FROM [DE]ONTIC SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM TO [DE]ONTOLOGICAL SOCIOCYBERNETICS:
COMMUNITARIAN ETHOS AND ITS “OTHER” IN THE CONTEXT OF A MULTIPARTICIPANT, MULTIACT ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE OF INDIRECT PERPETRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE “THIRD REALM” ΑΝD FREEMASONRY AS ORGANIZED INSTITUTIONAL / PRIVATE ALLIANCES AND POWER MECHANISMS
1.1 Why agenda 21 as a blueprint for societal engineering and a new communitarian ethos through mandating inclusion in social networks constitutes a silently legitimating platform or animus socii for targeting activities? Agenda 21 as a blueprint for microsocial engineering is embedded in a discourse of clouded, highly abstract and not at all “actionable” language. The case for “open system dynamics” masking a crypto-totalitarian agenda favoring the dystopian feedback loop hyperreal ecosystem fabricated and imposed on targets
1.2 Agenda 21 is discriminatory regarding social groupings and the demopsychographic profile of participants
1.3 Agenda 21 promotes conspiratorial attempts at redistribution of wealth through the formation of “secret microsocial committees” that constitute “informal referenda” against “pragmatically overloaded adhocratic rules” and is violating of all sorts of local criminal laws, such as violation of the right to privacy and freedom of movement, illicit break-ins in targets’ property and causing property damage, while promoting psychological warfare and covert operations
1.4 Agenda 21: the cultivation of a new communitarian ethos and the indirect legitimation of transgression of the right to privacy
1.5 An agenda for depopulation
1.6 Agenda 21 as a blueprint for indoctrination on communitarian ideals
1.7 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT or ANOTHER UTOPIAN VISION?
1.8 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN THROUGH SOCIAL PYRAMIDS- BOTTOM-UP SOCIAL REENGINEERING
1.10 Microsocial engineering through Local Agenda 21: open system dynamics or groupings of pragmatically driven individuals legitimating their redistribution of wealth interests under a “communitarian cloak”? Consensus masks ubiquitous psychological mechanisms operative in group decision making (see chapter 3)
1.11 The New Age vs “Old system” rhetoric: simply a matter of redistribution of power and indirect legitimation for “multiparticipant, multiact perpetration” in the context of organized power mechanisms (see chapter 4) against an emergent discursive dominant paradigm
1.12 Agenda 21 not by accident contains as part of the project's descriptor the first degree of freemasonry (that is 21)
CHAPTER 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 44
2.1 Introduction: Targeting- the new silent massacre. What is targeting and why is it a new phenomenon (or at least an old phenomenon in new clothing) of silent massacre/premeditated murder?
2.2 The phenomenology of the torture situation
2.3 Methods of targeting : the case for a new form of sociocybernetic terrorism
2.3.21 Electromagnetic weapons: the technological enablers of the slow-kill method
2.4 Usual mode of treatment of targeting allegations on behalf of institutional mechanisms agents and the silent (psychic, discursive, pragmatic) complicity or a complicit multi-referential signifying system: The ontic and the ontological facets, the multiple referential planes, the “signifying regimes” [see chapters 3 and 4] , the latent/background assumptions operative in each referential plane as signifying attractor between linguistic/protosemiotic/corporeal signs and their respective signifieds [see chapter 3]- An instance of circulalry demarcated predespositional causality [κυκλικά οριοθετημένη προδιαθετική αιτιότητα] or the [de]ontic reinscription of minor premises in a social constructivist/sociocybernetic paradigm of [de]ontological major premises as latent conditionals of multiple signifying regimes [From Parmenides’ virtuously circular truth to a pragmatically overloaded web of Husserlian noemata as cunningly interwoven minor premises against the background of a collective intentionality]
2.5 The psychological effects of the targeting sociocybernetic mechanism and why/how the reported symptoms often match the diagnostic criteria of DSM (chance or premeditated “institutional cover-up” of the true causal mechanism that is responsible for generating these effects?)- Another typical instance of discursively complicit cover-up and semantic/pragmatic aleatoric bifurcation of a phenomenon in ever multiplying signifying regimes [see chapter 3]
2.6 A Peircian analysis of how the aforementioned conditioning tactics self-referentially and through the employed sociocybernetic mechanisms model their effects: the pragmatics of sociocybernetic conditioning
2.7 The creation of an institutionally sanctioned exclusionary mechanism. How an abductive stratagem crystallizes in an institutional practice through social constructivism and sociocybernetics : further notes on discursive complicity- a functionalist paradigm as apologetic for systemic dysfunctions or sedation as a way of coping with targeting : it’s a win-win situation for everyone but the target
2.8 The ontological issue with the notion of the psyche : empirical fact, fact of reason or of epistemological reification against the background of economic interests?
