NOTE: This report will be posted in numbered
segments, due to its length.
It's a common practice to include a Frequently
Asked Questions section on a website. I haven't done this in the past,
but decided it might be useful, especially for those who are new readers of my
site, or for those who would like to gain a greater understanding of my beliefs,
my views, and my perspective of the issues and topics I
cover.
As well, there is a plethora of misinformation
and disinformation on the World Wide Web, including the most outrageous lies,
about Barbara Hartwell (just check any search engine, but Google Gestapo is the
worst offender), via the libel/slander campaigns engineered to discredit me and
my work, that I find it necessary on a regular basis to set the public record
straight.
But before I get to the questions, I should
provide some background information which places these questions into the proper
context.
Firstly, the issues I cover, as a journalist in
both print and electronic media, are extremely controversial, which anyone who
has heard my radio broadcasts, or taken even a cursory glance at the titles of
my reports may easily see. And although my reports are written for the general
public, my reading audience is comprised mostly of those with a "special
interest" in these issues, which spans the entire spectrum --from those like me,
who are involved in investigations and research of "conspiracies" and/or who
have been Targets, Victims or Survivors of conspiracies (including government
black operations) --to those involved in crimes, corruption and coverups, namely
those perpetrating the conspiracies, most of whom are government agents and
their minions and stooges.
Most of what I cover in my reports and radio
broadcasts concerns conspiracies, of one kind or another.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Excerpt from encyclopedia:
Agreement between two or more persons to
commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means. Some
U.S. states require an overt act in addition to the agreement to constitute
conspiracy. Individual conspirators need not even know of the existence or the
identity of all other conspirators. In a chain conspiracy the parties act
separately and successively (as in distributing narcotics). A civil conspiracy
is not prosecuted as a crime but forms the grounds for a
lawsuit.
Since it is rare that there is just one "lone
gunman" or lone evildoer perpetrating any given offense, civil or
criminal, therefore it is the conspiracy itself that is the main focus of my
work; nonetheless, it is the individual conspirators who are the subjects of my
investigations.
It is my policy to expose the conspirators and
their accomplices by name, from the lowest hirelings, lackeys and stooges, to
the middlemen, right up the chain of command to the Criminal Kingpins.
Information cannot possibly be useful, or hold credibility, if the
expositor does not name the names, at least in those cases where the identities
have been established via documented evidence. It is also very important to me
that the perps are held accountable for their offenses, at the very least, if
only in generating outrage in the court of public
opinion.
In many cases of perps exposed in my reports, I
myself and/or those in my family and/or my friends are the Targets or Victims of
the civil and/or criminal offenses. It should be understood that I write most
of these reports as part of an archive of documentation for the public record,
not as "news stories". The purpose of this site is mainly to focus on exposing
government conspiracies, not to "report the news."
And in the reports where crimes against my
family or friends are exposed, I go to great lengths to protect their privacy,
and never divulge information given to me in confidence, unless/until I receive
permission to make it public.
I generally avoid using "confidential sources"
whose names are never revealed. Personally, when I hear or read something, where
the reading/listening audience is told it is "from a source", it is meaningless
to me. A "source"? What source? Mickey Mouse? Donald Duck? The Man in the
Moon?
I don't attribute credibility to unnamed "inside
sources", and dismiss most of such information as garbage, being disseminated
for an agenda. Unless I see names, verifiable facts, backed by some form of
evidence, I'm not buying it, and I don't think anyone with any discernment will
either.
And even though much of my written material
describes the events, circumstances and experiences of my own life, which makes
it autobiographical in one sense, my purpose is not to "tell my story", as many
people have assumed. "My story" is just one thread woven into a much larger
tapestry; if exposing some of what has happened to me as a Target/Victim of
government conspiracies adds to the larger body of evidence, if it sheds light
on the institutionalized atrocities the perpetrators are hell-bent on covering
up, then it has served its purpose, as far as I am
concerned.
The most important issues to me are DEFENDING
LIBERTY & GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL; exposing criminals with a view
to putting them out of business; and seeking justice, not just for myself, but
for every innocent person who has been targeted.
Of course there are always the curiosity-seekers
surfing the Internet, who don't seriously concern themselves with these issues,
but may just be looking for some entertainment --and there's no shortage of
that on my website, considering some of the bizarre and outlandish characters
who are exposed in my reports. Same goes for my radio broadcasts, where I often
can't help myself but laugh and make fun of the idiocy of some of the perps,
shills and propagandists.
