## THE TORTURE REPORT
By Dr Les Dove

### This information is Copyright of the author
and can not be placed else where.
Author's Request

> > Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy … censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives … Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hood-winked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a freeman, a whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything - you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him........ Robert A Heinlein

> ### THE PAST THROUGH TOMORROW

> #### ( c ): United Kingdom 1995

> #### ( c ): United States 2002

> LIST OF CONTENTS
> Section One
> 1-1 | Psychological Torture | 4
> 1-2 | Aims and Objectives of the report | 5
> 1-3 | Background to the report | 6
> References | 14
> Section Two
> 2-1 | The psychological torture of dissidents | 16
> 2-2 | Police states | 19
> 2-3 | Brain washing | 20
> References | 20
> Section Three
> 3-1 | Why governments prefer psycho tortures | 23
> 3-2 | Psychological torture techniques | 23
> 3-3 | Public ignorance | 25
> 3-4 | Social control by psychological torture | 28
> 3-5 | Manipulation by the state | 30
> 3-6 | The technology of control | 31
> References | 33
> Section Four
> 4-1 | Psychological torture action groups | 34
> 4-2 | Typical action plan | 35
> 4-4 | Assessing the plan | 49
> 4-5 | Implementing the action plan | 40
> References | 45
> Section Five
> 5-1 | Torture in the United Kingdom | 47
> 5-2 | More recent evidence | 47
> 5-3 | Public intimidation | 50
> 5-4 | Subversives | 51
> 5-5 | Are the security services accountable? | 52
> 5-6 | Dirty tricks | 53
> 5-7 | 'Social isolation' and internal exile | 54
> 5-8 | "Bugging" UK style | 55
> 5-9 | Isolation and torture in the United Kingdom | 57
> 5-10 | Brainwashing (Psychic Driving) | 58
> 5-11 | Reinforcement techniques used by the British | 62
> References | 64
> Section Six
> 6-1 | The motive for repression and torture | 68
> 6-2 | Democracy or charade? | 68
> 6-3 | Freedom of thought | 69
> 6-4 | Open government? | 71
> 6-5 | "Big business" | 72
> References | 76
> British Human Rights Organizations | 77
> Conclusions | 79
> Internet resources worldwide | 82
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how the United Kingdom abuses them | 86
> How the security services get away with violating citizens 'rights' | 90

> #### Section One

> 1-1 Psychological torture

> Torture as defined by the World Medical Association (WMA) (1) is: "The deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession or for any other reason."

> In the view of Jacobsen and Vesti: (2) "Torture is the worst possible kind of suppression you can inflict on a human being. The society that finds it necessary to use torture has reduced itself to a regime of terror. It must be called inhuman."

> Put simply, the term "psychological torture" means torture of the mind. However, as will be explained, this is a limited description. For instance, as defined by the World Medical Association. (3)

> Some of the following exploration into psychological torture and social control is based on the author's own research and experiences and observations in various countries around the world. These countries are Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), South Africa, United Kingdom. Salvador, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Columbia, Panama, and Costa Rica amongst many others.

> Some dissidents using computers to provide on-line community groups with information about human rights abuses are gradually breaking down censorship by governments, under which abuses such as psycho-control take place. Through this much is being done to combat the suppression many dissidents face.

> A major purpose of torture is to break a person's resistance and cause both physical and mental anguish. The Rehabilitation Center for Torture Victims in Denmark describes psychological torture as the worst form of torture a person can suffer. They report:

> > "Systematic torture methods destroy a person's personality. It creates great suffering and the torturers know it. No means are spared in this respect. It can be described as the killing of the psyche. Within the past twenty-five years torture methods have become more and more subtle and sophisticated. The deliberate development of subtle torture techniques clearly demonstrates that today torture has an entirely different aim. The methods are used very systematically and based on the results of modern scientific progress, e.g. within psychology and psychiatry. The goal today is the destruction of the identity and individuality of people; a goal which is achieved by direct attacks on the structure and behavior patterns of the personality. The attacks on the personality aim to destroy the core of a person who will eventually change his view of himself and alter his behavior patters to such a degree that he will be unable to recognize himself physically or mentally." (4)

> #### 1-2 Aims and objectives of the report.

> The main objectives of this report are to explore the basic elements of psychological torture in order to try and reach conclusions as to why psychological torture is now being used so widely and to examine why it is being used in many countries that purport to be free democracies.

> This will build upon the writers own research in various countries, plus his own personal experience of psychological torture, which leaves no doubt that such methods are being used far more often than many people would suspect.

> In turn, this leads to the following specific aims:

> (a) To explore the question why, by whom, and with what authority psychological torture is being carried out.
> (b) To identify relevant information and evidence concerning psychological torture.
> (c) To examine reasons for the lack of public information on the subject.

> #### 1-3 Background to the report.

> There are references in various books concerning the activities of internal security forces who employ torture in one form or another. (Even in some so-called 'democracies') Yet psychological torture and its use in the West seems not to have been probed to any great depth at all. Indeed, people in the West have become used to hearing about 'torture in other countries", but what of their own standards? Are those people living in the West really so blameless as they would have others believe? Is it always "others" who torture and never themselves?

> Experience in investigating this subject leads to the realization that a number of 'charitable organizations' in the United Kingdom, supposedly set up to investigate breaches of human rights (including torture), appear to be more concerned in keeping the 'national image' rather than exposing torture within their own country. In other words, it appears that some human rights organizations are avoiding their real responsibilities in some areas, simply because they feel that they may incur the wrath of their own state security service (5), namely MI-5, if they probe into areas the British establishment does not wish them to.

> Indeed, according to the National Council for Civil Liberties (UK), now simply called Liberty, their organization was targeted by the British security services. They suffered much harassment as a result. This kind of harassment, plus the certain loss of government funding, is intended to keep British human rights organizations 'in line' and the British public ignorant of what is happening within their own country.

> When the real implications of psychological torture are examined it can be appreciated why some British human rights groups are reluctant to become involved in exposing repression and torture in their country. That is not to suggest that anyone working for the Liberty organization has been tortured by MI-5, although some people working in other British human rights organizations certainly have been. Early 'pressure' from MI-5 does indeed appear to act as a 'deterrent' should some organizations decide to probe into the area of psychological torture.

> Whatever, there are some human rights organizations who do doubt the legitimacy of their government. But if a government does indeed have a true and proper democratic constitution then there should be no reason for it to deny any investigation into its activities by anyone. Indeed it could be argued that such inquiries should be made welcome by any legitimate government.

> However, many governments quite apparently do have much to hide, in spite of their claims to democracy. Writers daring to probe into the internal affairs of some governments are particularly at risk, as governments inevitably let their security forces loose in attempts to prevent the exposure of any information they feel may be embarrassing or damaging to them.

> Rarely are writers accused of breaking any law. For in most cases they do not. They are simply conducting legitimate research. However, what does happen in many instances is that these researchers find themselves being targeted, persecuted and even tortured for simply daring to ask questions that officials of any true democracy would be proud to answer.

> For instance, the information department of the UK newspaper 'The Independent' reports that on average approx. forty writers are killed somewhere in the world every year. Furthermore, according to the details presented in the British television program 'Africa Express', in 1983 twenty-eight writer/researchers were murdered in Africa alone. In 1994 one hundred and fifteen writers were killed throughout the world. From 1995 onwards the figure may well be very much higher.

> It should be made clear that such writers are not necessarily probing into any apparent so-called state secrets in these searches after truth. Their efforts may simply be to probe into the everyday workings of government. Yet such seems to be the paranoia of some governments, such as that of the United Kingdom, for instance, that it so very often treats such enquiry's as a form of direct attack against its authority. This inevitably leads to an 'action' against the writer by the British security services.

> At least such actions are being taken against researchers in the name of government. Whether such actions are indeed instigated by government, or simply ordered by their security services without proper legal authority is open to question?

> That these actions do take place is in no doubt. According to the available literature far too many political activists around the world, including Britain, have suffered in one way or another for that to be reasonably disputed by anyone.

> The real problem for some governments today is that such actions cannot be so easily hidden as they might have been before the 'electronic age.' With that realization some governments now seek to hide the action itself rather than the victim. That is why psychological torture, rather than obvious physical torture, now seems to have become almost mandatory with numerous security forces all over the world.

> The reasons for the latter statement are quite apparent. Foremost there is the 'deniability' factor that has become associated with psychological torture. (No obvious marks or wounds, as with physical torture.) In fact, the torture action itself can be carried out without ant real physical contact with the victim at all.

> For that reason alone psychological torture has become an attractive accessory to the usual forms of government repression. Psychological torture makes it far easier for a government to rule by force rather than consent.

> The growing use of torture, in particular psychological torture, as reported by Ackroyd (6) also raises the question of whether or not there is a 'third force' or influence involved in its use. Namely big business, or 'the multi-nationals.'

> For example, it is no longer a matter of speculation that some multinational companies were involved, if only indirectly, in the overthrow of some South American governments that had been legally elected with large majorities. For instance in 1970 a board member of a multinational company (I.T.T.), suggested a joint Central Intelligence Agency ITT/US telecommunications operation to ensure the election of a candidate it wanted in Chile. These kinds of shady 'deals' involving multinationals have taken place not only in South America but also in many other countries. (7) These illegal actions were, more often than not, 'justified' by untruthful and exaggerated claims of 'communist infiltration'. Indeed, former CIA Director Richard Helms was fined and given a suspended prison sentence for lying to the United States Congress about the CIA's involvement in overthrowing at least one South American government. (8)

> These 'lies and deceptions' resulted in CIA backed death squads being set up. Over the coming years these death squads tortured and murdered tens of thousands of people worldwide. The goodwill that had previously been directed towards the United States by some nations then quickly evaporated. A bitter lasting hatred of all things American, particularly their government, then replaced it. Unfortunately a large section of the American public remains totally ignorant of these events, and of the atrocities committed in their name. Consequently they cannot understand the hatred directed towards some American citizens when they travel abroad.

> In the light of such information there is little room for speculation concerning the number of such arrangements which may have taken place over the years, and for who's benefit? It also raises the question of why some governments appear to be so eager to engage in such undemocratic practices in the first place. This raises a further question, namely, for whom is such a government working in these instances. The entire American population it is supposedly representing - or just the multinationals?

> It should be noted that not one American citizen has so far been charged with complicity in the genocide that took place under CIA backed death squads. The International Criminal court, set up to bring human rights abusers to justice - irrespective of their nationality, has been bitterly opposed by the present American Bush administration on the grounds that some American's may be indited for crimes against humanity. So, whilst 'foreign' terrorists can be hunted down worldwide and punished for their crimes by the Bush administration 'American government terrorists' are claiming exemption from prosecution. Indeed, the Bush administration has threatened to withdraw military aid, including education and training as well as help financing the purchase of equipment and weaponry, to almost every nation that has relations with the United States. A sad reflection on a government which constantly claims to 'uphold democracy and human rights.'

> Personally, I have always been amazed at how many American's believe that the CIA - which has dishonored its country more than any other government organization, and who has overturned democratic governments worldwide, and been deeply involved in mass murder while doing so - 'protects American democracy.' Surely the exact opposite is true. For most of its existence, if not all of it, the CIA can clearly be seen as having protected fascists and fascism. Can the American public really believe that a security organization, which has overthrown democracy worldwide, actually protects democracy at home?

> Note: A recent report states that the American CIA has overthrown functioning constitutional democracies in over 20 countries. Source: The Praetorian Guard - The U.S. Role in the New World Order. By John Stockwell.

> Another writer also comments on America in his online magazine article for Liberty for All: http://www.libertyforall.net

> Live in Shame or Freedom - you choose the path By Ed Lewis

> I as an American patriot am concerned by what appears to be an extremely short attention span of the American people. The concern is derived mainly from even the informed seeming to have forgotten certain events of recent history. The uninformed on with their lives never knowing the extent of corruption in government even though it steals from them 50 percent of their earnings annually - but the informed should not fall into the same abyss.

> The FBI made a statement that there was not one shred of evidence that Al Qaeda was involved in the September 11 attacks on WTC. But, instead of evidence mounting and being conveyed on to the American pubic, even Internet publications speak of Al Qaeda's involvement but not of the lack of evidence.

> The attacks by the US Government in other countries are not backed by a declaration of war against the countries, or even a Letter of Reprisal, the only two lawful means of attacking another country. The world does not say this - the US Constitution does.

> Without a declaration of war, there should be no American military in other countries killing innocent people and being killed.

> And, yet, opposition to the US Government and its military and organizations, such as the CIA, seems to have gone by the wayside. The military, CIA, DEA, FBI, and who knows what other black ops of the US Government, are still operating in other countries as terrorists. Yes, terrorists since the same actions committed by Middle Eastern groups - or American citizens against the government - would be labeled terroristic, with the current warmongering administration demanding the innocent people in other countries be bombed back to the Stone Age. This, or course, excepts Israel.

> THERE IS NO WAR AGAINST TERRORISM. In fact, the pseudo war against terrorism is being used to inflict terrorism not only on the people of other nations but also on the American people. For a while, it seemed that this was going to remain in the forefront.

> Anyway, it is no wonder that in the past 5 decades, this country has rapidly devolved into a country paralleling Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, and Castro's Cuba. With people who cannot keep in mind the atrocious acts against liberty by the governments, it is no wonder that the American people have few freedoms left.

