THE TORTURE REPORT
By Dr Les Dove C.P.H.
Updated – United Kingdom. 1995 – USA. 2005 – Mexico. 2012* * * * *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 HeinleinAims 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 wide 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 and other methods of 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.
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 human rights 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, namely MI5 (Military Intelligence) and the police Special Branch (Secret Police), 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 MI5, although some people working in other British human rights organizations certainly have been. Early ‘pressure’ from the secret police and MI-5 does indeed appear to act as a ‘deterrent’ should some organizations decide to probe into the area of psychological torture.
There are some human rights organizations who do doubt the legitimacy of their government. And 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 of being free democracies. 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 by the Special Branch and the military, afterward being persecuted, tortured and even murdered 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’ reported that on average at least 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, the figure’s are; Iraq – 97 dead, Philippines – 60 dead, Russia – 13 dead, China – 31 in jail, Zimbabwe – 61 exiled, Turkey – 15 prosecuted.
According to an international press freedom watchdog a record number of 70 journalists were killed in 2009 with at least 136 other writers, editors and photojournalists being harassed and imprisoned. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 887 journalists have been killed since 1992. At least 40 journalists were killed in 2011. By now, these figures may well be very much higher. Due to the strict censorship in place, British and U.S. writers and researchers that have, or are being persecuted, exiled and / or killed there are not available but their numbers are expected to be considerable. Trying to report the truth is a very dangerous occupation.
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 governments. 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 inquiry’s as a form of direct attack against its authority. This inevitably leads to ‘an action’ against the writer by the British security services, Namely MI5 and the police Special Branch.
Such actions are being taken against researchers in the name of government, but 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 in countries around the world, including Britain and the United States, have suffered greatly 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 and the Internet.’ 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 ‘deny-ability’ factor that has become associated with psychological torture. (No obvious marks or wounds, as with physical torture.) In fact, by using modern methods of repression the torture action itself can be carried out without ant real physical contact with the victim at all. Many writers are presently describing this, as ‘no touch torture’.
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.
Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes – video
Bush, Blair found guilty of war crimes
The growing use of torture, in particular psychological torture, as reported by Ackroyd, also raises the question of whether or not there is a ‘third force’ or influence involved in its use. Namely big business, in the form of multinational corporations.’
For example; it is no longer a matter of speculation that some multinational companies were involved 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. 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.
Those ‘lies and deceptions’ resulted in CIA and NSA backed death squads being set up. Over the coming years, these death squads tortured and murdered tens of thousands, indeed millions 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 still remains totally ignorant of these events, and of the atrocities committed in their name. Consequently, they cannot understand the hatred that is sometimes directed towards the United States and some American citizens when they travel abroad.
In the light of such information there is much 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 multinational corporations?
It should be noted that not one notable 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, was bitterly opposed by the 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 American administrations ‘American government terrorists’ are claiming exemption from prosecution. Indeed, the Bush administration 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, if these nations do support the International Criminal court. A sad reflection on a government, which constantly claims to ‘uphold democracy and human rights’ when in fact it does exactly the opposite.
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 and death squads 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 be so stupid as to really believe that a security organization, which has overthrown democracy worldwide, actually protects democracy at home?
The CIA. Beyond Redemption and Should Be Terminated
http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/the-cia-beyond-redemption-and-should-be-terminated-2
Note: A recent report states that the American Central Intelligence Agency has overthrown or tried to overthrow functioning constitutional democracies in over 52 countries since the end of the Second World War. Source: The Praetorian Guard – The U.S. Role in the New World Order.
By John Stockwell, and Ralph Mcgee, plus Blum in his reports: http://killinghope.org/bblum6/overthrow.htm by William Blum
References:
(1)World Medical Association (WMA). (2) Jacobsen. L Vesti. P. Torture Surviv ors. 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) 1971.
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 hidden elites, corporations and their security forces, rather than by representatives freely chosen 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 and deny the free will of the people, unrest and war will surely follow. Yet, all over the world a few highly privileged elites are repressing millions of people whilst torturing and murdering many millions 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 and the London 7/7 bombing disasters, who many eminent researchers firmly believe to be ‘false flag’ inside jobs, may well be only a brief taste of what may befall us all in the years ahead.