But I am not a writer of fiction,
and despite any "entertainment value" or comic relief which surfaces, I take the
issues seriously, and my purpose is mainly to provide factual, accurate
information which is useful, educational and most important of all, which
encourages others to stand up for their rights and liberties --to take action
rather than just hanging out as an armchair philosopher, weekend warrior or
keyboard commando --which unfortunately describes most of those "bloggers" (how
I hate that word!) who populate the Internet. They are not journalists, not
activists, not defenders of Liberty or messengers of Truth, but people with time
on their hands, seeking some excitement or public
attention.
As I have stated repeatedly in notices on this
website, the material posted here is for INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. I do not
solicit "feedback", in the form of opinions, suggestions, comments or
questions from the readers, nor do I have a public e-mail address. My
experience, when I did have a public e-mail address (1995-2003), was that I was
inundated with a volume of e-mail from readers which I did not have time even to
read, much less answer. And though most of the e-mails were
benign, I do not enjoy receiving hate mail, nor wish to subject myself
to harassing messages.
All and sundry are free to read my website, and
if they choose to comment publicly, on another site or message board, they are
free to do so. Likewise, I am free to refute any lies they post, to correct
errors, or to counter any libel or slander with the truth and the facts. I hold
any and all such offenders accountable, always. But due to the sheer volume of
such false information in connection with my name, whether from the
government-sponsored libel campaigns, or that spawned by ignorance and/or
malice, I ignore much of what is out there, most of which never comes to my
attention.
As for threats, keeping my e-mail address
private has taken care of that problem. Most criminals will not take the risk of
mailing a hardcopy threat by post, even anonymously. Regarding previous threats
by e-mail, (as well as those posted on public message boards), the perps have
all been reported to the authorities, and their threats have been documented,
their names exposed, on this website.
Now, to the issue of questions. Generally
speaking, my policy on questions is that if the readers don't find answers to
the specific questions they may have from the material which is available here,
published on my website, then they are not going to get the answers --at least
not from me. To that end, I hope that this report will provide some of the
information which answers those questions and which clarifies my position on
various issues.
DEFENDING PRIVACY AGAINST A SOCIETY OF
BUSYBODIES
As my longtime regular readers will certainly
know, one of my most important issues is THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. Invasions of
privacy, and extreme disrespect for my personal boundaries, not only by the
government, but also by busybodies, have been the bane of my existence, more
than any other form of offense.
Another thing about questions from readers
(judging from past experience) is that they are all too often of an intrusive
personal nature. As I've often stated in my writings, just because I have a
public website, it does not mean that my private life is fair game for all and
sundry. My life is NOT an open book and I fiercely defend my
privacy.
I am continually amazed at what has become an
almost complete disregard for privacy in this society, especially when it comes
to the Internet "culture". People use Facebook (a government surveillance
operation, in case you didn't know) for personal communications with their
"friends", most of whom they hardly know, in the false belief that anything they
write is "private"? I guess that's fine for those who don't mind every detail
of their lives memorialized in government data banks.
Then, there are the cell phones, carried and
used constantly, even obsessively, by people who apparently don't give a second
thought to putting their private business "in the street" --literally! I see
--and unfortunately, hear them-- all the time, strolling down a public
thoroughfare, cell phone stuck to the side of the head, discussing intimate
details of their lives, and sometimes even carrying on screaming arguments with
a party on the other end of the line! (Have they no
shame?)
They're standing in the aisles of
the supermarket, blocking "traffic", loudly proclaiming their most personal
activities, to be overheard by anyone passing by. And even worse, while standing
in line at the post office, waiting to be seated at a restaurant, or in other
such close quarters: clearly they have not the slightest concern or respect for
those of us who are captive audiences of their noise pollution. (What ever
happened to common courtesy?)
Then, these same folks will repeatedly interrupt
a conversation with a person in their company to answer calls on the
Almighty Cell Phone, which is rude and inconsiderate, to say the
least. Again, especially if you're in the other
person's vehicle, you're a captive audience, subjected to hearing longwinded
litanies, things you never wanted or needed to know.
