Speaker 1: Fellow conspiracy realists. Thank you for joining us this evening.
Speaker 1: We sure hope you liked our classic episode on mk
Speaker 1: Ultra one oh one, because guess what, we're back with
Speaker 1: MK Ultra two oh one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the big question here is, Okay, we know
Speaker 2: what was happening or release allegedly was happening during MK Ultra,
Speaker 2: what was allowed to be released?
Speaker 3: Did it stop?
Speaker 1: And what about all the other stuff that remains unknown
Speaker 1: about MK Ultra today because there's a lot. There's so much.
Speaker 2: There's so much, and we're about to talk about it. Here.
Speaker 2: We go.
Speaker 4: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 4: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 4: learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 4: production of iHeart Radios How Stuff Works.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the show.
Speaker 2: My name is Matt, my name is Noman.
Speaker 1: They call me Ben. We are joined with our super
Speaker 1: producer Paul. Mission control decands. Most importantly, you are you,
Speaker 1: You are here, and that makes this stuff they don't
Speaker 1: want you to know. This is in some ways a
Speaker 1: sequel episode. It's a follow up to our previous episode
Speaker 1: MK Ultra one oh one, in which we described exactly
Speaker 1: what mk ultra is equally is important. We describe what
Speaker 1: it is not and how the public learned about it today. However,
Speaker 1: we are looking beyond that twisted origin story. We're going
Speaker 1: off the charted proven paths. We're going across the edges
Speaker 1: of the map. We're exploring the conspiracies and allegations related
Speaker 1: to mk Ultra in the modern day. Listeners, this episode
Speaker 1: contains content that may be disturbing to some of us
Speaker 1: in the audience, and that means you can turn back
Speaker 1: now or walk with us just a bit further away
Speaker 1: from the lights.
Speaker 3: Oh. I like that.
Speaker 2: That's a twist on it, and I really like that.
Speaker 1: It's true. As you know, Matt, this is very much
Speaker 1: true in this episode. Well, let's I mean, let's let's
Speaker 1: start off with something easy, something simple. What what is
Speaker 1: m k Ultra For anyone who said, I see M
Speaker 1: k Eltra one oh one in that podcast feed, but
Speaker 1: forget that, I want two oh one?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: Well one two?
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, I think two one is the right way
Speaker 2: to go.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: I think that's the way Georgia State would would do it.
Speaker 3: So then that's my that's my favorite Alma Mo. Yeah, So.
Speaker 2: The first thing you have to do is not think
Speaker 2: about mk Ultra as one thing. It is not one thing.
Speaker 2: It is a series of things, of projects, of experimentations,
Speaker 2: of different experiments, of different groups of people who are
Speaker 2: who were not necessarily working together. A lot of times
Speaker 2: the aims were very similar, but you know, you have
Speaker 2: different stuffy groups essentially, and it was all about, really,
Speaker 2: at the heart of it, trying to find ways to
Speaker 2: influence human beings, influence their perception, their behavior, or even
Speaker 2: get them to do some or take some action that
Speaker 2: you want them to take. And from all the official
Speaker 2: accounts of the program really didn't work out that great.
Speaker 2: They found some interesting things that could occur with drugs,
Speaker 2: with especially how drugs interact with each other. Sometimes if
Speaker 2: you get a really psychedelic trip and then influence somebody's
Speaker 2: mind down the road, or if you can keep someone
Speaker 2: within a psychedelic trip for long enough. Interesting things there.
Speaker 2: But here's the deal, most everything didn't work the way
Speaker 2: they wanted it.
Speaker 3: To, right.
Speaker 1: It turns out that the human brain was too complex
Speaker 1: for the sort of technology and tactics that Uncle Sam
Speaker 1: was applying in this case. They were famously inspired to
Speaker 1: pursue this line of research due to fears that the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union and the government of China were pursuing things
Speaker 1: and already had a jump in this sort of behavioral modification,
Speaker 1: primarily when they saw a cardinal confess to cavalcadive crimes
Speaker 1: that he clearly did not do back in the fifties,
Speaker 1: I believe, and what they thought was happening was not
Speaker 1: the case in that scenario. What they thought was happening
Speaker 1: was that this guy had been brainwashed completely and totally
Speaker 1: and believed these demonstrably false things. But it turns out
Speaker 1: that the only thing that really happened was Communist forces
Speaker 1: and security services just beat the ever loving snot out
Speaker 1: of this guy repeatedly and then, you know, psychologically abused him.
Speaker 1: And he later in life said that he said there
Speaker 1: was no spooky, spooky psychotronic stuff going on. But we
Speaker 1: do know that, as you said, Matt, some of these
Speaker 1: programs had limited success. They learned new things that would
Speaker 1: be useful later. From all official accounts, there are no
Speaker 1: Manchurian candidates, despite what Sir Hans Sirhan has claimed, and
Speaker 1: he is alive and he is in jail. He maintains
Speaker 1: that he was brainwashed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he keeps trying. He kept trying. I think it's
Speaker 2: over right, think, I don't know if he can go
Speaker 2: for parole over parole again, it might be he might
Speaker 2: be done. Maybe that's not true. That's what I feel like.
Speaker 2: I remember hearing let's put it in there anyway, and
Speaker 2: somebody correct me.
Speaker 3: I love that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So now it seems like if we if that's the
Speaker 1: only information you have about m k Ultra, now you're
Speaker 1: in a state where it seems as if this is
Speaker 1: an open and shut horrific historical events. But we're gonna
Speaker 1: shymel on it just a little bit because the problem
Speaker 1: with MK Ultra is this. The CIA purged everything they
Speaker 1: could internally find related to MK Ultra back in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy three under Director Helms.
Speaker 3: When you say purged, and what are you talking about here, and.
Speaker 1: We're talking about physically burning paperwork? This this only compounded
Speaker 1: the original problem, which was that they were not keeping
Speaker 1: much paperwork to begin with. They didn't want the trail.
Speaker 1: They wanted the minimum amount of stuff they needed to
Speaker 1: have in order to keep their ducks in a row,
Speaker 1: so they purged everything in seventy three. The public only
Speaker 1: found hard proof of the operation when a Freedom of
Speaker 1: Information Act request turned up two thousand documents that had
Speaker 1: been misfiled, two thousand documents that were supposed to have
Speaker 1: also been absolutely utterly destroyed. So this means that in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, and probably in twenty twenty, and probably in
Speaker 1: thirty nineteen, if people still care about it, we will
Speaker 1: not know the full extent of what the CIA was
Speaker 1: up to. We don't know all the experiments they conducted.
Speaker 1: We have some hints, but it's possible that we never
Speaker 1: will learn. As we noted previously, we have officially entered
Speaker 1: the realm of deathbed confessions. What do we mean by this?