Today, atomic or other highly lethal devices can be installed in a small briefcase and carried around the world with ease. 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. Huge quantities of drugs are smuggled across international borders every year. To believe that small suitcases carrying atomic weapons couldn’t be is simply foolish.
Never the less, many people do have faith in their ‘leaders’, in spite of the terrible mess some of them have made of their countries. It is however pure folly to allow the use of torture, under the pretext of ‘defending democracy’, without expecting the very worst kind of retribution at some point. Therefore, before this happens, people and governments must stop fooling themselves and face reality. That reality being 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 – the wost kind of torture, brainwashing and psycho-control.
Craig Murray ex-British ambassador on Karimov’s Dictatorship – video
Torture of Political Dissidents
Torture as defined by the World Medical Association (WMA) 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: “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 very limited description, for instance, as defined by the World Medical Association.
Some of the following exploration into physical / psychological torture and social control is based on the author’s own research and observations in various countries around the world. These countries are Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), South Africa, United Kingdom, Germany, United States, Salvador, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Guatemala, 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 try to combat the suppression many political 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 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 that is achieved by direct attacks on the structure and behavior patterns of the personality. These 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 his / herself physically or mentally.”
The psychological torture of political 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 troublesome dissident, subversive or now, even a ‘terrorist’, which will lead to them being ‘targeted’ by that countries security forces. This means that some form of ‘direct action’ will be carried out against them. This action may well result in the arrest, torture and indeed the death of the dissident.
The British have long boasted that “You can say anything you want to in Britain!” Indeed, you can do the same in any other police state, because that is not the real issue. The question should be “What happens after you have said what you want?” And in that respect Britain proves to be no different from any other police state, in that if what you have said displeases their secret police you will most certainly be targeted for having dissenting political views.
Today many so-called democracies 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, nor, hopefully, will it fool anyone else.
The psychological torture and continued harassment of dissidents has been a fact for many years in some countries (Well over 30 years in the USA and the UK.) Governments from both the East and West have used these cruel methods and they continue to be widely used today.
Indeed, their use has now become highly sophisticated, and modern microwave technology allows security forces to torture and murder people at will, apparently with all but total impunity.
As already stated; psychological torture is favored by many governments for the simple reason that such methods show no obvious scars. It is, therefore, very easy for such governments to claim that they do not use torture against their dissidents. As torture is still often thought of by the general public as being purely physical in nature, governments may well have their denials accepted by much of their population.
Ignorance of psychological torture methods and techniques was 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 ‘free press’ and ‘human rights organizations’ that many Western governments claim to have in their countries. Indeed, new laws are already being drawn up that may make public exposure of such information by writers and researchers a criminal offense. That however, does not excuse the British and American media which has remained silent about state repression and torture in their country going back over the last thirty years at least?
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 to silence their dissidents they are now refining their methods further still and using psychological torture techniques as a form of permanent ‘social engineering.’
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. Which 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 an enormous communications network. Accordingly 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, and the maintenance of the ‘status quo’ often come first. Those who seek real change may do so at great personal risk. When considering the millions, and sometimes many billions of dollars and pounds in profits made by many governments and their supporters, the lives of ordinary human beings are often not considered at all. However, openly killing dissenters is no longer fashionable with governments who wish the rest of the world to consider their country as being civilized and their people educated. For one thing, the number of political dissenters has now risen into the many 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 indeed 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 so-called ‘troublemakers’ are then quickly classified by that government and denigrated as being ‘subversives or 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 public opinion by saying they are dealing with terrorists or 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 those virtues, there can be no real democracy, yet many governments all over the world proclaim themselves to be 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.’
‘The Shock Doctrine’ – Full Length Film
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, 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 MI5’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 fascist as being subversive.
Brainwashing
Brainwashing, or psycho control, is now the preferred method used by many governments 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 pretext whatsoever, should be denied freedom of thought, inquiry or expression. Should the people be denied those rights then they have the human right to dissent and obtain them by any and all means possible.
So-called ‘forms’ of democracy are nothing more than shams and charades. They should be rejected outright. Countries that use ‘forms’ of democracy are nothing more than police states and should be recognized as such.