As for me, I would rather not use a cell phone
unless it is a matter of necessity, in the privacy of my home or car, assuming
there is an emergency or urgent message to be relayed. But that's me. Privacy,
to me, is an integral part of my liberty --freedom from unwanted intrusions;
freedom from the prying eyes and ears of curiosity seekers, snoops, citizen
spies and snitches. This has become a Society of pushy, nosy,
loudmouthed Busybodies -- and I will take no part in it!
But this situation hasn't happened by accident
--no, it has been engineered by the government, for the objective of creating a
Surveillance Society. Big Brother is watching you, and once his minions stick
their noses into your private business, they will exploit any information they
can get to ratchet up their control over your life --that is, if you let them.
(Why do you think the government is now giving
away "free" cell phones? That is, to anyone willing to fill out the forms
disclosing their private business. Are they really free, or is there an agenda
at play here? Like maybe, making certain that everyone is part of their
surveillance/control grid of "connections". Just take a look at the obnoxious
ads: "Connect" with someone today! "Connect" on Facebook, Twitter! We all must
be"connected"! The busybodies just love that word, "connect". What ever happened
to normal use of the English language?)
And, as if things couldn't get any worse, with
the constant assaults on privacy and lack of respect for personal boundaries? In
addition to the intrusive questions, some of the readers of my website actually
contacted me by e-mail with unsolicited advice, about all kinds of issues
--including amateur "legal", "medical" or "psychological" advice or even,
unbelievably, "diagnoses", based on unwarranted assumptions they had made,
or erroneous conclusions they jumped to, after reading one of my reports, in
which I had mentioned certain issues related to these subjects. Their complete
lack of respect, their dearth of even a modicum of "good manners" never failed
to generate righteous outrage -- and I would think, time and again, How dare
you!
The point is, my private life is simply NONE OF
ANYONE'S BUSINESS. If I wanted their opinions or suggestions, I would have
asked. If I want advice on any matter, I will ask, that is, from the qualified
professional(s) of my choice. About this utterly intrusive pathological
attitude, I can only say, Mind your own beeswax, busybodies, and leave me alone
to tend to mine!
Among the most reprehensible offenses committed
against me by government operatives and their minions are monstrous invasions of
privacy on the Internet. These loathsome characters certainly qualify as
busybodies --Busybodies from Hell, that is-- the extremity of their violations
is astounding. They have posted my PRIVATE UNLISTED street address, thus not
only invading privacy, but compromising my security and endangering my safety.
As if this were not bad enough, they have posted photos of my home; then, they
solicited crimes against me, including by issuing fraudulent "appeals for
donations", stealing my identity, forging the notice, and soliciting the public
(read: like-minded lowlife punks) to trespass on my private property to "make a
donation". A donation to their crime spree, that is, which cost me thousands of
dollars in felony theft and vandalism.
[Note to would-be harassers, trespassers and
thieves: I no longer live at the address which the criminals have posted all
over the Internet. Be on notice that you will now be harassing others and
trespassing on someone else's property. And I can only hope you will be
apprehended and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law.]
A gossip betrays a confidence, but a
trustworthy man keeps a secret.
Proverbs
11:13
Besides, they get into the habit of being
idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers,
but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not
to.
1 Timothy
5:13
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
DISCLAIMER
The list of questions given here are actual
questions, those which have been repeatedly asked by readers, listeners to my
radio broadcasts, or attendees of my public lectures or seminars. Some are of a
general nature, some of a specific nature, and some are of a more personal
nature, pertaining to my individual experiences or viewpoints on various
subjects.
All questions will be answered truthfully, to
the best of my ability, based on my personal and/or professional experience and
areas of expertise, as well as upon information and belief. Or, they won't be
answered at all. As far as "the truth" goes, there are times when "the truth" is
very simply nobody's business. I do not answer intrusive questions asked by
those attempting to pry into my personal life. I have the God-given right to
privacy. I have the right to keep secrets, as well as the duty to protect
confidential and privileged information, including from
other sources.
I am not required to divulge private information
to anyone, unless I choose to do so, for my own reasons and at my discretion.
Usually these reasons involve "the right to know"; "the need to know",
or sometimes just the "benefits of knowing". Otherwise, my philosophy may be
summed up in four words: Loose lips sink ships. And unfortunately, I speak from
vast experience.
