Torture-based mind control as a global phenomenon

Karriker, W. (2008, September). Torture-based mind control as a global phenomenon: Preliminary data from the 2007 series of Extreme Abuse Surveys. In Torture-based mind control: Empirical research, programmer methods, effects and treatment. Workshop conducted at the 13^th International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, San Diego, CA, Ellen Lacter, Moderator.

http://members.aol.com/smartnews/torture_08.htm

Human beings cannot be programmed like robots, I had believed. But that was before the early 80’s when persons with multiple personality disorder began coming to me for psychotherapy. I observed that some of my clients had two distinct sets of alters: those they had created spontaneously to survive unspeakable acts against them and those who appeared to have been conditioned to serve specific functions for their perpetrators or perpetrator groups.

In the late 80’s, a client who had been processing her memories of satanic ritual abuse brought a journal to our session in which she noted writings by an alter personality who used computer jargon: access codes, systems, exit, entry, delete, input, output, sequences, etc. This client came to believe that her father, an ex-military man, and his buddies in the cult had somehow “programmed” her as a child to serve at their pleasure. Later she remembered hearing words, letters, numbers, rhymes, and sometimes classical music in the background when they were torturing her in various ways.

In 1992 at an MPD conference in Alexandria, Virginia, I first heard about the secret Cold War mind control experiments supposedly carried out by Nazi doctors who had been smuggled into the US after World War II to continue their concentration camp-type experiments. I realized that some of the memories reported by another one of my ritually abused clients were consistent with the types of programming used in the well-documented MKULTRA project. In 1973, at the instruction of then CIA Director Richard Helms, the bulk of these records were destroyed. In 1977, Senator Edward Kennedy called for a “public accounting of the abuses of the past.” His request has not been honored.

I don’t know if my first “programmed” client was used in government mind control experiments or not. Because of family circumstances she had to leave therapy before I had learned about the torture-based Cold War experiments.

In 1995, I learned that three courageous victims of mind control experiments had stood before the President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments to tell the world about the horrors they had endured in the name of National Security. Giving explanation and support for these women was therapist Valerie Wolf whose speech is printed in the Media Packet I have given you. After that hearing, the Committee recommended that all records of the CIA bearing on programs of secret human research become a top priority for declassification review. After 13 years, there has been no declassification of related files or investigation of government-sponsored mind control experimentation on children.

In his book, Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists, Ross (2000), writes: “The major goal of the Cold War mind control programs was to create dissociative symptoms and disorders, including full multiple personality disorder” (p. E). In line with what I had already observed in a few of my clients, Gould and Cozolino (1992) contend that ritual abuse survivors with multiple personality disorder may have personalities deliberately created by cults that have been programmed [a mind control term] to perform specific functions for the cult. Thus, victims could have had mind control tactics used on them even if they were not subjects in government-sponsored mind control experiments. Conversely, government-sponsored mind control subjects could have been ritually abused in experimental settings.

The title of my presentation indicates that torture-based mind control is a global phenomenon. Some of my colleagues have heard reports from their clients about mind control programming in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, France, Israel, Russia, Tibet, Afghanistan, India, Lebanon, Italy, China, Belgium, and Japan (personal communications, December 6, 2006).

The amount of data these surveys have generated is tremendous – over a half million cells of data coming off the webserver. Throughout this workshop I will be interjecting data that support information that the other presenters provide. Also in your handouts are some findings that I have already chosen as relevant to today’s discussion.

For those of you listening via CD, the handout titled, “Media Packet: Torture-based, Government-sponsored Mind Control Experimentation on Children” is already available at the EAS website. It includes a brief history of the government projects and the frequency of responses on related mind control questions by the 257 participants who answered “yes” to the question: “Secret government-sponsored mind control experiments were conducted on me as a child.”

The packet offers documentation that torture-based, government-sponsored mind control (GMC) experimentation was conducted on children during the Cold War. It provides data from the EAS and P-EAS that give voice, visibility, and validation to survivors of these crimes against humanity.

