Magazine, October-November 1999 Vol. 6, No. 6 Judy Wall can be contacted by mail at:
Judy Wall, Editor/Publisher
684 County Road 535
** She has stated that her interest is in objective reports only - not victim testimonials.**
Eleanor White's comments: This hard hitting article by Judy Wall, who is NOT a mind control victim and in fact avoids victim testimonials in favour of only factual objective material, contains some POWERFUL items not widely known among involuntary mind control experimentees. These items in her article below have had the font size increased a notch so that the visitor can scroll down and see just those items if time or interest is short.
WAY TO GO, Judy!
USAF COMMANDO SOLO: AERIAL MIND CONTROL BROADCASTS
The United States Air Force uses aerial mind-control broadcasts against
civilian population as well as enemy troops. Some of these actions against
civilians are done with the intent of influencing public opinion and the
outcome of elections.
In a previous article, we examined mind-control technology, especially that
utilizing Silent Sound [TM], in which radio-frequency broadcasts carry
subliminal patterns that entrain the listener's brainwaves into a pre-
selected emotional state. According to ITV wire service reports, this
technology was used during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, as part of the
US Psychological Operations (PsyOps) directed against Iraqi troops. [1,2]
To the Desert Storm offensive we can now add several other incidents.
Alex Horvat, editor of The Probe, calls to our attention the 1998
video, Exotic Weapons of Mass Control, produced by Bob Fletcher.
"The excerpt played on Fletcher's video is from TLC (The Learning Channel)
and clearly states that Commando Solo was used in Haiti for what was called
Operation Uphold Democracy. As the general populace was violently
opposed to Aristide and most in favor of his ouster, it took nearly a year
of this clandestine counter-programming to get them to change their minds.
Instead of butchering a population physically, we can no manipulate them
mentally, virtually enslaving their thoughts with a criss-cross pattern
of flights by an EC-130 (which is just a C-130 heavily laden with electron-
ic hardware.) 
We were not at war with the citizens of Haiti, yet the U.S. Government
directed military weapons against this friendly, or at least neutral,
civilian population. The U.S. Government sanction the "rigging" of the
Haitian election by mental control of the people, programming them to cast
their votes for the Americans' favored candidate. And they had the nerve
to call it "Operation Uphold Democracy". Some sense of humor!
Stalin would have loved it. Hitler would have loved it. Why is the U.S.
Government doing this? Who is behind this flagrant violation of civil
liberties? Is it the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) which has a
long history of interfering in foreign government politics? Or has this
become standard military procedure?
The rationale is always the same: "to make the world safe for democracy".
Yet what is democracy if not freedom? Freedom to think your own thoughts;
freedom to express your own opinions; freedome to vote for the candidate
of your own choice.
Fletcher's video also mentions that the same technology was used against
the Bosnia population for a week to influence their election.  This
was probably done during Operation Joint Guard in 1995. 
The questions arise: If they have used mind-control broadcasts against
foreign civilian populations to influence elections, will they use them
against American citizens -- or have they already? What other countries
may be the recipients of this innovative technology?
Just what is this EC-130E Commando Solo? The United States Air Force has
helpfully published a fact sheet that describes the Lockheed built air-
craft.  This 1995 bulletin states that the "unit flyaway cost" is more
than US $100 million each, and that there are eight in the inventory. Its
primary function is "Psychological operations broadcasts". The crew
consists of four officers (pilot, copilot, navigator, control chief/EWO)
and seven enlisted members (flight engineer, loadmaster, five mission
According to the fact sheet:
"Air Force Mission: Commando Solo conducts psychological operations and
civil affairs broadcast missions in the standard AM, FM, HF, TV and
military communications bands. Missions are flown at maximum altitudes
possible to ensure optimum propagation patterns. The EC-130 flies during
either day or night scenarios with equal success, and is air refuealable.
A typical mission consists of a single ship orbit which is offset from the
desired target audience. The targets may be either military or civilian
"Secondary missions include command and control communications counter-
measures (C3CM) and limited intelligence gathering.
"Air Force Features: Highly specialized modifications have been made to
the latest version of the EC-130. Included in these modifications are
enhanced navigation systems, self-protection equipment, and the capability
of broadcasting color television on a multitude of world-wide standards
throughout the TV VHF/UHF ranges.