> When the people believe the tripe put out by the Bushes, Ashcrofts, judges, attorneys, Rumsfelds, Zionist leaders, and members of the many legislators of governments, and then support these treasonous people and organizations, we should no longer wonder why court rulings such as the one by the 9th Circuit court are made.

> They make them because they know they can. They know that the majority of American people are a bunch of couch potato wuzzies who will not go to any trouble whatsoever to re-instate the freedoms of man by going against governments intent on removing them.

> Damn it all, People, why can you not see what is occurring? Why do you not take action instead of sitting back on your laurels believing that the swine in government are protecting freedom and you? Why do you leave it up to a few people who understand and who are willing to take action for the good of all to become the targets of governments completely out of control?"

> Whatever, today many other governments also use untrue claims of 'communist infiltration', both to smear their political opponents and to scare the public into supporting internal repression.

> On his web site, Michael C. Ruppert, another American writer comments on the same subject: http://www.fromthewilderness.com or http://64.239.13.64/

> I give details of the above writers simply because the mainstream American press won't. Like the British press it appears to have been reduced to printing government hand-outs and propaganda rather than allowing the full voice of internal dissent to be heard. Perhaps what John Swinton said below explains it?

> "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it… The business of the Journalist is to destroy truth; To lie outright; To pervert; To vilify; To fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and or lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

> John Swinton, former Chief of Staff, The New York Times

> #### References for section one:

> (1) World Medical Association (WMA).
> (2) Jacobsen. L Vesti. P. Torture Survivors. RTC. Copenhagen. Denmark. 1992. P.14.
> (3) World Medical Association.
> (4) RCT Annual Report. Copenhagen. Denmark. 1984. P.4
> (5) D. Malcolm. The Guardian, Society Section. 1-2-95. P.2
> (6) Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. Rosenhead. J. Shallice. T. The Technology of Political Control. Pluto Press. 1980. P.102.
> (7) Kidron. M. Segal. R. Business, Money & Power. Pan Books. London. 1987. P.90.
> (8) Bowart. W. Operation Mind Control. Fontana/Collins. (UK) 197
> Notes

> #### Section Two 2-1 The psychological torture of dissidents.

> Simple political dissent appears to be the main reason for torture. And this method of repression is now being used in over eighty countries. Which, of course, means of that those countries are police states. In true democracies people are allowed to openly disagree with what their government says or does without fear of persecution, arrest, or torture. In police states they are not. Indeed anyone who freely speaks their mind in a police state may well be termed a dissident and 'a subversive', which in many cases will lead to them being 'targeted' by that countries security forces. This means that an 'action' may well be carried out against them. This action may result in the arrest, torture and indeed the death of the dissident.

> Today many so-called democracies (1) practice torture. Although, the use of the word 'torture' is - at the insistence of some governments, now being replaced by the words 'cruel and inhuman treatment.' This play on words does not fool the tortured themselves nor, hopefully, will it fool anyone else.

> The psychological torture of dissidents has been a fact of life for a great many years in some countries. Governments from both the East and West have used it and it continues to be used today. Indeed, its use has now become highly sophisticated and modern technology allows security forces to torture and murder people at will, with - it seems, almost total impunity.

> As already stated, psychological torture is favored by many governments for the simple reason that it shows no obvious scars. It is, therefore, very easy for such governments to claim that they do not use torture against their dissidents. And, as torture is still often thought of by the general public as being purely physical in nature governments may well have their denials accepted.

> Ignorance of psychological torture methods has been compounded by the real lack of public information about the subject. There is much to suggest that this kind of information has been censored or hidden wherever possible by almost all governments. It has also cast grave doubts about the so-called 'free press', many Western governments claim to have in their countries.

> Of course, it has to be accepted that this type of information in the wrong hands could easily be misused. However, this fact alone does not explain the paranoia shown by some governments when they are questioned on the subject. Such behavior may give the impression that some governments have far more to hide than just information.

> Indeed, many governments have been so successful in using psychological torture on their dissidents they are now refining their methods further still and using psychological torture techniques as a form of 'social engineering.' (2)

> This particular form of social control may appear to be unbelievable to some people but to an expert on the subject it is a perfectly natural step for most governments to take - if they believe they can avoid public outcry. And unfortunately many governments do.

> The exact methods of psychological control, and torture, have over the years become so refined that they have almost been turned into an art form.

> It is highly desirable for any government to have a good international image. No government is now as isolated as it used to be. Computers and information technology have encircled the globe in a vast communications network. The image a government gives to the world at large is all-important. It is not just a question of ethics or morality but also a question of profits, and the growth of big business.

> There is probably a degree of corruption in all governments. Self-interest, vested interests and the maintenance of the 'status quo' often come first. Those who seek change may do so at great personal risk. When considering the millions, and sometimes billions of dollars and pounds in profits, the lives of some human beings are often not considered at all by some governments. However, killing dissenters is no longer fashionable with governments who wish the rest of the world to consider their country as one that is both educated and civilized. For one thing, the number of dissenters may have risen into millions and murder on that scale can no longer be hidden as it once was. Yet the dissenter, so far as some governments are concerned, must still be silenced. Of course, if the 'democracy' in question was a true one then dialogue, rather than repression and violence, would ensue. The problem is though, that false democracies are not interested in dialogue, only political dogma.

> Educated people realize this and speak out with the hope that violence can be avoided. Unfortunately, these are the very people who soon become known as 'troublemakers.' This is brought about through government-sponsored smears and character assassination in attempts to silence the dissenter.

> These 'troublemakers' are then quickly classified by that government as being 'subversives and communists' and therefore a danger to society. That is why so many outspoken men and women have suddenly found themselves being described as 'terrorists.' The transition from one label to another is just a matter of time. It is far easier for governments to deceive and manipulate the public by saying they are dealing with terrorists and communists than it is for them to admit that they have removed the right of free speech.

> Freedom of thought, inquiry and expression is the very basis of any true democracy. Without these virtues there can be no democracy, yet governments the world over continue to proclaim themselves democracies while at the same time they continue to deprive their citizens of almost any democratic rights. This sad state of affairs is made even worse when other democracies appear to tolerate the charade, but many do so. And by doing so they undermine not only their own credibility but also give the go-ahead to other authoritarian governments, who in turn use further repressive measures against their own dissidents. They do so under the guise of protecting 'state interests' or 'our democracy.' The outcome of this type of deception is that there are now more governments than ever calling their countries democracies when in fact they are 'police states.'

> #### 2-2 Police States

> A police state posing as a democracy is a very dangerous state indeed. Not only to its own people but also to the world at large.

> Any government that is controlled by its security forces rather than by representatives freely elected by the people is not only a fraud, in the age of nuclear weapons it is a direct threat to world peace and stability.

> Progress cannot be prevented, nor indeed should it be. When those who reject change deny the free will of the people, unrest and war will surely follow. Yet all over the world a few highly privileged people are repressing millions whilst torturing and murdering many thousands more under the banner of false democracies. It would be very foolish to believe that such states can continue without a global catastrophe ensuing at some future date. Quite possibly in the very near future. The terrible New York 9/11 disaster may well be only a brief taste of what may befall us all in the years ahead.

> Today, atomic or other highly lethal devices (3) can be installed in a small briefcase and carried around the world with ease. And indeed, some 'terrorists' have both the knowledge and the capacity to obtain such weapons. And, if pushed far enough - also to use them against any government they choose. No matter how powerful that government may be.

> Never the less, many people do have faith in their 'leaders', in spite of the terrible mess some of them have made. It is however pure folly to allow the use of torture, under the name of democracy, without expecting the very worst kind of retribution. Therefore, before this happens people and governments must stop fooling themselves and face reality. And the reality is that some governments are now using torture on a vast scale in order to force their populations into accepting lies as truth and truth as lies.

> This kind of repression and manipulation has to be recognized for what it is - brainwashing and psycho-control.

> #### 2-3 Brainwashing

> Brainwashing, or psycho control, is now the preferred method used by many governments in attempts to prevent true democracy being gained by their populations. Such methods must be brought out into the open and exposed for what they are. In addition other governments who have either directly or indirectly supported such methods should be revealed for what they are - the worst kind of hypocrites. Only then will the world progress fully into real peace and prosperity most people desire.

> No one, under any pretence whatsoever, should be denied freedom of thought, inquiry or expression. Should the people be denied those rights then they have the human right to obtain them by all means possible.

> So-called 'forms' of democracy are nothing more than shams and charades. They should be rejected outright. Countries that use a 'form' of democracy are nothing more than police states.

> References for section two

> (1) Pinter. H. A War of Words. Red Pepper Magazine. No 12. May 1995. Article. P12.
> (2) Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. The Technology of Political Control.
> (3) Woollacot. M. The Whiff of Terror. The Guardian. Article. 21-3-95. P22.

> #### Section Three

> 3-1 Why governments prefer psychological torture.

> Scenes of brutality quickly outrage any truly democratic population and most people regard torture as being the most repulsive of all punishments. Torture has however become so addictive to some governments, or rulers; they are loath to rid themselves of its use. They wish at all costs to silence the dissent of their people yet they do not want their government portrayed as an abusive one which employs torture. Especially one which tortures their writers and artists. It appears far better in the United Nations if the government of a country seems to be benevolent towards those who disagree with its policies.

> Whatever, the private face of governments is all too often very different from the one shown to the United Nations. Governments can, and may, commit any act they consider necessary to silence any form of dissent. Legal or not.

> Psychological torture is, for some governments, an ideal solution to dissent. Today the actual techniques of psychological torture have become so refined and the results so effective that its use has been sanctioned by corrupt governments worldwide.

> #### 3-2 Psychological Torture Techniques.

> Once learned the techniques of psychological torture are very easy for government security services to apply. They have the power to quickly gain the control they need in order to put the techniques into practice and silence or 'neutralize' the dissident.

> Usually a very special government 'Psy-Ops' department is created and kept very secret, known only to those who organize and staff it. Even elected high government officials often remain ignorant of this department's existence (or pretend to be). Whatever, this special department is usually known only to those who hold the true reigns of power. (1) Such departments are also sometimes known as 'Political-Action Operations'. (2)

> These political action departments are often hidden under the guise of protecting 'National Security'. (3) What that really means is that it is protecting people who grossly abuse state power. And all government torturers do exactly that.

> Reports suggest that only very experienced operatives staff this type of secret government department. By necessity some of them will be doctors, others will be psychologists, psychiatrists, and so on, and others will be experienced in related fields of expertise. There will also be the so-called 'heavies' outside the department plus other operatives and 'goon-squads' (4) whose work it is to implement orders from above to the letter.

> Those on the 'inside' of this secret government department know exactly what they are doing and also what the results of their work will be. Those on the 'outside' of the torture department need to know very little of what is really happening to the 'target' and their work is carried out on a strictly 'need to know' basis. They simply carry out orders to the letter. It must be added here that 'orders' are all that is required by these people, whether they are breaking the law torturing people or whatever. They are usually political degenerates who are led to believe that they are serving their country by doing whatever is asked of them without question.

> This kind of undercover organization is ideal for any government security service as it can be kept very low key. Few people need to know about it, fewer people still will know of the 'whole picture.' The cost of running such a department, in relation to other areas of suppressing dissent, may be minimal. This kind of department can be located within any government building and it would appear to be just another suite of offices. Few people would actually suspect that such a department is in all reality a 'torture chamber' - yet that is exactly what it would be.

> This type of government department has very special powers and 'clearance' facilities plus all the appropriate documents to go with it. When shown evidence of their identity by the personnel of this department any other branch of government will usually comply with whatever 'assistance' is requested. That includes the armed forces, the police and the 'intelligence community' in general. Experience has shown that members of the public will also comply with whatever is required of them. Indeed, I have yet to meet an exception to this, as members of the public are never told the real reason for what is being asked of them. They are simply deceived and misled into believing that they are being 'patriotic' by doing so. Deception, however, is the business of the security forces and it is amazing just how far some members of the public will go in helping torturers go about their work. Even when they do suspect what is happening to a dissident 'target', as they surely must.

> The above then is all that is required during the first stages of suppressing dissidents without the general public being aware of what is happening right under their noses.

> #### 3-3 Public Ignorance.

> It could be argued that a governments use of torture would soon become public knowledge, no matter what precautions had been taken by the security services of that country. However, this view does not take into account the vast amount of power held and ruthlessly used by some governments and their agents.

> Many people wrongly believe that any form of torture would quickly become apparent and that a nation's newspapers and television stations would expose such a situation to wide public scrutiny at very short notice. Sadly, however, that is certainly not the case today. It may once have been but the kinds of insidious censorship now practiced by many governments prevents much 'real news' from ever reaching the public at all. Indeed, 'the media' has become as corrupt as most governments. It panders to the trivial and the true investigative reporters of old have all but vanished from the mainstream media. Honest reporters and writers quickly find that 'big business' now decides what will be published or not, and going against 'the system' - particularly in matters of so-called 'state security', very rarely pays off. Indeed, many editors were 'allowed' to take up their positions through supporting the system in the first place. In the United Kingdom, for instance, newspaper editors often retire 'with honors' for not upsetting the system. (5) And not, as it might be thought, because they were outstanding editors. (As the state of many British 'newspapers' readily shows!)