(Briefly go over Media Packet)

In the other handout I have provided some additional statistics related to mind control programming. As soon as possible, we will post on the EAS website (http://extreme-abuse-survey.net) a transcript of this presentation which includes these findings:

Adult survivors on the Extreme Abuse Survey (EAS) were asked to select the category of extreme abuse that best describes their experiences as survivors. 987 persons responded to the question.

Ritual Abuse (RA) …………………………………....191 (19%)

Mind Control (MC) …………………………………… 69 (7%)

Ritual Abuse and Mind Control (RA-MC) ………… 513 (52%)

Other Extreme Abuse (EA) ………………………… 214 (22%)

I. Regarding the global nature of MC as per EAS . . .

Of 640 survivors who answered “yes” to “My perpetrator(s) deliberately created/programmed dissociative states of mind (such as alters, personalities, ego-states) in me,”

391 were from the US

42 were from Canada

136 were from Europe

61 were from other or unnamed countries

Of 257 survivors who answered “yes” to the statement, “Secret government-sponsored mind control experiments were performed on me as a child,”

185 were from the US

25 from Canada

25 from Europe

20 from other or unnamed countries

II. Results of the C-EAS suggest that formal mind control of children is more recent than one would like to believe.

When caregivers of children under 18 who had disclosed RA/MC were asked if the children had reported non-consensual mind control experimentation . . .

41(45%) of 92 who answered the question answered “yes.”

III. Not all therapists who have worked with clients who report MC actually believe that their clients were victims of mind control. Below are the responses to this item from the P-EAS:

Of individuals reporting memories consistent with RA/MC, I believe that the following percentage actually experienced mind control. (click only on one response)

Number who responded to each percentage.

14 Zero

24 1 to 10%

9 11 to 20%

2 21 to 30%

6 31 to 40%

10 41 to 50%

9 51 to 60%

13 61 to 70%

14 71 to 80%

20 81 to 90%

107 91 to 100%

34 Don’t know

14 No answer

IV. One of our findings is particularly relevant to the theory that government experimenters went to the already existing satanic covens to get some of their subjects – children who had already learned the lessons of dissociation.

Of the 257 EAS respondents who reported that secret mind control experiments were used on them as children, 69% or 177 reported abuse in a satanic cult.

Of the 543 EAS respondents who reported that they had been abused in a satanic cult, 33% or 179 reported being used in secret mind control experiments as children.

V. Regarding one of the most frequent programs that we hear about, the

“Don’t Talk, Don’t Tell” Programming

EAS 77% of adult survivors who responded to the related question had been threatened with death if they ever talked about the abuse.

P-EAS 93% of professionals who responded to the related question had worked with at least one survivor who had been threatened with death if he or she ever talked about the abuse.

C-EAS 80% of child caregivers who responded to the related question had heard a child say they had been threatened with death if he or she ever talked about the abuse.

(See appendix for Tables 1 and 2)

Table 1 compares the frequencies of reported memories of respondents who are dealing with programs installed by perpetrators with the reported memories of respondents who are not dealing with those programs. They are ranked in order of degree of significance.

(Go over briefly)

Table 2 compares the frequencies of possible aftereffects reported by the two groups also ranked in order of degree of significance.

(Go over briefly)

In your handout is a much reduced copy of the poster that that I will hang at the Poster Session of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) Conference in Chicago in November 2008. The poster is titled: “Healing Methods: Comparing Ratings by Trauma Survivors and Trauma Therapists.” This will be available for download at http://extreme-abuse-survey.net after the conference [click on Presentations].

969 extreme abuse survivors responded to the optional “Healing Methods” section on the EAS; 198 professional helpers responded to the identical optional section on the P-EAS. As you can see, a table on the poster lists all 53 healing methods included on the surveys. It also shows the percents of total responses to “much help” and “great help” which are placed in rank order for each group.

Z-Values show significant differences in effectiveness ratings by survivors and by therapists for 43% of the healing methods under study.

Rated by both groups as most effective is Individual Psychotherapy/Counseling.

Rated by both groups as least effective is Electroshock Therapy.

That electroshock is ranked as least effective is not surprising given that on the . . .

