section 10

The World Conservation Monitoring Centre provides information services on conservation and sustainable use of the world's living resources, and helps others to develop information systems of their own.

Protected Areas Information

1996 Global Protected Areas Summary Statistics

This summary table has been generated from the WCMC Protected Areas database using the latest available information. To help ensure a high degree of international consistency, only those areas greater than 1,000 hectares in extent, classified in any of the IUCN management categories, are included.

The % land area protected column may be inflated due to the inclusion of marine protected areas in the calculation, e.g. Ecuador, which includes the extensive Galapagos marine reserve.

Every day they are taking thousands of acres from hard working world families in the name of conservation and environmental control.

When will they declare your property wetlands? Where will we hide? What will you eat when the agriculture is destroyed?

Our good friend J.D McArthur of the Franklin Mint, who loves the false propaganda of the pyramid and eye of Horus logo on the US dollar is a supporter of the GAIA Forrestry conservation. Al gore is a proponant of this Gaia Foundation. One of Mr. Gore's primary movement concerns is the GAIA group of New age believer's, just another foreign god worshipping president to send this nation further away from the living God into the arms of Lucifer.

Thus shall he do( antichrist) in the most strongholds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain..

World Trade Organization
154 rue de Lausanne
1211 Geneva 21
Switzerland
Tel: (41 22) 739 51 11

 

• World Trade Organization (WTO) rules apply to over 90 percent of international trade.

   

• The 1995 replacement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) by the WTO heightened concern among critics because its stronger enforcement powers represent a further shift in power from citizens and national governments to a global authority run by unelected bureaucrats.

   

• The most controversial outcomes of the Uruguay Round were the establishment of much stronger enforcement mechanisms in the WTO.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was an international organization created in 1947 to reduce trade barriers through multilateral negotiations. In January 1995, the GATT was replaced by a stronger World Trade Organization (WTO), the result of eight years of GATT negotiations. Today, member countries number 125 (nearly the whole world except China, some former communist countries, and a number of small nations) and WTO rules apply to over 90 percent of international trade.

Although still a little-known and little-understood institution, the WTO has become increasingly controversial as it has expanded the scope of its work from its original narrow GATT focus on reducing tariffs on manufactured goods. The WTO now also works to eliminate nontariff barriers, and can be used to challenge environmental, health, and other regulations that may serve legitimate social goals but may be regarded as impediments to international trade. The 1995 replacement of GATT by the WTO heightened concern among critics because its stronger enforcement powers represent a further shift in power from citizens and national governments to a global authority run by unelected bureaucrats. Business, academic, and government supporters applaud the WTO as a more muscular sheriff of the world trading system.

================================================================ INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE CONVENTION AGAINST OFFENSIVE MICROWAVE WEAPONS P.O. BOX 58700 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102-8700 (C) Harlan Girard, 1996 Posted November 02, 1995 Revised January 10, 1996 CIA - SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND DEATH SQUAD ACTIVITY IN 1996 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ On June 5, 1975, the *Commission to Investigate CIA Activities within the United States* submitted its final report to President Gerald Ford. Among many other matters, the Commission noted that the Directorate of Science and Technology had administered LSD to persons who were unaware that they were being tested. The Commission claimed that new stringent criteria [sic] had been issued in 1963 "prohibiting drug testing by the CIA on unknowing persons. All drug testing programs were ended in 1967." Commonly known as the Rockefeller Commission after its chairman, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, the Commission had seven members, one of whom went on to national prominence -- *Ronald Reagan*. Did you think that the Rockefeller Commission stopped the CIA from testing its technologies on "unknowing persons"? Do you think that the CIA gave up its mind control experiments when the drug testing programs stopped? A fourth generation mind control system has been employed since 1989 in covert operations, both at home and abroad. It is used in assassinations, kidnappings, and in the detention without trial and protracted extra judicial killing of Americans (and other nationalities) being involuntarily used in experiments to develop a fifth generation system. *These are terminal experiments: the involuntary human subject must die for the experiment to end*. It is very difficult for most Americans to believe that their government would countenance such suffering. We are acculturated from birth to view our country and its leaders as both moral and democratic. And yet the International Committee deals daily with the remnant of these experiments, those lucky enough to have survived the initial, brutal onslaught, and who are struggling to make some sense of the horror facing them. On October 21, 1994, the United States became a State Party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Article 2, S2 of the Convention against Torture states: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture." *The United States is in violation of the letter of this Convention.* Tens of thousands have already died. When will the killing stop? *KEY WORDS* ^^^^^^^^^ Telerobotics Synthetic Environments DIS (Distributed Interactive Simulation) Cognitive Neuroscience Cyborgs Synthetic Telepathy Psychotechnologies or Psycho Technology Nonlethal Weapons RF (Radio Frequency) Weapons HPM (High Power Microwave) Weapons Directed Energy Weapons Beta Wave Incapacitator Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD Sports Mechanics NASA Ames Laboratory, Moffet Field, CA National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 Telepresence Surveillance Systems Office of National Drug Control Policy Systems Neurobiology Vircator (Virtual Cathode Oscillator) Decade of the Brain Electronic Incarceration Terminal Experiment Human Computer Interface Expert Systems ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) OOTW (Operations Other Than War) Telemedicine Psychological Operations Information Warfare Behavioral Neurodynamics CNSR (Computer-Meditated Stereotaxic Radiosurgery) SMU (Special Mission Unit) Teleprogamming Function Neuroimaging Neuropsychiatry *KEY NAMES* ^^^^^^^^^ Ray S. Kline, PhD Janet Morris John B. Alexander, PhD Col. Richard M. Satava, MD Lt.Cdr. Shaun B. Jones, MD Edward A. Brown, PhD Joseph C. Sharp, PhD Maj.Gen. Albert Stubblebine III Earl Brian, MD Louis Jolyon West, MD Lt.Col. Oliver North Christopher J. Lamb, PhD Lt.Col. Robert Kocher Lt.Gen. Leonard Perroots, USAF Elliot Postow, Ph.D. Louis J. Freeh