Where my friends are concerned, some of whom may
be confidants of sensitive personal information, I have made it very clear that
unless I publish it on my website, for the public record, any and
all information is assumed to be given in confidence, not to be the subject of
discussions with any third parties. This certainly includes
confidential information about my health, my finances, my family/personal
relationships, as well as other issues which are not meant for public
consumption.
The last thing I need is someone telling me, "I
heard it from So-and-So, through the grapevine..." Worse, the confidential info
relayed from one party to another is often inaccurate, at times based on
unwarranted assumptions, which then places me in the position of having to
correct it, when it was nobody's business in the first
place.
Thankfully, most of my friends have honored my
policy on privacy, and have understood why it is so important to me, which is
why I have been able to maintain longterm, solid friendships with them. But
there are certain others who have refused to respect my wishes, no matter how
many times I have clearly explained my position, and they have stirred up a
world of trouble, by relaying private information "through the grapevine" to
third parties; by appointing themselves as unwanted intermediaries,
"spokespersons" or "matchmakers", without my permission or knowledge, and
by meddling in my personal or professional business, falsely thinking that they
are "helping" by doing so. Nothing could be further from the truth, nor from
what I want or need.
Some say they "don't understand" why I am so
concerned with privacy. My answer? You don't need to "understand". You only need
to SHOW RESPECT for my clearly stated wishes about my privacy and personal
boundaries.
What if there is a STOP sign at an intersection.
The person says, Well, I really don't 'understand' why there is a STOP sign
here. So, I'll just blow right on through, no worries. Does it matter if s/he
"doesn't understand"? No, it only matters that s/he chose not to RESPECT the
clearly delineated boundary which would have protected others against damages
caused by an act of reckless disregard.
Heartbreaking as it often is, such friendships
come to an end, usually because, rather than being willing to even acknowledge
the pattern of intrusive, indiscreet and disrespectful behavior, and doing
something to rectify it, they will instead attempt to justify their
indiscretions, even to the point of becoming angry at me for confronting them
about the issue in my attempt to resolve it. Most often, they refuse to
discuss it, and seem to think they can just change the subject and sweep it
under the carpet...until next time. I am then blamed simply for defending my own
privacy and personal boundaries. This sort of behavior is way out of line, it is
a form of aggression (passive-aggressive, usually), whether they "understand" or
not, and there really is no excuse...
Clearly, no matter how much they claim to
"care", nor how they declare their "love" for me, their misguided attitude
of self-righteousness, as "do-gooders", and their pathological compulsion to
interfere in the lives of others, will trump any true concern for the
individual, or for respecting the right of self-determination in the lives of
others. As far as I am concerned, true friends respect the privacy, personal
boundaries and rights of others, or they cannot be called
friends.
And lastly, I find it important to state that I
am not a "public servant". I am not "employed" by any person or entity which
would require a public disclosure of private information. I am not running for
public office, nor will ever do so. I have no criminal record. I am not a
"registered" voter. My street address and telephone number are private
and unlisted. I do not use a social security number. I have no bank accounts or
credit cards in my name. I have removed myself in every way possible from the
"system", and from any and all past associations or involvement with government
entities, bureaus or agencies.
QUESTION: "Once CIA, always CIA". Is this
true?
Answer: This statement is thought to be "the
common wisdom" about CIA, but people ask me this more than any other question.
I've also frequently had those who think they know more than they do repeat this
as an accusation against me personally --as if this statement is axiomatic,
written in stone, and never to be questioned.
There is some truth to this statement, at
least figuratively speaking, but it is far from absolute. I would also say it is
the general rule, but there are exceptions. I know several persons who were able
to get out and stay out (and live to tell about it), though these individuals
have not gone public as whistleblowers using their real names. There are a few I
have known who got out, did go public and are no longer among the living. All of
them, however, paid a heavy price for their defection.
As for those who officially "retire" from CIA?
No such thing, and yes, they will always be CIA.
CIA is more of a cult than anything else. As
with all cults, there is heavy indoctrination of the members, as well as the
ever-present implicit threat of the dire consequences, should any individual
refuse to "go along with the program". CIA is similar to the Mafia, in that it
tends to be an intergenerational "family profession", in which the members are
recruited by virtue of a family bloodline, whether they are interested in
joining, or not. What's more, in their flagrant arrogance, the
cult of CIA actually thinks they own you, lock stock and
barrel.
