MK-Ultra History of Torture and Mind Control in the United States
The MK-Ultra program was instituted early in the 1950s that was designed to induce captured enemy combatants to reveal their secrets under torture. Sidney Gottlieb, a chemist working for the CIA, led in the use of torture techniques including isolation, sensory deprivation, physical abuse, and insertion of subliminal messages in audio and video communications.
The goal of the torture was to remove the existing content of the subject’s mind and then to replace the void with a new narrative. LSD as well as psychotropic drugs were used experimentally in the program.
All the illegal activities of MK-Ultra were funded by the taxes paid by citizens in the United States and Canada. Law enforcement officers were empowered by the United States government to take both American veterans and random citizens to “black sites” where they became objects of experimentation.
MK-Ultra was first brought to public awareness in 1975 by the Church Committee of the United States congress and President Gerald Ford’s United States President’s Commission, also called the Rockefeller Commission.
CIA Director Richard Helms engaged in the deployment of the MK-Ultra program, but then ordered all MK-Ultra files to be destroyed in 1973. The Church Committee and Rockefeller commission investigators relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the small number of documents that survived Helm’s order.
In 1977 a Freedom of Information Act uncovered approximately 20K documents related to MK-Ultra. Further surviving documentation about MK-Ultra was declassified in July 2001.
Journalist Stephen Kinzer, author of the book Poisoner in Chief, reported names and places where the atrocities were carried out under the auspices of the United States government and paid for my hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Kinser writes, “The CIA project was a continuation of the work begun in the World War 2 era in the Japanese facilities and Nazi concentration camps on subduing and controlling human minds. The use of Mescaline, a hallucinogenic drug, on unwitting subjects was a practice that Nazi doctors had begun in the camps at Auschwitz and Dachau.”
The Soviet Union was aggressively engaged in similar brain-perversion techniques. Allan Dulles, former CIA director, claimed that he was concerned about recognizing the techniques and impact of mind control tactics implemented by the USSR, especially given the American psychiatric profession’s dawning awareness of PTSD on prisoners of war returning from Korea.
The outcome of Gottlieb’s program revealed that the subjects of torture did not reveal credible evidence even with MK-Ultra’s use of both chemical and physical forms of torture. Instead, the scientists discovered that subjects would reveal anything they felt the inquisitor wanted to hear in order to stop the torture.
Torture and Thought Control on Children Begins with Gardner’s Parental Alienation
Family Courts across the country rely on an unlicensed, unregulated, unscientific so-called treatment known as reunification therapy. Reunification therapy is based on work related to parental alienation concepts scripted by Richard Gardner, MD. (See more about that here.) Gardner suggests that historically men were entitled to have sex with their children, that children were born as sexual beings, and that women were jealous, hostile, and competitive with their mail counterparts. Gardner’s assertion that children are the initial instigators of sexual activity on an adult counterpart are completely opposed to what is absolutely known scientifically and with establish facts of childhood sexual development. With no scientific backing for his claim, Gardner proposes that children entrap adults using sexually provocative behavior and then deny that they have done anything provocative while claiming they have been sexually abused.
Gardner articulated the idea of parental alienation, which portrays a battle between the alleged alienating parent and the alleged victimized co-parent. In Gardner’s thinking, the alleged victimized co-parent has endured false complaints about abusive treatment because the child believed as true the alleged alienating parents alleged noxious allegations about the victimized co-parent. Instead of finding out if the so-called alienating parent has legitimate complaints about abuse being done to the child by the so-called victim co-parent, Gardner and his followers instead propose a treatment intervention that removes the child from the parent who is considered to be the alienator and transfers the child to the so-called innocent victim of false allegations.
Gardner’s unscientific, unverified theory was adopted and used as a defense against men accused of incest and sexual battery which removed children from a safe parent and placed them, by court order, with the parent who had abused them. Gardner became the expert witness, and his testimony based on his reasonable doubt defense was responsible for exoneration 300 men (Gardner’s original research group) of criminal charges of sexual abuse.
The creation of no-fault divorce legal statutes then created an additional venue for the exoneration of domestic violence of criminal defenders who might have been subject to criminal prosecution if they had not sought separation from their spouse and child victims. Courts relying on no-fault divorce did not take into account, much less penalize, crimes against spouses and children.
Further, the financial incentives for child-support created an avenue in which children became sources of income and providers of marital assets to those charged with domestic violence or violent crimes. The financial incentive drove partners who had been the abusers to be newly re-named as victims of the crime of parental alienation so the courts could penalize the parent who was not abusive.
When courts penalized the parent who had accused their spouse of child-abuse they stripped that safe parent of the funding to defend themselves, they stripped them of their children, and they stripped the child-victims of their credibility.
Gardner’s unscientific, unproven theories gave further incentives to generate court-interventions that would theoretically evaluate, diagnose, treat, and develop corrective programs in an attempt to identify a problem that never before existed. This structure enabled the state to pull funds from the federal government in order to attempt to evaluate and develop treatment programs that needed to be supervised by judicial authorities and court administration for actual perpetrators of sexual crimes who were now being considered by the court as newly-named victims of alleged false accusations by the spouses and children they had abused.