Mind Control and the Secret State by Daniel Brandt Last September the CIA confirmed the existence of a 20-year, $20 million research program in "remote viewing," a subvariety of extrasensory perception. On October 29, a Jack Anderson column added more details, and Ted Koppel of ABC's Nightline weighed in with a program on November 28, by which time many newspapers and wire services had picked up the story. By December, a number of pundits began lamenting this additional evidence of the CIA's protean power to waste taxpayers' money. Curiously, "remote viewing" was an old story, first reported by Anderson himself on 23 April 1984. Other Anderson columns of U.S. and Soviet interest in psychic research date back to 1981. Anderson's October 29 update reported that this project, which for a time was contracted out to the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), had been scaled back and put under Pentagon sponsorship, but nevertheless continued. Although the results of these experiments were reportedly mixed, the project retains its defenders in Congress: Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI) and Rep. Charlie Rose (D-NC). By 1995, Anderson didn't have an opinion on the merits of this research, but his 1984 column was supportive. On Nightline, former CIA director Robert Gates implied that pressure from members of Congress drove the CIA's original involvement. Another of Ted Koppel's CIA guests, identified only as "Norm," was a technical advisor for CIA deputy director John McMahon and, until 1984, a coordinator for the SRI tests. "Norm" did mention the "eight-martini" results from some experiments; this was an in-house term for remote- viewing results so uncannily successful that observers needed eight martinis to recover. Still, the general impression from Koppel's show was dismissive. Only about "fifteen percent" of the experiments, panelists repeated, produced accurate results. Gates argued that such research, if undertaken at all, belongs in the academy. Not for the first time, however, there's more to this story than Ted Koppel acknowledges. Ingo Swann, who was involved in the SRI project from 1972-1988, is upset with the media's droll treatment of this revived story. Swann points out that the original motivation behind the "remote viewing" project was the fear that the Soviets were investing significant resources in applied psychic research, and might be making advances. At the time, at least, such a rationale would have been considered a plausible one to justify such a small expenditure of intelligence money. Nevertheless, almost all mention of this element of the story, which had figured prominently in the first wave of stories on "remote viewing," was dropped in 1995. Furthermore, Swann claims, the "fifteen percent" figure, established early in the SRI project, represented the baseline accuracy for non-gifted and untrained persons. U.S. intelligence wanted sixty-five percent accuracy, and in the later stages of the project, Swann claims, "this accuracy level was achieved and often consistently exceeded." According to Swann, the key players in the project, and the documentation supporting the real story, remain under the strictest security constraints. However this may be, Anderson's October 29 story reminds us that ESP is very much alive as an object of intelligence-community interest. In addition to "remote viewing" (seeing people, places, and events at a distance in space and time), another area of interest is the supposed power of "micro psycho-kinesis" or "Micro-PK" -- the ability to affect small objects, such as electrical systems, by using the mind. Micro-PK is one step away from outright telekinesis, and its supposed power has obvious attractions for the CIA. Imagine being able to erase a computer tape from a block away, or interfere with the avionics of a jet fighter, or detonate a warhead. Based on the evidence that's on the public record, the dream of harnessing such power, or even of establishing its existence, may be somewhat optimistic. But this fact hasn't stopped a strange band of specialists, many of whom have government connections, from staking out careers at the intersection of, so to speak, ESP, the Pentagon, and the CIA: where people interested in parapsychology work with those interested in weapons research and mind control. These would-be psi-spooks turn up occasionally on talk shows and at conferences on "nonlethal defense." Their ranks include companies like PSI-TECH in Albuquerque, founded by Maj. Edward A. Dames, and figures such as Col. John B. Alexander of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, who was featured in the February 1995 issue of Wired magazine. Dames and Alexander and a dozen more blend in with spookier types who shun publicity but who show up at UFO and New Age gatherings. One is ex-Naval Intelligence officer C.B. Scott Jones, a former aide to Sen. Claiborne Pell. Once again, it's likely that Ted Koppel doesn't have the whole story. It's also likely that he wouldn't be cleared to report it if he did. Still, the piddling pool of dollars so far devoted to this research strongly implies that, if the figure is accurate, intelligence-funded parapsychological research has been a bust. The uncounted millions the CIA has spent on mind control suggest just the opposite. As with "remote viewing," the attraction of a successful mind control program to the CIA is obvious, and has long been explicitly acknowledged as such. The "Manchurian Candidate" scenario -- in which a programmed zombie-assassin responds to a post-hypnotic trigger, performs the act, and does not remember it later -- is one ideal type of successful mind control. A reliable truth serum, long the object of a CIA quest, would be another. Both of these are operational uses of mind control, its so-called "second front." This term comes from former CIA director Allen Dulles. In 1953, Dulles, speaking before a national meeting of Princeton alumni, distinguished two fronts in the then-current "battle for men's minds": a "first front" of mass indoctrination through censorship and propaganda, and a "second front" of individual "brainwashing" and "brain changing." Before an audience of fellow Ivy Leaguers, Dulles skipped the usual pieties about democracy. The same year, Dulles approved the CIA's notorious MKULTRA project, and exempted it from normal CIA financial controls. The distinction between Dulles's "two fronts" eventually becomes difficult to sustain, like the distinction between, say, sociology and psychology. Still, this distinction can be useful in roughing out a spectrum of known mind-control techniques. For example, one powerful tool for inducing ideological and behavioral change is social pressure in a controlled environment. The "brainwashing" employed during the Korean War did not involve the use drugs or hypnosis. The Chinese merely used the same techniques that they employed on the population at large, but with more intensity, greater control, and additional rewards and punishments such as food and sleep deprivation. Yet this frighteningly simple program was enough to crank up the brainwashing scare in the U.S. Some researchers now suspect that this hysterical episode had its origins in CIA-generated propaganda, designed to give the CIA the political space needed to research more sophisticated mind-control techniques. Many undergraduates learn about the experiments conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s, which demonstrated that expressed opinions can be easily manipulated by social pressure, even in obvious cases, such as whether Line A is longer than Line B on a particular card. And Stanley Milgram showed that many unwitting research subjects would administer a series of escalating electric shocks to another, even to the point of an apparent heart attack, simply because a white-coated lab assistant asked them to continue. Milgram's research suggests that a "Manchurian Candidate" already exists in many of us, and that all that's required to bring him out may be a bit of propaganda. The historical evidence for blind human obedience that could be cited here is very familiar, and very depressing. Still, there's evidence that Pentagon planners are uneasy about potential unruliness among the mass populations Dulles identified as mind control's "first front." Princeton alumni may perhaps follow and accept arguments that U.S. interests are at stake in Bosnia, but their sons are unlikely to be on the scene defending those supposed interests. The urban or Appalachian infantryman, and the family he comes from, may have other ideas. Elite unease on this point may lie behind Pentagon enthusiasm for the new wrinkle in military force that goes by the name "nonlethal" or "less-than-lethal." Its very claim to embody a "humanitarian" form of warfare is a weapon in Dulles's "battle for men's minds." Nonlethal technology becomes important in a discussion of mind control, as it