For me, the only way out was by the Grace of
God. It's not as if you can just "walk away", without a hell of a fight, but I
believe if you are determined, God can make a way, where there is no way. At
least, that's how it worked for me. With God, all things are
possible.
But there is also another way to look at that
statement, "Once CIA, always CIA". I don't believe you can ever completely put
aside the training you received; or the way you are taught to think, or
to behave, or go about your business. Vestiges of all that would tend to stay
with you for your lifetime, but it is the way you use what you know that
matters.
Will you use your knowledge, talents and skills
to do good and help others? Will you be ethical in your dealings with everyone,
rather than take unfair advantage, just because you may know how to get away
with it? Will you stand up for the truth, rather than protect the lies? Will
you defend the God-given unalienable rights which are violated as a matter of
standard policy and procedures by government agencies like
CIA?
In summary, it's not what you know that counts,
rather it is how you use what you know. Same goes for talents and training. Will
you do good or will you do evil? Whom will you serve? Will you serve God, or
will you serve worldly ambition?
QUESTION: What are your views on
politics?
Who needs politics? I am a defender of Liberty
and Individual rights, unalienable rights as bestowed by God. That is the extent
of my "politics". Any political ideology which violates the principles of
Liberty in any way is anathema to me.
I am not a member of any political party, nor
ever have been. The so-called 'two-party system' in this
country is a sham. People have been indoctrinated into believing that
Republicans and Democrats are at opposite ends of a spectrum, when in fact both
parties are controlled from above by an elitist cabal, which does not represent
the interests of America, nor its people, but rather of secret occult societies
and multi-national corporations.
The government in this country, founded as a
Constitutional Republic, is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for
the people"; and "bound by the chains of the Constitution". Obviously in
practice that is not the case, but as a matter of principle, I believe that any
true patriot will stand in defense of the God-given (natural) unalienable rights
of the Individual, as protected and guaranteed under the Constitution. The
government does not bestow rights on the people, they are bestowed only by God.
Nor do rights come from the Constitution. The Constitution "protects" the rights
of the people. This country was not founded as a "Democracy", either, another
common misconception which has been purposely disseminated by politicians and
tyrants.
Though all this should be common knowledge, I
find it amazing how few people actually understand these simple
truths.
The real problem in this country, as I see
it, is caused by the Leftists. This could include socialists, communists,
liberals, "progressives" or other such labels, each of which has certain
specific beliefs or "planks". But all of them have one common overriding
ideology: Leftists do not respect --or even acknowledge-- the God-given rights
of the Individual.
Leftists are collectivists, and as such they
falsely believe they have the right to sacrifice Individual rights to "the
collective" or for the so-called "common good". The truth is, only INDIVIDUALS
have rights. There are no "collective" rights. Any collective is made up of
individuals. God creates individuals, one by one, whereas collectives are
created by the world of men. God bestows rights on the Individual, and the
collectivists falsely believe they have the right to take them
away!
Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Not on my
watch.
Leftists do not acknowledge the sovereignty of
the Individual. The Leftist does not respect the privacy, nor the personal
boundaries of the Individual. Leftists believe in "consensus"; they believe in
mob rule by the majority. They are entitled to "believe" what they will,
however, they are NOT entitled to force their beliefs and standards on the rest
of us, which is exactly what they are hell-bent on doing.
Leftists are busybodies who falsely believe they
know what is "best" for others; they believe they have the right to "decide" for
others, and will spare no effort in their meddling in the business of others.
Leftists are nosy and pushy as hell, they violate the rights of others with
impunity. The only way of dealing with their aggression is to clearly draw your
boundary line, give no quarter. Stand your ground and repel them at the border
line!
Don't ask for anything from a Leftist.
When the Leftist "gives" something, there is always a price tag
attached. They believe their gifts "buy" them the right to interfere or
micromanage the lives of the recipients. (Think of the welfare state, social
services, child protective services, etc. etc.)
Leftists are ravening wolves in sheep's
clothing. They are cowards who are hungry for power over others, because in the
final analysis, they lack a core of personal integrity. Leftists confuse
"self-esteem" with self-respect. But there is a world of difference.
Any "self-respect" they may think they have comes not from a
personal relationship with the Creator (they don't have one), but from the
approval given by human beings. There is no more "of the world"
mentality than that of the Leftist.