EAS 50% of adult survivors who responded to the related question reported memories of electroshock abuse.

P-EAS 67% of 218 professionals who responded to the related question have worked with at least one client who reported electroshock abuse.

C-EAS 50% of 84 child caregivers who responded to the related question have heard a child disclose electroshock abuse.

The largest discrepancies (10+ percentage points) between survivors’ and therapists’ ratings of “much help” or “great help” were on the following items:

Therapists’ ratings higher: Individual Psychotherapy/Counseling, Grounding Techniques, Self-care/Self-soothing Techniques, Supportive Family Members, Non-suicide Contract with Therapist, EMDR, Art Therapy

Survivors’ ratings higher: Supportive Friends, Other Method(s), Formal Deprogramming, Theophostic Prayer, Deliverance, Internet Support Group, Reading Survivor Stories, Chiropractic, Exorcism, Reiki, Confronting Abusers, Music Therapy, Energy Therapies, Massage Therapy, Homeopathy, Aromatherapy

What do the numbers tell us? It looks like --

Therapists tend to favor stabilization techniques.

Survivors are more open to alternative ways to cope with indoctrinated belief systems including the use of formal deprogramming methods which my fellow presenters will be discussing this afternoon.

Here are some comments my co-researcher, Carol Rutz, made after looking at these results.

As a survivor and having gone to therapy for over ten years, I found that my time with the therapist was spent on the work, not telling him what was making me better. His spiritual beliefs were well known (not my own) so expounding on my own personal beliefs and the dynamic place they were having in my healing was not an issue. When you're spending hard earned dollars every week or twice a month or whatever the case might be, you are interested in getting the most bang for your buck. In other words, get the work done while you're there. What therapists reported are what they used and taught to their clients, so they are biased as to what helps. That is one reason why this is such an important study. If they really want to help, and I'm sure they do, they need to look at what survivors themselves said was the most effective. The therapy approach for them may not change in the least, but their openness to hearing about other avenues may help the client move more quickly through healing if they are acknowledged.

References

Ross, C. A. (2000). Bluebird: Deliberate creation of multiple personality by psychiatrists. Richardson, TX: Manitou Communications.

Shaffer, R. E., & Cozolino, L.J. (1992). Adults who report childhood ritualistic abuse. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 20(3), 188-193.

Table 1.(EAS Memories: Installed Programs)
A comparison of reported memories by EAS respondents who are dealing with programs installed by their perpetrators (“Yes” group; N = 766) with EAS respondents who are not dealing with installed programs (“No” group; N = 170).
Memories “Yes” “No” Z-Value					Memories “Yes” “No” Z-Value
1. Use of blood in abuse	76%	20%	13.917*		26. Starvation	58%	16%	09.937*
2. Electroshock	65%	09%	13.265*		27. Aversive hypnosis	48%	09%	09.377*
3. Forced to murder (or made to think had murdered) baby	64%	08%	13.233*		28. Pornography (child)	61%	22%	09.289*
4. Witnessing physical abuse on other victims	84%	35%	13.065*		29. Prostitution (child)	55%	16%	09.083*
5 . Forced drugging	83%	35%	12.958*		30. Brain stimulation	47%	09%	08.876*
6. Sensory deprivation	73%	21%	12.864*		31. Electronic harassment	50%	12%	08.796*
7. Witnessing murder	67%	13%	12.758*		32. Forced impregnation	46%	10%	08.645*
8. Witnessing animal mutilations/killings	75%	24%	12.549*		33. Incest	76%	44%	08.165*
9. Use of feces in abuse	67%	16%	12.182*		34. Other abuse(s)	86%	58%	08.020*
10. Being caged	67%	15%	12.143*		35. Non-lethal weapons abuse	56%	24%	07.500*
11. Forced to abuse other victims	68%	15%	12.740*		36. Survivor’s own child murdered	31%	04%	07.227*
12. Forced participation in murder	59%	07%	12.110*		37. Straight-jacketed	31%	04%	07.186*
13. Blinding lights	65%	15%	11.965*		38. Dislocation of limbs	32%	05%	07.039*
14. Forced cannibalism	57%	06%	11.917*		39. Forced abortion	42%	14%	06.938*
15. Buried alive	59%	09%	11.847*		40. Injection of painful eye drops	23%	03%	05.931*
16. Forced to participate in animal mutilations/killings	65%	15%	11.813*		41. Prostitution (adult)	29%	08%	05.731*
17. Receiving physical abuse	94%	61%	11.793*		42. Pornography (adult)	40%	19%	05.067*
18. Bondage	78%	34%	11.505*		43. Eugenics experiments	11%	00%	04.409*
19. Spinning	57%	09%	11.299*		44. Brain implants	13%	02%	03.981*
20. Sleep deprivation	79%	36%	11.082*		45. Psychic driving	30%	15%	03.964*
21. Sexual abuse by multiple perpetrators	88%	51%	11.027*		46. Non-human primates	13%	03%	03.611*
22. Being threatened with death	87%	52%	10.563*		47. Radiation exposure	11%	03%	03.048*
23. “Marriage” to Satan	49%	06%	10.149*		48. Microwave abuse	12%	04%	02.851*
24. Bestiality	63%	20%	09.994*		49. UFO abduction	07%	01%	02.782*
25. Near drowning experience caused by perpetrators	61%	19%	09.977*		50. Experiments with dolphins	04%	01%	01.902**
_____________________________________________________
* Significant at 99% 2- Tail Confidence Level ** Significant at 90% 2- Tail Confidence Level