involves something very close to it, in a form which might be used to control large populations. The propaganda aspect of "humanitarian warfare" is merely a sideshow; it's the technology itself that enlists the enthusiasm of Pentagon planners and law enforcement officials. Much of this "friendly force" technology involves electromagnetic fields and directed-energy radiation, and ultrasound or infrasound weapons -- the same technology that's currently of interest in brain-stimulation and mind-control research. A partial list of aggressive promoters of this new technology includes Oak Ridge National Lab, Sandia National Laboratories, Science Applications International Corporation, MITRE Corporation, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. In the 1996 defense authorization bill, Congress earmarked $37.2 million to investigate nonlethal technologies. And this money looks like a mere ante in the game. U.S. interest in this "less-than-lethal" technology dates back to the early 1960s, when the State Department became aware of low-energy microwave radiation directed at the U.S. embassy in Moscow. Under the name "Project Pandora," secret research into the Moscow radiation continued for ten years -- before embassy employees were informed that they were on the receiving end. Researchers initially assumed that the microwaves were designed to activate bugging devices. But when a large number of illnesses were reported at the embassy, a review of Soviet scientific journals revealed that the Soviets believed microwaves affected cell membranes and increased the excitability of nerve cells. Officially, the incidence of illness at the embassy was ultimately blamed on the U.S. shortwave transmitting antenna on the embassy roof, which leaked energy and contributed to the unhealthy environment. Still, the secrecy surrounding Project Pandora encouraged further speculation within the U.S. intelligence community and elsewhere. For instance, researchers knew that a low-energy microwave beam could be modulated with an "audiogram," and actually convey a recognizable message into an irradiated brain. This led some U.S. spooks to suspect that the Soviets had been attempting to practice mind control on the embassy staff. Such history brings us back to the situation of the restless public in our own jittery, pre-millennial U.S. Today, there seems to be a dramatic increase in the number of "wavies," those who feel they are being harassed by non-ionizing radiation such as radio or sound waves. Nevertheless, there is little evidence to support their belief that the secret state, despite its obvious interest in nonlethal technology, is supporting applied research on unsuspecting average citizens. Several alternative explanations suggest themselves. First of all, the treatment of mental illness over the past few decades has changed dramatically -- from an institutional approach, to an out-patient, community-based system that relies on prescription drugs to control symptoms and behavior. Greater numbers of sufferers of paranoia, freed from institutions, are also free to exercise their First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the power to express oneself has been enhanced by technology -- everything from personal photocopying machines and desktop publishing, to fax machines and now the Internet. And on the Internet, almost everyone can find soulmates. And "wavies" can make the case that they deserve the benefit of a doubt. Revelations about the Cold War secret state, from the CIA documents released in the 1970s to last year's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (which investigated ionizing radiation only), have produced a social environment in which it can seem difficult to rule out anyone's claim, no matter how paranoid-sounding. Finally, there is the modern problem of "pollution" in the broadest sense: from electromagnetic and chemical, and including simple noise. Human reactions to this pollution, which is a new phenomenon in the history of our species, apparently vary by orders of magnitude. Those who are ultra-sensitive may feel harassed, even if no one is intentionally targeting them. To a disinterested observer, the claims of the "wavies" are perhaps no more bizarre than the claims of those who have experienced profound religious conversions. The point is not to belittle anyone's beliefs, but rather to establish that social factors often determine what we consider to be credible. For thousands of years societies have found it useful to allow sufficient space for religion. Only recently has social space opened up for the claims of "wavies." The increase in their numbers is thus predictable, irrespective of whether the secret state is behind their problems or not. (It isn't, in my opinion.) This brings us to the "second front" mentioned by Allen Dulles in 1953: the technology of mind control applied on an individual level. Whereas non-ionizing radiation can be "broadcast" to large populations, techniques such as psychosurgery, implants, and electronic stimulation of the brain (ESB) are administered on a case-by-case basis. More exotic techniques, whose scientific status and potential effectiveness remain uncertain, include radio hypnotic intra-cerebral control and hypnotic dissolution of memory (RHIC-EDOM), and the use of induced "screen memory" and multiple personality disorder (MPD) for cover purposes. The closest parallel to the "wavies" within this second front include those who feel that implants were forced on them, sometimes during childhood. Such beliefs obviously tap deep fears in the popular psyche. The season premier of "The X Files" showed FBI agent Scully discovering that someone had planted a microchip near the base of her skull. And accused Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh apparently claims that an implant was inserted under his skin, for tracking purposes, during the Gulf War. Identification implants, which are passive devices that respond to an energy source and return an identification number, are similar to the bar codes at the checkout counter in a grocery store. Today's pet owners can have these devices implanted in their pets. But anyone who confuses this simple technology with a chip that tells them what to do is already in trouble. Such a person should consider turning off the television, logging off the Internet, and checking out a few books from the local library. ID technology is ominous for those concerned with surveillance and privacy, but it has little to do with mind control. Granted, there are experimental "stimoceiver" implants that can stimulate the brain through electrodes. Mind-control enthusiast Jose Delgado became briefly famous when he stopped a charging bull in its tracks with such a device in 1964. Even allowing for electronic miniaturization since then, or for the fact that finely-tuned microwaves can achieve the same results as implanted electrodes, ESB would still seem to be impractical as a mind-control device. At best it appears to stimulate various emotions, and might be used for behavioral conditioning in a controlled environment. This is still quite crude as a control device. It would be simpler and more reliable to arrange a fatal accident. The combination of surveillance technology and implanted aversion therapy conjures up the vision of a society of victim-robots, with monitors on every utility pole and computers administering the conditioning. But the necessary infrastructure would be frightfully expensive. And no doubt unnecessary. Sufficient control over the flow of information in society can yield results very similar to those that could be achieved by mind-control implants installed in every individual. Thus the flaw in the reasoning of many researchers: the mind-control techniques that have them so worried are usually the most difficult techniques one can possibly imagine. For those who would seek total control, plain, old-fashioned information control -- leavened with a few fascist techniques -- will do nicely, thank you. In 1973, former MKULTRA researcher Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West, from the Department of Psychiatry at UCLA, convinced California and federal officials to sponsor a Violence Center. Governor Ronald Reagan mentioned the proposed Center in glowing terms in a speech on January 11, and the federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) approved a $750,000 grant. By this time the federal government, through LEAA, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the Bureau of Prisons, and the CIA, was operating or funding numerous behavior modification programs in prisons, schools, and hospitals. In response to protests from UCLA students and faculty, the LEAA announced that it would ban the use of its funds for "psychosurgery, medical research, behavior modification -- including aversion therapy -- and chemotherapy." A year later Louis West was still hoping to obtain funds from NIMH, but