> No British newspaper editors received a Knighthood after exposing my report 'Torture in Britain' (6) to the public gaze. The same can be said of British television, where hundreds of programs have been censored for simply daring to attempt to tell the truth about all kinds of subjects.

> Whatever, should British newspaper editors decide to chance their luck there is always the covert censorship of the 'D' Notice system and the 'Official Secrets Act.'

> It is thus to be expected that the British media in particular, have a feeble record on these issues, either through observance of the above Acts, managerial censorship or reporter/producer self-censorship (7). Indeed, the American human rights monitoring group 'Freedom House', recently ranked Britain's press as being on a level with that of Gambia. And the former British Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath, stated in a New Statesman article that Britain's press; "Has now got the lowest standards of any press in the world.' (8)

> Hugo Young, the British columnist, also recently wrote; "The media and politicians face a crisis of mistrust." He called it; "The kingdom of systemic lies" and he asked; "For how long will these two interests, purporting to educate the voters, in fact conspire against them?" (9)

> Indeed, as John Pilger also related in one of his articles (10). In 1991 Richard Norton-Taylor also informed us through an article in the Guardian that 500 prominent Britain's, including 90 media representatives, also in prominent positions, were paid operatives of the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Which again illuminates the British media as being essentially nothing more than an extension of 'the state'.

> John Swinton, former Chief of Staff, The New York Times, comments on the American media:

> > "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it… The business of the Journalist is to destroy truth; To lie outright; To pervert; To vilify; To fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and or lives are all the property of other men.

> > We are intellectual prostitutes."

> The very same sad state of affairs also applies to the media in many other countries. Such enterprises are more often than not controlled and governed by the very people, who in one way or another, 'belong' to government. They are therefore hardly likely to seriously criticize government. (Let alone accuse it of torture and murder.)

> So, it stands to reason that any researcher investigating allegations as serious as torture and murder by governments can quickly get into much trouble. And it will quickly become apparent to them that their lives count for very little when compared to high finance and the comfort of those in power. Indeed, the callous indifference to suffering of any kind by some government 'power brokers' in this day and age can only be described as nauseating.

> Some writers, however, are not willing to ignore the torture and murder of dissidents. As the deaths of many of these journalists in all parts of the world has clearly shown. Yet many of these writers died in vain because a public, both ignorant and unaware of modern torture techniques, failed to grasp what was happening to them or simply did not want to know. Indeed, the very mention of psychological torture is frowned on and discouraged by governments simply because it is used by them as a form of social control (11). That being the case they prefer the knowledge of such technology and the methods of its use be kept secret from the public.

> Whatever, "Some governments openly use torture to create a climate of fear in the general population so as to discourage it from providing support to the victims of it. And also to intimidate potential political activists. To set torture as the price of dissent is to be assured that only a small minority will dare to do so (12).

> #### 3-4 Social control by psychological torture.

> Not all the various techniques of psychological torture can be readily used for social control. Though, with modification, some important features can be used quite successfully. For instance, when a dissident 'target' is constantly smeared, harassed and intimidated, and so on, within the general population of a town or city then the public will very quickly realize that 'stepping out of line' would also mean that they too would receive the same kind of treatment should they be tempted to dissent in any way.

> Populations are usually kept in ignorance of the widespread use of torture within their country (13). However, when many such cases do become apparent the people are lied to and led to believe that what they are seeing are simply a few isolated (and deserving) cases. And indeed, how can the public know otherwise?

> The failure to understand how these control techniques are actually used could well mean an end to the democratic process, as it is understood today.

> The view that it is only a country's dissident writers, artists and teachers who will suffer torture arises from a gross misunderstanding of the true situation. Such people are usually targeted first because of their skills in communicating with people and because warnings of government corruption, more often than not, come from them in the first place. That is why many outspoken writers, teachers, etc are considered as being potentially 'dangerous' by governments. It is why so many of them have been murdered over the years. It was to prevent them informing the population of the true situation in their country. Which quite often is very different from what governments would have their populations believe.

> However, when such warnings are disbelieved, or not given, then the general population of a country becomes the secondary target for psy-control. In support of this view there are many examples in the world where such situations have already been brought about. Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua, Argentina, Burma, Chile, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola, Nigeria, South West Africa and the former Yugoslavia were once all thriving countries. Its Afrikaner rulers also turned South Africa into a police state. They then spread their terror and destabilization tactics into surrounding countries and all but destroyed them too. But eventually the torture and murder that had long been employed by the South African Bureau of State Security (B.O.S.S.) succeeded only in ensuring its own failure and downfall.

> There are many other examples, and what they all point to is that when both its people and world opinion turns against a government then that government must inevitably not only admit to the repression of its own citizens it must also set the people free.

> A country, which has a desire to uphold true and honest democratic traditions, provides against the misuse of power by having a true 'Bill of Rights and a Freedom of Information Act.' Laws that are particularly intended to protect the ordinary citizen from government domination and repression. Freedom of thought, inquiry and expression should be guaranteed to all citizens. Without those virtues a country can only be called a police state.

> #### 3-5 Manipulation by the state.

> A Police State as such can easily manipulate a population into doing whatever 'the state' requires. Top positions in government, the media, the arts, industry and especially the police and security services, are always held by those loyal to 'the state'. These individuals are then 'honored' by 'the state' for their support of it. Ordinary people, who support the population as a whole, rather than these 'puppets' of the state, are rarely allowed to gain positions of real authority. Thus, heads of government (even a supposed government in opposition) are allowed into positions of real power only after their loyalty to 'the state' has first been clearly demonstrated. This kind of state can always be seen for exactly what it is by the way it operates. The 'rules' are rarely changed. People remain in the same positions long after more capable people should have replaced them. Promotion and often 'honors' may reward even sheer inefficiency if the person has been loyal and supportive of the government. As a result corruption from government leaders downward becomes the norm in almost every field of endeavor.

> And as the country sinks slowly forever downwards into apathy, mediocrity and ruin, it is hailed by its government as being 'highly successful', whilst in reality its peoples are falling into an abyss of unemployment, depression and poverty. However, because of 'state loyalty' the latter is frequently obscured by much of the 'state media' who is then viewed as parroting the 'official line'. It continues to declare that all is well, and suggests that any social or political 'problems' are caused by trade unions, black people, Jews, communists, socialists, so-called terrorists, people who refuse to work for nothing, and a world recession. Particularly the latter.

> The 'state' it seems is rarely ever wrong. Or so the state media would have ordinary people believe. And in a police state where the population is psychologically brainwashed, repressed and psycho-controlled a great many people do believe exactly that.

> As Bowart says; (14)

> > "Since World War II the cryptocracy (secret government) has used electronic technology to manipulate foreign people, as well as the American people, through a campaign of carefully planned misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda."

> Any dissenter may quickly be silenced by 'the state.'

> #### 3-6 The technology of control.

> Information technology provision and the expansion of computer networks, and so on, are already seriously under much scrutiny by governments who wish to control all information between citizens, no matter where in the world they are. Indeed, heavy censorship of the Internet has already begun.

> The British Government Communications Headquarters Cheltenham (GCHQ), and the American National Security Agency (NSA) base at Menwith Hill, near Harrogate, north Yorkshire, (plus other bases at Edzell, Chicksands, Feltwell, Molesworth, and Bude) are trying to promote controversial encryption technology which allows the security services to read all personal computer files. And eventually, one way or another, they may well succeed. As things are the British security services are censoring the Internet with the cooperation of some on-line service providers and hosts. Future legislation will force all British service providers to cooperate whether they wish to or not.

> The British media as such is already censored to an unbelievable degree with MI-5 agents and informers being on the staff of every newspaper in the country. Many British breweries, also long time supporters of fascism, have willingly allowed their pubs, clubs and hotels to be secretly wired for sound and vision so that 'Big Brother' in the form of MI-5 and the police Special Branch (secret police) can see and listen to everything said inside them. So much so that many foreign businessmen have been warned by their governments against using 'careless talk' when visiting Britain, whilst others have been told not to do any business there at all. Even the prestigious American magazine 'Smart Business' featured an article that suggested American business leaders think twice before starting any operation in the UK.

> So far as the Internet is concerned Britain's MI-5 is (and has been for quite some time) monitoring all computer on-line services under various guises such as preventing computer hacking, child pornography and the misuse of drugs. It should be added that MI-5 is shielded from public scrutiny and accountability and it is also exempt from the British governments so-called 'open government code of practice'. Which at best, can only be described as a total sham.

> Such actions against citizens are easily hidden from view and can always be disguised under a variety of persuasive 'measures' or 'laws' that are designed to both 'reassure and fool' the population at the same time.

> Why any fair-minded government would not welcome criticism as an indication of its proclaimed fairness and democracy is beyond me. However, time and again some governments have set up secret departments that oppose the very standards society rightly expects. Is there any wonder that populations may then see their supposed 'democracy' as nothing more than a joke. Indeed, writing about the American 'Security Forces' and their protection of 'democracy' Bowart states (15):

> > "The cryptocracy (secret government) invades the privacy of citizens and businesses. It meddles in the internal politics of foreign nations, often violently; hires trained killers to assassinate heads of state and may control key figures in the U.S. and world press. It may also have attempted to control U.S. elections."

> Could the latter be a mirror image of Britain's MI-5, MI-6, and its secret police the Special Branch?

> References for section three

> (1) Bloch. J. Fitzgerald. P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. Junction Books. London. 1983. P.39-46.
> (2) Agee. P. Inside the Company. Penguin Books. Middlesex. 1975. P.79
> (3) Bloch. J. Fitzgerald. P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. Junction Books. London. 1983. P.53.
> (4) Agee. P. Inside the Company. Penguin Books. Middlesex. 1975. P.82
> (5) Snow. J. Bylines, spy lines and a bidden agenda. The Guardian. 30-12-94
> (6) Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. The Technology of Political Control. P.243.
> (7) Marthoz. Jean - Paul. Where a free press is fettered by party links. The European. 26-5-94. P.23
> (8) Smyth. G. New Statesman & Society. 26th May. 1995. Article. P.19.
> (9) Young. H. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Guardian. 15-6-95.
> (10) Pilger. J. The real enemy within. New Statesman & Society. 6-1-95. P.16.
> (11) Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. The Technology of Political Control. P.32-37
> (12) Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. The Technology of Political Control. P.233.
> (13) Gearty. C. The Blinkered barrister. Article. The Guardian. 9-3-94. P.22
> (14) Bowart. W. Operation Mind Control. Fontana/Collins. 1978. P.24.

> #### Section Four

> 4-1 Psychological torture action groups.

> Without any personal experience of the subject it is extremely difficult for anyone to understand how a supposedly democratic country can use psychological torture, nor comprehend the kind of trauma the victims of such actions suffer. However, using the writers own experience plus information gained from other sources and survivors, the following information will serve as a good indication of how such 'action groups' are organized and used in the United Kingdom and some other countries.

> Psy-Op's actions are usually directed against a particular target. This may be a political dissident, a writer, artist, union activist or a human rights worker. Or indeed it could be anyone who is in a position that allows them to gather and distribute information which exposes the hidden agenda of the government in power, and who may be capable of organizing opposition to it.

> I am not writing about any kind of illegal opposition to government, simply opposition that has not passed through 'the usual channels' (1). This is where the political police (Special Branch) 'filter out' those people who refuse to accept a political system they believe to be corrupt (2). For instance; if a political system is organized to favor a particular party or group it cannot be considered democratic. It will resist change at all levels. Indeed, when people see that elected representatives cannot bring about meaningful change then the option to organize outside of the present system is a perfectly natural thing to do.

> The acceptance of a corrupt political system would be seen as pointless. Therefore it may be seen as necessary to organize outside of 'the established system' to gain true democracy. Even if one should be viewed as a political dissident for doing so.

> In the United Kingdom this kind of political action is supposed to be perfectly legal. Yet when this kind of 'opposition' is attempted the security services, MI-5 and the police Special Branch (secret police), may immediately target such opposition as being 'subversive' and therefore 'dangerous to the state.'

> Indeed, in spite of what many people in Britain may believe, any outspoken opposition to the so-called 'accepted political establishment' may place the speaker in grave danger of being 'targeted' and listed as 'the enemy within.' This will almost certainly result in some form of action being taken against the dissident, as many political activists have found to their cost.

> To counter this aggressive state activity some British politicians eagerly point out 'speakers corner' in London, and the absurd figures of some screaming political idiots as examples of Britain's so-called democratic freedoms. These 'freedoms' are, however, nothing more than myths, as anyone inside the country can prove simply by trying to use true democracy. Indeed, the following factual account details what may really happen to those who do so.

> #### 4-2 Typical action plan

> According to one source: (3) Psyop's (Psyop's for short is used by both British and American security forces rather than using the long description of 'Psychological Warfare Operations.') training in the use of torture methods in the United Kingdom is undertaken at the Joint Warfare Establishment, which is located at the National Defense College in Latimer. Indeed, by 1976 almost two thousand British army officers had been trained to use psychological techniques purely for internal security purposes. And, in Britain, SAS (Special Air Service) undercover operatives now work with the police Special Branch in all major cities. (4)

> When security forces order an 'action' against a political dissident it will be put into effect almost immediately. The action will be carried out in stages and overseen by the relevant experts as each stage of the operation progresses with a view to quickly bringing about disorientation (a dramatic change in one's circumstances), a personality change within the dissident and also a neurotic defense. This will almost inevitably lead the dissident into maladaptive ways of dealing with his, or her surroundings, and probably into psychotic depression (Severe depression in which the individual loses contact with reality and suffers from an array of impairments of normal functioning).

