 There can be no doubt as to what these words refer to: for instance,"...controlling the development of behavioural patterns among thecitizenry of the USSR", clearly denotes that these computer systemshave the potential to control the behaviour of particular individuals within apopulation of 200 million, and that its large-scale use had been introducedthirty years ago. This is, presumably, one of the reasons why the recentrevolution did not stem from the people but from the upper echelons of theKremlin hierarchy. This must be seen as one of the most extensive, secretand atrocious crimes against humanity ever to be perpetrated in the history ofmankind, and the reason why discussions were not sparked in the western mass-media is because identical atrocities have taken place here. Naturally it isin the interests of the perpetrators to keep the general public well in thedark concerning the existence of such technology. VOICES IN THE SILENCE The reaction of the media to the computerisation of human beings has alwaysbeen one of denial, avoidance or complete blindness. When they present thedevelopments associated with the neurological surveillance system, onoccasions, it has been just a fragment of the truth, from which it has beencompletely impossible to get a picture of what is actually going on. One ofthe better articles, in which the technique was put into larger context, waspublished in the New York Tines on 2nd August 1977. A headline on the frontpage read: "PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS USED IN CIA EFFORT TO CONTROL BEHAVIOR".The famous media-publisher Samuel Chavkin mention the disclosure in one of hisbooks, referring to the article in the New York Times. The CIA had been conducting mind control experiments on countlessnumbers of Americans without their knowledge or consent. Some were prisoners,others were mentally ill patients, still others were cancer patients.But | there was also an unknown number of non patients who unwittingly becameexperimental subjects. The CIA activities were carried out with theparticipation of at least 185 scientists and some eighty institutions,prisons, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and forty four medical collegesand universities. As quoted by the New York Times, a CIA memorandum of January25, 1952, asked "whether it was possible to get control of an individual tothe point where he will do our CIA's bidding) against his will and evenagainst such fundamental laws of nature as self-preservation". Commenting onthis disclosure the N.Y. Times said editorially: "We are not sufficientlyschooled in ethics to know how this differs from murder...'The means as wellas the end were outrageous. It added that none know how many citizens wereused as guinea pigs and how many were directly harmed." In addition, the US Senator Sam J. Erwin Jr. included in the introduction to asub-committee report, late in 1974 the following claim: ...'behavioraltechnology in the United States today touches upon the most basic sources ofindividuality, and the very core of personal freedom. In my mind, the mostserious threat is the power this technology gives one man to impose his viewsand values on another...If our society is to remain free, one man must not beempowered to change another man's personality and dictate the values, thoughtsand feelings of another "  Transmitters implanted in an unwitting female patient during an operation atKarolinska Hospital in Stockholm in the 1970's. The lower one was placed justunder the skin by her left temple. The dark spots in her brain are reducedoxygen levels caused by the radio waves. |