Richard Lloyd Jones: It was conducted in the shadows, far from scrutiny. It began in the 50s and was apparently stopped in the 70s. But CIA veterans say the research continues. You may find it hard to believe, and the whole field is dismissed as being the province of paranoid conspiracy theories, but mind control is going on. I'm Richard Lloyd Jones, and today on Thinking with Somebody Else's Head, Harp and Mind Control, part two of our series with Nick Begich on the harp technology.
You'll hear Dr. Begich make reference to MKUltra in this program. This was a super-secret and illegal CIA human research program run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. This program used many drugs to manipulate individual mental states and alter brain function. It's a little difficult to get total information about it since then CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all the MKUltra files destroyed back in 1973.
What were they trying to hide, huh? That really should be a prison sentence, shouldn't it? According to sworn testimony in front of the U.S. Congress' Church Committee in 1975, these mind-control experiments were conducted without any knowledge or consent of the subjects. There's no other way to put it. This was a crime against humanity of the first degree. Of course, the U.S. Hasn't been the only country traipsing through this mucky terrain, but it is perhaps the biggest democracy involved, and that should give us some pause.
You'll hear a little bit more about this in our program today, but I would recommend that you research it a little more. It's pretty horrific stuff, but essential to know about. MK Ultra is the illegal CIA program you're looking for. And in the middle of this sickness, where the sickest people control our political and economic structures, comes Norberto Keppe's Analytical Trilogy, with its beautifully conceived science that gives us a way to understand these crazy things we see around us.
His clear view of human psychopathology is extremely well articulated in all of his many books, and his explorations of how we the people have given power to these unbalanced, powerful people in charge is food for thought. We have to wake up and fast and start giving more value to those inner aspects of our essential structure like goodness and truth and beauty and dignity and ethics.
Right now we're all pretty lost in this inverted worldview that puts money above work and aggression above conciliation and dialogue and technology at the service of whatever perverted idea the men and women in the shadows want to dream up. Which is the subject of our program today. Rich at richjonesvoice.com if I can give you any more information at all about any of our topics on Thinking with Somebody Else's Head.
Today, part two of our program on HAARP, this time the nefarious uses for mind control with my colleague, Susan Berkley.
Susan Berkley: Dr. Nick Begich, a noted researcher on harp technology and mind control. His latest work is Controlling the Human Mind, the Technologies of Political Control or Tools for Peak Performance. We're going to get into that in this interview as well. And we're doing this interview because I'm down here in Brazil, actually, with my friend Rich Jones in his studio where he produces the podcast Thinking with Somebody Else's Head, which goes worldwide through iTunes.
And it was based on the work of actually Dr. Norberto Keppe down here in Brazil at the Institute for Analytical Trilogy, where it's all about the concept of inversion. And so, of course, your work with mind control and HAARP is going to fit in perfectly.
Nick Begich: The areas of mind effects, again, are an area that requires governmental intervention now, early on. And it has been called for in several different venues, including The Economist ran a cover story on the ethics of mind control in May 25, 2002.
It showed up after our testimony in Europe in a European Parliament resolution calling for a ban on this technology. In fact, I'll read the quote. It comes from the European Parliament Resolution A4-0005 forward slash 99, section 27, and I quote, calls for an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings, unquote.
Now, the three sections preceding that were the HARP sections. And when we went and testified to the European Parliament at their invitation in 1997 or 1998, I can't remember which year it was, but we did a couple of things over there with them, and we demonstrated the technology. We provided hundreds and hundreds of pages of technology-related documents that were unclassified and available and essentially got the heart sections of that resolution passed and this area of mind effects, which from the European Parliament perspective was one of the most profound areas.
And there we demonstrated an infosound technology where actual sound was heard transmitting the nervous system, bypassing the ears, broadcasting voice in the middle of the head. Later, that same technology was designed wirelessly. In fact, MIT recognized that technology developed by Woody Norris with the MIT Lemelson Prize of a half a million dollars in 2005 using acoustic hetero dining. Literally being able to pick a person out of a crowd and send a signal into their head where they could hear that proverbial voice in the head and no one around them could hear a word.
And that technology was later licensed to the military.
Susan: And so it's out there. It exists, right?
Nick: Right. And it's been there for years, for decades, in some form or another. And what's happened is it's just gotten more sophisticated.
Susan: Now, the Unabomber was apparently a known victim of this technology, wasn't he? Yeah,
Nick: he was. In fact, it was the New York Times that reported that he was an MKUltra victim.
MKUltra was a program run by the Central Intelligence Agency with over 140 sub-programs, primarily with what they called unwitting victims. Um this was during the you know during the nixon era and before um out of all of that came an investigation of of the CIA. Came out of watergate because if you remember it was CIA supposedly retired assets breaking into the watergate and the only retired CIA assets are dead people uh because basically they they work for the agency forever in one form or another.