> In using psychological torture the dissident's body is not (initially) to be broken - only the mind. Therefore a plan of action is called for that will accomplish exactly that.

> To prevent the dissident from doing what he or she would do in any normal situation it is necessary to interfere with the usual functioning of their mind. In other words, their personality has to be broken down and altered until they become 'disorientated' and ready for 're-programming.' This will simply be the beginning of a personality change that can be continued in almost any direction the psyop's torture team desire.

> Just how far this process is taken will depend upon the agreed action plan and upon the 'classification' of the dissidents themselves. Often it will depend on just how 'dangerous' the dissidents are considered to be by those who want them silenced and 'neutralized.' Whatever, once the latter question has been decided by psyop's, their torture department will, by the extensive use of their combined knowledge, plus a fully documented personal history of the dissident, begin to put their plan into action.

> When this plan is put into action it will begin the effective, and sometimes permanent, personality change in the dissident. This may well result in a state of mind called 'situational neurosis.' (A neurotic syndrome produced by a particular environmental situation, usually one, which caused a great deal of stress, anxiety or other trauma.)

> How effective this 'personality change' will be depends entirely on the intelligence of the dissidents in question, Such as their knowledge of psychology, psychiatry and so on, plus other factors. It is difficult to determine in advance exactly how any particular individual will react to psychological torture and psycho-control. Whatever, for the process to work satisfactorily a constant feedback of information is required so that Psyop's can constantly modify the action as the plan proceeds.

> This requires that the 'targeted' dissident be both isolated as an individual and 'monitored' at will as the action progresses. This 'monitoring' is carefully carried out by the 'inside' team experts.

> As reported by Fizgerald (5) and Wright (6) 'bugging' by both sound and vision devices is easy for any government intelligence service. These bugging devices can be installed in wall cavities, television sets and recorders, telephones and so on and they may be monitored from almost anywhere on earth. It is the job of these electronics experts to make sure that these bugs are installed and working properly.

> One of these devices is not usually installed inside the dissidents home but very close to it. Often in a house next door or a van parked across the street. This is the military microwave machine. And frighteningly effective it is too. Developed by the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and now used by Psyop's teams throughout the world, this device is used by psychological torture teams to produce what is known as 'Synthetic Telepathy.' It is also known as 'Psychic Driving' and 'Voice Synthesis.' The latter means the remote beaming of audio (i, e, voices or other audible signals) directly into the brain of any selected human target. This particular weapon was demonstrated at a classified conference on so-called non-lethal defense, and held at the Kossiakoff Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, at Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, Maryland, on the 16th and the 17th November 1993.

> This microwave machine has at least two purposes. One. It can beam sounds or any human voice directly into the human brain so that the recipient can clearly hear them. And two, the beams can also be used to destroy human tissue. As can be imagined, security services the world over quickly began to use this microwave device against their dissidents as they can do so with impunity. Indeed, they have been used for many years by both British and American security forces against their own dissidents. The German and the Australian security forces (amongst many others) are also thought to be using them on their dissidents. Damage from using these military microwave machines may include:

> Mild to severe headaches; disorientation, fear and anxiety, sleep deprivation; nervousness and irritability; lethargy and fatigue; stress; nausea; insomnia; eye damage; paralysis; aggression and rage; paranoia and panic attacks; hysteria; schizophrenia; hallucinations; memory loss; disordered thought; uncharacteristic emotions; obsessive behavior; confusion; hopelessness; brain and nervous system damage; heart attacks; fast-acting cancers and severe depression leading to suicide...to name only a few.

> When the military microwave machine is directed or 'aimed' at the inside of a dissidents home the dissident is unlikely to become aware of the devices until (a) the torture team wants him to become aware of them. (Hearing 'voices' in the head) or (b) when the dissidents become ill or die from the efter effects of the microwave 'beams' being directed at them.

> When 'planted' inside the homes of dissidents various bugging devices will be almost impossible to detect, and the average 'target' cannot prevent their use. This means that security forces can - through the use of ultra miniature motion cameras and other listening devices, both see and hear their 'target' whenever the dissident is inside his/or her property. Through this his kind of electronic feedback and co-operation between the various members of the torture team the plan of action is almost ready to be put into operation. However, according to Agee, who was once a CIA operative, (7) first let us examine the role of the psyop's heavies or 'Goon Squads.'

> These goon-squad members are by stature insignificant in comparison to the rest of the torture team. They rarely know more than a little of what is really happening, (need to know) and they are not team 'insiders'. They are however still very essential to the success of an action being taken against a dissident. Members of goon-squads need not have any kind of military background nor even be particularly intelligent. They are used not because they are clever but because they are simple fools who will do anything asked of them if they are led to believe that their actions are in the interests of 'The State.' These 'goons' come from all walks of life. They may even be professional criminals' (8). Indeed, from the authors own personal experience he knows that some of them are just that. In the United Kingdom they may be directly 'recruited' from prisons by Psyop's.

> The task of these goon-squads is to integrate themselves into the community surrounding the dissident. They then pass on to Psyop's any information concerning the 'target' and also use 'smear tactics' against the dissident to bring about a 'character assassination' that will eventually result in the dissidents social isolation. This is only the beginning of what will lead to the target's total internal exile. In addition to this these goons will also harass and try to intimidate the dissident in many other ways.

> #### 4-3 Assessing the plan

> Once a particular plan of action has been finalized and is ready to be put into action nothing is left to chance. Governments simply cannot afford to engage themselves in repression and torture unless they are very sure they will get away with it. However, as reported by Hollingsworth and Norton-Taylor (9) "The intelligence services will do whatever they can get away with."

> The writer's own experience in these matters is that when mistakes are made by the security forces, and their goon squads, it is nearly always due to their over-confidence. These people are often extremely arrogant and self-assured in manner, as nazi types often are. They believe they own the world and everyone in it. Whatever, these first actions against a dissident are then all that is required before a full ongoing torture action against him/ or her, can begin. The only other consideration would be whether the full operational action against the dissident should be set in motion. This must be given serious thought by those directing the Psyop's team, for once the 'go' has been given the dissident has in reality all but been sentenced to death.

> #### 4-4 Implementing the action.

> Once Britain's MI-5 torture department has sanctioned a torture order a complete action against the dissident begins.

> Note: In the United Kingdom no official sanction by a government minister is necessary for the security services to begin a torture action against a dissident. The British security services are, unfortunately, a law unto themselves. British politicians in particular are easily deceived by the security services and are thought to be all but totally ignorant, or pretend to be, of cases concerning 'security torture actions against dissidents.'

> Whatever the case may be, after being sanctioned by MI-5 the action against a dissident will then be carried out in stages and to a carefully set pattern. Every detail of the operation will have been well prepared and nothing will have been overlooked. Whether the dissident lives alone, or with others, makes little difference at this stage of the operation. Though, by this time, it is probable that the dissidents who have been targeted by Psyop's are already living alone. Dissidents are by nature usually very determined people. They have a strong will-power and are strong psychologically. Their families, however, are not always so, and by the time dissidents have been targeted by Psyop's they are usually living by themselves.

> Many writers also tend to live alone because of their work. However, some dissidents do, of course, live with friends or lovers. Nevertheless, because of the psychological pressures put upon them by the security forces - and their goon-squads, these relationships may soon quickly break down as the torture team begins to repress the dissident. Thus, the breaking up of relationships is simply the first part of the Psyop's 'softening up' process.

> The action against the dissident is now developing as follows:

> 1. The dissident is smeared and discredited wherever possible.

> 2. This will bring about social isolation, ridicule and provocation by security 'stooges' on a daily basis.

> 3. This will lead to 'internal exile' the effects of this are well documented by the Rehabilitation and Research Center for Torture Victims (RCT) in Denmark. (35)

> 4. Security forces will inform anyone who may come into contact with a dissident to denigrate and abuse him in any way possible. They will also be told to use the term 'communist' and 'subversive' when referring to the dissident in any way.

> 5. Security 'goons' will in public use much verbal abuse against the dissident. They will also try to provoke him in physical confrontations in attempts to criminalize him.

> 6. If the dissident has a job his/her employer will be contacted by security and he will either lose that job or their work will be made much more difficult (9). If the dissident is self-employed his/her customers will be contacted by security and told to take their business elsewhere. (10)

> 7. The dissidents phone, fax and mail and e-mail will be monitored around the clock. Messages will fail to get through and phone line will suffer from many disruptions.

> 8. The dissident will suffer much abuse from his neighbors. There will be many 'noise' problems and 'sleep deprivation' will undoubtedly become a daily part of the actions being taken against him.

> 9. The dissident's property will be entered and damaged on a regular basis. His personal property (including money) will be stolen and his motor car will be damaged and sabotaged.

> As time progresses, just a few days - or weeks at the most, the dissident will be under no illusion that the pattern of their life is rapidly changing. They will quickly notice that the attitude of people who were once friendly towards them has changed dramatically. There will be much hostility directed at them, sometimes even from people they considered their close friends. As a result the dissident will, naturally enough, become confused and upset. More so as nobody will have told the dissident the real reason for this change in attitude towards him. The dissident will then be left with a constant anxiety he cannot alleviate. Gradually this in turn will result in chronic stress. He will be unable to concentrate properly and proper sleep will evade him. Their work suffers and they will begin to get severe headaches and other disorders.

> In effect, the dissident's personality has already begun to change in response to the new environment surrounding them. Soon they will be totally stressed out as they become more and more restless and angry at a situation that is totally beyond their control. This process of change within the dissidents will now also begin to change their daily habits and their personalities to a degree they could never before have imagined.

> The Psyop's torture team will note every single detail of these personality changes and they will be exacerbated wherever possible. For most people their home is their refuge. When friends, work and so on, get them down they can return home and relax. Home is where people unwind from the day's stresses, where their mind can be eased into a restful state and where they can just be themselves away from the cares of the world. Home is where all animals, human or otherwise, can recuperate in order to face another day. Home is not a luxury. Home is a necessity for peace of mind, and the recuperation of the body.

> However, in a police state, and during an action against them, dissident's are totally denied the benefits their homes should allow them. Indeed, the Psyop's torture team makes very sure that dissidents receive no peace of mind at all. For their job is to make sure that the dissident cannot recover. They do this by turning the dissident's home into a torture chamber.

> Sleep deprivation has long been used as a weapon by the security forces (11). Keeping prisoners constantly awake for long periods of time soon reduces them to a very pitiful state of mind. This particular method of torture is fully used against dissidents inside their homes as they discover they suddenly have 'new neighbors' - and these really are the neighbors from hell. For these new neighbors are an essential part of the torture team, and they will fit neatly into whatever neighborhood the dissident lives in. The difference being that these 'goons' will become very troublesome indeed. Particularly if the dissident lives in an apartment. Banging doors and loud music being played throughout the day and night will just be a prelude to their actions against their target. Other actions against him/or her will be committed on a daily basis and they will include; damage to cars and property, burglary, theft of all kinds, and assaults against his person. These assaults are attempts to provoke dissidents into making some kind of physical retaliatory action against them. These attempts at criminalization are a common feature during actions against targets.

> Any efforts on the part of the dissident to counter these violations against them and their property will be met with hostility and derision by those to whom they complain. Indeed, it is the dissident 'targets' themselves whom will be labeled as the 'real troublemakers.' They will also be vilified as being 'communists' in attempts to justify the actions being taken against them.

> Trying to 'move away' and live somewhere else - anywhere else in the same country would be pointless. Psyop's and their goon squads would simply follow the dissident wherever he/or she went. Simply moving house is no solution to the dissident's problems. So the dissident will be forced to remain where they are in a constantly disturbed frame of mind twenty-four hours a day. And that, of course, is the intention of security. The continuous harassment and provocation is simply an integral part of the action being taken against dissidents. Who may then quite naturally develop a paranoid state of mind? (An acute form of paranoid disorder brought about by an abrupt shift in occupation or in living conditions.)

> Being outside their homes also offers no relief to dissidents. For again 'goon squads' follow them, constantly trying to provoke them as they try to incite other people to do the same. So wherever the dissident goes he/she will be under constant pressure to defend them self. And in so doing a constant flow of adrenaline is being pumped into their bloodstream, for the dissident quite naturally believes that he, or she, may be attacked and injured. Adrenaline is nature's way of preparing the body to defend itself against any possible attack. Adrenaline in small amounts is the body's own natural stimulant and in small doses it is quite harmless. However, large amounts of adrenaline induced into the human system become a poison. It can also bring on severe headaches and other trauma.

> Note: The overproduction of Adrenaline, also called Epinephrine, may also 'turn off' the digestive system, the reproductive system and indeed lead to a breakdown of the entire human system.

> The social isolation of torture victims may also lead to a twofold increase in probable heart attack. Source: UK Equinox. TV Channel 4 7pm. 15/9/96

> The latter is simply one of the reasons why Psyop's torture teams make very sure that dissidents will continually be subjected to those kinds of pressures. They undoubtedly will introduce very large amounts of adrenaline into the bloodstream. Indeed, this kind of 'pressure' will be applied against the dissident every single time that he or she leaves their 'home.'

