Convenient trouble


The swedish politician Siw Persson of Folkpartiet (~liberal party) has over the years taken a stand against organized crime and has been threatened to her life several times on account of that. She has apparently achieved broad popularity among the public on account of her fearless struggle. A very rare experience among swedish politicians who are usually very conformistic. Last year she felt that a prosecutor and the police authorities were not acting to give her adequate protection against people who had previously threatened her. She even accused these authorities of deliberately conspiring against her to put her life in danger. The circumstances were such that a personal friend of her had according to some people been acting in a controversial manner.

Earlier last year she made an appearance on a news program were she made som critical remarks concerning the swedish antiterrorist force, or special operations force. They had complained about not having adequate funding for keeping their weapons in good shape and apparently these weapons were now rusty. She said, meaningly, well I think you should buy some new weapons or something.
I don't remember the exact words. I got the impression from her tone and way of saying it that she was insinuating something. At the time there was in all likeliness some debate, albeit not in the papers, about mind control in sweden and elsewhere and since similar types of forces in other western countries have access to so called nonlethal weapons including mind control technology, it seems possible that she was implying something relating to such secret technologies. I mean that she could have been insinuating that their weapons were in a state of decay because they had exhausted their fundings for purchasing something that they didn't want to be revealed.
This is something I am guessing and I don't know that the swedish force really has that type of equipment. Since the swedish secret police Säpo and even the ordinary police in some cases seem to have had the technology for decades it isn't really very sensational if the special operations force would have it too. It would be strange if they of all, would be an exception, since they are after all supposed to fight terrorists.

In view of this background I think it is a possibility to be considered seriously, that Siw Persson may have been set up, to compromise her and get rid of an outspoken defender of human rights and democracy. I am not suggesting that the people directly accused by her, need necessarily be involved in setting her up. There are in all likeliness many within the swedish authorities who could have motives for setting her up. I won't speculate on who is behind this. I am not saying she is subjected to mind control, there is too little information available, but the thought has occurred to me. She does qualify as a whistle blower.

And I feel certain that she didn't suddenly run mad by any natural cause. If she made incorrect accusations against some authorities, she could well have been provoked by way of mind control. Could have. I don't know. Another human rights activist who is known for being outspoken is Jesus Alcala, previously working for Amnesty. Last year he too got problems with the authorities, being accused of corruption in connection with a joint aid program between Sweden and Chile. I am not suggesting that the prosecutor in Alcalas case would necessarily be involved in any conspiracy. The trap may have been cautiously prepared long ago, the authorities knowing that they could activate it when they needed it. The soviet union lost the cold war, but the spirit of the KGB certainly didn't. I acknowledge that in this particular case I am only speculating, however from my own experience I know what these swedish authorities are capable of. That they are patient and planning and machiawellian in a way I would never had dreamt of prior to becoming a pry of their strange big brother manners.

From my perspective it looks like the authorities last year deliberately set up two of the most outspoken human rights activists in sweden. Very conveniently for those who have something to hide among the swedish authorities as the temperature was rising around the subject of mind control during this same period.

It is possible that more than a dozen innocent people have been murdered in sweden during the 1990s by mind controlled killers. Needless to say there is every reason to get to the truth about it.

There has even been talk of an expulsion by Siw Persson from the swedish parliament on account of her controversy with some of the swedish police and legal authorities. The newspapers as well as her colleagues in the liberal party have repeatedly stated something like 'people have begun to loose faith in Siw Perssons judgement' and soforth. None of these sources have referred to any objective investigation proving that these alleged views of the public are representative.
Do these colleagues and the papers rely on a handful of phone calls or on what?
I have a feeling that such statements in the media act as self-fulfilling prophecies or propaganda rather than reflect the original facts of the situation.
I have no opinion about those facts.
Today, Jerry Martinger, a parliamentary member of moderaterna (~the swedish conservative party), was forced to leave his place in the parliament as well as his job as a prosecutor after a trial where he was sentenced to fines, allegedly having made 140 obscene telephone calls to his former wife from phone boots. As I understand it he claims to be the target of a conspiracy and denies having anything to do with those obscene calls.
I wonder if this affects the handling of Siw Persson's case.

After the above was written it seems that Alcala's situation has deteriorated. He is now being accused of having written a false letter in the name of a member of the legal profession, Suzanne Wennberg. In the letter the writer appears to be undermining the validity of the case against Alcala and this letter was the basis for some of those defending Alcala in newspaper articles. Wennberg immediately reported on the forgery and in a recent appearance at the trial she expressed disgust for having been used in this manner. And who wouldnt have felt the same? Let us assume that things will stand this way. That nothing will happen that makes things look better for Alcala regarding the forged letter. Then the question arises about the cause of writing this kind of letter in the name of someone who would almost unavoidably reveal its falseness. Could he possibly have expected to get away with it? I dont know, but it certainly seems strange to me. If the authorities wanted to see the man being compromised and defamed they could hardly have had a greater success. From that perspective (that where one suspects covert repressive elements among the authorities to be those pulling the strings) these hypothetical actors have obtained a high score. Not only have they succeeded in having a human rights activist, in the eyes of the public, dragging himself deep into the mud. But in addition they have created animosity among the legal profession preparing the ground for a certain reluctance among their ranks to take on people perceived to belong to the same kind. Better stay away from loudmouthed activists, or they might use you. Wennberg, who initially had been acting to help Alcala, said that she deliberately avoided to sign some documents. I dont remember the precise circumstances, but the general idea was to avoid to be cited incorrectly or to be used in an unappropriate manner.
Certainly a legitimate reasoning when taken alone. However on the same time it also worries me a bit, because there is such a need for outspoken people among the legal profession in regard to the legal situation for the protection of the public against being used for unethical experiments and being targeted with secret technologies. Any unspoken policy among their ranks to stay anonymous, to keep a low profile in sensitive issues etc is worrying. It is the opposite of what we need. I beleive the authorities often rule in this way, greatly aided by the media. By setting examples, that tend to influence all the members of the affected profession in our kind of consensus culture. During informal contacts they would strengthen each other to follow a certain pattern of thinking much more than if there had come an official directive from a higher level.

On the other hand if Alcala is subjected to some kind of mind manipulation, it is conceivable that he could have been made to commit all the acts for which he is now accused. In particular the strange forgery. In retrospect it looks like a suicidal strategy, figuratively speaking. That there wouldn't be a chance in the world that he could possibly get away with it.
You can never know with human beings, but it doesn't make me less suspicious about there being foul play from the authorities.
The only way they could decrease this suspicion on my part would be that they proved that someone else had been conspiring.
Even if Alcala will admit to having committed all the things for which he is accused it wouldn't change anything.
Jose M Delgado warned in 1978 that people could become robotized without being aware of it. The media coverup on neurocybernetic systems is a very disturbing fact. In 1997 the swedish news agency TT reported that such technologies would lie 50 years into the future, despite the fact that officials have reported in the 1980s that electronic implants were used routinely in sweden. The TT news broadcast happened in response to Timothy McVeighs claims to be mind controlled, something he had claimed long before the terrorist attack for which he will be executed shortly. In discovery channel, one of the judges( or attourney?) in the trial was asked about whether he had heard about McVeighs claims of being implanted and the judge answered No. And he said that it would be impossible. There is a disturbing silence from the legal profession. One exception is the late professor Anna Christensen who has been unique in debating unethical uses of science including covert mind reading.