The United Nations is the best example I can
think of, defining the globalist totalitarian mentality of the
Leftist. Anyone who trafficks with this dangerous tyrannical
organization, or even acknowledges their "authority" (which is non-existent
under the Rule of Law & U.S. Constitution) is in my opinion a public menace.
(Get the U.S. the hell OUT of the
U.N.!!!!!!)
In the end, Leftists are violent thugs who will
force their will on others at the point of a gun, all the while proclaiming
their "compassion", their "love", their "spirituality" and their dedication to
"human rights". (Just check out the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
to see where that leaves the "rights" of the Individual --nowhere to be
found.)
Human rights are bestowed by God on each and
every Individual. But it couldn't be more obvious that Leftists are godless,
despite claims some of them may make to the contrary. No one who truly knows and
loves the Personal Living God of the Universe would ever desire to wield ungodly
power over His Creation or His Creatures.
Many Leftists are New Agers or secular humanists
who believe that they are "gods" unto themselves. Perhaps that is why they
delude themselves into thinking they can force their will on others, through
social engineering and humanist propaganda, and try to justify their
unjustifiable aggression --WE KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU. WE CAN SOLVE YOUR
PROBLEMS --whether we have your permission, or not! And if you don't comply with
our directives, we will kill you!
(Just remember the history of every communist
regime that ever existed, excepting none.)
Welcome to the Secular Humanist New Age, and New
World Order...
Get behind me, Satan!
By their fruits shall you know
them.
QUESTION: Why did you decide to go public as a
CIA whistleblower?
Because that is what the Holy Spirit instructed
me to do. It wasn't so much a personal choice coming from my own will as it was
a moral/spiritual imperative which I was unable to counter with any intellectual
argument.
I think this is true of most people who become
whistleblowers, at least those who are sincerely trying to do what is right.
True moral imperatives, in my opinion, come from having a personal relationship
with God. It is not a matter of "religion", but rather of a clear spiritual
awareness of the true nature of evil, and of the duty of the individual to hold
moral absolutes, to stand against evil in any form, wherever it is
found.
Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds
of darkness, but instead expose them.
Ephesians 5:11
QUESTION: Do you believe it was worth it to have
taken a public stand against CIA, given that they are an organization which
strikes fear into the hearts of so many people?
That would be hard to say, whether it was 'worth
it', given that I have suffered many years of persecution, grievous
injustices, incalculable losses and personal injuries, both physical and
emotional.
However, I could not have done otherwise, not
with a clear conscience. Personally, I don't understand how anyone could NOT
take a stand against evil, once they understand what it is, and who is
perpetrating it, no matter the consequences.
Those who are willing to live with evil, or
to participate in it, to "go along to get along", or exchange moral absolutes
for moral relativism or "situational ethics", will always pay the consequences
sooner or later. I would rather be clearly visible, right out in the open,
letting the criminals and evildoers know of my stand, than live the life of a
coward and a compromiser. Would rather die on my feet, if necessary, than live
on my knees. Never, ever compromise with evil. That about sums it
up.
QUESTION: What has been the worst thing that
happened as a result of taking a stand against CIA?
There is no doubt in my mind about the answer to
this question. For me it has been having to always stand alone. In all these
many years I've never had even one person I could rely on for anything, material
support or otherwise. Any support I have received (even from those closest to
me, including my family) has been temporary and/or
conditional.
The neutralization campaign against a targeted
whistleblower is based on destroying any support system the Target may have,
and doing their damnedest to prevent family, friends or professional colleagues
from offering any type of assistance and support the Target may
need.
Isolation, alienation, deprivation. (CIA Psy Ops
Protocol)
Family relationships, in particular, are
sabotaged, in many cases irreparably destroyed. "In laws" or "outside agitators"
(of one kind or another) are often the cause of estrangement between family
members, especially when they are able to influence one family member so that
they do not support another, namely the targeted
whistleblower.
Most people who lead "normal" lives cannot begin
to imagine what it is like for the Target of an organized campaign of
persecution by the government, simply because they themselves have never
experienced it, and are so indoctrinated by the system, so in thrall to "the way
things are done", that they can't see beyond it. They are enslaved by worldly
pursuits and goals, all the while thinking they are
"free".
Most are also fearful of retaliation by the
government, should they take a stand in support of a whistleblower. I am
speaking not only of my own experience, but that of many others I have known,
some of whose cases I have thoroughly investigated.