When the theory of parental alienation burst on the scene in the 1980s, it was immediately embraced by the legal profession, who rapidly understood the potential for financial gain. Gardner’s theory allowed for the creation of complex structures, defending and opposing options for litigation, and extended trial proceedings that could be manufactured and fabricated by the legal profession.
Family law had been a deeply interpersonal form of judicial practice that involved judicial integrity and discretion. The concept of parental alienation turned family law into a killing field in which the amoral legal profession ramped up fees and facilitated the explosion of fabricated forms of intervention by the soft sciences, which had long been viewed by the courts as lacking hard evidence since they are vulnerable to hearsay testimony that could not be validated or trusted.
The former way was characterized by common sense, decency, and an interest in the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of children interviewed on camera by judges who attempted to resolve family disputes by mediation and therapy. All resonable, common sense interventions have been replaced by an industry that appears bent on destroying vulnerable children and protective parents.
Gardner’s ideas launched a cottage industry around the assessment, diagnosis, evaluation of Gardner’s diagnostic tool known as “parental alienation”. Now that cottage industry created a buzz word used to in a snap of fingers diagnose “bad” parents, intervene via separation of that parent and then “treat” the family dynamic in the flurry of so called therapeutic interventions. The “parental alienation” nomenclaure conjures the creation of a “treatment team” that the targetted (protective) parent never knew they hired. The “parental alienation treatment then springs into existence and overwhelming action and annointed power. This cottage industry that has spawned a process that is unscientific, without legitimate verification, study and analysis such as that which codifies diagnoses arrived at via the Diagnostic Statistical Manuals has evolved into a massive factory-farm industrial process that separates children from safe parents to transfer them into the hands of their abusers and for many, to their deaths.
As courts are faced with a population perceived and falsely dubbed “hostile children” children are being forced into the custody of accused abusers. the desire of a predator population of providers has found a path to whitewash or detoxify what is truly criminal acts of extraordinarily profitable acts of fraud and malfeasance
The court is acting as a part to abuse as well as a proxy for a broader spectrum of abusers, namely the newly equipped and empowered cottage industry of so called reunification therapy.
Solicitors for individuals who have been credibly accused of serious crimes wish to dissipate the legitimate criticism that could be directed at them. Their next step is to create a false narrative so that child victims of abuse are brain-washed by being made to believe the false narrative that, according to the court expert, they were not abused.
Torture and Thought Control on Children Continues with Family Reunification Training
Step one was to criminalize the one who raised the accusation of abuse. Step two was to convince the child who had been abused that they had not been abused. In order to get a child to disbelieve his or her own first-hand experience, Family Reunification Services stepped in with a program of behavioral realignment understood by the UN Commission on Human Rights to conform to the definitions of torture
Be assured, there is no program of reunification therapy that is based on any research or based on a developed body of theory that has been codified and tested. Nothing about reunification therapy is part of research in the Diagnostic Statistical Manuals that psychologists and psychiatrists look to for diagnostic instruments to defined symptomatology.
Work in the area of family therapy involves multiple forms of theoretical treatments and interventions by licensed practitioners in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and social work. These individuals practice under the rubric and rules of structural family theory as defined by Salvador Minuchin and other well know, well respected psychiatric practitioners.
Legitimate family therapy has form, content, and structures that are listened and supervised in a formal scientific setting where there is a documented process; What a stark contrast to Gardner who made up a term that has no validity. Yet, Gardner’s made up term is what the legal profession has chosen to use to strip parents of their children and to strip children of their right to live free of fear of physical, sexual, medical, and emotional abuse as well as maltreatment and neglect.
Our current amoral legal system strips children of their rights to protection of the law and strips parents of their ability to protect themselves, protect their children, and protect their material and financial resources. The consequences to the functioning of a Democratic society are nothing less than monumental
Parents who come into a civil court needing help find themselves criminalized and subject to criminal penalties. The current system deprives the vulnerable of their ability to defend themselves in any way, shape, or form as Protective parents are driven into bankruptcy by being forced to pay for providers of a team they never knew they hired or illegitimate exhaustively expensive programs such as the so called reunification therapies and therapy “camps”
A Closer Look at So-Called Family Reunification Services
Followers of Gardner’s theories have developed programs like Family Bridges which works in collaboration with the marketing program known as the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts ( AFCC ).Together they have sponsored collaborative conferences between judges, psychologists, and lawyers to provide a variety of professionals who work as expert witnesses before the court. It would be a logical benefit to find individuals who have a deep, profound understanding of the dynamics of trauma, emotional abuse, domestic violence and the legal system to work collaboratvely. However, the profit motive has served as the incentive to develop a predatory pool that advances the interests of the forces that dominate the most perverse instincts in human behavior, a perverse population with funds to protect their liberty and to preserve access to a pool of subjects for exploitation. Profit-Avarice and greed drive a system that works to deprive protective parents of their children and deprive children from becoming the people they might become if they were not put through the horrific process of reunification therapy.