Speaker 1: We mean that the only way the public will learn
Speaker 1: more about this program will be if someone who was
Speaker 1: working with it firsthand has a change of heart and
Speaker 1: confesses or provides new information because they're you know, that's
Speaker 1: how deathbed confession works. You're about to go out. You
Speaker 1: want to meet the afterlife if such exists with a
Speaker 1: clean conscience.
Speaker 2: And that is if that person even really truly understands
Speaker 2: what they were doing or experimenting on, if they were
Speaker 2: not just a tiny piece of a larger puzzle that
Speaker 2: was the experiment right, which is highly possible. That kind
Speaker 2: of plausible deniability is built into a lot of these experiments.
Speaker 5: The thing about a deathbed confession too, is like, it's
Speaker 5: what better moment is there to be able to drop
Speaker 5: a truth bomb where you don't have to be around
Speaker 5: to deal with the aftermath or the fallout the consequences
Speaker 5: directed at you, you know.
Speaker 2: Unless you have kids. Wow, that's true and grandkids, that's
Speaker 2: fair true.
Speaker 1: It's also it's also strangely common for people to make
Speaker 1: fake deathbed confessions. Sometimes that can be due to a
Speaker 1: deteriorating mental state and someone really believes that they're Jack
Speaker 1: the Ripper and you're like, oh, man, uncle Bill, you
Speaker 1: were born in nineteen seventy three. The math doesn't check out,
Speaker 1: and they're like, no, it was me. It's my dying
Speaker 1: wish that you tell the world the truth and you
Speaker 1: just have to hold their hand.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 1: That went dark. So at this point, as twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: as we record this, there has not been any large
Speaker 1: scale revelation related to m k Ultra since those investigations
Speaker 1: back in the nineteen seventies when the senators famously held
Speaker 1: up a heart attack gun in the halls of Congress
Speaker 1: and you can see this clip online. Folks. It's it's
Speaker 1: somewhat distressing the gun itself. I don't know if we
Speaker 1: talked about this in a pre Did we talk about
Speaker 1: this in a previous episode?
Speaker 3: We did?
Speaker 2: I believe we've brought I think we brought this up
Speaker 2: when we went over the control group where we Brentwood
Speaker 2: and we talked about some of this stuff. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: then before that too with a DARPA yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and assassination attempts. So it's a pretty neat idea.
Speaker 1: It's a gun that fires frozen darts of poison and
Speaker 1: they're so small that they can go through your clothing
Speaker 1: without leaving a mark. And if it works, if they
Speaker 1: successfully get the shot off, the corpse will look as
Speaker 1: if it died from a heart attack. Clever stuff, camp
Speaker 1: mall piercing. Yeah. I can't buy it in Walmart.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and don't even if it was available, Do not
Speaker 2: buy that.
Speaker 1: Don't. For anyone who is listening and not in the
Speaker 1: United States, one thing that would probably baffle you, or
Speaker 1: maybe not, is that Walmart sells guns, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: that's what we all accept as normal here. But if
Speaker 1: you're from Sweden or something and you walk into a supermarket,
Speaker 1: wouldn't you be surprised?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Probably?
Speaker 5: You know, Dick's Sporting Goods is actually phasing out the
Speaker 5: sale of guns.
Speaker 3: I think largely.
Speaker 5: Because I mean, I'm sure there was some political reasons
Speaker 5: for doing it, but I think from what I heard,
Speaker 5: it was becoming less and less profitable.
Speaker 1: That makes sense.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and for a big box store like that, you
Speaker 3: know what I mean.
Speaker 5: Usually you would go to a specialty store to buy
Speaker 5: guns or a gun show, righteah.
Speaker 2: And they're also most of them long rifles of some sort,
Speaker 2: that's right, like a shotgun or a hunting rising. Not
Speaker 2: quite as effective unless you're sniping.
Speaker 1: And no one sells the heart attack gun that we
Speaker 1: know of. So all this secrecy has led to an
Speaker 1: interesting situation. The strange and strangely incomplete story of m.
Speaker 1: K Oultra has become enshrined in conspiracy folklore. It has
Speaker 1: been associated with multitudes of other theories, and typically the
Speaker 1: gist of those theories will go the US public learned
Speaker 1: about mk Ultra. That is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Speaker 1: There's much much more beneath the surface, and if you
Speaker 1: buy my book you will learn it, which sounds a
Speaker 1: little bit cynical, but that is honestly the way it goes.
Speaker 1: And it's all based on a very valid and troubling question.
Speaker 1: What else went on from the nineteen fifties through the
Speaker 1: nineteen seventies. Furthermore, what if anything happened afterward?
Speaker 2: And we're going to delve into that right after a
Speaker 2: quick word from our sponsor.
Speaker 1: Here's where it gets crazy, more or less. Immediately after
Speaker 1: the reveal of mk Ultra, people in the United States
Speaker 1: and abroad began raising allegations of continuing related programs, and
Speaker 1: this quickly, quickly, quickly got very out there in terms
Speaker 1: of the claims. The most infamous alleged project related to
Speaker 1: mk Ultra is something called Project Monarch.
Speaker 2: Yes, and this is this is one of the one
Speaker 2: of the more out there things I would say that
Speaker 2: we're going to discuss today. There are some weird things
Speaker 2: we're going to discuss today, but this is one of
Speaker 2: the feels like it's out there because, oh, here's a
Speaker 2: little spoiler alert. It involves demons, it involves rituals, the
Speaker 2: Kabbala and mysticisms, some of our favorite things, multiple personalities
Speaker 2: and or demonic possession. So let's get into it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, all of that though within what's described as a
Speaker 5: systematic framework. So this is like some serious like X
Speaker 5: files type stuff, and it involved some things, some rituals
Speaker 5: that could be described as satanic in nature, usually involving
Speaker 5: some form of cannibalism, and performed with the intent of
Speaker 5: attaching a demon or you know, a pantheon, like a
Speaker 5: group of demons, and in order to kind of create
Speaker 5: alternate versions of individuals in the same way that you
Speaker 5: might through therapy create an alternate version of a self
Speaker 5: that didn't experience the trauma that caused you to have
Speaker 5: you know, psychological problems.
Speaker 1: Right, this, this idea of intentionally creating alters or alternate
Speaker 1: personalities isn't unique to Project Monarch. You've seen it in
Speaker 1: works of fiction. It's in hereditary. Yes, arguably, it.
Speaker 2: Feels a lot like a fictionalized version of a secret
Speaker 2: military thing or a secret project like this.
Speaker 1: And a lot of a lot of cults also practice
Speaker 1: this kind of disassociation.