> In addition to this type of harassment, persecution and assault from government MI-5 agents targeted dissidents will also be subjected to the same kind of 'treatment' from local political stooges. The intention being to increase the already tremendous pressure on the dissident to either fight or flee. These measures also act as a 'visible warning' should other people be tempted to dissent in any way.

> However, even if the dissidents could physically retaliate in order to defend them self against that kind of persecution, neither they, nor anyone else, could do so every single day without sustaining grievous bodily injury. It is simply not possible. So again, the dissidents will find them self in a no win desperate situation. And, of course, the dissident has nobody to complain to. Should anyone try to describe the kind of action which has just been described to the police they will, of course deny all responsibility, and simply say that the dissident is suffering from paranoia. The Special Branch are a part of the British secret police in any case so complaints of torture directed at them are of no use whatsoever.

> Accusations of a dissident suffering from paranoia is, of course, exactly the kind of condition security would want believed. For afterwards anything that the dissident says has happened to him/ or her would simply be put down to a 'persecution complex.'

> Note: Dissidents in the UK will in any case almost certainly be accused of paranoia as a part of the actions taken against them by security, Researchers on this particular subject may also have similar charges leveled against them.

> And so the action against the dissident moves steadily along. Indeed it is enlarged as the process of breaking the dissident by bringing about 'personality disintegration' continues unabated. Which means changing the dissident's thoughts and personality into whatever the Psyop's department would like them to be.

> Security has more than enough time for this eventuality, for the dissident is by this time almost 'locked in.' He or she has been totally isolated. The dissident has no one to turn to for help and they have nowhere to go. There is no safe heaven for him/her even inside their own home. Slowly but surely the dissident is being worn down as their entire system begins to disintegrate under all the pressures that have been carefully built up around them. Indeed, most people would already be on the verge of a severe nervous breakdown.

> #### References for section four

> (1) Squall Magazine. No 10. 1995.
> (2) Benn. Tony. MP. Full basket cases. The Guardian. 17-7-95. P.13.
> (3) Bloch. J. Fitzgerald. P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. Junction Books. London. 1983. P.28-29.
> (4) Bloch. J. Fitzgerald. P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. Junction Books. London. 1983. P.45.
> (5) Fitzgerald. P. Leopold. M. Stranger on the line. The Bodley Head. London. 1987. P.178.
> (6) Wright. P. Spycatcher. Heinemann. Australia. 1987.
> (7) Agee. P. Inside The Company. Penguin Books. Middlesex. 1975. P.82.
> (8) Campbell. D. Agents provocateurs. Article. The Guardian. 8-3-94
> (9) Hollingsworth. M Norton-Taylor. R. Blacklist. Current Affairs. Hogarth Press. London. 1988. P.144.
> (10) RTC. Copenhagen. Denmark
> (11) Hollingsworth. M. Norton-Taylor. R. Blacklist. Hogarth Press. London. 1988
> (12) Fitzgerald. P. Leopold. M. Stranger on the line. The Bodley Head. London. 1987.
> (13) Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. The Technology of Political Control. Pluto Press. London. 1980. P.242.

> #### Section Five

> 5-1 Torture in the United Kingdom.

> It is believed that many people in the United Kingdom consider that torture is limited to Third World countries. However, as reported by Ackroyd, Margolis, Rosenhead and Shallice (1):

> > "Britain, France and the United States have all carried out torture in their colonial wars in Aden, Algeria, Vietnam, Salvador, Guatemala and elsewhere,"

> Nevertheless, Vitaliev (2) informs us that Britain in Australia used psychological torture even as far back as the 1850's. (In Port Arthur against its prison population there.) However, after a hundred prisoners or more had been driven insane the prison had to close as there was nobody left inside the prison who was sane.

> In the early nineteenth century, Ackroyd, Margolis, Rosenhead and Shallice (3) relate in their book that:

> "Prisoners were twenty times more likely to be diagnosed insane in Britain's Pentonville prison where solitary confinement was used, than at other prisons where it was not."

> #### 5-1 More recent evidence.

> Even today it is claimed by the same authors that 'psychological control' is being used inside British prisons in order to 'break' so-called 'subverters' (4) and that Britain and Germany have been devising new methods of psychological torture to use on people simply suspected of being dissidents.

> Some of these methods are explained by Ristow (5). Bloch and Fizgerald (6) also state that: "By 1976 the British Ministry of Defense confirmed that 1.858 army officers and 262 senior civil servants had been trained to use psychological techniques for internal security purposes." And furthermore that "Psyop's have acquired the ability to launch political campaigns in pursuit of military objectives without reference to the political regime."

> Note: If we assume for one moment that these army officers alone had each been responsible for only one case of torture per year since 1976 then it is fair to say that at least 35.000 persons in Britain may have been tortured by them. However, if the civil servants in question have also used their training to organize torture, (why train them in such methods if they were not going to use them) and they in their turn were responsible for only one tortured person each year since 1976, that would add on another 4.978 victims. Which together would make a total of over 40.000 British torture victims.

> Whatever, it is highly unlikely that the British Ministry of Defense would go to such great expense in training their agents to torture without expecting a far higher return than that. Indeed, the stated officials, whether military or civilian, were senior in rank and were quite obviously trained as instructors. They would have been expected to form torture teams and departments of their own amongst the lower ranks, whose business it would be to actually carry out these actions against the population.

> From the writers own experience in various parts of the world, including the United Kingdom, it is known that torture team departments may contain anything from five people upwards, half of them being specialists of one kind or another. These specialists practice their trade in various locations all around the country wherever they are 'needed.' So it may be assumed that a large number of 'target dissidents' are attended to every year by each department. As stated already, due to their ignorance on the subject of psychological torture, a normal dissident target could be expected to be 'taken out' in a matter of weeks, or a month or two at the most. It therefore follows that the latter suggested figure of 40.000 targets may well be vastly underestimated. The true figure could be twice as high, or indeed ten times as high. Nobody outside of the security services could be expected to know. And, of course, many of the dissident's 'victims' will be dead. For torture has never been carried out in any country without they're being fatalities. Death hides the crimes of the 'security forces' just as it has always done.

> As I said, the above figures are just an assumption. They may be wrong. However, would any genuine human rights organization take that chance? Would they not want to check for themselves? In the light of new torture victims appearing almost on a daily basis one could certainly be forgiven for thinking so. Human rights researchers are not fools. They know the history of the security services worldwide. They know just how powerful those organizations are. And they know of their lies and deceptions. So why do these human rights organizations not act? Have we learned nothing from the holocaust of the Second World War? Don't they know that they too might be the next victims of these modern day nazis?

> That British Human Rights organizations have done nothing whatsoever to protest the horrors being committed by MI-5 - nor done anything to help the many British torture victims, is an insult to anyone who ever supported them. Amnesty International, Liberty and Redress have all been severely criticized for not daring to confront and expose psychotronic torture and repression in the UK - yet their inaction has remained constant for years. So much so that one can't help but wonder just what is it they do with the hundreds of millions of pounds they collect in donations from the public each year? They certainly don't use it to protect the British citizens it came from.

> Amnesty International in particular should be ashamed at their inaction. In 1993 Pierre Sane the secretary-general of Amnesty said;

> > "Governments are prepared to go to great lengths to cover up their crimes. They know that a bloodstained human rights record will damage their international image. So they set up phony human rights institutions to cover up crimes. They use sophisticated public relations techniques, lies behind lies. Governments use death squads and undercover agents so that they can deny involvement. Everything has become more subtle since Amnesty International was founded. To make people disappear you need sophisticated security arrangements, and secret departments. Human rights abuses have not gone away. They have just gone further into the dark."

> Is that the answer - are British human rights organizations 'phony' too?

> Whatever, much more research is needed. In view of the past sordid history of action against dissidents by Britain's security services, dare any human genuine rights organization ignore the situation? In Britain - quite apparently so. The silence of so-called human rights organizations in the UK gives grave cause for concern. Particularly since the writers Ackroyd, Margolis, Rosenhead and Shallice (7) report that the British security services MI-5, MI-6 and the military SAS, are (along with their German counterparts) also designing psychological torture methods to make them appear as being relatively harmless. In other words British security is attempting to 'make torture politically acceptable as well as making it technically effective.'

> The writers own personal experiences as a dissident and British torture victim leaves him in no doubt whatsoever that these sophisticated torture techniques are also being tested by the security services in attempts to ensure not only social acceptability but also social participation. Indeed, a great many people in at least one British town (Harrogate. North Yorkshire) have fully participated in these tests for almost twenty years.

> #### 5-1 Public intimidation.

> These sophisticated torture techniques are also quite purposely designed to intimidate the general population in attempts to prevent them from supporting any kind of internal political dissent.

> As reported by Jacobsen and Vesti in their book (8): "The purpose of torture is solely to destroy the individual and then use the broken person to spread terror throughout the rest of the community."

> The message is clear - become "one of us", as suggested by Wright (9) or suffer the consequences. When consideration is given to the suggestion that extremists within the police Special Branch and MI-5, the prime organizer of torture in the United Kingdom, were illegally plotting to overthrow a legally elected Prime Minister, that warning should be taken seriously. MI-5 and the security establishment in general are so extremely right wing, according to Wright (and other sources), they cannot be seen as anything other than fascists. So much so that, as was admitted to by a former intelligence officer in an interview with the Irish Times (10):

> > "High officials in British Intelligence, MI-5 and MI-6, consider their organizations to be above the law."

> In other words, British security can persecute, torture, murder, rig elections, commit industrial spying on behalf of other fascists or indeed do anything else that they wish - and they are accountable to no one for doing so. They are indeed above the law.

> So much for British 'democracy, free speech and accountability' through the so-called 'elected representatives' of the British people. Who, if they really desire freedom and true democracy, have no other option but to become political dissidents.

> #### 5-1 Subversives.

> The description 'subversive' means anything that the security services wish it to mean. In reality what this label does when applied to a dissenter is to give security an excuse to begin any action they desire against any form of dissent whatsoever.

> As confirmed by Hollingsworth and Norton-Taylor (11), the former Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, John Alderson, told one inquiry into the police Special Branch:

> "The terms of reference of the Special Branch leave much to their discretion. To some, all activists maybe 'subversive' and both individuals and groups critical of the established order are marked out for surveillance and recording."

> So, quite obviously the label 'subversive' is all that is required for MI-5's torture departments and Britain's secret police (Special Branch) to 'target' anyone they wish. And, so far as Special Branch is concerned, they will probably classify anyone who is not a neo-fascist as being subversive.

> #### 5-1 Are the security services accountable?

> The British Labour MP Robin Cook said:

> > "It does not matter very much whether the Security Services are answerable to a Minister when that Minister is not answerable to the house (12).

> And it gets worse. It was reported by the researchers Bloch and Fitzgerald (13) that, in a statement given by a former British Intelligence officer, the man said:

> > "From an intelligence point of view, politicians can be manipulated quite easily. Be clear on one point above all else. The intelligence world is accountable to nobody - not the Prime Minister, not Parliament and not the courts. An intelligence department decides what information politicians should be given, and they're rarely, if ever, given the full facts."

> Now we know why the British intelligence services can get away with torture, murder, or any other crime that they may wish to inflict on the population. Indeed they can do anything they wish to do and there is nobody at all who can stop them from doing so. Because they are indeed a law unto themselves. So, is it the British government and our so-called 'representatives' who run Britain, or is it the 'security services' who are in fact representing someone else entirely?

> #### 5-1 Dirty Tricks.

> No writer should be misled into thinking that because they are writing the truth the security services will leave them alone. Indeed, it is because they are writing the truth that writers and researchers may be placed in great danger. Writers who simply copy government 'official' press hand-out's are considered by the powerful to be 'good boys' who don't cause any 'trouble.' Whereas the rest of us are regarded as being nothing but trouble. Whatever, some of the aforementioned 'good boys', according to Seumas Milne (14), may even work for the security services. Indeed, in his book The Enemy Within, he states that:

> > "Three out of four labour correspondents on the British national press are probable MI5 agents."

> Whatever, if the security forces, police Special Branch, MI-5, SIS, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA), all of whom operate within Britain, do decide to target the truthful writer and researcher, rarely will they do so openly. It is not their style. According to the evidence presented by many of the writers already mentioned, plus my own personal experience in Britain, 'security' may well use measures that fall well below the standards expected in any 'form' of democracy, let alone a true one. And there will be no point in dissidents appealing to the 'fair play' of the press. British fair play is unfortunately just another myth as its press does in almost every respect play along with whatever 'the establishment' and its security services require of it (15).

> #### 5-1 Social Isolation and Internal exile.

> The exact methods of repression as used by security services against dissenters may vary from country to country. In Britain, however, the first steps taken by MI-5 are to both isolate and 'neutralize' a dissident target as quickly as possible.

> The 'frame-up' or 'set-up' has long been used to neutralize dissidents and may well be tried along with some of the other drastic measures mentioned earlier. For instance, a targeted dissident may by various means be introduced to 'Agents Provocateurs' (16). These could be male or female. MI-5 uses both sexes in their efforts to 'entrap' and 'criminalise' dissidents. Whatever, these provocateurs will attempt to integrate themselves into the dissidents company and gain their confidence, after which the dissident will then be introduced to other undercover agents who will in their turn invite the dissident to a 'party.' During this 'party' - and unknown to the dissident, drugs will be used and photographs will be taken that shows the dissident 'in the close company of drug dealers.'