References:
(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.Capitalism, Market Fundamentalism, and the Duplicitous Meanings of Democracy http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27293.htm. The Media in
America Selling Views, Calling it News. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27299.htm
Let Your Life Be a Friction to Stop the Machine – video
Why governments prefer psychological torture
Scenes of brutality quickly outrage any truly democratic population. 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 wish their government being openly portrayed as being abusive or one that employs torture, especially one that 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.
However, the private face of governments is all too often very different from the one shown to the United Nations. Governments can, and may well commit any act they consider necessary, legal or not, to silence any form of political dissent, particularly so in the case of dissident writers.
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 readily sanctioned by corrupt governments worldwide, particularly so by the United States and the United Kingdom.
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 resources and control they need to put psychological torture techniques into practice, thereby bringing about the silence or ‘neutralization’ of many political dissidents.
Usually a very special government 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, only those who hold the true reigns of power usually know of this specialized department. Such departments are also sometimes known as ‘Political-Action Operations’ or simply Psyops.
These political action departments are often hidden under the guise of protecting ‘National Security’. What that really means is that it is protecting the elites and other 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, while 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’ 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 their ‘target’ and their work is carried out on a strictly ‘need to know’ basis. They simply carry out any given orders to the letter. These people are usually gullible 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 covert 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 its purpose would be.
This type of government, often military, department usually 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 willingly 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. Lying and 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 government 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.
MKULTRA Documentary: CIA Mind Control Research – Human Experiments in the United States
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 very successfully. For instance, when a dissident ‘target’ is constantly smeared, harassed and intimidated and so on 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.
Through censorship, populations are usually kept in ignorance of the widespread use of torture within their country. However, when many such cases do become apparent the people are lied to by their politicians and led to believe that what they are seeing are simply a few isolated (and deserving) cases. And under gross media censorship how can the public know otherwise?
The failure to understand how these control torture techniques are actually used could well mean an end to the democratic process as it is understood today. Indeed, that state may by now already have been reached?
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.
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 were readily brought about. Columbia, Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua, Argentina, Burma, Chile, Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola, Nigeria, South West Africa and the former Yugoslavia were once all thriving countries that suffered terribly under psy-control. Its Afrikaner rulers also turned the former South African junta into a terrible police state, afterword’s spreading their terror and destabilization tactics into surrounding countries that 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 – or face open revolution.
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 viewed as a police state.
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 ‘puppets’ of the state, are rarely allowed to gain positions of real authority. Thus, heads of government (even a government supposedly 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 and corruption if the person has been loyal and supportive of the governments. 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 the ‘state controlled media’ which 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, 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 Walter Bowart said:
“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.’
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 government spokesmen 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 European Union are designed to make any political dissent of any kind a ‘terrorist’ crime. As have the new laws now being passed in Britain and the United States.
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 political parties, ballot box and / or politicians in a country are totally ‘controlled by their security forces. 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, 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 the Crown, the monarchy and other mysterious elite ‘third forces’, 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’ as no other organization has the sheer wealth and power that is necessary to wield such influence on a global scale. No government elected through 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 ‘placed’ 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.
Brian Gerrish: The Truth About The Common Purpose Group in The UK
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 with many highly informative Web sites having been taken down. (Over 50 to this date.)
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 alter or delete them). And eventually, one way or another, they may well totally succeed. As things are, the British security services are censoring the Internet with the forced cooperation of on-line service providers and hosts. Future legislation will force all British Internet service providers to cooperate whether they wish to or not. Indeed, the security services in Britain are trying to totally control the Internet there and they may well succeed in doing so. After which no real criticism of the government or themselves will be allowed at all.
The British media as such is already censored to an unbelievable degree with MI5 agents or informers being on the staff of every newspaper in the country. Many British breweries, long time supporters of fascism, have also willingly allowed their pubs, clubs and hotels to be secretly wired for sound and vision so that ‘Big Brother’ in the form of MI5 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 MI5 is (and has been for quite some time) monitoring all computer on-line services under various pretexts, such as preventing computer hacking, terrorism, child pornography and the misuse of drugs. It should be added that MI5 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, some governments have repeatedly 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 sham? Indeed, writing about the American ‘Security Forces’ and their protection of ‘democracy’ Bowart states:
“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 MI5, MI6, and its secret police, the Special Branch?