The friends, family or associates of the Target
can usually be intimidated; they can be threatened or bribed. They can be made
to believe falsehoods about the Target, which provides an excuse to withdraw
support. The Target is thus left abandoned and/or betrayed by those closest to
him/her, bereft of the most basic support necessary for
survival.
Since I have never been willing to compromise my
principles in order to get any kind of support, it certainly narrows the field
where support might be available. I have found that people in general are
compromisers. If you are a non-compromiser in a world of people who believe that
compromise is acceptable, or even necessary --people who fear the consequences
to themselves if they take the hard line on principle-- you will find yourself
abandoned and/or betrayed over and over. You will also be mistreated, as a
"condition" of receiving support, which translates into no real support at
all. Basically, this is the story of my life, and it has been heartbreaking,
more than anything else I have experienced.
Rather than respect the person who will not
compromise, I have found that people often feel threatened, so rather than look
deeper into their own willingness to compromise, and what that might actually
mean, they will try to force their own views and standards on the person who
lives by principle.
I've heard them say, "Everyone has to
compromise, it's a part of life." Or, they will shift the blame to the
Victim/Target of persecution, saying "Well, you brought it on yourself. If only
you had been willing to (fill in the "compromise" blank), you wouldn't be in
such trouble now", etc. etc.
These pronouncements are made in attempts to
influence the individual, to deflect him off his path, to stand down, to stop
him from doing what he knows in his heart to be right. After all, they
will smugly opine, "You can't fight City Hall..." True, such people "can't
fight City Hall", they just don't have the backbone, but nonetheless they are
"convicted in their hearts", knowing they are shamed by the courage of the
non-compromiser. If they can't do it, they don't want anyone else to do
it.
Unfortunately, the compromisers outnumber the
persons of principle, by many orders of magnitude. It is the way of the world,
and has been since the dawn of civilization.
I have known people who claimed they wanted to
"support" me, people who insisted that their values were the same as mine (which
I have always clearly outlined, both publicly and privately), and yet, when an
issue came up which would for them normally be resolved by a compromise (or what
I saw as other inappropriate or injudicious action), rather than respect my
position of non-compromise, would aggressively try to force their views on
me, pressuring me with unsolicited advice as to what I "should" be doing.
Then, when I told them that I reserve the right
to make my own decisions, for my own reasons; that I won't allow anyone to
"manage" my life or manipulate me --rather than respect my
rights, my personal boundaries, they would become angry and even abusive in
their treatment of me. When they saw that their pressure tactics and bullying
would not be tolerated, usually this ended in a withdrawal of any "support",
material or otherwise.
This is the kind of "support" I don't want or
need. A true "supporter" (whether a personal friend or not) will first and
foremost respect the privacy, the personal boundaries and the rights of those
they support. To me, this is a matter of honor, and a sacred
trust.
And no matter how desperate may be my need for
support, no matter the extremes of hardship, I face, I do not allow myself to
get into "conflicts with people". I refuse to argue or debate with anyone about
MY OWN RIGHTS, which are non-negotiable, given that I am sovereign in my own
life. Some people consider my position to be "extreme", but by my way of
thinking, I can never be too "extreme" in holding to my principles and defending
my God-given unalienable rights. The same goes for my defense of the rights of
others, which I believe some people at least, can
appreciate.
In my own case, I have made it clear that I will
gratefully accept donations (or other material or non-material forms
of support), when given in the spirit of Christian charity or "love gifts". Does
this mean I am a "charity case", a beggar who cannot be a chooser?
No, on the contrary, I am an Individual, a
Sovereign Child of God, and I expect that others will treat me with respect and
courtesy, just as I would treat them.
My philosophy is, if you can't be a "cheerful
giver", who gives out of love, and/or on principle, expecting nothing in
return; whose support is based on simply valuing the person and/or the work they
do, then don't give at all. Not to me, anyway.
Jesus said, "Beware of practicing your piety
before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your
Father in heaven. So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you,
as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the strrets, so that they may be
praised by others. Truly, I tell you, they have received their reward. But when
you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so
that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will
reward you.
Matthew 6: 1-6
*************************
To be continued...
Barbara Hartwell Percival
Legal Defense & Research Trust
Legal Defense & Research Trust
Barbara
Hartwell Vs. CIA