2.9 The legal issues with psychiatric diagnosis: violating freedom of speech for the sake of reducing complexity? For whom?
2.11 Reasons for targeting – the case for multilayered motives [cf. chapters 3 and 4]
2.12 Who participates in targeting activities? – the case for a multiparticipant, multiact crime with composite multiple causality
2.13 How do direct perpetrators communicate and how is communication facilitated by satellite audiovisual surveillance? – C.Roxin’s functional platform as animus auctoris (cf chapter 4)
2.14 What is the organizational structure between direct and indirect perpetrators and how recordings of incidents on behalf of institutional agents act in complicity to the incidents?
APPENDIX I – Satellite surveillance & mind control and relevant technological patents
APPENDIX II - Microchip Implants, Mindcontrol, and Cybernetics
APPENDIX III- A Word for the Wise T.I. - Microwave Targeting and Brain Dysfunction
APPENDIX IV - John St. Clair Akwei vs.NSA, Ft. Meade, MD, USA
APPENDIX V - Over 100 Ways Of Mind Control
APPENDIX VI - POLICE ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXISTENCE OF EMF HARASSMENT
APPENDIX X- INDICATIVE LITERATURE ON ANTIPSYCHIATRY
The epistemological/ontological/pragmatic framework for making sense of targeting in the context of the new communitarian ethos enforced through agenda 21 ……………………………………………………….. 169 3.1 Habermas theory of pragmatics of social interaction: Community of rational/disinterested or irrational/interested agents and by implication of social networks as constellations of social agents? Talking non-sense may be of limited truth, but of amplified relational validity
3.2 Social representations as a mechanism for fabricating and filtering information about targeted individuals: between epistemological fallacies and lay discourse perceptual inertia lies the silent legitimation of information as the outcome of social networks members decision making
3.3 Social representations or cognitive/interpretive schemata in action: Accounting for the blind spots in Habermas’ theory of the pragmatics of social interaction by demonstrating how fabricated “social contexts”, “social situations” , “scripts” and “social episodes” shape the hyperreal world of a target
3.4 How does ethnomethodology and Conversation/Discourse analysis aid in further elucidating the discourse of targeted individuals whereupon an ontologically coherent lifeworld is imprinted?
3.5 Conversation/discourse analysis in action: Unearthing the experiential building blocks and the ontologically coherent nature of “open systems” targeting lifeworld in the context of agenda 21 social networking
3.6 The implication of agenda 21 as a platform for effecting sociocybernetic solidarity on a global scale
3.7 Conversion as a change in one’s universe of discourse and the legal issue of freedom of will and responsibility (at least for the direct perpetrators) in the context of indoctrination and coercive persuasion
3.8 Agenda 21 and Viral Marketing techniques: A NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENT of pyramidically interdependent formal and informal social networks spreading virally through indoctrination techniques?
The legal framework of targeting: A case of premeditated, multiparticipant, multiact murder attempt of indirect perpetration in the context of organized mechanisms of power and institutional/private alliances (agenda 21/third realm) and freemasonry…………………………………………………………………………. 287
4.1 Reasons why the silent massacre phenomenon should be typified as an exceptional form of criminal activity in dogmatgic penal law: the analogy with the typified chapter on “Duel” in the Greek criminal law (Chapter IZ of the Particular Part of the Greek Criminal Law)
4.2 Main findings from chapter 3 and their relationship to the justification for using the proposed legal framework : targeting experiential categories as argumentative third terms and their usefulness in the interpretation and application of dogmatic law concepts
4.3 The “informal” and “formal” judiciary aspects of the silent massacre phenomenon as regards separate criminal activities and the ontologically coherent nature of their plenum
4.4 My allegations regarding individual instances of the ontologically coherent plenum of the attempted premeditated murder against me - omitted
4.5 What are the apodeictic conditionals for premeditated attempted murder?
4.6 The beginning of the act of attempted premeditated murder as silent massacre (with yet overt and demonstrable objective facets) against me and why it constitutes a multi-act crime with multiple perpetrators
4.7 Why my case constitues an attempt at multi-act premeditated murder with multiple perpetrators?
4.9 Why this is not a case of acting in parallel with others while not being motivated necessarily by the same cause?
4.10 Is it a case of complicity in the context of indirect perpetration carried out through organized mechanisms of power? Whose dolus and who is animus auctoris and who is animus socii?
4.10.2 What is the difference between closed and open system dynamics?
4.11 Legal precedents in criminal activties perpetrated in the context of organized power mechanims (in closed systems) and further elaboration of terms based on precedents
4.12 In a nutshell: Subjective and objective conditionals/Actus reus and mens rea that must be met in order to determine the existence of indirect perpetration in the exceptional case of the silent massacre phenomenon in the context of organized power mechanisms and against the background of the secret societies of agenda 21 and freemasonry
4.13 Intermezzo: Notes on legal argumentation and evidentiary methodological rationale
4.13.1 The necessity of using the silent massacre 10 third terms as nodes iin legal syllogistic chains
4.13.2 What are the limits between subjectivism and objective facts and between admissible and inadmissible evidentiary materials?
