M,I.5,Persecution , my respons e to th e h arassment

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= my. response to the harassment -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

My first reaction in 1990/91. was to assume that if I broke contact then
they would not be. able to follow and would lose interest. So I did the
things. that have been suggested by other people; I sold my television,
stopped listening to the radio and tried to withdraw away. from the sources
of abuse as much. as possible. I reasoned that they must have more important
things to deal with and that normal. people would simply leave me alone if
it were made difficult for them to continue their. harassment.

I reckoned without the sheer vindictiveness of the abusers.. They did not
let up but. instead "got to" people around me, mainly people at work, to do
their dirty work for them.. I went to see my GP, who refused to believe what
he was being told, and refused to direct. me on to anyone who could be of
practical assistance. It was not until three years had passed. that the GP
admitted the matter was outside his competence and suggested going to. the
police.

In the summer of 1994 we called in counter-surveillance. experts from a
private detective agency to sweep our house and telephone. for bugging
devices.. They conducted a thorough search and found nothing; but as noted
above, since the existence of surveillance was. being forced in my face by
the harassers, you would expect them to have. taken the possibility of a
counter-surveillance sweep into account when planning the type. of devices
to be. employed.

In Easter 1995 I made a complaint to my local Police station in. London, but
the police have not expressed any intention to. do anything about the
continuing harassment. ("we're not saying it's happening and we're not
saying it isn't happening" were the words used). I think. the officer I
spoke to at Easter wasn't aware of. it happening, although other members of
the police force obviously do. know.

From April 1995 until the present time the matter has been discussed in. a
lot of detail on the Usenet. (Internet) "uk.misc" newsgroup. That discussion
has given birth to the article which you. are now reading. My hopes in
posting to. Usenet were that wider publicizing would discourage the security
services from continuing their. harassment, and "draw people out" into
concurring with the truth of what. was being said. Neither of those have
followed, but the discussion has served a. purpose in allowing this
structured report to be. created.

8619

are well informed, we understand that, as nature has graven her image
and that of her Author on all things, they almost all partake of her double
infinity. Thus we see that all the sciences are infinite in the extent of
their researches. For who doubts that geometry, for instance, has an
infinite infinity of problems to solve? They are also infinite in the
multitude and fineness of their premises; for it is clear that those which
are put forward as ultimate are not self-supporting, but are based on others
which, again having others for their support, do not permit of finality. But
we represent some as ultimate for reason, in the same way as in regard to
material objects we call that an indivisible point beyond which our senses
can no longer perceive anything, although by its nature it is infinitely
divisible.

Of these two Infinites of science, that of greatness is the most palpable,
and hence a few persons have pretended to know all things. "I will speak of
the whole," said Democritus.

But the infinitely little is the least obvious. Philosophers have much
oftener claimed to have reached it, and it is here they have all stumbled.
This has given rise to such common titles as First Principles, Principles of
Philosophy, and the like, as ostentatious in fact, though not in appearance,
as that one which blinds us, De omni scibili.5

We naturally believe ourselves far more capable of reaching the centre of
things than of embracing their circumference. The visible extent of the
world visibly exceeds us; but as we exceed little things, we think ourselves
more capable of knowing them. And yet we need no less capacity for attaining
the Nothing than the All. Infinite capacity is required for

begin by pitying unbelievers; they are wretched enough by their
condition. We ought only to revile them where it is beneficial; but this
does them harm.

190. To pity atheists who seek, for are they not unhappy enough? To inveigh
against those who make a boast of it.

191. And will this one scoff at the other? Who ought to scoff? And yet, the
latter does not scoff at the other, but pities him.

192. To reproach Milton with not being troubled, since God will reproach
him.

193. Quid fiet hominibus qui minima contemnunt, majora non credunt?[24]

194. ... Let them at least learn what is the religion they attack, before
attacking it. If this religion boasted of having a clear view of God, and of
possessing it open and unveiled, it would be attacking it to say that we see
nothing in the world which shows it with this clearness. But since, on the
contrary, it says that men are in darkness and estranged from God, that He
has hidden Himself from their knowledge, that this is in fact the name which
He gives Himself in the Scriptures, Deus absconditus;25 and finally, if it
endeavours equally to establish these two things: that God has set up in the
Church visible signs to make Himself known to those who should seek Him
sincerely, and that He has nevertheless so disguised them that He will only
be perceived by those who seek Him with all their heart; what advantage can
they obtain, when, in the negligence with which they make profession of
being in search of the truth, they cry out that nothing reveals it to them;
and since that darkness in which they are, and with which they upbraid the
Church, establishes only