"Air Force Background: Air National Guard EC-130 aircraft flown by the
193rd Special Operations Group were deployed to both Saudi Arabia and
Turkey in support of Desert Storm. Their missions included broadcasts of
'Voice of the Gulf' and other programs intended to convince Iraqi soldiers
"The EC-130 was originally modified using the mission electronic equipment
from the EC-121, known at the time as the Coronet Solo. Soon after the
193rd SOG received its EC-130s, the unit participated in the rescue of US
citizens in Operation Urgent Fury, acting as an airborne radio station
informing those people on Granada of the US military action.
"Volant Solo, as the mission is now known, was instrumental in the success
of coordinated psychological operations in Operation Just Cause, again
broadcasting continuously throughout the initial phases of the operation."
Operation Just Cause? this is another propaganda name, applied to
the U.S. invasion of Panama to take out that country's leader, General
Noreiga, the CIA's erstwhile partner in drug smuggling. Apparently the
General had made someone mad -- how else to account for the massive in-
vasion of this tiny tourist country? To wit: "A superpower whipped the
poop out of 10 percent of the police force of a Third World nation. You
are supposed to be able to do that. It was done well, and I credit those
who did it. But it is important that we draw the right lessons from it"
according to an anonymous US Marine. 
Our Commander-in-Chief had another point of view: "...the roll call of
glory, the roster of great American campaigns -- Yorktown, Gettysburg,
Normandy, and now Panama."
--President George Bush, March 1990 
MILITARY PSYOPS AGAINST CIVILIANS
In a phone call to the USAF Special Operations Command Public Affairs
Office, I questioned the legitimacy of using these subliminal broadcasts
against civilian populations. 
[Judy Wall's article on Silent Sound for details.]
I was told that it was all perfectly legal, having been approved by the
U.S. Congress (!). It may be okay by Congress, but I sincerely doubt that
it would be approved by the recipient populations.
That conversation also elicited more information concerning the Commando
Solo units. For instance, the Air National Guard
of the individual states in the U.S. can also operate
Commando Solo aircraft, should the Governor of a state
request assistance. That means the PsyOps mind-control
technology can be directed against
The Commando Solo aircraft have participated in the following missions--
possibly more, as the early missions of Volant Solo 1 were not known to
- Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada, Oct-Nov 1983, Jan-Jun 1985)
- Operation Just Cause (Panama, late December 1989)
- Operation Desert Shield (Kuwait, Iraq, from August 1990)
- Operation Desert Storm (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, 1991)
- Operation Uphold Democracy (Haiti, 1994-1995)
- Operation Joint Guard (Part of a UN oepration in
- Operation Desert Thunder (part of a UN operation in Iraq)
- Operation Desert Fox (Iraq, 2 to 3 days in December 1998)
Other countries are known to have a similar aircraft, but the PR officer
declined to identify them, suggesting that I check out Jane's Defence
Weekly for such information. Not having access to that particular
publication, I searched through my copy of Jane's Radar and Electronic
Warfare Systems 1993094.  The Commando Solo unit was not listed,
but a browse through the book was informative as to the numerous types of
electronic offence and defence systems available. These include sta-
tionary and mobile land units (many housed in large trucks), shipboard and
airborne models as well as well as space-based technology. If the military
is spending US $100 million per airborne unit (times eight, we're talking
US $800 million here), I think it is safe to assume that they have tried
out mind control equipment with less expensive, roving land units (trucks),
but use the airplanes to cover wider areas and hard-to-reach locations of
And I might add, we can asume that they have tried out the efficacy of this
mind-control technology. Even the US military would not waste $800 million
on something unless it has been proven to work, and work effectively, even
under the adverse situation of military combat. This is an important
The initial research into mind control in the USA was conducted udner the
auspices of the CIA. The flagrant abuse of human rights in experimenting
on unsuspecting persons was based on the supposition that the veracity of
experiments would be compromised if a subject knew that he was participating
in an experiment. In the case of mind-control technology, tehis supposition
might very well be true. But that does not justify its use -- or so said
the Nuremburg Code, the tenets of which were used as a legal basis to pro-
secute Nazi scientists for war crimes. However the US seems to have
excused its own military and scientific community from adhering to that
MANIPULATING MIND AND BODY BY SATELLITE
The next logical step in mind control would be to incorporate this tech-
nology into satellite communications. Since other countries are known
to have similar capabilities, there could occur a sitution in which
electronic mind control warfare is waged against a civilian population,
receiving conflicting mental manipulation from both sides. What would be
the mental state of individuals so targetted? Would it cause a rise in
mental aberrations and schizophrenia? And what are the limits of mind
manipulations? Can people be forced to commit suicide? Can physical
ailments or psychosomatic illnesses be induced?
