- Fatima - Bad News and Good News - the latter provi...
- Panthéisme ? Non. Trinité ? Oui.
- Do not support World Childhood Foundation!
- Hans-Georg Gadamer was of the "Frankfurter Schule"...
- A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien
- Sur le concept de l'ésotérique et sur les sociétés secrètes
- In Case Someone Thinks I am Preaching ...
- Would Gay Marriage Allow them an Authentic Life?
- Malfaisance de "Sécurité"
- Have I Done Ill Speaking Against the Real Pope a F...
- Drodzy Polacy - i Rosjanie itd.
- Vatican in Exile : Calendar and Marian Anthems
- Code ASCII et James Bond
Friday, 13 May 2016
Can networks go after people who are NOT Presidents?
Olof Palme was not a President, but Prime Minister in a country which had a no-politics kingship, Sweden, and governments doing the actual governing. There was a police investigation which targetted a loner, without any network, and the court acquitted him. No other suspect has come up in officially known speculations since.
There have been speculations that the real killers were a network. Conspiracy theories, of course. Who'd belive such a thing? It's like saying there was a network behind assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy and the culprits named (unlike the Swedish case not acquitted) were just loners.
Anna Lind was killed by a Serbian. An Orthodox priest said "one word was not named in the court proceedings : Kosovo". The "lone killer" was a Serbian and Anna Lind (as foreign minister or sth) had supported the war in Kosova, against the Serbian side. To many, since Belgrade was bombed, that means simply against the Serbs. Though Anna Lind would have denied that, no, she is politically correct, she didn't go after any nation, she was just against atrocities.
No network behind her killer either, or so they would say. Her killer was put in mental hospital.
That fact has of course strengthened security people's suspicion of lone madmen. Though psychiatry did not prevent Anna Lind from getting killed.
Psychiatry also has a certain way of interrogating (which, as in the case of a man having spent several years in forensic psychiatry seems to have led him to false confessions ... he's now a free man, after confessing to recall and be ready to admit after psychoanalysis facts which technical investigation knew to be false. In previous cases he had presumably admitted things they knew to be accurate.
So, psychiatry could be a way of interrogating the Serbian who killed Anna Lind.
It is also a way to hush up any admissions he could make which are not welcome to the set - patients "can be incoherent", and that can be explanation for any admission or explanation he makes, however true, which does not suit them.
BUT, I have so far not answered the question.
Lincoln, Kennedy, Palme, Anna Lind, in that order, were all top politicians.
Of course they have a reason to have security. Of course they have a reason to keep an eye on ... was it networks or lone madmen, again? I think their security people are looking at both.
But if someone was not a top politician, or very rich, or very famous, he has no need to worry about attracting illwill, right?
Well ... Salman Rushdie was hardly over famous before a certain fatwa was publically pronounced.
He was a writer. He was considered to have blasphemed Islam, by claiming one occasion their prophet Mohammed (and peace is not on or in his name, but God bless some decent people who wish that!) had revelations from the devil. I recently heard, this is taken from actual official history. By Muslims themselves, among other things. Perhaps true, perhaps not, so far I have only one source.
I think he blasphemed Christianity by claiming Mohammed received revelations from God the rest of the time.
Now, he is claiming there is a network after him.
Of course, he can point to a fatwa about it. And to attempts already having been made.
I think there is a fatwa about me. Not to kill me, but to treat me as a madman. And it's not official. Now, Muslims are, most of the time, very kind to people they consider as madmen. But they stop them from doing what they want to do, in case they think it dangerous.
There can be other things involved in their decisions too.
If there is one. It could be just a false conclusion, according to what you know, and I can't force you to trust my accumulated experience of it.
There seems to be, since I sent the Mosque of Paris, a few years ago, a list of links over things I had written about Muslims - so they should not go paranoid over me being a "secret" blogger (while they are not enthusiastic over my attempts of promoting my blogs as openly as I can, either). And the Mosque of Paris did not write me back. But punctual kindnesses from Muslims increased, and so did obstacles to blogging, or a bit more recently, to printing blogs or handwritten booklets in book format.
But, they have not posed death threats to me, or at least if one or two did, apart from one occasion in prison, where they had baited me to say what I thought of Mohammed (after Swedish authorities had ignored my call of not being put among Muslims, they offered me the "sick bay" of the prison, I refused, then after some month this happened.)
On that occasion one of them conspicuously accused the others of the death threat (I am not sure they asked me if I was suicidal, the guys around the table, I am pretty sure one of them asked me if I was mad) and had me protected - but as if I had, in some "mental confusion" provoked it. Once I was put, first in "sick bay" of another prison and then in forensic psychiatry rest of my prison time, I never heard any more about the death threat, probably because I denounced it mostly as an attempt to get me into forensic psychiatry instead.