> The dissident will thereafter be entered into police files as a 'known associate of drug dealers and users.' The Agents Provocateurs then try to maneuver the dissident into actually taking drugs. Should the dissident do so these police provocateurs will then get the dissident to engage in a 'drug dealing' situation.

> Of course, should the dissident allow any of the latter to happen these provocateurs will quickly place their target in an 'arrest situation.' Afterwards the dissident will be offered 'a deal' by the security services. This deal will, of course, mean not just an end to any dissent by the target, it will mean that from that time onwards they will be 'owned' body and soul by MI-5 who will from then on use them to entrap other dissidents using the same methods.

> Should the dissident refuse the 'deal' he or she will then be charged with drug dealing and quickly sent to prison. Once there the security services can do anything to the dissident that they may wish to do. According to Benn and Worpole (17):

> > "Every year an average of fifty men die in British prisons, from 'suicides, misadventure, ghosting*' and other so-called accidents."

> Note: During 1997 alone 83 prisoners died inside British prisons. This is a far higher figure than in the former police state of South Africa whose high prison death rate was well noted by the writer Donald Woods. Note* Ghosting is a term used when a prisoner is constantly moved from prison to prison until he effectively becomes 'lost within the system.' Such treatment can be very stressful indeed. One British prisoner aged thirty-seven, died after being moved from one prison to another 24 times in two and a half years (18). In another case a prisoner was moved 51 times in three years (19).

> However, should the above measures fail to bring the dissident 'into line' he or she will be further persecuted into isolation and internal exile. Security will then use it's smear team to spread rumors to the effect that the dissident is 'afraid to leave his/ or her home,' which implies some form of 'guilt'. Security is then able to deny that the dissident was exiled by them, thus supposedly exonerating themselves of any crime whilst at the same time encouraging further persecution of the dissident by the general populace. 5-1 'Bugging' UK style. Having been physically isolated and exiled internally the dissident's sole lines of communication will then come under attack. For instance, if the dissident needs and relies on their telephone, fax machine, computer and the mail to earn a living British security will do everything possible to disrupt those lines of communication in order to try and prevent the dissident from making any money at all. (Driving dissidents into poverty and destitution is one method that has long been used by MI-5.) That being the case the dissident's phone, fax, etc, will be tapped and monitored 24 hours a day. Consequently many important messages will fail to reach the dissident, though 'unwanted calls' (some of which are made by MI-5 agents) will always get through. Dissidents using computers will suffer from numerous 'connection problems' to say the very least.

> According to Fitzgerald, Leopold and Mills (20) other bugs used by MI-5 include a 'carrier-current device.' Both the police and the intelligence services use this and it works by sending the conversations from all of the rooms inside a building by radio signal along the electrical mains wiring. In Britain many people pay for their gas supply by using a coin pay slot that is fitted directly onto the gas meter inside their house. MI-5 agents often plant a bug inside the money tray so that it can be removed and recharged by one of their 'meter men.' There is also the cavity mike, activated by radio signals, the wall spike, which is usually planted by drilling into a wall from the house next door, and the phone 'hot mike', which constantly monitors conversations even when the phone is on the hook. And, of course, there are the modern laser bugging devices. Indeed the list is almost endless and today it includes highly miniaturized color cameras, which can be hidden in television sets, video recorders, radios, clocks and almost anything else. Indeed, MI-5 has had them installed throughout the entire country in hotels, pubs, restaurants, conference halls and anywhere else the public may gather together. Today the United Kingdom is almost totally 'wired' and surveillance of the entire population is all but complete. Most of these surveillance devices are controlled remotely from the local police station. Whatever, the most insidious of these devices is, as already mentioned, the military microwave machine. And it is this device, more than any other is, which is being used against political dissenters. No true democracy would allow the use of such a terrible weapon to stifle free speech, to injure and kill people, but in Britain this device is being used more widely than ever before.

> Dissident 'targets' would be hard put to try and find the above devices. Even if they could 'security' would simply plant more of them.

> According to Fitzgerald and Leopold (21):

> > "The level of sophisticated bugging used against a target may depend entirely on their classification by the security services, MI-5, police Special Branch, and so on."

> People considered by security to be potential 'subversives', such as dissident writers, union organizers, human rights activists, investigative journalists and so on, tend to rate a high classification and so any form of surveillance used against them will relate to that.

> MI-5 has total control over the United Kingdoms telephone and mail services and there is nothing a dissident can do to prevent MI-5's misuse of those services. So dissidents will have to put up with 'lost mail' - 'dropped phone lines' as a matter of course. As a matter of interest some 'votes' may also get lost during UK elections.

> Complaints by dissidents to The Interception of Communications Tribunal have been found to be a total waste of time. Their address is: PO Box 44, London, SE1 0TX, Phone 0171-273-4096. I must add, however, that to date all complaints made to the Security Services Tribunal by the British public (including myself) has been rejected. (Source: The Guardian. 21-4-95. And The New Statesman & Society. 2-6-1994, P.10.

> #### 5-1 Isolation and torture in the United Kingdom.

> The whole point of torture is that it should break down the victim's resistance and alter their personality to the extent that they will have no self esteem whatsoever. Victims are slowly but surely depersonalized and dehumanized in every known way until they may no longer consider themselves human beings at all. Indeed, over time the victims of this oppression may then develop such a feeling of self-loathing that suicide will, quite naturally, become one of the options they may choose to end their misery.

> The security services and their Psyop's torture departments know the above to be true. They have had great many years to perfect their techniques and research carried out in Britain and other countries, as detailed by Ackroyd, Margolis, Rosenhead, Challice and Ramsay (22) confirms it.

> The average person is simply not equipped to cope with modern psychological deprivation and torture methods in use today. Only a very small percentage of people could be expected to survive these torture methods and lead a normal life afterwards.

> #### 5-1 Brainwashing (Psychic Driving).

> Developed by the CIA and now used by Psyop's teams around the world is the psychological torture technique known as 'Psychic Driving' or 'Synthetic Telepathy.'

> In the proceeding sections it has been indicated that a dissident, close to a nervous breakdown and in fear of his or her life, is already on the verge of total mental collapse. But worse is to come. The horrors the dissident has already suffered are added to by security now using 'Synthetic Telepathy' to directly destroy the dissident's mind. The military microwave machine brings this about. This machine, which shows a kind of x-ray picture of the inside of a property. It can also beam sounds towards the dissident's head, causing him, or her, to 'hear' whatever sounds or 'voices' security wishes the dissident to hear (23). However, the prime intent of this particular operation is to make dissidents believe that the 'voices' they will begin to hear originate inside their own heads. But they do not. The voices that are heard belong to highly trained security experts, who have specifically formulated a 'program' that has been designed to 'drive' the dissident into total mental submission (24).

> Using the microwave machine these security experts might begin their first 'Psychic Driving' action against the dissident by describing the dissidents every physical movement. For instance, if the dissident has just arrived home and is going to the toilet, he would suddenly hear the words "He is going to the bathroom" or "He is washing his hands", and so on, and those words would be clearly heard and 'understood' inside the dissidents mind.

> Of course, suddenly 'hearing voices' inside an empty house or an apartment would be a shocking experience for anyone at anytime. But for a Psyop's target it would be far worse. For after already suffering a prolonged period of persecution by the security forces the sudden 'hearing of voices' immediately instills within the target the message that they have been 'driven over the edge' and into madness. And indeed, that mental condition is precisely what security is trying to bring about.

> This type of mental 'torture and brainwashing' would continue non-stop for as long as the dissident remained in that particular location. Throughout the day and night 're-programming' of the dissident's mind would continue. Sleep deprivation would be inevitable, though eventually the dissident would fall into unconsciousness through sheer exhaustion. It would be during this period when further deep 're-programming' would take place.

> However, the main purpose of that very first 'voice' session would be to enable security to judge the reactions of the dissident when they found them self 'hearing voices.' There are various emotional 'catch words' which any person will immediately respond to. Words of praise, for instance, profanity, and so on. By using those types of 'word triggers' the Psyop's torture team can gradually fix the ideal 'hearing level' of any particular dissident target as they react to those triggers. Once that level is established any kind of message can be relayed to the target without anyone else nearby being consciously aware of what is actually taking place. Psychic driving is the perfect device for 'brainwashing' dissidents and one that is being increasingly used by British security and their Psyop's torture teams, particularly against writers and researchers who seek to expose the widespread use of such methods within Britain.

> The workings of the human mind are, even today, far from being fully understood. There are, however, certain aspects of mind control that are understood very well indeed. Suggestions of many kinds can quite easily be introduced into the human mind by various techniques. And experts in those techniques can produce (under the right control) almost any psychological result they require. Particularly if the 'subjects' themselves have little or no psychological training or experience. Whatever, the development of microwave technology has advanced to such a degree that 'remote programming' is now not only in the grasp of most security services it has become an indispensable aid to them. It allows security to dominate the minds of almost anyone they wish. And, given the unaccountable control they now have, the security services are able to use this technology at will.

> Britain, however, is only one of the many countries now using these torture techniques against its population.

> In the United States between 1950 and 1973 the American CIA had carried out extensive mind-control experiments at universities, prisons, and hospitals. A recently released US government document (25) informs us that directed-energy weapons currently being deployed in covert operations by the CIA include a microwave weapon manufactured by Lockheed-Sanders.

> This weapon is used for a process also known as 'Voice Synthesis' - which again is the remote beaming of audio signals directly into the brain of any selected human target.

> MKULTRA was the code name for the research and development of psycho-control weapons. These experiments however, were not the end of the Central Intelligence Agency's interest in controlling the population through mind control.

> As Walter Bowart states in his book, Operation Mind Control:

> > "The CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) had developed psycho-control to such a degree that no further experiments were necessary. They had found what they were looking for. After 1973 these American Security Agencies simply used the results of their research to con the American public into believing whatever they wanted them to believe. And they still do."

> Much of the above research was passed along to other authoritarian governments including Britain and Germany. This technology is being used by both of those governments against their citizens today.

> The microwave devices produced as a result of the above research and used by Britain's MI-5, as referred to by Bloch and Fitzgerald (26), was also reportedly used against some of the Greenham Common women in 1984 and 1985, who developed some very unusual physical effects as a result, such as severe headaches, earache, nosebleeds, nausea, vertigo, fatigue, severe depression and confusion. All these symptoms point to microwave poisoning (27).

> An expert view was that anti-personnel microwave devices might well have been used against the Greenham women. A retired playwright also suffered similar symptoms in 1983. Indeed there are a growing number of dissidents throughout the world who are now reporting 'microwave poisoning' as well as hearing 'voices' in the 'head.' They are also showing other symptoms, such as those documented by Bowart, Krawczyk, and other writers.

> Anyone without a very strong personality and a thorough knowledge of exactly how these torture techniques work - and how they are used could soon develop a very severe personality disorder. More so if they were low on psychological intelligence. Anyone tortured by such methods could very quickly begin to doubt their own sanity from that moment onwards.

> The only respite any targeted dissident would have is when they moved away from the building or area where these devices were being used against them. However, Psyop's would have anticipated some kind of recovery when their 'target' did move away from the psycho-device source, and they would have planned against any improvement in the dissident's plight by having the dissident harassed the moment they left the location where the devices were being used against them. The dissidents would then simply not have tome to try and begin to rationalize their situation because they would already have been confronted by another situation specifically designed not to give them time to think or recover their proper senses.

> Inside their 'homes' the targeted dissidents would continue to be psychologically battered from all sides. Being isolated, alone, and without proper training in such matters the dissidents would last for only a short time before they collapsed both mentally and physically. In short they would in all probability soon become 'broken human beings.'

> Through continuous character assassination, harassment, verbal abuse, intimidation, provocation, psycho-abuse, damage to their property and continuous sleep deprivation, the addition of sustained brainwashing through 'Psychic driving techniques' might well push the dissident over the edge of reason into total insanity. However, should the dissident have survived so far, they must be made to believe that the Psyop's control and observation' of them is 'absolute.'

> For instance, some dissidents travel a great deal, possibly to other countries as well as their own, and they have to 'be convinced' that the security services are still 'keeping them under surveillance' even when that is not the case. The following passages detail how MI-5 instills that belief in their target.

> #### 5-1 Reinforcement techniques as used by MI-5.

> This technique is called 'the reinforcement effect (PRE). The generalization that behavior maintained with partial or intermittent reinforcement has greater resistance to extinction.

> This 'psycho-control' is at first brought about by using Psyop's goons who have previously been used to intimidate the dissidents and whom dissidents know because of that. These goons will, when being close to the dissident, use a particular 'hand signal' which will immediately alert the dissident as to exactly who these goons are working for. For instance, in Britain, whether indirectly or indirectly 'political stooges and goons' are widely used by MI-5 to persecute dissidents. It follows then that certain 'particular hand signals' used by known MI-5 goons identify them as being 'agents' of MI-5. Therefore, such a signal given towards a 'target' will make the target believe that anyone giving that hand signal does indeed work for MI-5, and that the person giving that signal is 'keeping him or her under surveillance.'