References:
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. More References: (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
21 Signs That The UK Is Being Transformed Into A Hellish Big Brother Surveillance Society
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/21-signs-that-uk-is-being-transformed.html
http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/
This is yet another attempt to censor true information and brainwash the British population into believing whatever lies their so-called governments want them to believe.
Gareth Peirce on Torture, Secrecy and the British State
http://www.anniemachon.com/annie_machon/2009/05/gareth-peirce-on-torture-secrecy-and-the-british-state.html
Social Isolation and 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 MI5 are to both isolate and ‘neutralize’ a dissident target as quickly as possible. Rarely are political dissenters charged with any crimes, simply because they haven’t committed any, so the secret police try to entrap and criminalize dissidents in various ways, after which that ‘crime’ is then used as an excuse to persecute and terrorize the dissident.
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’. These could be male or female. MI5 uses both sexes in their efforts to both ‘entrap’ and ‘criminalize’ 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.’
Afterward the dissident target 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 the dissident will be ‘owned’ body and soul by MI5 and the police Special Branch, who will from then use him / or her, to entrap other dissidents using the same methods. (This method was used against a former friend of mine, who has now been working for the police for many years.)
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: “Every year an average of fifty men die in British prisons, from ‘suicides, misadventure, ghosting*’ and other so-called accidents.”
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. In another case, a prisoner was moved 51 times in three years.
The security services also use ‘ghosting’ on dissidents in that they try to keep them constantly moving on from one place to another as the dissident tries to find a ‘safe heaven’.
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 its smear teams to spread false 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 they exiled the dissidents, thus supposedly exonerating themselves of any crime whilst at the same time encouraging further persecution of the dissident by the general populace. Many of whom do willingly cooperate in persecuting dissidents.
[WORTH over half a billion from so-called Natl Security – Lissa]
David Icke – Freedom or Fascism:The Time to Choose – video
Bugging Devices
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 a living. (Driving dissidents into poverty and destitution is one method that has long been used by MI5 and their torture departments.) That being the case the dissident’s e-mail, phone, fax, etc, will be tapped and monitored 24 hours a day, consequently many important messages will fail to reach the dissident, though many ‘unwanted calls’ (most of which are made by MI5 stooges) will always get through. Dissidents using computers may also suffer from numerous ‘Internet connection problems’ to say the very least.
Note: New laws introduced into Britain under the guise of ‘preventing terrorism’ are designed to prevent dissidents from having any communication devices whatsoever. Indeed, the secret police force has recently been doubled, added to which they now have vast powers to ruin a person’s life simply on the suspicion of them becoming a political dissenter. Vote for us – or else?
According to Fitzgerald, Leopold and Mills; other bugs used by MI5 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. MI5 agents often plant a bug inside the meter 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. Cell phones too can be monitored from anywhere, even when turned off, and are also used to keep track of any dissident that uses them. And, of course, there are the modern laser bugging devices. The list of bugging devices 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, MI5 has had these devices installed throughout the entire country in hotels, pubs, restaurants, conference halls and anywhere else where the public may gather. Indeed, these miniature bugging devices are now even being installed in the homes and television sets of anyone considered to be ‘troublesome.’
Today the United Kingdom is almost totally ‘wired’ and surveillance of the entire population by over 5 million CCTV cameras is all but complete. They are even being installed in taxis.
Most of these surveillance devices are controlled remotely from the local police stations. But the most insidious of these devices is, as already mentioned, the military microwave machine. 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 torture, stifle free speech, or to injure and kill people, but in Britain, these microwave devices are being used more widely than ever before.
Dissident ‘targets’ would be hard put to find and remove any of the above miniature devices planted inside their homes. Even if they could, ‘security’ would simply plant more of them.
According to Fitzgerald and Leopold; “The level of sophisticated bugging used against a target may depend entirely on their classification by the security services, MI5, 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 so any form of surveillance used against them will relate to that.
MI5 has total control over the United Kingdoms telephone and mail services and there is nothing a dissident can do to prevent MI5’s misuse of those services. So, dissidents will of course have to put up with much ‘lost mail’ and ‘dropped phone lines’. As a matter of interest, many ‘votes’ may also be ‘misplaced’ 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.)
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.
<