4.13.3 Justification of judiciary decisions: need for applying greater emphasis than usual on particular evidentiary materials as against general evidentiary typologies in order to avoid impressions management propagandist techniques and the complicity of the judiciary in the very methods that favor targeting as silent massacre (even though formally the judiciary is covered for not providing detailed argumentation as to which specific parts of the evidentiary materials and witness testimonies led to the formation of specific premises)- TRUTH OR AXIOLOGICAL JUDGMENTS CONDITIONED BY A COLLECTIVE INTENTIONALITY AS A SUM OF DOXIC POSITINGS?
4.14 Bringing it all together: Formalizing and subsuming under dogmatic criminal law clauses my case of premeditated attempted murder with the aid of Wigmore’s diagrams - omitted
4.15 Summary / conclusions
In chapter 1 I provide an exposition of why agenda 21 as a blueprint for societal engineering and a new communitarian ethos through mandating inclusion in social networks constitutes a silently legitimating platform or animus socii for targeting activities and draw parallels on a nominal and structural level with freemasonry.
In Chapter 2 Ι provide a definition of targeting , alongside the usual methods employed in targeting activities, the reasons for targeting, who participates in targeting activities, the organizational structure of targeting groups and the usual mode of treatment of targeting allegations on behalf of institutional authorities.
In Chapter 3 I provide the epistemological framework and the requisiste methodology for making sense of the targeting phenomenon as silent massacre against the background of social networks and the new communitarian ethos of agenda 21 by drawing on the social theory pesrpectives of pragmatics of social interaction, cultural pragmatics, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and discourse analysis, sociocybernetics, the Christological paradigm and the sociology of coercion/indoctrination while demonstrating their usefulness for understanding individual acts of perpetration as “social episodes” upon “preplanned scripts” in the context of a fabricated ontologically coherent empirical reality.
In Chapter 4 I provide the legal framework wherein the targeting phenomenon must be approached as multiact, multiparticipant premeditated attempted murder with the involvement of “third realm” public/private alliances and freemasonry. By drawing on Claus Roxin’s theory of indirect perpetration in organized power mechanisms, I point to the individual clauses of Greek criminal law and Human Rights Statute clauses that have been violated by individual acts of perpetration against me and justify why the silent massacre phenomenon is not a simple case of coperpetration, joint criminal enterprise and offshoot theories of participation in a criminal activity, but a composite crime with a composite causal pattern, including multiple remote and efficient causes and one causa finalis, viz the completion of the premeditated attempted murder. Additionally the learnings from chapters 2 and 3 are combined with the legal framework and a demonstration is provided as to why the individual acts of perpetration pertinent to my case must be subsumed under the premeditated attempted murder clause, as well as which articles of the Human Rights Statute have been violated. Last, but not least, I conclude with my demand for compensation.
INTRODUCTION In this case I seek to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that I have been victmized for over four years with targeting activities, involving land-based and electromagnetic harassment, with view to proving a premeditated murder attempt against me.
I will abide by the dogmatic tenets of legal truth finding, while engaging in interpretive exercises where necessary in order to clarify which legal clauses (encompassing Greek Criminal law, International Criminal law and European Human Rights Law) are more pertinent both to individual acts of perpetration, as well as to the “ontologically coherent plenum” of targeting activities. At the same time, I will point out why certain omissions in formal law may be silently legitimating acts of perpetration under the umbrella of targeting.
The arguments and facts backing up my case involve both ad hominem and ad humanitatem facets. Ad hominem insofar as individual perpetrators are involved in discrete spatiotemporally situated acts of perpetration and ad humanitatem insofar as institutional mechanisms are involved as enablers or as “perpetrators behind the individual perpetrators”, to use a familiar term coined by Claus Roxin, whose applied theory of indirect perpetration and relationship of dominance over individual perpetration acts in the context of organized power mechanisms will be employed in the process of grounding the particularities of this relatively new phenomenon involving a system of multi-agent perpetrators, in dogmatic law.
In the course of establishing the validity of my claims as empirical minor premises of which the contents of legal causes as major premises are predicated I shall provide sufficient information alongside both the subjective [mens rea] and objective aspects [actus reus] of the individual criminal activities and shall justify why they constitute a chain of events leading up to a premeditated murder attempt. In parallel, I will point out why certain aspects of the evidentiary rationale rest neither with inductive (that is building the argument bottom-up starting with the plausibility of inferring the validity of linking emprical facts with legal clauses) nor with deductive (that is starting with the assumption of a given legal clause and working backwards in order to unearth the relevant empirical facts that validate the relevant clause), but with abductive reasoning (that is by eliminating other plausible explanations of the causal nexus between empirical facts and their consequences),while reducing to absurdity claims to the opposite by allusion to precedents and to omissions1.