Speaker 2: It's just yeah, it's just in a different form.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: You don't have to use you don't need to get
Speaker 2: demons involved, you don't need to get the cabala involved.
Speaker 2: You just start disassociating somebody through manipulation.
Speaker 1: Crowley also practiced some stuff like this, and the Illuminatus trilogy,
Speaker 1: which is a fantastic work, also depicts this. Nor your
Speaker 1: description might sound weird to some of us listening, but
Speaker 1: that is that is the case. The idea is that
Speaker 1: this this occult stuff was either a theatrical trapping or
Speaker 1: they were practicing magic to summon some sort of extra
Speaker 1: dimensional entity and make people, typically children, minors, into vessels
Speaker 1: for these creatures. That's a lot to take in. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, to to phrase it simply, we'll get back
Speaker 1: to some of this stuff, but to phrase it simply.
Speaker 1: The people who believe in Project Monarch see it as
Speaker 1: a subset of the earlier program Project Artichoke and its
Speaker 1: successor mk Ultra. One of the most well known authors
Speaker 1: on the subject of Project Monarch is a person named
Speaker 1: Kathy O'Brien. You can find multiple people who claim that
Speaker 1: they were somehow involved in this Monarch program, but Kathy
Speaker 1: O'Brien is one of the most prominent. She wrote a
Speaker 1: book called The Transformation of America. Since this is an
Speaker 1: audio show, I just want to make sure you get
Speaker 1: the pun there. Trance as in hypnotic trance and in
Speaker 1: formation as in an organization or group. So in Transformation
Speaker 1: of America, she claims she was a victim of Monarch.
Speaker 1: She relates it in the following way. She says she
Speaker 1: was sexually abused as a child on multiple occasions by
Speaker 1: various people, starting with her father and then expanding to
Speaker 1: a network of individuals who were connected with the underground
Speaker 1: world of underage pornography yikes.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and then according to the story, that's when she
Speaker 5: became a victim of Project Monarch. She describes Monarch as
Speaker 5: a project that used trauma based mind control that's in
Speaker 5: quotes there to create separate, distinct personalities within a single individual.
Speaker 5: This kind of makes you think of almost the Manchurian
Speaker 5: candidate effect, where you've got like a buried personality that
Speaker 5: can be summoned at will, or not your will, but
Speaker 5: the will of your controller.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: So, according to O'Brien, this is accomplished with the help
Speaker 5: of some of these occult trappings and of course a
Speaker 5: lot of theater of the mind. She claims, for example,
Speaker 5: that George W. Bush used holograms for intimidation, and this
Speaker 5: is a quote from Harry He said She said Bush
Speaker 5: apparently activated a hologram of the lizard like alien, which
Speaker 5: provided the illusion of Bush transforming like a chameleon before
Speaker 5: my eyes. In retrospect, I understand that Bush had been
Speaker 5: painstakingly careful in positioning our seats in order that the
Speaker 5: hologram's effectiveness be maximized.
Speaker 2: So on the surface, it sounds like somebody who's making
Speaker 2: up a story. When you're listening to it with a
Speaker 2: skeptical mind, it's difficult to not do that, I think,
Speaker 2: because it sounds so out there, it sounds so fantastical.
Speaker 1: Sit right there and watch me lizard real quick.
Speaker 2: Yeah, wait, well I need to position your seat for war.
Speaker 2: But you know, I think that's what with these kinds
Speaker 2: of things. It's difficult, even listening to it, to put
Speaker 2: your mind in a place where you can think, well,
Speaker 2: is that in any way possible or is there like,
Speaker 2: what are the what are the possible explanations for this?
Speaker 2: To have that belief that George W. Bush somehow is
Speaker 2: using hologram technology to trick you or show you something
Speaker 2: of an extraterrestrial.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it may be. Socratic method is the one of
Speaker 1: the best ways to approach this, you know, start with
Speaker 1: a question. Let's say, if that were true, what set
Speaker 1: of circumstances would compel one of the most powerful people
Speaker 1: in the world to do this. It sounds a bit tall.
Speaker 3: Order Dick Cheney didn't do anything.
Speaker 1: Oh, you know, I imagine that he was involved. He
Speaker 1: seems like a guy would be excited by holograms. Who
Speaker 1: wouldn't They're neat.
Speaker 3: I think you wouldn't.
Speaker 5: Did you guys hear that Roy Orbison and Buddy Holly
Speaker 5: are doing a hologram tour.
Speaker 3: This is now a thing, like it's really becoming a thing.
Speaker 1: Started with Tupac.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it did start with Tupac, but now it's like
Speaker 5: whole package hologram. I only bring it out because it
Speaker 5: used to be something that was used by the military. Uh,
Speaker 5: and now it's, you know, just for funzies.
Speaker 2: Churches are using that across the globe right now. The
Speaker 2: megachurches that have a single person like Andy Stanley or
Speaker 2: somebody who's giving a talk.
Speaker 1: Or Kreflow Dollar.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he's being he and they are being like
Speaker 2: turned into holograms essentially. And other churches.
Speaker 5: I would have thought they would have made one of
Speaker 5: Jesus Christ. That'd be a cool effect.
Speaker 1: It's touchy. That's a touchy one. It's tough. I mean,
Speaker 1: imagine making a hologram of any religious figure, a hologram
Speaker 1: of Buddha, a hologram of Mohammed.
Speaker 3: Well, that would be problematic, right, you know?
Speaker 2: That would be Project Bluebeam.
Speaker 1: Yep, which is which is a different show. The important
Speaker 1: part here before we get to sidetracked holograms. The important
Speaker 1: part here is the timing of this, because the allegation
Speaker 1: then is not just that prominent world leaders are resorting
Speaker 1: to this technology to to traumatize children. It's that this
Speaker 1: technology existed in their circle before it existed anywhere else.
Speaker 2: But the big question is why would someone do that?
Speaker 1: And it doesn't stay in the US. O'Brien paints a
Speaker 1: global portrait of abuse. She claims that forces in Mexico,
Speaker 1: the US, Europe, Saudi Arabia more are all actively involved
Speaker 1: in Monarch and its successors, its successor programs for the
Speaker 1: express purpose of creating sex slaves and maintaining child abuse rings.
Speaker 1: Several years ago, that would have sounded impossible. Several years ago,
Speaker 1: it would have ohbrien claims to have phenomenal photographic rec
Speaker 1: of these events, despite previously suppressing them. Or having them
Speaker 1: suppressed by shadowy government agents. Her recollections in her book
Speaker 1: come overwhelmingly, almost entirely from what's called hypnotic regression. Hypnotic
Speaker 1: regression is a is a process in which a hypnotist
Speaker 1: sits with a person and takes them into a trance
Speaker 1: state and guides them through reliving past experiences. The big
Speaker 1: problem with hypnotic regression.