A March 1990 report from Bosnia-Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia sug-
gests the latter may have already happened. The report concerns 2,990
ethnic Albanians who were admitted to hospital with complaints of lung and
skin problems for which doctors could find no physical cause. 
It is not a far step from manipulating a person's emotional state to influ-
encing bodily functions. Indeed, much of the literature on documenting
microwave effects on biological systems deals with precisely this phenom-
enon. In fact, studies of the physical effects of microwave exposure
(including radio frequencies) generally preceeded studies of mental effects.
A meeting sponsored by Defense & Foreign Affairs and the International
Strategic Studies Association was held in Washington DC in 1983. High-level
officials from many countries met for this conference. They discussed
psychological strategies related to government and policymaking. A summary
of the agenda reads: "The group will be discussing the essence of future
policymaking, for it msut be increasingly clear to all that the most effec-
tive tool of government and strategy is the mind... If it's any consolation
to the weapons-oriented among defense policymakers, the new technologies of
communications -- satellites, television, radio, and mind-control
beams -- are 'systems' which are more tangible than the more
philosophically based psychological strategies and operations.
[Eleanor White's comment: Anyone know where to get a copy?]
"But we should make no mistake; it will be the 'psychologically based'
systems which determine the world's fate in coming years: the condition of
the minds of populations and leaders. And we should not ignore the fact
that the USSR [this was in 1983] is working on electronic systems to
'beam' messages directly into the brain. What good, then, are conventional
systems if these types of weapons are not countered? And, on a more basic
level, what good is a weapon system if public opinion or political con-
straints prohibit its deployment?" 
It is obvious that they found the answer to that last question. If the
public does not know about a weapon system, it cannot prohibit its deploy-
ment. This is the situtation that applies to mind-control technology.
MIND CONTROL AGAINST 'POTENTIAL' ENEMIES
The US military is aware that certain actions or procedures may not be
acceptable to the American public. Metz and Kievit express these concerns
in their paper, "The Revolution in Military Affairs and Short Conflict War."
 "The use of new technology may also run counter to basic American
values. Information age -- and in particular, information warfare --
technologies cause concerns about privacy... American values also make the
use of directed-energy weapons ... morally difficult, perhaps unacceptable.
The advantage of directed-energy weapons over conventional ones is
Later they state: "We must decide whether innovative military capabilities
are, in fact, acceptable and desirable. That can only happen through open
debate. The military must be a vital participant, but not the sole one."
But there has been no open debate.
On July 21, 1994, the US Department of Defense proposed that non-lethal
weapons be used not only against declared enemies, but against anyone
engaged in activities that the DOD opposed. That could include almost any-
body and anything. Note that the mind-control technology is classified
under non-lethal weapons. 
A 1998 news item states that US Air Force General John Jumper "predicts
that the military will have the tools to make potential enemies see, hear,
and believe things that do not exist" and that "The same idea was con-
tained in a 15-volume study by the USAF Scientific Advisory Board, issued
in 1996, on how to maintain US air and space superiority on the battle-
fields of the 21st century". [16,17]
It seems that, in miltary parlance, a "prediction" means: "Don't be
surprised when you find out we've already got this, but it's classified
and we can't admit to it just yet."
Notice that General Jumper predicts that mind control technology will be
used against potential enemies. The military and government
agencies may apply this term to any group or individual they perceive as
a threat to their own interests. Potential enemies may be counter-culture
individuals, those of opposing political viewpoints, economic or financial
competitors, biological undesirables, etc. It is part of the military
agenda to identify potential threats so as to be prepared to meet them.
Experience has shown that the US Government (the CIA and FBI, for example)
has moved against these people or groups, slandering, harassing, even
killing them, without adequate cause or legal sanction.
A weapon that can be used in secret lends itself to abuse by unethical
individuals in positions of power. The military and secret services have
shown themselves often to be lacking in ethical constraints. After all,
the job of the military is war; it is killing people; and so,
just how this is accomplished may be considered irrelevant. Lesser evils,
like mind control, pale by comparison.
Of course, it can be argued that it is far more humane to brainwash a
person via mind control technology than it is to torture or kill them.
Others vehemently deny this. They'd rather be dead than a mental slave to
Big Brother! That is what revolutions are about. And if I recall
correctly, that is the idea behind the US Bill of Rights.