by then it was too late for his proposal. Until the 1970s it was not unusual for mental health professionals to propose programs that would screen children for the purpose of early diagnosis and treatment of the potentially violent. But by the 1970s the trend was in the other direction, as some states enacted laws that made it more difficult to confine someone involuntarily as a mental patient. By the 1990s the shoe is securely on the other foot. Twenty years ago it was fashionable for clinicians to blame urban unrest and similar phenomena on the behavior of individuals. Now, however, the individual can disclaim responsibility for his actions by blaming external agencies. Numerous persons have gone public with accusations of strange events during their childhood, suggesting that they were used as guinea pigs for mysterious men in white coats. Some of their evidence seems sufficiently solid to require further investigation, and more cases are emerging all the time. On 15 March 1995, two patients of New Orleans therapist Valerie Wolf testified before the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Although this was outside the purview of the Committee, they were permitted to testify because some of the names of CIA-connected researchers they mentioned were already familiar to the Committee. These two women remembered sessions when they were around eight years old that involved electric shocks, hypnosis, shots with needles, x-rays, sexual abuse, and even training in intelligence tradecraft. One case occurred from 1972-1976 and the other in 1958. This testimony was not covered by the media. Although the recollections of the two women were spontaneous and did not involve regression therapy, there is also a cottage industry developing around memories of child abuse in general. For the most part these are not connected with government research, and perhaps many are the result of questionable techniques used by social workers, therapists, police and prosecutors to elicit testimony from children. Juries are becoming more skeptical of many of these cases. This issue has even assumed the dimensions of a religious crusade -- Christian fundamentalists worry about evil in the New Age movement, and are on the lookout for cases of "satanic ritual abuse" of children. Others believe the CIA has turned children into split-personality sex slaves for operational use. In 1992 the False Memory Syndrome Foundation began in Philadelphia. This organization criticizes the practice of regression therapy when it's used to bring out memories of traumatic childhood experiences. FMSF considers these repressed memories of incest and sexual abuse to be objectively false, and devastating to family life in general. There's a growing split over this issue among psychology professionals. To confuse the situation further, FMSF has some on their Board of Advisors who may want to cover up their own work. One is Louis West, another is Martin Orne, one of the key MKULTRA researchers in hypnosis, and a third is Michael Persinger, who did research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on the brain for a Pentagon weapons project. Regression therapy could be a threat to the techniques the CIA may have secretly developed involving the use of hypnosis. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, George Estabrooks, chairman of the Department of Psychology at Colgate University, was called to Washington by the War Department. As one of the leading authorities on hypnosis, Estabrooks was asked to evaluate how it might be used by the enemy. In 1943 he wrote a book, expanded in a second edition fourteen years later, that included a discussion of the use of hypnotism in warfare. In his opinion, one in five adult humans are capable of being placed in a trance so deep that they will have no memory of it. They could be hypnotized secretly by using a disguised technique, and given a post-hypnotic suggestion. Estabrooks suggested that a dual personality could be constructed with hypnosis, thereby creating the perfect double agent with an unshakable cover. Estabrooks' theories regarding hypnosis are disputed by many experts today. Frequently the entire topic is dismissed with the notion, promoted by Martin Orne and others, that a hypnotist cannot induce a person to perform an act that this person would otherwise find objectionable. But this in itself appears to be a cover story; if the trance is deep enough, an imaginary social environment can be constructed through which an otherwise objectionable act becomes necessary and heroic. Murdering Hitler during wartime would not be considered criminal, for example. It may even be easier than this: in 1951 in Denmark, Palle Hardrup robbed a bank and killed a guard, and then claimed that hypnotist Bjorn Nielsen told him to do it. Nielsen eventually confessed that Hardrup was a test of his hypnotic techniques, which included telling Hardrup that the money from the robbery was a means to a noble end. Hardrup had become Nielsen's robot, and Nielsen was convicted. In 1976 a book by Donald Bain titled "The Control of Candy Jones" was published by Playboy Press. This one-of-a-kind book is the story Candy Jones, who was America's leading cover girl during the forties and fifties. In 1960 Jones fell on hard times and agreed to act as a courier for the CIA. An excellent subject for hypnosis, Jones became the plaything of a CIA psychiatrist who used her to exhibit his mastery of mind-control techniques. This psychiatrist used hypnosis and drugs to develop a second personality within Jones over a period of 12 years. This second personality took the form of a courier who could be triggered by telephone with particular sounds, and after the mission was completed and the normal personality resumed, did not remember anything. These missions were elaborate, and frequently involved world travel to deliver messages. According to the book, Jones and other victims were once even subjected to torture at a seminar at CIA headquarters, as a means of demonstrating this psychiatrist's control over his subjects. Jones married New York radio talk-show host Long John Nebel in 1972. An amateur hypnotist, Nebel stumbled onto her secret personality, and began unravelling the story over many subsequent sessions. Author Donald Bain, a family friend, was invited to reconstruct the story from more than 200 hours of taped sessions between Jones and Nebel. Various researchers have confirmed some pieces of the story, but Bain did not name the major CIA psychiatrist involved, nor did he name a second psychiatrist who played a more marginal role. Researcher Martin Cannon recently identified this second psychiatrist as the late William Kroger, who was an associate of Louis West, Martin Orne, and another MKULTRA veteran, H.J. Eysenck. Whatever the truth is behind Candy Jones -- and it's difficult to see the book as an elaborate hoax -- there's no question that hypnotist George Estabrooks raised issues that the CIA took seriously in secret research for at least 25 years. The MKULTRA implementing documents specified that "additional avenues to the control of human behavior" were to include "radiation, electroshock, various fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, graphology, harassment substances, and paramilitary devices and materials." The word "radiation" gave the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments a reason to request a search of records on human experimentation from the CIA. Their final report, released last October, expressed dissatisfaction with the CIA's response, and recommended that the CIA get their act together so that legitimate requests can be accommodated better in the future. One problem is the compartmentation of the CIA's record-keeping systems. Another is that the CIA immediately decided that the Committee's purview was restricted only to ionizing radiation -- the type of radiation of interest in nuclear testing, as opposed to the electromagnetic and sound waves that might be used for mind control. Finally, those documents that the CIA did release were heavily redacted. The Committee noted that they had "received numerous queries about MKULTRA and the other related programs from scholars, journalists, and citizens who have been unable to review the complete record." In fact, most of the MKULTRA records were destroyed in 1973 by the order of Richard Helms, who waived an internal CIA regulation to do so. It was also the practice of MKULTRA to maintain as few records as possible. If ESP, waves, implants, satanic ritual abuse and post-hypnotic robots aren't sufficient, recently the subject of mind control has been intertwined with UFOs. Seemingly jealous of the credibility enjoyed by victims of alien abduction, researcher Julianne McKinney promotes the view that the entire UFO phenomenon was created by the secret state. A more thorough researcher, Martin Cannon, also promotes this view. In a long monograph