Speaker 3: Is the G word. You just said. They're being guided.
Speaker 1: Guided, there we go, yeah.
Speaker 2: Right, because the ideas can be slightly influenced with this
Speaker 2: tiny keyword or a tiny word that is thrown in
Speaker 2: during the guidance process that then leads the You know,
Speaker 2: how do you know if the person your subject, if
Speaker 2: it's their imagination that's taking you down that path, or
Speaker 2: or if they're actually recalling an event that's taking them
Speaker 2: down that path of recollection? Is it recollection or fiction?
Speaker 2: And there's no real way to tell right right there.
Speaker 1: The problem is that if you're putting an individual in
Speaker 1: a state of enhanced suggestibility, then they're very open to guiding.
Speaker 1: And this is not to say that the hypnotists in
Speaker 1: question are purposely doing this. No, it's just very easy
Speaker 1: to accidentally take someone in a weird in a weird direction.
Speaker 1: And you know, we know that memory betrays us and
Speaker 1: most of our memories are increasingly works of fiction as
Speaker 1: we age. But that's let's leave let's leave O'Brien and
Speaker 1: Monarch there right now in a second, yes.
Speaker 2: And let's just go ahead in and put forth right here.
Speaker 2: That you may see online accusations of a lot of
Speaker 2: pop stars, and generally younger female pop stars, there are
Speaker 2: a lot of accusations that they have been into visually
Speaker 2: involved in Monarch in some way. A lot of times
Speaker 2: you'll see allegations of a music video like a Katy
Speaker 2: Perry music video or a Britney Spears was a big
Speaker 2: one back in the day of look at the symbology,
Speaker 2: look at the symbols happening in these videos. This is
Speaker 2: Project Monarch, like them showing us without telling us in
Speaker 2: a way like almost flaunting it. You'll see that a lot.
Speaker 2: You'll see when when a young pop star has a breakdown,
Speaker 2: like a public breakdown, that Project Monarch gets brought up
Speaker 2: a lot. Especially especially what I'm recalling is when Britney
Speaker 2: Spears like shaved her head and ago, yes exactly, he
Speaker 2: leave Brittany, Well, that was a part of it. But genuinely,
Speaker 2: that's when you will see a lot of that stuff
Speaker 2: cropping up as part of the trauma that was supposedly
Speaker 2: given to her or that she experienced through Project Monarch.
Speaker 2: Just putting that out.
Speaker 1: There and other people's that the world of the world
Speaker 1: of entertainment music especially is already crooked and horrific and
Speaker 1: just sad empathetic enough without needing to add in that
Speaker 1: other the other problems. But it's true, and that's a
Speaker 1: very good point. You can find numerous lists of people
Speaker 1: like Amanda Bynes, Britney Spears, who else, tell us tell
Speaker 1: us your favorites, right, Oh, Katie Perry, as you said, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Margo Kidder, Margot Kidders.
Speaker 2: I don't know who that is.
Speaker 3: She played Lois Lane in the Christopher Reeve Superman movies.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and she was found like wandering naked, I believe
Speaker 5: in other people's yards in Beverly Hills.
Speaker 3: Who. Yeah, she had like a an episode. She was not.
Speaker 1: Well and she was not gang stalked, but other people
Speaker 1: have been. This is this is something related to m
Speaker 1: k Ultra that you will hear a lot. Some of
Speaker 1: us listening now have asked us in the past to
Speaker 1: cover gang stalking, and we can do an entire episode
Speaker 1: on it, so we'll just give you the broad strokes here.
Speaker 1: Gang Stalking is the idea that a person, for one
Speaker 1: reason or another, will be surreptitiously monitored and followed in
Speaker 1: person by a group of unidentified people. So imagine you
Speaker 1: wherever you're at. Now, imagine that you get up and
Speaker 1: you walk outside and there's someone in the distance in
Speaker 1: the corner. They have a green hat on, and you
Speaker 1: see them, but you don't know. You might not be
Speaker 1: in a town where people wave at strangers, so you
Speaker 1: just keep walking. You go to a store and while
Speaker 1: you're in the store, let's say you're feeling healthy, so
Speaker 1: you buy some juice and some almonds, and then the
Speaker 1: person who rings you up is looking at you weird.
Speaker 1: Look behind you. There's someone in a green hat at
Speaker 1: the end of Aisle three, pretending to shop, but just
Speaker 1: sort of standing there.
Speaker 3: And you know they're pretending to shop.
Speaker 1: And you know they're pretending to shop, and you leave,
Speaker 1: walking back, and as you're walking back, you see three
Speaker 1: other people, possibly in green hats, possibly not, and they're
Speaker 1: all just sort of standing around as if they're waiting
Speaker 1: for you. One person is on a phone talking. You
Speaker 1: can't hear what they're saying, but they are staring directly
Speaker 1: at you. That's Gang's talking.
Speaker 2: It's essentially the Truman Show.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: If you are Truman, it feels as though for the
Speaker 2: person experiencing it, or believing they're experiencing it, it feels like
Speaker 2: you are Truman.
Speaker 1: And it's a more malicious Truman Show.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Yes, So is this harassment? Is a paranoia? Is it
Speaker 1: good old fashioned spycraft? All three of those answers, in
Speaker 1: at least a few cases are correct. Yeah, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean for someone experiencing perhaps a short term
Speaker 2: high paranoia situation or feeling like I can imagine this.
Speaker 2: I think I've probably experienced like short term gang stocking
Speaker 2: at the height of a time in my life when
Speaker 2: I'm feeling unsure, or something where I just feel as
Speaker 2: though everyone around me is out.
Speaker 3: To get me, just for a moment, you know what
Speaker 3: I mean.
Speaker 2: I think we've all maybe experienced something like that where
Speaker 2: everything just feels off, And there are a lot of
Speaker 2: people out there who have experienced that before and for
Speaker 2: perhaps more deep seated problems. They've experienced that, But we
Speaker 2: do know that that kind of surveillance on somebody, like
Speaker 2: actual on the ground surveillance occurs, and it does, and
Speaker 2: it's not that uncommon.
Speaker 1: It's not that uncommon. It's sloppy spycraft, yes, because typically
Speaker 1: you would want your observer to be unnoticed.
Speaker 3: Yea.
Speaker 1: But it also happens in other countries, especially authoritarian countries
Speaker 1: or dictatorships. It'll probably it'll probably phase out a little
Speaker 1: bit as digital surveillance becomes overwhelmingly efficient.