Reunification therapy accepts that any complaint by a child of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse is false and unfounded and has only come into the child’s mind because of how a parent who claims abuse happened has “brainwashed” them instead of believing a child could be aware of what has happened to them. This counterintuitive process is a path to madness, to insanity, to broken children and broken parental bonds.
The expert team of the FCVFC has seen numerous documented cases in which statements in transcripts by judges and other court appointed officers state that unless a child has injuries that were substantiated by hospitalization and that the parent who raised the complaint has been murdered, the claims of abuse are unfounded.
We have seen multiple occasions with unquestionable profound physical injuries and murder of subjects where the abuser has not been prosecuted and children have not been rescued.
The court has assumed autocratic authority and has chosen to deny validation of a child’s fears of abuse and/or allegations of abuse. A child is barred from the expression of any grievance against a parent so that the child’s feelings and their voice in expressing thoughts, feelings, and experience are ignored. The very reality the child knows to be true is denied. Instead of treating a child as capable of thinking and understanding, the courts treat the child as if he or she is only a vessel to hold whatever parent’s perspective that the court believes holds sway.
Besides assigning the child to the custody of the parent that the child is protesting against, reunification services goes even farther with a program to rob the child of their sanity and mental continuity. They do this by a court-ordered program that seems designed to deliver maximum harm.
Armed with a court order by a judge, someone in one of the many cash-cow reunification services can remove a child from the home they know, transfer that child across state lines, and put the child in a hotel room guarded by enforcers who will subject the child to a program of isolation and mind control.
The goal of causing this trauma is to de-program the child’s understanding of the relationship that the child has stated has been abusive, threatening, humiliating, physically painful, and harmful. Those guiding the program demand the child have a relationship with the parent whom the child believes they have reason to be afraid of.
They overwhelmingly argue that whatever the child has stated that he or she knows the abusive parent has done to damage and harm them is presented as simply not true. Instead they are told that their experiences were something they just misinterpreted or misunderstood. The child is taught that the child is really the aggressor or bad person who is hurting the “vulnerable” parent whom the child has experienced as the perpetrator of their pain.
In order to make their reprogramming work, the people doing the reunification services not only disrupted the child by removing them from their safe parent and familiar surroundings, they also remove the child from all technology, phone, music, books, social media, and contact with any friends or family.
They allow no contact with any animals, friends, or extended family. They remove them from the school they are used to so that they have nothing familiar in their environment and no access to support services they are familiar with.
Having stripped away all forms of comfort and any means of reaching out to anyone for help, the court-ordered reunification program confines the child with the parent who has been their abuser.
This reprogramming is being done to all ages–from infants and toddlers to children and teens. The goal is to strip down the child’s identity in order to wipe the child’s mind free of all thoughts, feelings, and memories that the court insists were put in the child’s mind by the parent who the child considered safe but the court considers to be the offending parent.
Even children who have watched their abusive parent savagely murder their beloved pet have been put through this treatment.
The result? Trauma on this magnitude often leads to children being driven to madness and hospitalized because of their unmanageability in the home, school, and social environment. Once under the protection of psychiatric care some children were able to recover memories and recount experiences that could be documented that included the murder of siblings that led to the parent being prosecuted.
Time for Change
It’s time to reconsider the standard of proof in the case of child sexual abuse. There is enough evidence about children’s developmental stages and documented behaviors that authorities can know that sexual abuse has occurred. The standards imposed by family court, when they are even addressed, are inaccurate and appear to be intentional in their inaccuracy.
The damages imposed by the trauma that reunification services is imposing on children is not only devastating when it occurs but it is incalculable in the damage it continues to inflict over the lifetime as the child matures.
Every future stage of a child’s life is impacted. While the juvenile court’s jurisdiction may end when a child is 18, the damages experienced by children who have been harmed and by those who love them, will impact their entire life and future generations.
It’s time for damages to be imposed on every perpetrator of this harm. Those damages should extend to all who are part of the multi-person process of court proceedings that transfers children into such programs. Those damages should be commensurate with the damages done over the subject’s lifetime.
It’s time to evaluate criminal penalties commensurate with tort actions as well.
It’s time to evaluate actors involved in precipitating murders of innocent victims sent to their death by judges whose psychopathology mirrors the psychopathology of the perpetrators who are being exonerated and allowed to continue committing crimes.
It’s time to acknowledge, as this article makes clear, that reunification services are the product of an amoral legal and judicial family court that is driven by avarice as it inflicts profound human suffering.
It’s time. Let’s rescue the children and work to end this cruelty and madness.
Jill Jones Soderman
WHISTLEBLOWER / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FCVFC
ADMINISTRATOR – LAW FIRM – FOUNDATION FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ( FFLPI.ORG )