If I am not famous, perhaps Salman wasn't either before Satanic verses.
But since that occasion in 1998, some more Muslims than the four in prison and the one who was involved when I got into trouble, and through whose decision to make a mental evaluation I was forced to choose between either submitting once again to psychiatry (it was becoming a stale joke!) or to defend myself, which I did, thereby occasioning the prison term from court of appeal, first court actually acquitting me "putative self defense" and in second court I would have disputed the "putative" part, as much as prosecutor disputed "self defense" part, or all of it (including "putative", the one thing they got right), but my lawyer refused me the occasion to plead my own case, I was only allowed to answer questions, not to accuse psychiatry. I was allowed to say I was afraid of psychiatry, or not even that, except in first court, where I had been acquitted, but not to say what I had to be afraid of.
So, in order to have a network after you, you do not exactly have to be even known as a writer, at least not very known.
And of course networks can take other forms than trying to kill one. Like the form of trying to push you off as a madman.
So, if day before yesterday I was stopped from printing out a few booklets, perhaps this was not due to Muslim pressure.
Perhaps some security watching "a lone madman" to protect the next Anna Lind and so on (after the murder news, I told people around, in a Muslim 'hood of Malmö, "I was here, otherwise I would have been suspect", I said it as a joke, but some seem to have taken it otherwise.)
And perhaps some security over here in Paris had some reason to do so, apart from the fact that printing booklets is not exactly like shooting ministers. You see, I am not a very big fan of the new "loi macron" and some may have felt a threat I could make demonstrations against it more violent with sth I printed , if allowed to. But this possibility which may have been operative day before yesterday, when I was refused to print what I had paid for printing in copy self, might be off today, since yesterday Parliament allowed Government to survive the no-confidence vote over the law.
mail dot com : France's government survives vote over labor reform
I'd say, perhaps the new version of the law is just bearable, provided psychiatry is not given too much power over people, but if that happens ... well, out of work people can often be described as "loners" and perhaps sometimes even as "lone madmen" unless their first priority is getting a new employ-ER as soon as possible and with almost any sacrifice to comfort or dignity. So, "loi Macron" + psychiatry + what I described about security services looking for lone madmen and therefore giving powers to psychiatry (which they tend to lap up, they would not want to get out of work by diagnosing far fewer than they do, would they!) = more oppression against the poor by the rich.
Note, I am not a socialist. I do not say rich should not be allowed to run their companies. I do say poorer ones should not be prevented either from making start ups, and should not be so watched over that they cannot make their own lives (mine has been more or less ruined since 1998, after it was in the eyes of the world, but not mine, ruined 1996 - 1998) or are less likely to make a too confusing map for security experts of all sorts.
You know, if Obama has security people, he's not paranoid. He's not a lone madman. Perhaps Stalin wasn't either. But this doesn't mean the security people cannot be making their networks out of "paranoia" over some people.
So, instead of some Muslim network being parnoid about my trying to print an appeal to cast Muslims out of France (I wasn't, and if I sympathise with Front National on that account, I don't think such appeals would be within my position, as I also am a foreigner and also am often receiving alms from them), it just possibly could be someone worried I make some kind of pronouncement which might ruin "loi Macron", since back in 2005 I had participated in denouncing CPE:
En français sur Antimodernism* : Ni CPE ni "EVA" (mars, 2006)
(If there is a pop up when you click, or when and if you try to copy text or titles, it's a bug I have not fixed, not by me.)
But perhaps that would be paranoid to think they could be paranoid about. I had of course done nothing, zilch, nada, to prevent EVA (next reform project) of taking its place.
Nor to prevent:
En français sur Antimodernism : Contrat Responsabilité Parentale
which I consider a socialist and totalitarian measure against parental autonomy in raising their children.
With so little efficieny in my writing, why would any one bother to check out my blogs in a networked and coordinated way? As I suggested they do after looking at stats day before yesterday and yesterday, in this previous post, in French, where I also tell the story of the copy self refusing to letting me do with my money exactly what I wanted, namely print on their printers:
New blog on the kid : La Russie, surveille-t-elle les autres lecteurs de mes blogs?
Title is a question whether Russian readers are coordinating a surveying readers in France, US, etc.
In US, I very probably have some independent readers, still, I hope. But in France, I think people outside a certain network or a certain number of networks (Muslims, Jews, Freemasons, Government, Communists) are being discouraged by various from actually going on and reading my blogs. Even if they do get curious.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Robert Bellarmine