Speaker 2: Yeah, at this point, you could just get into somebody's
Speaker 2: cell phone and then it could be on a table
Speaker 2: and you got everything you need right right.
Speaker 1: And by the way, we got a great email from
Speaker 1: our essay intern we did it was moving on. Congratulations
Speaker 1: and we'll go. Let's go to Gang Stocking in its
Speaker 1: own episode. Let's make that an episode in the future, okay.
Speaker 1: And in the meantime, we'd like to hear your stories
Speaker 1: about gang Stocking. We'd like to know what you would
Speaker 1: like to share with your fellow listeners. For now, it
Speaker 1: seems that we have monarch as a as a thing
Speaker 1: that's universally dismissed by a lot of the mainstream. We
Speaker 1: have gang stocking, which is problematic, but we do know
Speaker 1: that mk ultra is moving forward at least in the
Speaker 1: legal system and not here in the US.
Speaker 2: That's right, we have to go to Canada for a
Speaker 2: look into a class action lawsuit. We're going to do
Speaker 2: that right after another word from our sponsor.
Speaker 1: Oh Canada. So we had spoken in mk Ultra one
Speaker 1: oh one about the two unsuccessful lawsuits here in the
Speaker 1: States related to mk ultra. In Canada, there is a
Speaker 1: class action suit in the works now. Survivors and families
Speaker 1: people who are affected by mk ultra and the CIA
Speaker 1: mind control program at a place called McGill University's Allen
Speaker 1: Memorial Institute in Montreal are going to sue Quebec and
Speaker 1: the federal governments both the US and Canada because of
Speaker 1: what they say had been done to them five decades ago. Well,
Speaker 1: you can follow this group on Facebook Survivors Allied against
Speaker 1: Government Abuse. The acronym would be SAGA with two aays
Speaker 1: at the beginning. And this includes victims and family members
Speaker 1: of victims of Canadians who participated in brainwashing experiments under
Speaker 1: the supervision of a man named doctor Ewen Cameron. He
Speaker 1: was director of the Psychiatric hospital from the forties, fifties,
Speaker 1: and sixties, he did something that would be familiar to
Speaker 1: fans of the control group. He conducted these experiments that
Speaker 1: were called deep patterning or psychic driving. What they essentially
Speaker 1: did through a number of a number of techniques. They
Speaker 1: would try to erase the patient's memories, which is not
Speaker 1: an impossible thing to do, and then go a step
Speaker 1: further an attempt to reprogram them with new thoughts. One
Speaker 1: of the examples of this would include forcing someone to
Speaker 1: listen to repetitive audio loop over and over and over again,
Speaker 1: four hours and hours on end, while also drugging them
Speaker 1: to keep them in a comatose or semi comatose unconscious state.
Speaker 1: So this could last for as long as three days.
Speaker 1: Just you're put under, you're administered like the food and
Speaker 1: water you need to survive, and the entire time, there's
Speaker 1: some tape saying, you know, probably in the doctor's voice
Speaker 1: or maybe in your own voice. Yeah, when it's like
Speaker 1: I can only trust doctor Frederick, doctor Frederick wants me.
Speaker 2: Well, certainly most effective in your voice, I think, as
Speaker 2: the patient, air as the subject, because then it becomes
Speaker 2: your own inner dialogue.
Speaker 1: Right, and you're in a state of sensory deprivation when
Speaker 1: you're put under.
Speaker 3: So yikes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this is this is really weird, creepy stuff.
Speaker 2: And if you want an example of a fictionalized version
Speaker 2: of it again, check out Control Group. It's available right now,
Speaker 2: all episodes and season two is going to be happening
Speaker 2: at some point.
Speaker 1: That is true. Yeah, it's a creepy story. It's creepy story.
Speaker 1: The Canadian government gave doctor Cameron roughly half a million
Speaker 1: dollars between nineteen fifty and nineteen sixty five and twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: If we wanted to adjust for inflation, that's four million
Speaker 1: bucks US. They gave him four million bucks. And then
Speaker 1: the CIA also gave him money through one of those
Speaker 1: front organizations that you mentioned our previous episode, Matt, the
Speaker 1: Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology.
Speaker 3: That's great, So are we for it? Or again it.
Speaker 2: Are we for? Are we for mk ultra in general?
Speaker 5: The various projects, the various projects, But let's hear some
Speaker 5: arguments for and against.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's let's start with Monarch.
Speaker 1: That sounds good, yes, yes, So the first thing we
Speaker 1: should be very very clear about. So when you say
Speaker 1: four four or against we're saying for or against them
Speaker 1: actually existing, the veracity of these claims. We're not we're
Speaker 1: not arguing that we support projects.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean that's your position.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, that's true, that's true.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, it is a democracy.
Speaker 5: But no, it's exactly I mean, this is it's a cliche,
Speaker 5: but this is utterly shrouded in mystery. There's a lot
Speaker 5: of conjecture that goes into picking this stuff apart. So
Speaker 5: what are the arguments for its existence versus against its existence?
Speaker 2: Okay, well, okay, let's again. We'll start with Project Monarch, right, Okay,
Speaker 2: we're talking about how we got these fy A documents
Speaker 2: for m k Ultra in general. Right, overall, there is
Speaker 2: no in any of those documents that talk about ways
Speaker 2: to implant demons and or use ancient mysticism or anything
Speaker 2: to that effect to have a thing called Project Monarch.
Speaker 2: It doesn't exist. Right through. The primary evidence that you're
Speaker 2: gonna find for Project Monarch is somebody online somewhere generally,
Speaker 2: or speaking in a book or something saying I was
Speaker 2: a part of Project Monarch as a victim slash subject.
Speaker 1: I like this so intellectual exercise counterpoint, the majority of
Speaker 1: mk ultra documents were destroyed.
Speaker 3: It's true.
Speaker 2: It's true. So when we say the counterpoint, yeah, it's
Speaker 2: a great counterpoint.
Speaker 3: Most of them were destroyed.
Speaker 2: And you would probably want to destroy something if you
Speaker 2: had anything written down about using demons to manipulate people
Speaker 2: and create sex slaves.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, agreed, you just toss off sex slaves.
Speaker 3: Just like nothing.
Speaker 2: Well I did, because that's essentially what that is, essentially
Speaker 2: what the monarch is supposed to be about. Right, whether
Speaker 2: it's a lot of times alleged it's a sex slave,
Speaker 2: like an iconic sex slave like a Britney Spears, or
Speaker 2: someone that then projects out to millions of people across
Speaker 2: the planet, what what what it should be to belimates essentially,
Speaker 2: or it's a single human being who is being you know,
Speaker 2: abused and like in the shadows by someone powerful.