titled "The Controllers," he explains the UFO phenomenon as a "screen memory" cover story induced by U.S. intelligence to protect their own mind-control experiments. On the other hand, the implicit assumption behind McKinney and Cannon that it must be either/or -- either aliens from outer space or spooks with a bag of secret tricks -- seems arbitrary. If the ethically-challenged U.S. intelligence community has proven anything during the last half- century, it's that they would not find it objectionable to work on behalf of aliens from outer space, and against the interests of humankind. Another possible scenario is that aliens are real, U.S. intelligence knows more than they are telling, and they send out disinformation agents to keep the issue at merely a low simmer. By muddying the waters with kook-biz, they keep it from becoming officially-credible spook-biz, at which point it might boil over into eschatology, mass hysteria, and vigilantism. UFO researchers have recently become interested in the Aviary, a group of former and current U.S. spooks, along with some defense- contracting scientists, who may or may not have official status. Apparently the mission of this group is to discredit any serious research into UFOs. Its members include Col. John B. Alexander, Harold Puthoff from the remote viewing project, and Jack Vorona of the Defense Intelligence Agency (formerly the boss of Michael Persinger). The names of others are floating around the Internet as well. Some Aviarians claim to be UFOlogists themselves, or are friendly and good-natured with other UFOlogists, and some genuine UFO researchers are quick to squabble with other researchers. This makes it nearly impossible to sort out who is disinforming whom, and difficult to distinguish the white hats from the black hats. Since he began looking into the Aviary, British researcher Armen Victorian has been burgled eight times, his car broken into three times, his telephone tapped, and a bug was discovered in his home. All this happened courtesy of British intelligence and police, reportedly as a favor for the CIA. Something is going on here, and chances are excellent that it's not happening merely for our general amusement. Whoever the men in black turn out to be, it's not the casually-titillated viewer of "The X Files" that worries them. Instead, it's the relentless researchers who track their careers and publicize their deeds, hoping that one day the state will have no secrets, and that those who live off of its impoverished taxpayers will, in the end, be held accountable. Those involved in parapsychology, mind control, and UFOlogy who have government connections make up a small community; the same names reappear constantly. Ranged against them are the independent researchers -- also a small community. Leaving aside Laurance Rockefeller, who is funding some activity in this area, presumably out of personal interest, there don't appear to be mysterious sums of money floating around. That means the field is open for dedicated researchers with modest resources. And that's the good news, because we need to be watching every move the psi-spooks make. Sidebar from NameBase NewsLine, No. 12, January-March 1996: Mind Control and the Internet by Tom Porter The Internet is a prodigious source of information, but using it has been compared to "trying to sip from a firehose." Access to this flood of data comes at a price: Net researchers spend much of their time sifting the valuable from the dubious from the insane. Never has this been more true than in dealing with Net resources on the topic of mind control. To begin with, there is the problem of definition. "Mind control" has been taken to mean many different things, and all these definitions have their advocates on the Net. Some of the discussion on the Internet involves the purported harassment of individuals for the purpose of disorienting them, or decreasing their ability to discuss issues of importance. This includes the use of less-than-lethal technologies such as microwave or ELF irradiation, sonics, and other techniques. Ed Light and Julianne McKinney argue that such harassment is real. Other research and commentary on the Net concerns individual mind control by means of what I call "structured abuse," and what L. Ron Hubbard once identified as "drug/pain/hypnosis" conditioning. Discussions on this topic can be found on many pages related to satanic ritual abuse, alien abductions, and the "false memory syndrome" debate. This area is where my research efforts are concentrated. Exploring mind control on the Net is complicated by the fact that many of the most active participants claim they are also victims. Their intensity is understandable; if I had been subjected to the abuses claimed by these authors, I would certainly want to publicize them. Ed Light hosts the Freedom of Thought Foundation home page and tells his story there. Alan Yu has contributed extensively to the alt.mindcontrol Usenet newsgroup on this subject. Another self-identified victim who has posted extensively is Glen Nichols.[1] Many of the claims that such people make may seem incredible. Still, we know that in the past intelligence agencies have committed crimes they called "research." The Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee in the 1970s exposed some of the horrors of the CIA's MKULTRA programs, and it remains extremely likely that much more remains hidden. Having spoken to several purported survivors of trauma-based mind control who had significant although not conclusive corroborating evidence, I am inclined to give these people the benefit of the doubt. Many survivors of conventional abuse endure additional suffering because of their difficulty in revealing what happened to them, and in persuading others of the reality of their abuse. I try to achieve a balance between acceptance of and skepticism toward survivors' stories, and then try to seek independent corroboration. The Net is a particularly fertile field for anyone investigating possible links between satanic ritual abuse and mind control. There's a Net site that supports every imaginable position, from False Memory Syndrome Foundation's iron-clad skepticism to fundamentalist pages proclaiming tens of thousands of abuse victims per year.[2] My own opinion is that the application of "structured abuse" to young children, combined with classical conditioning techniques, could create alternate personalities that could be easily controlled and manipulated. This would not require complex technology, only secrecy and ruthlessness. Any group capable of such techniques would see "benefits" in the existence of such slaves. Some claim that purported "satanic ritual abuse" can be a cover for experiments by intelligence agencies. My own opinion is that this claim ought not to be rejected out of hand. The CIA has a record of distancing itself from morally-indefensible operations by using fronts and cutouts. A similar case has been made for "alien abductions." Perhaps the best-known discussion of possible links between mind control and alien abductions is Martin Cannon's monograph "The Controllers," available in several forms from many sites.[3] Cannon claims that some alien abductions are cover for mind-control efforts, and represent an attempt to deal with victims' memories of such procedures. Variations of Cannon's view can be found in Usenet discussions of "alien abductions" as cover for the implantation of microchips to track and/or control individuals. Again, even these claims seem to me to deserve airing. The CIA has a history of attempting to manipulate the existence of cults and other mass- psychological phenomena to advance its objectives. And the same could be true of the Internet. On the Net, information flows rapidly, and is often impossible to verify. Anonymous rumors can easily be inserted into the data-stream. Paranoia about poisoned sources can easily overtake a researcher. As a topic for serious discussion on the Net, "UFOlogy" already seems to have self-destructed, and "mind control" may be next. The welcome freewheeling quality of Net discourse is offset by the possibility that important subjects can be trivialized, and then disappear. What is a researcher on this topic to do? Valuable though the Net and its e-mail community are, the Net's greatest value remains that of a pointer to other sources: potential interviews; journals; and, yes, even books. 1. Ed Light runs the Freedom of Thought Foundation home page at: http://members.gnn.com/fivestring Glen Nichols' and Alan Yu's stories can be found there as well. 2. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is at: http://iquest.com/~fitz/fmsf/ Hopeful Hands, a religiously-oriented satanic ritual abuse page is at: http://www.mother.com/~clburger/hopeful/homepage.htm 3. The Controllers is available at: http://www.lablinks.com/sumeria/cosmo/control.html Thomas Porter, from Winston-Salem NC, is a software engineer by