Certainly they're precluded from engaging in break-ins, I'm sure, without their proper authority. The point is, the CIA at the time was involved in a number of these programs. Univomer was a victim of that. And if you remember, he attacked academic institutions, the think tanks, if you will. He resented what happened there. Maybe it was related to those early programs. But the fact is, he was one of thousands and thousands of victims.
In fact, it was Secretary of Energy O'Leary during the Clinton administration that acknowledged a half a million Americans have been victims of non-consensual experiments in the United States over a 40-year period. Some of them including the mind control areas, others included black Americans being given syphilis to see how they would die over their remaining lifetimes. Orphans, prisoners, and other disenfranchised groups were targeted by the U.S.
Military and intelligence organizations for human experimentation. Nobody's ever been held to account for that. And the fact that now, under the guise of national security, these technologies continue to advance, we think they're the most invasive, potentially the most destructive, and why we've spent 15 years educating the public on these issues through mediums like this. Wow
Susan: well give us some highlights of you know not highlights it's a horrible expression but just give us some of the the key things that people need to know about and of course what we should do as the public to to stop this from happening. Because it's it's just an abomination.
Nick: Well i think the first step is and it's been our approach has been educating the public. I mean i've i've lectured all over the world i've i've traveled uh typical bodies i've cut down a lot of that. I mean Radio is the best medium, and so we appreciate the opportunity to be on with you today. But it starts there, I think, getting people educated.
The way we've constructed our written material is everything is footnoted. And anyone who's read our books understands how we approach subject matter of a complicated and a technical nature as well as a nature of raising these kinds of issues. So within the four books we have in print, 1,650 source documents are cited. And these include government studies technical reports and what we've said to people is get familiar with the subject matter and then pass it on to policymakers.
In fact in every instance where a political body has acted on these issues it started there. And because we've so well documented it it makes it easy for political leaders and scientists and engineers and lay people to understand the topics and then confirm the facts themselves uh and that's why this issue has been able to move forward. Um we can't do it alone and and we've been at it as i say 15 years and with the help of a lot of listeners over the course of that time and people who followed these issues um they've taken it upon themselves to become committees of one and inform others and and that's the way we think this thing uh can be.
Thank you. ...addressed and has been addressed successfully in the places where we've gone. And again, we're a very small organization. My wife and I do most of the work here. We have a couple of folks that help us on a part-time basis. And the rest is up to the public and up to policymakers to make the kinds of changes that need to happen.
And our role has been providing an informational basis and a scientific team. In the background of all of our work are very good folks that we can produce for political bodies and have and media and others to make sure that these issues have the opportunity to see the light of day.
Susan: So give us an overview, a quick overview of how mind control is being used.
Nick: Well, there's several different ways. You know, during the first Gulf War, it was reported by Scottish media that we actually piggybacked signals on the radio broadcasts that were broadcasting the Muslim music and prayer into the region before we went in, which actually was designed to create a sense of anxiety and fear. And if you remember in that first conflict, you know, we had the fourth largest well-trained army in the world giving up like kids on their first fire drill.
I mean, it was amazing, you know, hundreds of people giving up to two, you know, these kinds of situations. But Scottish media attributed it to the general sense of dis-ease, of agitation that we put into the region before we came in. You know, very simple application, but certainly, you know, if history bears all of this out, quite effective when you consider what happened in that conflict and how fast it was dealt with initially.
You take a look at the other applications, sound barriers and barriers on perimeters are where some of the technology is now being applied for secure military installations and the like. Under the guise of non-lethal weapons, the research in these areas continues to advance under joint agreements with both the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense. In europe where as a result really as a result of our work and the work of those that we've worked with on this subject there's been a lot of concern their sense of personal privacy and and it's in the invasion of personal privacy is a much higher level than i think in the United States.
Because in europe there are still a lot of living souls that remember what it's like to be oppressed in this way.
In Great Britain, in London, it's the most surveyed society in the world. I mean, you can't go anywhere in London with the presumption of privacy in any public place. Any place you're walking around, you're either on camera or on camera and on mic, whether you know it or not. And that includes entry and exit from the country of Great Britain, you know, in terms of the entry points, the airports, and the channel train stations, etc.
And that level of monitoring is becoming increasingly more sophisticated.
Susan: You know, just to interject here, because I'm a New Yorker, and so we would think, okay, it was great that they caught this supposed car bomb attempt, but there was something a little fishy about that to me. I was just so you know you got to wonder if if there maybe these things are being staged so that people can now support increased monitoring and surveillance.
Well
Nick: it works both ways and here's the thing is the surveillance that feeds on itself because the fact that new york has that level in fact um the idea of miking uh those locations they do it so they under the guise of well then we can triangulate where gunshots come from so we can find the shooters you know for these kinds of things.