Complementary to the above I will provide a robust, valid and reliable epistemological perspective in order to make sense of an ontologically coherent plenum of individual and necessarily interconnected acts of direct perpetration and the provision of sufficient evidence about my “lifeworld2” in the context of targeting (coined against the background of the popular approaches of phenomenology and ethnomethodology, as will be illustrated in Chapter 3), while pointing to systemic aspects of institutional discursive and psychic complicity, favoring targeting activities.
One of the primary reasons why this uncommon , exceptional criminal activity of multiple composite causality, alternating perpetrators and their clear relationship to a system of indirect perpetration has not been brought to the attention of the judiciary authorities to such an extent as and with equivalent to the intensity and frequency to the torture cases themselves , which yet are informally reported and vindicated on a daily basis in countless informal associations blogs and individual torture cases consists largely in the fact that it has not yet been engraved in public mores as a despicable act meriting outcry. On the contrary, as it will be demonstrated in due course, the silent massacre phenomenon is part and parcel of a new communitarian ethos that has been informally instituted across the globe over the last 20 years, as a way of affirming communitarian bonds through the formation of a projective relationships with Others upon whom the vices , repressed wishes and all sorts of often implicit and deeply laden mechanisms of desire, demand and repression that have always been actively operative in a collective unconscious and occasionally surface as pathological phenomena of everydayness are transferred either symbolically or in a tactile manner to targets.
In essence the phenomenon is not new, but novel in its rendition. The collective pathology underpinning and enabling it has been lucidly described by various scholars in the fields of psychoanalysis, cultural and social anthropology (Freud, Lacan, Moscovici, Lewin to name a few) What is different at this historical juncture is the technologies available for carrying out these practices (eg surveillance mechanisms enabled through technologies such as Haarp and Echelon) and the advanced procedures for coordinating social actors towards their accomplishment (eg secret services directed sociocybernetic mechanisms). What is called for, in order to render this phenomenon descriptively valid and perhaps prescriptively valid in the context of dogmatic criminal law, is an epistemological, methodological and ontological framework for putting these practices in perspective, thus enabling a judiciary committee to recognize them as such by subsuming allegations under the correct legal clauses , while recognizing their ontologically coherent nature, as against seemingly discreet and unrelated activities that violate specific clauses of local and international criminal law. .
Attempts have already been made by targeted individuals at synthesizing their experiences under particular experiential categories in an attempt to descriptively encapsulate their lived reality or “lifeworld”. What is still lacking in the already vast literature, mainly consisting of individual stories and sparse allegations on the particular instances of the silent massacre phenomenon, is a set of interpretive principles that would enhance sense making and would enable outsiders to recognize the implications of this phenomenon both for the individuals concerned as well as for what is revealed through these actions about the members of the community that is carrying them out. Based on the extensive review of numerous targeted individuals’ allegations, also matching my individual case, , of which a selective portion is cited in chapter 3 as the groundwork for building bpttom-up with the employment of discourse analysis the interpretive framework supporting the dogmatic law apodeictic principles of mens rea and actus reus, a set of “targeting conditionals” or third terms is provided in chapter 4.
The epistemological framework provided in chapter 3 acts as an enabler in meeting the principle of nullum crimen sine lege insofar as in order to make sense of why this multi-perpetrator, multi-act crime, involving organized institutional mechanisms and private/public sectors’ agents cooperation, we have to synthesize individual acts of perpetration under a coherent epistemological platform and then to subsume them under the relevant clauses of criminal law. The targeting conditionals or interpretive third terms essentially provide nodes in syllogistic chains for enhancing the validity of the legal inferences drawn in chapter 4 and the subsumption of individual activities and the plenum of these activities under the equivalent clauses of criminal law and the Human Rights Statute.
In summary, I hereby allege that there is a new phenomenon of psychosomatic torture termed the silent massacre and that I have been a target of overt and identifiable acts of perpetration and covert, less perfectly evidenced acts of perpetration over the course of the past four years, resulting in serious aggravations with regard to my moral integrity, my professional and personal life and my future prospects. The silent massacre phenomenon constitutes a case of premeditated attempted murder though a multi-stage process spanning a prolonged time period and involving multiple accomplices, while the indirect responsibility or the relationship of domination over the acts of perpetration , in Roxin’s terms, rests with institutional agencies and in particular secret services that control the involved technologies and the flow of information regarding targeted individuals, whose agents seek to legitimate a state within state with concomitant attempts at redistributing resources and power among them and the legitimation of their decisions at enforcing slow kill methods by complicitly taking on board members of distinctive communities, also involving agenda 21 and freemasonry as “secret societies within society.