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

STOA

Working document
(Consultation version)

AN APPRAISAL OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF POLITICAL CONTROL

ABSTRACT

The objectives of this report are fourfold: (i) to provide Members of the European Parliament with a guide to recent advances in the technology of political control; (ii) to identify, analyse and describe the current state of the art of the most salient developments; (iii) to present members with an account of current trends, both in Europe and Worldwide; and (iv) to develop policy recommendations covering regulatory strategies for their management and future control.

The report contains seven substantive sections which cover respectively:

(i) The role and function of the technology of political control;

(ii) Recent trends and innovations (including the implications of globalisation, militarisation of police equipment, convergence of control systems deployed worldwide and the implications of increasing technology and decision drift);

(iii) Developments in surveillance technology (including the emergence of new forms of local, national and international communications interceptions networks and the creation of human recognition and tracking devices);

(iv) Innovations in crowd control weapons (including the evolution of a 2nd. generation of so called 'less-lethal weapons' from nuclear labs in the USA).

(v) The emergence of prisoner control as a privatised industry, whilst state prisons face increasing pressure to substitute technology for staff in cost cutting exercises and the social and political implications of replacing policies of rehabilitation with strategies of human warehousing.

(v) The use of science and technology to devise new efficient mark-free interrogation and torture technologies and their proliferation from the US & Europe.

(vi) The implications of vertical and horizontal proliferation of this technology and the need for an adequate political response by the EU, to ensure it neither threatens civil liberties in Europe, nor reaches the hands of tyrants.

The report makes a series of policy recommendations including the need for appropriate codes of practice. It ends by proposing specific areas where further research is needed to make such regulatory controls effective. The report includes a comprehensive bibliographical survey of some of the most relevant literature.

AN APPRAISAL OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF POLITICAL CONTROL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objectives of this report are fourfold: (i) to provide Members of the European Parliament with a guide to recent advances in the technology of political control; (ii) to identify. analyze and describe the current state of the art of the most salient developments; (iii) to present members with an account of current trends, both in Europe and Worldwide; and (iv) to develop policy recommendations covering regulatory strategies for their management and future control. The report includes a large selection of illustrations to provide Members of Parliament with a good idea of the scope of current technology together with a representative flavour of what lies on the horizon. The report contains seven substantive sections, which can be summarised as follows:

THE ROLE & FUNCTION OF POLITICAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

This section takes into account the multi-functionality of much of this technology and its role in yielding an extension of the scope, efficiency and growth of policing power. It identifies the continuum of control which stretches from modem law enforcement to advanced state suppression, the difference being the level of democratic accountability in the manner in which such technologies are applied.