Appendix

Table 2.(EAS Possible Aftereffects: Installed Programs)
A comparison of possible aftereffects by EAS respondents who are dealing with programs installed by their perpetrators (“Yes” group; N = 766) with EAS respondents who are not dealing with installed programs (“No” group; N = 170).
Possible Aftereffects “Yes” “No” Z-Value					Possible Aftereffects “Yes” “No” Z-Value
1. Dealing with programs installed by perpetrators	100%	0%	30.484*		18. Sexual urges triggered by feelings of threat, fear, shame, guilt, etc.	68%	44%	5.880*
2. Beliefs indoctrinated by perpetrators	89%	35%	15.333*		19. Eating disorder	74%	52%	5.675*
3. Dissociative flashbacks with satanic themes	81%	27%	13.885*		20. Self-mutilating behaviors	69%	48%	5.104*
5 . Posttraumatic stress disorder	93%	70%	8.287*		22. Unexplained internal scarring	36%	18%	4.444 *
6. Survivor guilt	80%	49%	8.093*		23. Hospitalization in a psychiatric unit	57%	39%	4.133*
7. Unexplained bruises and wounds	65%	32%	7.887*		24. Infliction of sexual pain on self	51%	34%	3.940*
8. Suicidal thoughts around special holidays, birthdays, etc.	77%	48%	7.638*		25. Foreign objects in body	31%	17%	3.655*
9. Unusual fears	90%	67%	7.611*		26. Fibromyalgia	31%	18%	3.226*
10. Other possible aftereffects	82%	54%	7.553*		27. Substance abuse	50%	37%	3.032*
11. Suicidal thoughts immediately before traumatic memories surface	75%	46%	7.136*		28. Seizures with o organic basis	27%	16%	2.843*
12. Auto-immune disorders	48%	20%	6.509*		29. Thyroid problems	31%	20%	2.752*
13. Migraine headaches	66%	38%	6.504*		30. Sexually transmitted diseases	23%	15%	2.102**
14. Sleep problems	93%	75%	6.486*		31. Cancer	08%	04%	2.050**
15. Art productions with torture themes	56%	29%	6.254*		32. Infertility	17%	11%	1.714***
16. Unexplained external scarring	49%	24%	5.891*		33. Multiple sclerosis	02%	00%	1.710***
17. Mysterious ailments for which a diagnosis cannot be made	64%	39%	5.887*		34. Infliction of sexual pain on others	20%	15%	1.223
______________________________________________________
* Significant at 99% 2 Tail Confidence Levels ** Significant at 95% 2-Tail Confidence Levels *** Significant at 90% 2-Tail Confidence Level