Speaker 1: So we know that, unfortunately and tragically, we know that
Speaker 1: the entertainment industry, from film to music and so on,
Speaker 1: is rife with widespread, covered up sexual abuse. We do
Speaker 1: know that, we know that we know a lot of
Speaker 1: the people who've done that are never going to see
Speaker 1: a day in court. They're never going to go to jail.
Speaker 2: But some of them actually are now.
Speaker 1: But some Yeah, a few, sure, but I guess that's
Speaker 1: better than nothing. We also know that intelligence agencies across
Speaker 1: the world use honeypot traps. Right, that's where you get
Speaker 1: you get compromit, as the Russians would call it, on
Speaker 1: someone by filming them in a sexually compromising situation, usually
Speaker 1: with a paid professional sex worker, but occasionally with someone
Speaker 1: who has been coerced into playing that role, like the
Speaker 1: Ppe tape right, like the that may or may not exist,
Speaker 1: right from the Steele dossier right for the current president.
Speaker 1: That's that's one of the hot allegations. There is one
Speaker 1: funny story. Because we're we're exploring some dark and disturbing things,
Speaker 1: I can at least give us one less terrible story.
Speaker 1: You can read this in the War Is Boring The
Speaker 1: War Is Boring section on medium dot com by Darien Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: The CIA and the KGB both to blackmail Indonesia's first president,
Speaker 1: a man who went by the name Sukarno, because Indonesia
Speaker 1: played an important role in the Cold War between the
Speaker 1: US and the USSR, which is all it all comes
Speaker 1: back to that usually in this time in history, they
Speaker 1: decided to do a honeypot scheme. The KGB operatives dressed
Speaker 1: as flight attendants and had group sexual relations with the dictator.
Speaker 1: And then the CIA produced a essentially a pornographic film,
Speaker 1: and they thought that they would be able to use
Speaker 1: this on the dictator. You know what I mean, get
Speaker 1: in line with our ideas or we will expose you,
Speaker 1: you dirty, dirty dog. And the problem is the problem
Speaker 1: is into it. He was very happy be with it.
Speaker 1: He asked for copies. He liked to show it to people.
Speaker 1: It was like icebreaker for the It's like, look, look, look, look,
Speaker 1: look these are flight attendants. Move yeah. Yeah, it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, let me play that part again. Somebody rewind
Speaker 1: this because this is like, I'm really proud of this one.
Speaker 1: Uh So this is not.
Speaker 2: A bunch of flight attendants get together in film, the
Speaker 2: important people.
Speaker 1: So uh so it did backfire, right, And I think
Speaker 1: that's I think that's a hilarious story. It's a hilarious
Speaker 1: story about evil people. But the reason it's important is
Speaker 1: because it shows us that these sorts of operations do exist. However,
Speaker 1: again to your point, Matt, there is no mention of
Speaker 1: monarch and any MK Ultra documents, there's no mention of
Speaker 1: monarch in anything official. Religious and political scholars criticize Kathy
Speaker 1: O'Brien's claims because they say there is absolutely no supporting evidence,
Speaker 1: and at this point there is absolutely no supporting evidence.
Speaker 1: David G. Robinson characterized them as symptomatic of something called
Speaker 1: moral panic and noted that no one has ever been
Speaker 1: prosecuted of such crimes, nor as any corroborrety material evidence
Speaker 1: ever been produced.
Speaker 2: It just stinks that you can't you can't just take
Speaker 2: that for what it is, because you have to go
Speaker 2: back to the point of if any of this was
Speaker 2: actually happening happening, it would be suppressed so hard that
Speaker 2: maybe just we would never know about it.
Speaker 1: Right. And also also even if someone who is a
Speaker 1: survivor of abuse doesn't have all of the facts or
Speaker 1: the dates at their command, that doesn't mean that they're lying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're right, And I've brought with me today an old
Speaker 1: friend of ours, this book Outbreak, The Encyclopedia of Extraordinary
Speaker 1: Social Behavior, which is about moral panics and how they spread.
Speaker 1: I highly recommend this book for anyone who is interested
Speaker 1: in seeing just how quickly moral panics can spread. It's
Speaker 1: always the idea of something either so morally reprehensible and
Speaker 1: against social mores that are universally acknowledged to be good things.
Speaker 1: So that would be stuff like cannibalism, child abuse, etc.
Speaker 1: All the terrible, terrible things, or something that is alarming
Speaker 1: and possibly life threatening. People are frightened because a new
Speaker 1: report says that you will get eye cancer in two
Speaker 1: weeks if you don't drink coffee. So the stores all
Speaker 1: sell out at coffee. Yeah, people are fighting over coffee.
Speaker 1: And then later the same paper that published that publishes
Speaker 1: a retraction on page ten and no one reads it.
Speaker 1: Coffee prices go through the roof smart evil.
Speaker 2: Let's do it right now.
Speaker 1: We can't we go that we do it on any guy.
Speaker 1: So it's true though, I mean, it doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: people are stupid. It means that we're easily led to
Speaker 1: We have this idea of what the right thing to
Speaker 1: do is, and we want to be on the right
Speaker 1: side of history, right, so we will do what we can.
Speaker 1: And sometimes we should research, research this stuff before we
Speaker 1: react to it. And then there's another burning question. This
Speaker 1: is a big counterpoint noel for four or against. If
Speaker 1: this is true, if any of this is true, then
Speaker 1: how are these project monarch survivors alive. How are they
Speaker 1: publishing books? How are they writing about this and not
Speaker 1: you know, committing suicide by getting tied into a duffel
Speaker 1: bag or having shot themselves twice in the back of
Speaker 1: the head.
Speaker 3: Because it's not entirely.
Speaker 1: True, I'm asking like, it seems like if there were
Speaker 1: an organization this powerful, this story would never have gotten out. Right.
Speaker 5: It certainly does seem like that, especially considering the purging
Speaker 5: that went down.
Speaker 1: You know, great first place, Yeah, great point.
Speaker 3: So where is this name coming from?
Speaker 5: I mean, there was no the name wasn't in any
Speaker 5: kind of any kind of documentation. Where does this begin
Speaker 5: to circulate? Do we even have an origin for that?
Speaker 5: The way this information got out into.
Speaker 1: The public record primarily from people who say that they
Speaker 1: survived the program, So anecdotes.
Speaker 5: And are they corroborated, Like are they people who knew
Speaker 5: each other or I mean just wondering if there is
Speaker 5: any connection between these people or this is interesting.
Speaker 1: It's tricky because it goes back to the hypnotic regression question.
Speaker 1: There may well be people who say they knew each
Speaker 1: other now but their story changed as their sessions continued.