And so they always do it in the guise of safety security and this latest thing is new york has cameras virtually everywhere um probably the most surveyed city in the United States. And so all they need to do is go back trace the movements and back up from when the car first arrived and it's simple it's so simple.
Um you augment that with uh satellite-based technologies that are circulating overhead at various intervals. On a clear day you can correlate that data at a high enough level when you start looking at and storing the data is extremely cheap today and it's getting cheaper every day. And that's see everyone banked on this it wasn't so much did we have the computing power to sort it it's the biggest thing was let's just store it because sooner or later we will and the sooner and the later of all that is passed.
Now you have the ability to literally, they say, well we don't have a search warrant at the moment. But you get the search warrant, then you work backwards from that. So data, when it's stored, all your phone communications, your emails, your social networking, your whole digital profile that you lay out in front of the world. Where the profile for privacy used to stop and end at your front door, it now doesn't.
What you have in your house is insignificant in terms of your personal privacy. It's the data that's stored about you that is significant. It's the way that data can be manipulated to message you specifically. And advertising is going to take on a form where it messages you only, you specifically, through your cell phones, through your communication devices, where they tailor advertising, whether it's a political message, where a candidate with 100 opinions, only of which one you agree with, during a campaign, that is the only one you're ever going to hear about through your normal channels, because advertising is going to become sophisticated and more and more sophisticated in terms of honing it to populations.
Then when you look at directing mind control technologies, even the most simple ones, just appealing to what your general sense of preferences are is the simplest of all. And then neglecting to give you the information that might change your preferences, like on a political candidate. That becomes very important in looking at sort of what does this communication system and what does the applications of it provide us in the 21st century on the backdrop of culturally what we've come to expect as privacy.
Because that has changed fundamentally and has not been unwound, at least in this country, from what the Bush administration did. Obama's done nothing to unwind that significantly or to protect personal privacy and liberty in the context of 21st century technology. Now, I just got
Susan: to ask you, I mean, because you've given the idea that the military is behind a lot of this.
Do you think there are any other groups or institutions, I mean, outside of the use of this in advertising,
Nick: other individuals? Absolutely. On an academic level, you know, here's how it goes. Through the science foundations and military research projects, they farm out all this work. And then they put together RFPs, where they get these private contractors come to them and say hey we got this great new technology that we've developed.
And then they produce what's called a request for proposals. So the military kicks out a proposal requesting proposals, and they get a bunch of proposals, or maybe they only get the one. And then they spend some money on the initial research, and they farm it out and break it up. So maybe you got 10 academic institutions doing pieces of it, a couple of private companies doing pieces of it, and none of that is um accessible under freedom of information act, because it's all classified, or it's compartmentalized stage where you wouldn't see it anyway, you wouldn't understand it.
But when you come back to the baseline funding of these projects, most of it's black funded. So i mean like the air force equipment budget, 40 of that equipment budget, believe me that's a big budget, as of 1999 was the last year i looked, was for black projects, projects that even the congress doesn't get to scrutinize. And even if they did get to scrutinize, out of all the members of the House and the Senate, how many of them have enough science background to even ask the right questions?
You know, virtually none. When you start to think about that in terms of the 21st century, what drives powerful governments is, in fact, command and control of high technology. So in this kind of government, where it's supposedly coming up from, you know, the average citizen, how does that play in? And it's not playing in. The military has funded the fundamental research. They have funded the projects that have led us in this direction.
And when you look at military planning, it's about command and control. It's about those things. It's about being the paranoid thinker for the rest of our society so they can guard against every and any eventual outcome. Well, in the 21st century, when you start to game that out, that gets pretty bizarre. So when you look at militaries, the reason that in our forms of government we keep the military on the outside and the civilian sector determining when we pull the military out of the closet and go send them off to do some damage, the reason the private side regulates all that is because we have a different mission.
And so the way sort of the money has flowed into the academic, military, industrial complex throughout the world under a banner of secrecy at a time when so much of that technology, the temptation to misuse it is too great. And the history tells us every time, our government included, will misuse it. And that's where the greater need, I think, of vigilance now in this century, particularly by populations who are informed or can be informed.
We don't each have to know how to mechanically build this stuff any more than we could build the radio that we're listening on or the computer that we're listening on. But we ought to be able to at least conceptually talk about it and sort of direct our military, industrial and academic systems in a direction that serves our interests. Rather than creates this 1984 scenario, which I think is very real.
I think that scenario already exists today to some degree and is becoming increasingly throughout the world. This whole sense of the way in which communication happens and what happens with information is something that needs to be debated globally. And my personal view is we own our individual information, that it shouldn't be allowed to be held in data banks around the world for any length of time beyond the transaction time.
