Mind Control Article From The New York Times

For other articles on MK-Ultra, see the category on my blog here. Watch this old CNN video here. Also, see this article that has numerous links about brainchips, nanotechnology and mind control. 

WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW!
See Part of the Old New York
 Times Article Below The Video

By Robert Naeslund, 2013

When The New York Times exposed the CIA-project of behavior modification in July 1977, the General Director of the secret institution, Stanfield Turner, had to testify at the Senate hearings. On August 3, 1977, he gave an account of a CIA established network including 80 medical universities, hospitals, and prisons together with 185 high-ranking U.S. scientists, researchers, and doctors. 

It was mentioned that the program had begun under the Director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, in 1953. This was something Professor John C. Lilly described in his memoirs, “The Scientist”. He said that the Director in 1953 proposed that he join the CIA and participate in experiments. But he refused and the reason he gave for this was also explained in his book: “Dr. Antoine Remond, using our technique in Paris, has demonstrated that stimulation of the brain can be applied to the human without the help of a neurosurgeon; he is doing it in his clinic. This means that anybody with the proper apparatus can carry this out on a person covertly, with no external signs that electrodes have been used on that person. I feel that if this technique gets into the hands of a secret agency, they could have a total control over a human being and be able to change his beliefs extremely quickly.” Today injectable nanotechnology and microchips are being utilized all around the world and the issue has, with increased levels of usage become even more shrouded by secrecy and a conspiracy of silence.

During the summer of 1977 The New York Times published 30 articles about the CIA and mind control. But ten years before they’d already published a first editorial under the heading “Push-Button People” and demanding a public debate of the threat. As stated in their first editorial on mind control, 10th of April 1967, in relation to the possible political applications they mentioned: “It is quite conceivable that in some countries investigations may be underway into the possibility of using these techniques to control human beings...the mere existence of such a possibility is disturbing and certainly merits wider public discussion and greater attention than it has received up to now.” Britain, Sweden and U.S. were among these nations.

Three years later another editorial was published. On September 19th, 1970, The New York Times editorial “Brain Wave” about the danger posed by mind control made the following point: “If George Orwell were writing a sequel to '1984' today, he would probably reject as archaic the propaganda techniques for controlling people’s minds...” They suggested that: “Today, he might envisage a society in which a newborn baby’s first experience would be neurosurgery, an operation in which the child’s brain was fitted with miniaturized radio devices connected to every major center controlling reason and emotion.” 

They knew what was going on but had no success in bringing about a public debate on the issue. 25 years later the U.S. Senator John Glenn tried to regulate the abuse and said in a speech in the Senate: “I hope to be able to assure the people in my home state of Ohio, and those around the country, that their government is no longer conducting experiments unknown to the individual.” The situation in Europe is the same and the EU’s Ethical Board published their declaration against mind control. 

In 2005 they wrote “How far should we be subject to the control of such devices or by other people using these devices?” and ended with the words: “The Member States have a responsibility to create conditions for a constructive, well-informed debate in this area.” This is the most important subject in today’s world and mass media have a responsibility to open up that debate - so we must all show support for such action. Neither they nor the population in general would like to live with state chips in their brains.

Click Below To Enlarge Article