RECENT TRENDS & INNOVATIONS

Taking into account the problems of regulation and control and the potential possessed by some of these technologies to undermine international human rights legislation, the section examines recent trends and innovations. This section covers the trend towards militarisation of the police technologies and the paramilitarisation of military technologies with an overall technological and decision drift towards worldwide convergence of nearly all the technologies of political control. Specific advances in area denial, identity recognition, surveillance systems based on neural networks, discreet order vehicles, new arrest and restraint methods and the emergence of so called 'less lethal weapons' are presented. The section also looks at a darker side of technological development including the rise of more powerful restraint, torture, killing and execution technologies and the role of privatised enterprises in promoting it.

The EU is recommended to: (i) develop appropriate structures of accountability to prevent undesirable innovations emerging via processes of technological creep or decision drift; (ii) ensure that the process of adopting new systems for use in internal social and political control is transparent, open to appropriate political scrutiny and subject to democratic change should unwanted or unanticipated consequences emerge; (iii) prohibit, or subject to stringent and democratic controls, any class of technology which has been shown in the past to be excessively injurious, cruel, inhumane or indiscriminate in its effects.

DEVELOPMENTS IN SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY

This section addresses the rapid and virtually unchecked proliferation of surveillance devices and capacity amongst both the private and public sectors. It discusses recent innovations which allow bugging, telephone monitoring, visual surveillance during night or day over large distances and the emergence of new forms of local, national and international communications interceptions networks and the creation of human recognition and tracking devices.

The EU is recommended to subject all surveillance technologies, operations and practices to: (i) procedures ensuring democratic accountability; (ii) proper codes of practice consistent with Data protection legislation to prevent malpractice or abuse; (iii) agreed criteria on what constitutes legitimate surveillance targets, and what does not, and how such surveillance data is stored, processed and shared. These controls should be more effectively targeted at malpractice or illegal tapping by private companies and regulation further tightened to include additional safeguards against abuse as well as appropriate financial redress.

The report discusses a massive telecommunications interceptions network operating within Europe and targeting the telephone, fax and email messages of private citizens, politicians, trade unionists and companies alike. This global surveillance machinery (which is partially controlled by foreign intelligence agencies from outside of Europe) has never been subject to proper parliamentary discussion on its role and function, or the need for limits to be put on the scope and extent of its activities. This section suggests that that time has now arrived and proposes a series of measures to initiate this process of reclaiming democratic accountability over such systems. It is suggested that all telephone interceptions by Member States should be subject to consistent criteria and procedures of public accountability and codes of practice. These should equally apply to devices which automatically create profiles of telephone calls and pattern analysis and require similar legal requirements to those applied for telephone or fax interception.

It is suggested that the rapid proliferation of CCTV systems in many Member States should be subject to a common and consistent set of codes of practice to ensure that such systems are used for the purpose for which they were authorised, that there is an effective assessment and audit of their use annually and an adequate complaints system is in place to deal with any grievances by ordinary people. The report recommends that such codes of practice anticipate technical change including the digital revolution which is currently in process, and ensure that each and every such advance is subject to a formal assessment of both the expected as well as the possible unforeseen implications.

INNOVATIONS IN CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS

This section addresses the evolution of new crowd control weapons, their legitimation, biomedical and political effects. It examines the specific introduction of new chemical, kinetic and electrical weapons, the level of accountability in the decision making and the political use of such technologies to disguise the level of violence being deployed by state security forces. The research used to justify the introduction of such technologies as safe is reanalysed and found to be wanting. Areas covered in more depth include CS and OC gas sprays, rubber and plastic bullets, multi-purpose riot tanks, and the facility of such technologies to exact punishment, with the possibility that they may also bring about anti-state retaliatory aggression which can further destabilise political conflict.

This section briefly analyses recent innovations in crowd control weapons (including the evolution of a 2nd. generation of so called 'less-lethal weapons' from nuclear labs in the USA) and concludes that they are dubious weapons based on dubious and secret research. The Commission should be requested to report to Parliament on the existence of formal liaison arrangements between the EU and the USA to introduce such weapons for use in streets and prisons here. The EU is also recommended to (i) establish objective common criteria for assessing the biomedical effects of all so called less lethal weapons and ensure any future authorization is based on independent research; (ii) ensure that all research used to justify the deployment of any new crowd control weapon in the EU is published in the open scientific press and subject to independent scientific scrutiny, before any authorization is given to deploy. In the meantime the Parliament is asked to reaffirm its current ban on plastic bullets and that all deployment of devices using peppergas (OC) be halted until such a time as independent European research on its risks has been undertaken and published.

NEW PRISON CONTROL SYSTEMS

This section reports on the emergence of prisoner control as a privatised industry, whilst state prisons face increasing pressure to substitute technology for staff in cost cutting exercises. It expresses concern about the social and political implications of replacing policies of rehabilitation with strategies of human warehousing and recommends common criteria for licensing all public and private prisons within the EU. At minimum this should cover operators responsibilities and prisoners rights in regard to rehabilitation requirements; UN Minimum Treatment of Prisoners rules banning the use of leg irons; the regulation and use of psychotropic drugs to control prisoners; the use of riot control, prisoner transport, restraint and extraction technologies. The report recommends a ban on (i) all automatic, mass. indiscriminate prisoner punishment technologies using less lethal instruments such as chemical

irritant or baton rounds; (ii) kill fencing and lethal area denial systems; and (iii) all use of electro-shock, stun and electric restraint technology until and unless independent medical evidence can prove that it safe and will not contribute to either deaths in custody or inhumane treatment, torture or other cruel and unusual punishments.

INTERROGATION, TORTURE TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES

This section discusses the use of science and technology to devise new efficient mark-free interrogation and torture technologies and their proliferation from the US & Europe. Of particular concern is the use and abuse of electroshock devices and their proliferation. It is recommended that the commercial sale of both training in counter terror operations and any equipment which might be used in torture and execution, should be controlled by the criteria and measures outlined in the next section.