> These 'hand signals' are in fact 'psychological triggers'. The purpose of them is not only to make a dissident believe security is 'keeping an eye on them' they also remind the dissident 'by association and suggestion' of the highly unpleasant events, and/or experiences of his 'torture sessions.' So, anyone who knows the particular signal, for any given target, can give that hand signal anywhere in the world where the dissident might be, and the dissident will immediately be reminded of what he, or she, is trying to forget. Which is their torture at the hands of the British Security Service MI-5.

> For it to work properly, however, the 'signal' must be one the dissident instantly recognizes. Otherwise the person giving it will simply look like a fool waving their hands about. I say this because MI-5 security stooges often encourage other people to use these 'hand signals' against dissidents after misinforming them that these 'hand signals' are not only harmless but are in themselves 'the only torture' that the dissident has endured in Britain. That is a total lie, but one that is unfortunately believed by many people inside and out of Britain, who, because of widespread censorship, know almost nothing of what is happening inside that country today.

> Whatever, these kinds of psychological 'triggers' are used in many other ways by MI-5 torture teams. Some of which could very easily bring about a heart attack in a victim of them.

> Such acts as I have described in this report have taken place in the United Kingdom over a great many years and they continue unabated today. The victims of such abuses, including myself, have failed to bring the perpetrators (MI-5) to justice. As already stated Britain's security are a law unto themselves and in spite of the growing number of claims of torture that are cropping up year after year it appears that nothing can be done to prevent it. The district I chose for my main research in the United Kingdom (North Yorkshire) is well known by the British media. And indeed the media was well aware not only of my torture there but also of the torture of other people, and it did nothing whatsoever either to try and prevent it, nor to expose the people involved.

> Much more information on torture in Britain can be found on the Internet Web site: www.pro-freedom.co.uk along with a long list of British torture survivors.

> #### References for section five

> (1) Rosenhead. J. Shallice. T. Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. 'The Technology of Political Control'. Pluto Press. London. 1980. P.229.
> (2) Vitaliev. V. Among the ruins of punitive psychiatry. Article. The European. 4-3-94. P.16.
> (3) Rosenhead. J. Shallice. T. Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. The Technology of Political Control. Pluto Press. London. 1980. P.237.
> (4) Rosenhead. J. Shallice. T. Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. The Technology of Political Control. Pluto Press. London. 1980. P.230.
> (5) Ristow. W. Taking the hood off British Torture. New Scientist Magazine. Article. 5-8-76.
> (6) Bloch. J. Fitzgerald. P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. Junction Books. London. 1983. P.54.
> (7) Rosenhead. J. Shallice. T. Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. The Technology of Political Control. Pluto Press. London. 1980.
> (8) Jacobsen. L. Vesti. P. Torture Survivors. RTC. Copenhagen. Denmark. 1992. P.14.
> (9) Wright. P. 'Spycatcher'. Heinemann. Australia. 1987.
> (10) Bloch. J. Fitzgerald. P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. Junction Books. London. 1983.
> (11) Hollingsworth. M. Norton-Taylor. R. 'Blacklist. Current Affairs, Hogarth Press. London. 1988.
> (12) Hollingsworth. M. Norton-Taylor. R. 'Blacklist. Current Affairs, Hogarth Press. London. 1988.
> (13) Bloch. J. Fitzgerald. P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. Junction Books. London. 1983.
> (14) Milne. S. The Enemy Within. MI5, Scargill and The Maxwell Affair. Verso. London. 1994.
> (15) Bloch. J. Fitzgerald. P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. Junction Books. London. 1983.
> (16) Campbell. D. Agents Provocateurs. The Guardian. 8-3-94.
> (17) Benn. M. Worpole. K. Death in The City. Canary Press. London. 1986. P.34.
> (18) Benn. M. Worpole. K. Death in The City. Canary Press. London. 1986. P.34.
> (19) BBC 1. News. 12-30pm. On the Record. 9-7-95.
> (20) Mills. H. 'Detectives drilled spy holes through lounge wall.' The Guardian. 25-10-93. P.5.
> (21) Fitzgerald. P. Leopold. M. Stranger on The Line. The Bodley Head. London. 1987.
> (22) Fitzgerald. P. Leopold. M. Stranger on The Line. The Bodley Head. London. 1987.
> (23) Rosenhead. J. Shallice. T. Ackroyd. C. Margolis. K. The Technology of Political Control. Pluto Press. London. 1980. P77-78.
> (24) Krawczyk. G. CIA using old tricks again. Nexus Magazine. Article. Vol 2. N0 22. October 1994. Bowart. W. Operation Mind Control. Pub: Dell Publishing Co. Inc. (USA) and Fontana / Collins (UK) 1978.
> (25) Bowart. W. Operation Mind Control. Pub: Dell Publishing Co. Inc. (USA) and Fontana / Collins (UK) 1978.
> (26) Krawczyk. G. CIA using old tricks again. Nexus Magazine. Article. Vol 2. N0 22. October 1994. Bowart. W. Operation Mind Control. Pub: Dell Publishing Co. Inc. (USA) and Fontana / Collins (UK) 1978.
> (27) Bloch. J. Fitzgerald. P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. Junction Books. London. 1983. P.34. North. S. 'Field of Nightmares' Weekend Guardian. Article. 2-2-1991. P.10.

> #### Section Six

> 6-1 The motive for repression and torture.

> Whilst most governments deny that they actually use torture against their political dissidents some of them grudgingly admit to using some form of repression. However, when asked if they consider themselves to be 'true democracies' most governments claim that they are so. They contradictory then try and justify their repression of dissidents by accusing them of being communists, subversives and so on, without realizing that true democracy allows anyone to follow any kind of political belief they wish. Some people are considered 'subversives' by their government simply for trying to use any of their so-called 'democratic rights.' Indeed, new laws being passed in the EU are designed to make any political dissent a 'terrorist' crime.

> #### 6-2 Democracy or charade?

> The real problem is that few people seem to know just what true democracy really means. Most people believe that if there is 'one man one vote' then that is democracy. Yet there are police states all over the world whose populations have the vote but by no stretch of the imagination could those countries reach the expectations of a true democracy. Of what use is a 'vote' when the ballot box and/or politicians in a country are 'controlled by security.' Any security service that is not under true democratic control will usually only let into the 'official government' people it alone favors. Which does of course mean that this supposed 'government of the people' is in all reality one which is 'elected and controlled by the security services.' As such it can hardly be called democratic. Indeed, as already outlined in the case of the British security services (1), they openly admit that the British government has no control over them. They see themselves as being 'above the law.' Therefore it seems that the British security services can only be controlled by some mysterious 'third force', much talked about in South Africa over the years, and which seemingly is also in evidence in many other countries.

> This 'third force' can only be 'big business' (2) as no other organization has the sheer wealth and power that is necessary to wield such influence on a global scale. And no government elected through the benevolence of any 'third force' can ever be described as being a democracy because the population at large did not choose that government. It was chosen by big business and then put into office by a 'security force' over which nobody but big business had control. As stated already, 'security' appears to be nothing more than an extension of big business rather than the true arm of any government. Therefore, how could such a government possibly be called democratic? The true test of democracy is the provision for freedom of thought, inquiry and expression. Without those virtues there can be no true democracy. Yet there are governments all over the world that prohibits all of them, yet continue to insist that they are democracies.

> #### 6-3 Freedom of thought.

> Freedom of thought means that an individual can see, read and question whatever he or she wishes. Which may mean that an individual holds an opposing view to that taken by the government. In other words, an individual may wish to examine both sides of a question before making a decision. Without freedom of thought an individual can examine one side of the question only. Which is usually the side favored by government.

> The United Kingdom with it's notorious 'Official Secrets Acts' will not freely allow publication of much information which disputes it's own 'official' viewpoint.

> Freedom of inquiry.

> Again there is the problem of censorship. Much information that would allow a citizen to gain a true insight into exactly what their government is doing is considered to be 'classified information.' Which means that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the citizen to check exactly what the government is doing.

> Freedom of expression.

> Without freedom of expression (which means access to the media, and so on) an individual is not allowed to openly criticize the government when it mismanages the country. Which means that the citizen has virtually no control over government.

> Put simply, true democracy means that a government is controlled by the people who elected that government to manage the country on their behalf. As true representatives of the people a government must be responsive to the will of all the people,

> No government owns any country. A government is there simply in order to manage the country on behalf of the citizens who elected it. And that is all. Anything less is a police state.

> There are what might be termed 'benevolent' police states. Probably the best known of those is Singapore (3). However, that does not change the fact that such countries are police states, and being so means that they can, if they so wish, repress the people at any time. And unfortunately, in almost all cases the dictators of these countries do indeed suppress their populations.

> True democracy will prevent a government from abusing both its power and its people. A police state may, and usually does, abuse both. Some governments such as Turkey, Iran, Iraq and the United Kingdom amongst many others use repression and torture not only to prevent true democracy but also to reduce the citizen's awareness that their country is a police state.

> It is believed that most people would automatically know whether or not their country was a police state. However, that is not an easy judgement to make when misinformation, disinformation and censorship are widespread within a country. Particularly when that country's media also connives in the censorship of citizens. For instance, only a very few people in Britain appear to realize that they have a 'secret police'. Yet that is exactly what the police Special Branch is. And it abuses its powers just as all other secret police forces do everywhere else.

> Almost from birth entire populations are brought up to believe that they live in 'free societies.' They are told so by 'the media' and by their politicians. The feeling of 'being free' then eventually becomes just another conditioned reflex, indeed no more than another psychological 'trigger' that convinces them that they are free.

> People obviously prefer to believe that they live in a free and a democratic society. Such feelings make them feel both happy and comfortable within their environment. People are then further 'conditioned' to believe almost anything 'the government' declares to be 'true' is true.

> However, should their politicians grossly mismanage the country people may then quite rightly begin to question their government? And it is this 'questioning' that really determines what kind of a government is in power?

> #### 6-4 Open government?

> It is the attitude and the response of government, which informs the populace as to exactly what kind of country they really live in.

> For instance, if a government acts both aggressively and repressively in response to any criticism of its conduct then any individual can be forgiven for thinking that the government has something to hide. A government that is truly 'open' to criticism will be taken as being constructive and fair. Indeed that government will have a written constitution that guarantees the full and proper 'rights' of its citizens.

> As Harry Cohn, the late film producer, once jokingly remarked:

> > "A verbal guarantee isn't worth the paper it's written on!"

> Unfortunately, that is exactly what the United Kingdom's version of their so-called 'open government' is worth. Nothing. Indeed, some open police states have more real freedom than does the population of Britain.

> Whatever, the real problem with any government is finding out whom its politicians are working for? The general view may, of course, be that they are working for themselves. In spite of what they may have promised the electorate before they were elected. (If they are an elected government?) But the crucial question is - taking the poor voter for granted, who are the politicians really representing?

> #### 6-5 Big Business.

> It has been suggested before, but more recently Kidron and Segal (4) have also documented the fact that big business and government are in all reality 'one and the same thing.' If that is true then that will the politician represent first, the people or big business? Meaning the multinational corporations boards.

> Many countries in the world are so poor that any multinational company who chooses to 'invest' there is richer than that country's government. And being so means that the multinational usually pretty well gets much of what it asks for, including the significant co-operation of the said government. That will usually mean, for the locally hired workers, no unions, no strikes, long working days, no representation of any kind and very low wages. The company, however, will in most cases, get free or very cheap land to build on, plus some terrific tax concessions. The negotiations that bring this about are usually conducted at the highest government level.

> The question then, of who will be best represented by a politician working for that government, the company or the local worker, is an important one.

> "Standing up for trade union rights remains a very dangerous occupation", said the Brussels based International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. Indeed, an international survey on the victimization (5) repression and torture of workers representatives throughout the world has recorded that there were at least 92 murders and over 2.300 arrests of those representatives in at least 90 countries in 1993 alone (6).

> Whatever, the writer has not been able to find a single instance of such 'mistreatment' towards anyone representing big business corporations. Government security forces quite obviously place these people in an entirely different category.

> In its struggle to gain full union rights for its members at Britains GCHQ (Rights removed by a 'conservative' government headed by Margaret Thatcher) the International Labor Organization (ILO) has threatened to name Britain under a procedure normally reserved for military dictatorships (7).

> Many previous and current politicians in the United States, Japan, Germany and Great Britain did - and still do, work for the largest multinational companies in the world. The salaries of these politicians may only be a tiny fraction of what they might earn privately in business. So the question has to be asked, why do they do it?

> They could of course be interested in representing the millions of poor people working in factories, or it could be to ensure that the multinational companies remain a powerful world force - who afterwards reward those politicians for their co-operation?

> One company belonging to an organization called 'The Bohemian Club' had business contracts worth over 13 billion dollars in one year alone. Poor farm workers struggling to better their working conditions can hardly compete with such vast resources as those.

> The group of people who call themselves 'The Bohemian Club' (8)

> Represent very powerful business interests indeed. This 'club' is comprised of some of the most powerful people in the entire world. Some of its members are ex-Presidents of the United States. Others are members of Congress and the Central Intelligence Agency. Many other prominent members come from huge multinational corporations. These people, in some respects, almost run the world. They control at least 42% of world trade. Indeed, a survey conducted in 1992 showed that 76% of the US voting public thought that their government was run by just a few big business interests. And a recent US Gallup Poll went so far as to say that 27% of the American population would even be prepared to take up arms against their own government (in defense of true democracy) if it became necessary (9).