Speaker 1: There were also stories of people so in the universe
Speaker 1: of this people are not meeting one another under their
Speaker 1: real names. You're nine years old, you meet a ten
Speaker 1: year old who is called different names. These horrific things
Speaker 1: occur to you. You never see a ten year old again,
Speaker 1: but you learned that they have died. So it has
Speaker 1: baked in difficulty when it comes to tracking or corroborating things.
Speaker 1: And it's part of the Satanic panic, honestly, the moral
Speaker 1: panic that swept through the US and really peaked in
Speaker 1: the nineteen eighties. If you were around in the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: then you know about this, right D and D was
Speaker 1: a herald of dark Satanic times to come. Everybody with
Speaker 1: any sort of authority that was not religious, any secular power,
Speaker 1: was part of the Illuminati. They were dressing in robes,
Speaker 1: they were circling around. There were killing goats, children, eating people,
Speaker 1: human flesh. They were doing bohemian grove stuff, but not
Speaker 1: with an effigy with people. Those are the ideas. This
Speaker 1: made some big careers in journalism and in the publishing world,
Speaker 1: and at this point still despite all the public attention,
Speaker 1: there's been no evidence of a widespread event of this nature.
Speaker 1: And that's an important point because it's not like it's
Speaker 1: just the five of us, you know, you listening, the
Speaker 1: three of us and the mission control. It's not like
Speaker 1: it's just five people looking into this. This was a nation.
Speaker 1: These were news networks. They were pouring millions into this
Speaker 1: search and they came up with buppkis. There have, however,
Speaker 1: been several cases of child abuse networks functioning in the
Speaker 1: halls of power in Belgium, in the US, in the UK.
Speaker 1: These abuse networks are real, they're just not necessarily satanic,
Speaker 1: and they're not necessarily tied to intelligence agencies, at least
Speaker 1: the ones we found.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and the.
Speaker 2: Satanic angle is almost like an This is one way
Speaker 2: to think about it. If you place Satanism and the
Speaker 2: devil and that kind of evil on top of something
Speaker 2: like this that may even be provable with in some
Speaker 2: way or another or spoken about by enough people, if
Speaker 2: you place those labels on it, it becomes so crazy
Speaker 2: and out there that it almost becomes impossible that these
Speaker 2: kinds of abuse networks could function at that level.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: It makes you believe that it's impossible when you bring
Speaker 2: the devil and evil into it like that, rather than
Speaker 2: it just being a group of powerful people that have
Speaker 2: really messed up things that they like to do. Does
Speaker 2: that make any sense?
Speaker 5: Does not mentioned that the whole idea of like secret
Speaker 5: Satanic organizations has been time and time again disproven, Like
Speaker 5: the idea of like the whole Satanic panic thing. It's
Speaker 5: a panic because no one's really doing in the way
Speaker 5: that you might think, you know what I'm saying, like
Speaker 5: even like the child murders at robin Hood Hill or whatever,
Speaker 5: Like the idea that there are groups of quote unquote
Speaker 5: Satan worshippers that are doing human sacrifices and stuff. I
Speaker 5: mean always to me, what's been proven out is that
Speaker 5: it's much more of a form of protest and kind
Speaker 5: of like a middle finger to the man and like
Speaker 5: you know, organized religion than it is some kind of
Speaker 5: shadowy cabal doing rituals in like a dungeon somewhere right.
Speaker 1: And the thing is that these two things are these
Speaker 1: two practices are often conflated. There are criminals like Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein who repeatedly abuse children, and they can have cover
Speaker 1: ups occur, like Jeffrey Epstein who again repeatedly abused children
Speaker 1: and as of now totally got away with it. Then
Speaker 1: there are groups who are pursuing a religious or ceremonial thing,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. Like they get to like
Speaker 1: Anton Leavey is not a deistic Satanist. It's not someone
Speaker 1: who acknowledges the existence of a Judeo Christian Islamic God.
Speaker 1: And then some adversary incided with the bad guy. And
Speaker 1: they're very much against any kind of abuse. You know,
Speaker 1: they get a bad rap, but absolutely, but we do
Speaker 1: know that there are times when this sort of child
Speaker 1: abuse draped in Satanic ritual has occurred. True Detective Season one,
Speaker 1: which is fantastic, seems at least partially inspired by a
Speaker 1: genuine child abuse network that operated out of a church
Speaker 1: in Ponchatoula, Louisiana. For the record, the creator of the show,
Speaker 1: Nick Pizolado, initially said I had no idea this was
Speaker 1: a thing. I don't know what you're talking about, but also.
Speaker 5: Said that about a couple other aspects we sort of
Speaker 5: lifted for that first season too, right right, right exactly
Speaker 5: some of the philosophical writings that Rust Cole's character spouted.
Speaker 5: I don't remember who it was, but it was sort
Speaker 5: of a modern day philosophy guy who he kind of
Speaker 5: lifted some of those lines.
Speaker 1: From absolutely and maybe he should have just come clean
Speaker 1: and been transparent about it. But we also know there's
Speaker 1: an elephant in the room. Several of us listening are saying,
Speaker 1: how are you guys going to talk about this kind
Speaker 1: of stuff and not mention the Catholic Church. Members of
Speaker 1: the Catholic Church actively covered up numerous cases of child
Speaker 1: abuse for at the very very least decades. And if
Speaker 1: current behavior or recent behavior was any indication that we're
Speaker 1: looking at a phenomenon that goes back centuries and.
Speaker 2: It's so widespread that it's at the very top of
Speaker 2: the organizational structure.
Speaker 1: Right, So the more cynical among us will often regard
Speaker 1: monarch claim as either a delusion, an indication of being
Speaker 1: mentally unwell, or blatant cash grab. But there's no denying
Speaker 1: child abuse is real. There's no indication that the US
Speaker 1: government actively poured money into a program designed to brainwash
Speaker 1: people through the abuse of minors. And this brings up
Speaker 1: the phenomenon that we're we've explored before, but it's key
Speaker 1: to this, and we've been we've been getting closer and
Speaker 1: closer to that in this episode. The problem of individual
Speaker 1: actors versus institutional actors make up a name for a.
Speaker 2: Politician, Kringle Rickenbuck.
Speaker 1: Okay, So Kringle Rickenback, representative in uh Idaho is found
Speaker 1: to be committing flagrant, repeated acts of abuse of some
Speaker 1: kind of abuse. Okay, and Kringle Rickenbach turns out it
Speaker 1: has been getting really weird with it too. He wears
Speaker 1: some kind of ritual mask. He's got a robe and
Speaker 1: a apron, a little dance he does before he eats
Speaker 1: people whatever. He's really messed up guy. But even even
Speaker 1: though he's proven to have committed these, he goes to jail.