REGULATION OF HORIZONTAL PROLIFERATION

The implications for civil liberties and human rights of both the vertical and horizontal proliferation of this technology are literally awesome. There is a pressing need for an adequate political response by the EU, to ensure it neither threatens civil liberties in Europe, nor reaches the hands of tyrants. The European Council agreed in Luxembourg in 1991 and in Lisbon in 1992 a set of eight Common Criteria for Arms Exports which set out conditions which should govern all decisions relating to the issue of licences for the export of arms and ammunition, one condition of which was "the respect of human rights in the country of final destination." Other conditions also relate to the overall protection of human rights. However these eight criteria are not binding on member states and there is no common interpretation on how they should be most effectively implemented. However, a code of conduct to achieve such an agreement was drawn up and endorsed by over 1000 Non-Governmental Organizations based in the European Union.

Whilst it is recognised that it is not the role of existing EU institutions to implement such measures as vetting and issuing of export licences, which are undertaken by national agencies of the EU Member States, it has been suggested by Amnesty International that the joint action procedure which was used to establish EU regulations on Export of Dual use equipment could be used to take such a code of practice further.

Amnesty suggest that the EU Member States should use the Joint Action procedures to draw up common lists of (i) proscribed military, security and police equipment and technology, the sole or primary use of which is to contribute to human rights violations; (ii) sensitive types of military, security or police equipment and technology which has been shown in practice to be used for human rights violations; and (iii) military, security and police units and forces which have been sufficiently responsible for human rights violations and to whom sensitive goods and services should not be provided. The report makes recommendations to help facilitate this objective of denying repressive regimes access to advanced repression technologies made or supplied from Europe.

 

This is just a sample of hundreds of pages of the use of force against American Citizens which will be used in securing the future one world order rule. Do not be deceived and believe that it can never happen in the United States of America, where we are rich and need of nothing.

 

What is a Guillotine?

The guillotine is a mechanical device used for decapitation. It has been used for many years in France, and there is evidence of a guillotine like machine as early as 1307. The guillotine was said to have been a humane form of execution killing the victim instantly. The shield however, was where the photographer was to stand in order to pull forward the severed head incase the body tried to retrieve it. Guillotin was not the man that invented the guillotine, his name just stuck with it because he suggested a mechanical device to execute people humanely.

1307
On April 1 1307, a guillotine like machine was used at the execution of Murcod Ballagh in an area near Merton in Ireland.


1400
A pre guillotine called the Halifax Gibbet was used in Halifax, England at executions on market days.


1564
The Maiden was used in Scotland. It was based on the Halifax Gibbet.


1789
On October 10 1789, the second day of the Assembly debate on the Penal Code, Dr. Guillotine proposed a death penalty where torture and decapitation were involved. He suggested that this should be the only form of capital punishment in France.


1791
On June 6 1791, the statement that "Every person condemed to the death penalty shall have his head severed" was approved by the Assembly.


1792
On April 10 1792, Roederer and Tobias Schmidt agreed that 960 francs would be a sufficient amount to cover the cost of manufacturing the guillotine. The cost included a leather bag to dispose of the severed head after the decapitation.

On Friday, April 11 1792, the first real guillotine was set up. It was tested on sheep and calves in the Cour du Commerce, rue Saint-Andre-des-Arts. The blade, however, was not oblique yet.

On April 15 1792, 3 cadavers from an old peoples home in Bicetre were successfully beheaded.

On April 16 1792, Dr. Guidon went to Bicetre to fix a new blade in position.

On April 4 1792, The guillotine was again tested on cadavers in Bicetre. It was tested on three cadavers from a military hospital. These cadavers were carefully chosen so that the Guillotine could be tested on strong men that had not been emaciated before their unfortunate demise.

On April 25 1792, the first actual execution was held. Sanson operated the guillotine at the execution of Nicolas-Jacques Pelletier.

On June 5 1792, Giraud suggested to Roederer that the grooves should be made of brass. He also suggested that the tongues and gudgeons should be made of iron. He stated that the hooks that attached the cords to the mouton should be bolted instead of nailed down.

On August 21 1792, The guillotine was set up at the place du Carroussel, where it stayed uninterrupted until May 7 1793.


1793
On January 1 1793, King Louis Capet was executed with a guillotine at the place de la Liberte.


1794
On June 9 1794, the guillotine was set up at the place de la Bastille. On June 11 it was moved to the Barriere du Trone.


1843
Nicolas Roch replaced Francois Desmorets as executioner at Lons-le-Saulnier.


1847
Louis Diebler became the first man to move from assistant executioner to executioner for all of France when he succeeded Clement Sanson.


1853
Nicolas Roch succeeded Henri Ganier as executioner at Amiens.


1854
On April 4 1854, Joseph Tussand returned to London with a guillotine that he had purchased from Clement Sanson. It was to become a part of the Tussands Waxworks.


1870
Leon Berger developed a new and improved guillotine. He created a spring system to stop the mouton at the bottom of the grooves. He also created a lock/blocking device at the lunette. He gave the guillotine a release mechanism for the blade.


1872
Nicolas Roch was executioner of Paris. He had five assistants, three of which were MM. Berger, Ganier and Desfourneaux.


1878
Roch added a wooden shield to the guillotine to mask the knife from the sight of the victim. When M.Diebler replaced Roch, he suppressed this device.


1879
Nicolas Roch was succeeded by Louis Deibler.


1898
Louis Deibler was succeeded by his son, Anatole Deibler.


1905
At 5:30 a.m. on June 28 1905, Languille was executed by means of decapitation.


1932
On May 7 1932, Andre Baillard received clemency just as Anatole Deibler's assistants had him strapped to the bascule. This was at the Sante prison.


1939
Anatole Deibler collapsed with a fatal heart attack in the metro station while setting off to the provinces for the execution of Pilorges.

On June 17 1939, Eugene Weidman became the last man to be executed publicly. He was decapitated outside of the prison of Versailles.

On June 24 1939, a law was passed that all executions in Paris were to take place in the yard of the Sante prison. No executions were allowed to be public.


1951
Andre Obrecht became executioner when the position fell vacant. He was chosen from more than four hundred applicants for the position.


1977
On September 10 1977, Hamida Djandoubi was executed. It was the last official use of the guillotine in France.