> Krawczyk believes that the opening moves of such a revolution may already have been played. He asks: "Is the American national security establishment already at war with its own citizens (and those of other civilized nations) in order to coerce them to accept the formerly unacceptable by means of 'the manipulation of images, beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions that is psychological warfare?"

> There seems to be little doubt that the answer is yes (10).

> So it does appear that 'big business' and government in some countries is one and the same thing. Is that, however, a bad thing?

> Many politicians throughout the world may say that what is good for business must be good for the country. But how that works out in practice does depend very much on how any particular business is conducted since there are both good and bad business organizations.

> If a business is well run, its staff taken care of in regard to good wages and benefits and so on then it could be admitted that it can only be good for the country. If however, a business is harming people who staff it, (e.g., with toxic chemicals, bad products, unsatisfactory working conditions, poor wages and so forth) then perhaps it does not benefit that country (11). If a business is well run and properly managed it may benefit everybody. If however, a business organization exploits both bad government and the people then standards inevitably fall in every direction. That business is then good only for those who control it (12).

> In trying to understand why governments use repression and torture we must look at who gains from such abuse. It certainly does not appear to be the population in general. The ordinary people as such gain nothing, and indeed lose almost everything worth having when their human and civil rights are overridden.

> Authoritarian governments who impose strict censorship and deny their people the very basic right of free speech - to say the very least, would find it difficult to claim that doing so is in anyone's interest other than their own self-interest. How then can any such government really claim to be representing the people when its repression of the people is so obvious?

> Note: In his book Operation Mind Control (13), Bowart states that:

> > 'The cryptocracy (secret government) serves big business and supplies corporations with industrial intelligence. Such things as political campaign contributions may repay these favors to candidates sympathetic to the cryptocracy. Both foreign and domestic politicians have been supported with these 'contributions'.

> The Association of National Security Alumni is an organization mainly composed of former US security employees who openly oppose the use of covert operations against US citizens.

> They state that such actions are both counterproductive and damaging to the national interests of the United States. And in 1992 a sub-group named as The Electronic Surveillance Project also published a report detailing Harassment and Mind-Control Experimentation. This report detailed how the US government had used behavior modifying direct-energy technologies on its own citizens. By 1993 this association had been contacted by over 200 people (the tip of an iceberg?), all of who alleged that they had been the victims of government harassment and mind-control experimentation. A supplement to this report also published in 1993 stated that "While the majority of these experiments reside in the United States, a number of virtually identical complaints have also been received from England, Germany, Canada and Australia (14).

> Multinational corporations, particularly those involved in the development of directed-energy and surveillance technologies are also believed to be installing these devices in public establishments, educational centers and on the streets and highways. Much of this technology has already been installed in the United Kingdom. Already more than one million surveillance devices are known top be monitoring the British public. That figure does not include the many thousands of covert devices planted in businesses, pubs, hotels and private homes by the British security services.

> #### References for Section six

> (1) Bloch. J. Fitzgerald. P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. Junction Books. London. 1983. P.54.
> (2) Bowart. W. Operation Mind Control. Pub: Dell Publishing Co. Inc. (USA) and Fontana / Collins (UK) 1978.
> (3) Pilger. J. Natural born partners. New Statesman & Society. 10-3-95. P. 26.
> (4) Kidron. M. Segal. R. Business, Money & Power. Pan Books London. 1987.
> (5) Hollingsworth. M. Norton-Taylor. R. Blacklist. The Hogarth Press. London. 1988. P.150.
> (6) Carvel. J. Survey reports 92 trade unionists murdered, 2.300 arrested last year. Article. The Guardian. P.12. 25-5-94.
> (7) Taylor. R. N. Deal to relax ban on GCHQ unions. The Guardian. 13-6-95. P.6
> (8) Kidron. M. Segal. R. Business, Money & Power. Pan Books London. 1987.
> (9) Nexus Magazine. Vol 2. No 26. 1995. P.9.
> (10) Krawczyk . G. Big Brothers Recipe for 'Revolution in Military Affairs". Nexus Magazine. 1995. Vol 2. P.26 - 31.
> (11) Lloyd. T. The Guardian. 23-6-95. P.14.
> (12) Vidal. J. 'Nigerian troops killed and tortured tribe which opposed Shell operation.' Article. The Guardian. 14-1-95. P. 10.
> (13) Bowart. W. Operation Mind Control. Pub: Dell Publishing Co. Inc. (USA) and Fontana / Collins (UK) 1978. P.146.
> (14) Krawczyk . G. Big Brothers Recipe for 'Revolution in Military Affairs". Nexus Magazine. 1995. Vol 2. P. 31.

> #### British Human Rights Organizations

> Torture victims within the United Kingdom will continue to find themselves in a very perilous state indeed. Contrary to popular belief there is apparently no British human rights organization to which they can turn for help.

> All the British human rights and civil liberties organizations that I contacted have been found lacking, if not completely worthless, so far as British victims of torture are concerned.

> British human rights organizations all have long lists of eminent sponsors. The literature they send out in response to inquiries invariably gives the impression that they will attempt to deal with any form of repression. But that does not, quite apparently, include the United Kingdom itself. So their presence in Britain appears to be solely to collect public donations and promote the myth of a torture free Britain. It is open to question whether the sponsors of these so-called human rights organizations are aware of their limitations and failure to protect British citizens. Whatever, the shortcomings of these organizations to carry out their obligations within Britain is glaringly obvious.

> Considering that these organizations receive many millions of pounds annually in donations from British subjects they should be the first to be protected from an abusive government. Charity, after all, should begin at home. However, my own research into British human rights organizations leads me to an entirely different conclusion from what might be expected. In response to allegations of torture within the UK mainland not one of the above organizations offered any kind of direct help whatsoever. Indeed, British organizations seemingly refuse even to openly acknowledge allegations of torture within the UK, in spite of the fact that many such allegations have already been accepted by foreign human rights organizations.

> To repeat what Pierre Sane, the secretary-general of Amnesty International, said in 1993: "Governments are prepared to go to great lengths to cover up their crimes. They know that a bloodstained human rights record will damage their international image. So they set up phony human rights institutions to cover up crimes. They use sophisticated public relations techniques, lies behind lies. Governments use death squads and undercover agents so that they can deny involvement. Everything has become more subtle since Amnesty International was founded. To make people disappear you need sophisticated security arrangements, and secret departments. Human rights abuses have not gone away. They have just gone further into the dark."

> Brave and true words. In Britain it has become so dark people simply cannot see what is happening there. In Northern Ireland Amnesty International did report cases of torture by Britain. These cases are now well documented. But on torture today within the British mainland Amnesty remains strangely silent. There it seems that Amnesty has already forgotten the words of Pierre Sane, let alone having learned anything from them.

> I suggest that that the totally inept people now running the British section of Amnesty International should read the above again - then expose the deplorable situation prevalent in Britain. Otherwise they will not only become totally discredited in the UK they will also fall under the category of being called phony throughout the rest of the world. If you are a supporter of Amnesty then think again - you just might not be supporting what you may think you are?

> Whatever, Amnesty is not alone in its neglect of torture in Britain. Almost all so-called 'human rights' organizations there appear to know little, if anything at all, about the hi-tech psychological torture techniques as practiced on British subjects by MI-5 and the police special branch.

> When such insidious torture techniques are used by foreign dictators against their own people it is quite apparently a very different matter altogether. British 'human rights' organizations simply can't wait to utter their hypocritical cry's of outrage as they rush to inform the public and the media of such acts before beginning vast advertising campaigns calling for yet more donations to stop torture and prevent future abuses.

> But not against British victims. Only silence ensues when torture is exposed within Britain itself. Even when exposed by British writers and researchers who have them selves been subjected to such cruel methods of repression within Britain. As some have already stated on television.

> #### Conclusions.

> True democracy, as against so-called 'forms' or 'versions' of democracy is in all probability practiced by only a handful of nations throughout the entire world. The writer can think of no true democracy at all in the East, whilst in the West most countries continue to use what are termed 'forms' of democracy. As stated earlier in the report a 'form of democracy' is no more than a charade. It allows people to believe that they are free whilst it offers none of the real freedoms that are essential for the true growth of human potential.

> Under 'forms of democracy' it is necessary to fit into 'the establishment', which may or not be good, but which will by necessity restrict ideas that do not fit 'the established order' of the time. The 'establishment' within any country tends to allow only those ideas and developments that fit into the narrow viewpoint established by the few, whilst the many are used as fodder to feed it.

> The establishment, which may mean powerful business interests or 'ruling families', whether royal or otherwise, have rarely benefited mankind as a whole. However, populations worldwide are manipulated into believing that these 'institutions' are essential and are for the good of all. That is simply not true. Sometimes they are good only for those who control them. These institutions are often little more than parasites that feed off the fruits of others whilst giving nothing of real value in return.

> The 'secret control' that allows 'democratic' government to be subverted by the 'third force' of international business conglomerates should also be recognized for the evil it is (1). Indeed, all citizens should freely decide the true direction of government policy. It should not be directed by some anonymous 'business club' or 'security service' simply because it may be a profitable venture for their interests alone. As does appear to be the case in many instances.

> For whatever reasons almost all governments, from time to time, tell blatant untruths about what they may have done in the past, what they are doing today and what they intend doing in the future. These untruths are often covered-up by political claims of being in the 'National Interest', in the 'Public Interest' - or that old standby 'National Security'. But in many cases all this really means is 'Self-Interests'. That self-interest may be involvement with the multinationals, the gaining of more power or the simple maintenance of 'the status-quo'. Whatever, there seems little doubt that the true public interest takes a very poor second place.

> The populations of many countries can quite apparently be manipulated and fooled into supporting governments who torture and murder. Are these people so stupid and blind as to really believe that such atrocities can never happen to themselves or their own families?

> As for the so-called 'intelligence communities' there is no doubt as to who they are really working for. As Bowart states:

> > "It is the cryptocracy, or secret shadow governments, over which the populations of both the United States and the United Kingdom have no control whatsoever. Indeed, these secret 'governments' and 'their security services' can only be viewed as a grave threat to true democracy in any country.'

> The 'security services' of many countries secure not the public as such but big business and they're serving puppets in 'their governments.' British security projects itself as an organization that 'protects' the entire population. It does not. It protects only the 'establishment' and its 'vested interests' thereby maintaining the status quo. Which in Britain means about three percent of the entire population. The British public at large is not protected by British security, it is repressed, tortured, and whenever security desires, murdered by it.

> Democracy is a word much abused the world over. Surely now is the time to use the word in its proper perspective and make true democracy available to all. Perhaps then the very reason for dissent will be removed.

> In one of their documents, signed on the 30th November 1988 by some of the most prominent people in Britain, the civil rights group CHARTER 88 stated: "We have had less freedom than we believed. That which we have enjoyed has been too dependent on the benevolence of our rulers. Our freedoms have remained their possession, rationed out as subjects rather than being our own inalienable possession as citizens. To make real the freedoms we once took for granted means for the first time to take them for ourselves. The time has come to demand political, civil and human rights in the United Kingdom.'

> After decades of resisting such a move, Britain is finally incorporating a human rights charter into law. However, the British 'version' of The European Charter of Human Rights is no more than another 'form' of the charter, and it has already been so well watered down it is all but useless. The British security services have made very sure that the UK charter will in no way interfere with their illegal activities.

> > "It can't happen here is number one on the list of famous last words."
> > David Crosby.

> #### Conclusion Reference.

> (1) Eyal. Dr J. Conspiracy of Silence. Article. The Guardian. P.15. 11-12-96.

> #### Internet Human Rights Resources Worldwide

> The Center for Justice & Accountability (CJA)
> Willing to file lawsuit against perpetrators of human rights Violations. E-mail: center4justice@cja,org Survivors International: Torture treatment center
> Suppression of dissent: documents Great site with info on: Australia - Britain - Canada - New Zealand - South Africa - United States
> Project Freedom Exposes repression and torture in the United Kingdom. Lots of good information and links. Victims list.
> Mind Control ForumExposes repression and mind-control in the United States.Victims list. Lots of info and links.
> University of Minnesota Human Rights Library - vast resources.
> Global Internet Liberty Campaign. Fights censorship worldwide.
> Big Brother Awards International Gives Big Brother award to those who abuse power. Privacy International (PI) was formed in 1990 as a non-government watchdog on surveillance and privacy invasion. The organization has campaigned throughout the world on dozens of issues ranging from identity cards and encryption policy, to workplace surveillance and military intelligence. PI's membership includes IT specialists, lawyers, judges and journalists from forty countries. "Winston" awards are also given to individuals and organization's which have made an outstanding contribution to the protection of privacy.
> News - comment.
> Mind-Control Archives. Articles on Big Brother.
> The Psychiatric Torture Site
> Info of all kinds.
> Article lists. Barbara Hartwell a survivor of CIA MK ULTRA and PHOENIX Project, trained and utilized by CIA as a deep cover operative and professional CIA asset, under mind control programming, which the perpetrators of this mind control believed was "guaranteed under National Security".
> Lobster Magazine Info on UK and US intelligence services. Plus much more.
> Conspiracy Planet Great articles by many writers. Very outspoken.

> Received 05-17-2004