In other words, if you're charging something on a credit card and there's a period of dispute, once the period of dispute is gone, delete the record. You know, I mean, these are things that need to be addressed and codified when we start to look at all of this. The idea of sending signals that can manipulate behavior, there's no regulation against that. In most countries, including our own.
We need to regulate the technology and then build the necessary circuitry to police it. Yeah,
Susan: one last question before I invite you to give information about how people can stay involved in all of your books. I heard you say in another interview that this technology can override the senses to make us, what is it, like smell things that aren't there, hear things that aren't there?
Is it all the five senses or, you know, just some of them? And how does
Nick: that work? Well you can go back to um the air force actually publishes a periodical. It's uh one that I'm sure nobody reads but a few of us. Um it's technology horizons is by the air force research lab and their cover story in june 2004 was on what they called controlled effects which laid out three levels of controlled effects.
First that attacking hardware um like equipment um creating you know burning of uh electrodes and those kinds of things being able to control apparatus. Then at a distance was the second thing overriding the mechanisms that control an apparatus. And then third was controlled effects as it relates to the human being. And in this case trying to replicate all five senses sights taste touch smell um hearing you know all of those basic senses being able to override them so that they could create complete experience sets that would be indistinguishable from the real.
Now that drives a lot of implication. When you look at the research lab or the Air Force seeking this technology, what would that do in the civilian sector, for instance, in a trial, in a court hearing, where you couldn't sort out the synthesized experience from the real? These are big questions that need to be addressed in the context of the evolution of technology way before the implementation stage and that is not the case.
These things are being pursued actively. They're being announced publicly, and virtually no one is saying anything except where's the money for the next contract. And the opposition to this, you know, when you when you look at it, there there is no uh central organization that I'm aware of that addresses these issues. We have, as independent activists, and we'll continue to do so, fairly effectively, but it's done in a little more organic way, and I think it's a better way, is educate the public, provide the data, get it to policymakers, because ultimately it's a policy question, and then ultimately beyond that, once that policy is determined.
And the rest of us should be able to weigh in on that and hold people accountable for what they do.
And right now, there is no accountability and there is no sufficient oversight.
Susan: Yeah. Wow. Oh, lots to think about. Tell people, please, first of all, the name of your books, where they can get them, how to stay in touch, and what they should do.
Nick: Sure. Firstly, the first one, Angels Don't Play This Harp, was not co-authored by my wife. It was actually co-authored by Jean Manning, who is an excellent journalist in B.C.
Um the other books earth rising the revolution earth rising 2 are on mixed technologies primarily dealing with privacy related technologies and chronicling the story of how we've taken these issues forward within the political bodies that we have so all those references are there. And then the most important book is controlling the human mind, which deals with the mind effects issues, and we've dealt primarily with the sort of negative side of that in and out of this interview today, but there is a very positive side of enhancing human potential.
In fact, that is the direction of my future work. As I see it, it's not going to be as much reporting on the sinister side. I think we've made our case for that. We've provided a base of knowledge. We'll continue to follow that issue, certainly. But from the other standpoint of what can we do to enhance what we're capable of as human beings?
And that, to me, is the higher and better work. People ask me all the time, and you asked me in this interview, what do we do about all this? Ultimately, it starts with our own individual choices and our effect on consciousness that we choose to take. On this issue or any other issue that's important to us as individual human beings, we need to begin to act.
That's the answer, and that is the message. If we don't act in our own self-interest in a way that does not generate anxiety and fear by virtue of that action, but in a way that engenders confidence and success, we each have a role to play in that. And it's reaching out to our sphere of influence, which may be limited to our families and our friends or may be broader than that.
But as we approach these complicated and controversial issues, we should be able to do so with confidence and strength of spirit and not a weak spirit. In all the work, in the 15 years that I've dealt with these issues, never once have I experienced fear in taking on a military industrial complex. And it's because I know this is what I'm supposed to do.
But in having said that, each of us, whether it's this issue or these issues or others, we need to begin to act. Do something in favor of what we believe to be right and true and recognize there are millions of other people doing the same. That's our only obligation as human beings, and I think that's our charge as human beings. Be good stewards to the planet and to one another, and this is the way we do it, by first starting by creating strong, self-actualized individuals that can begin to act.
And I think that's what we're lacking, and that is the solution for this, as well as many other problems.
Susan: That's terrific. Please give the website where people can stay in touch with your work.
Nick: Sure. It's EarthPulse, E-A-R-T-H-P-U-L-S-E, EarthPulse.com.
Richard: A very articulated critique of this very shadowy technology, wasn't it? My great thanks to Susan Berkley for her interview with Dr. Nick Begich. One thing is for sure, this bad use of technology can only go on in an environment where we're sleeping.
All the more need for consciousness of it. This is Thinking with Somebody Else's Head. I'm Richard Lloyd Jones. Talk to you next time.