Speaker 1: He's insane. And this doesn't mean that the government or
Speaker 1: the constituency he represented co signed this in any way.
Speaker 1: They were voting for him because of his stance on
Speaker 1: taxes and they did not know he was accountable. So
Speaker 1: he's an individual actor. However, let's take a real world case,
Speaker 1: in the case of Jimmy Saville or several Catholic priests,
Speaker 1: there's an institution that actively aids and abets the criminals involved.
Speaker 1: The Catholic Church covered up for sexual abusers, and high
Speaker 1: society in England, including law enforcement and including the government,
Speaker 1: right parliament, media, corporations of UBC. They covered up this,
Speaker 1: these crimes, and that means it's a matter of institutional actors.
Speaker 1: So the big question and is people in the US
Speaker 1: government were doing horrific, dirty things. Were they doing it
Speaker 1: as individuals or were they doing it as representatives of
Speaker 1: an institution. That's the big question, and it's tough to answer.
Speaker 1: But we do have some good news, at least for
Speaker 1: people seeking justice in Canada.
Speaker 2: Remember that lawsuit we mentioned at the top of this section, Well,
Speaker 2: let's get into that a little bit. So the court
Speaker 2: still has to certify certain things about this, right, but
Speaker 2: here's some quotations some things we know about it thus far.
Speaker 2: So there's this doctor and doctor Cameron, and the lawsuit
Speaker 2: states that his tactics were nothing more than an electronic lobotomy,
Speaker 2: and it also claims that he damaged a lot of
Speaker 2: his other patients' brains and shattered their psychees and left
Speaker 2: them unable to function in a society and within their families.
Speaker 2: So this one doctor came Cameron, really did some seemingly
Speaker 2: horrific things, at least according to the lawsuit, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, And he died. He has since passed
Speaker 1: away of a heart attack in nineteen ninety two. The
Speaker 1: government of Canada paid seventy seven of his victims a
Speaker 1: settlement of one hundred thousand dollars and rejected the claims
Speaker 1: of more than two hundred and fifty others.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 2: So maybe just the most egregious offending moments, I guess.
Speaker 1: And probably the way that large governments were people who
Speaker 1: could provide a paper trail proving where they were and win.
Speaker 1: The case may go to court, hopefully it will, but
Speaker 1: according to the National Post, the Government of Canada is
Speaker 1: going to be in an antagonistic position for the course
Speaker 1: of this legal proceeding. The Government of Canada asked a
Speaker 1: third party, a guy named George T. H. Cooper, to
Speaker 1: conduct an inquiry into doctor Cameron's depatterning work between nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty and sixty five, and this Cooper report, which was
Speaker 1: concluded in nineteen eighty six, said that Canada did not
Speaker 1: hold any legal liability or moral responsibility in respect to
Speaker 1: these treatments. So Canada said, uh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, hands up.
Speaker 1: We're both throwing our hands up like that. Canada says
Speaker 1: not us, not us, and McGill University Health Center also
Speaker 1: said Cameron carried out these experiments, but they were not
Speaker 1: responsible for his actions. So they're also saying not us.
Speaker 2: Not us bad Apple, not us bad.
Speaker 1: Apple, not an institution an individual. And this leads to
Speaker 1: some conclusions, or as close as we can get at
Speaker 1: this point. Missing information about mk Ultra will continue to
Speaker 1: feed conspiratorial theories, claims, anecdotes and so on, and we
Speaker 1: probably won't be We can disprove some stuff, but we
Speaker 1: will never be able to fully understand what mk ultra
Speaker 1: actually did exactly.
Speaker 2: And there, you know, it's so funny. The lack of
Speaker 2: transparency here is the big issue, at least from the
Speaker 2: government side. If these documents were available at some point
Speaker 2: for everybody to see them, it would be more of
Speaker 2: a oh wow, look at what we did back then.
Speaker 2: That's pretty brutal.
Speaker 3: Oh man.
Speaker 2: I hope we at least gained some knowledge from that,
Speaker 2: from putting all these people through this terrible trauma. Hopefully
Speaker 2: we can get some justice for those people. But now
Speaker 2: it's just it's just a breeding ground for much worse
Speaker 2: ideas because of that lack of transparency.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. We can keep an eye on the Canadian lawsuit.
Speaker 1: Legally speaking, that's the only thing continuing right now and
Speaker 1: maybe maybe we'll learn some more information about a specific
Speaker 1: project of MK Ultra. Right, and maybe that's how we
Speaker 1: get things. Maybe we collect breadcrumbs. But that means it
Speaker 1: takes a long time to build the whole loaf.
Speaker 2: You know, it sounds like a whole podcast.
Speaker 1: It just a podcast on figuring out.
Speaker 5: Figuring out Well, we had talked about having Russell tark
Speaker 5: back on.
Speaker 1: That's true.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it could be just a thing.
Speaker 2: Let's just get him to host a show where he
Speaker 2: remote views to track down the scientists who are involved
Speaker 2: in MK Ultra programs and then does hypnotic regression on
Speaker 2: them and or remote viewing with them and teaches them
Speaker 2: to go back and remember.
Speaker 1: I like the pitch. Let's do it so also, I mean, also,
Speaker 1: we are reaching the point where, just due to the
Speaker 1: limitations of human life span, a lot of people who
Speaker 1: could make a deathbed confession have already died. You know
Speaker 1: what I mean?
Speaker 3: There we go.
Speaker 1: We do want to include on a on a last note,
Speaker 1: one of the most important things in any episode dealing
Speaker 1: with this sort of subject matter is this, If you
Speaker 1: are a survivor of abuse, or if you know someone
Speaker 1: who has survived abuse, please be aware that you are
Speaker 1: not alone. There are numerous organizations, both government funded and private,
Speaker 1: that are there for you to provide free counseling, to
Speaker 1: provide resources, to provide therapy. We do hope that you
Speaker 1: reach out to these sources. They are there for you.
Speaker 1: There is someone waiting to.
Speaker 2: Help you, absolutely and if you want to.
Speaker 1: And that's our classic episode for this evening. We can't
Speaker 1: wait to hear your thoughts. We try to be easy
Speaker 1: to find online.
Speaker 5: Find it in the handle conspiracy Stuff, where we exist
Speaker 5: on Facebook X and YouTube, on Instagram and TikTok.
Speaker 3: We're conspiracy Stuff. Show call our number.
Speaker 2: It's one eight three three std WYTK, leave a voicemail.
Speaker 1: And if you have more to say, we can't wait
Speaker 1: to hear from you at our good old fashioned email
Speaker 1: address where we are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2: Stuff they Don't Want You to Know is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.