Appendix 309: Gangstalking 101: Rockefeller-Tavistock-CIA-MKULTRA Mind Control & Torture, Psychiatry as War Weapon; Psychiatrists as 5th Column “Shock Troops,” & Gangstalkers as “Counter-gangs” in “Counterinsurgency” To Control Civilians (Insights from D.A. Hughes, 2024)

Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography

July 28, 2025:

Webmaster’s Introduction: Having spent most of 2012 researching and writing an extended article entitled Mind Control: History and Applications, and then realizing the following year I was being “targeted” myself, I am certainly no stranger to these horrific topics. I include the following passages from Chapter 2 (Shock and Stress, pp. 47-52) in Dr. David A. Hughes’ “”Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy” here because they concisely summarize especially important insights into the origins and nature of the “TI Program” aka “Organized Stalking-Electronic Torture” as a form of state-sponsored social engineering and covert counterinsurgency warfare (aka “low-intensity conflict”) against and torture of targeted individuals (TIs) and populations.

This information elicits several new hypotheses for this extended series: “Is Crestone/Baca, Colorado, the “Vatican City of the New World Order?” An Expose of the New World Religion.”

Hypothesis 1: Given the proportionately great number religious groups and cults in Crestone/Baca (where the number of religious groups/cults is over 30 and the population is about 1500), is there also a disproportionate number of psychologists/psychiatrists here operating openly or in cognito as 5th Column “shock troops” as part of government and/or UN  “counterinsurgency warfare” ops against the civilian population?

Hypothesis 2:  Do the gangstalkers in this area function as “counter-gangs” as envisioned and deployed by British Brigadier General Frank Kitson against Third World peoples controlled by the British empire?

Hypothesis 3: Are the psychiatric “shock troops” and “counter-gangs” (gangstalkers) in the Crestone/Baca area carrying out classic “counterinsurgency” operations in which blacklisted individuals and groups are targeted for torture and neutralization?

Hypothesis 4: Are individuals and groups within Crestone/Baca, Colorado subjected to “low-intensity warfare” and “counterinsurgency” military-intelligence ops as have been deployed against British and American “colonies” in the past?

Hypothesis 5: Is it possible to trace the funding of these operations back to specific governmental, military, or intelligence agencies and/or their cutouts (partners) in the private sector?

As a “targeted individual” myself, I have reason to believe that the first four of these hypotheses are correct.  I will state my reasons for making this assertion later.  Hypothesis 5 may also be correct.   As I have noted in earlier sections of this series, individuals who rented homes immediately next to mine have had direct ties with the City of London and Wall Street financial institutions.

From Hughes, D.A., 2024, “”Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War For Technocracy:”

Chapter 2: Shock and Stress

Ever since it became clear that victims of shell shock in World War I displayed increased psychological malleability, social engineers have sought to exploit the application of shock and stress for social control purposes. Experiments on POWs and other test subjects in the 1950s showed that it was possible to “depattern” the human mind and to reprogramme behavior. The Tavistock Institute, which took control of the mental health profession after 1945, weaponized psychiatry and found ways of applying shock and stress techniques to entire societies, facilitating what Klein (2007) calls the “shock doctrine,” i.e., systematic exploitatioon of public disorientation following a moment of collective shock. The “lockdowns” in 2020 were a shock and awe operation, and other techniques associated with “depatterning” the mind were additionally deployed, including disruption of behavioral patterns, isolation, and defamiliarisation. The moment of shock was used to implant trigger words and images for purposes of trauma-based mind control.

SHOCKING THE MIND

The Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology (usually referred to as the Tavistock Clinic) was founded in1920 by Hugh Crichton-Miller, who worked with shell-shocked soldiers during and after World War I. On of its practitioners, John Rawlings, Rees, had studied war neuroses in France during World War I; he came to believe that, “under controlled conditions, neurotic behavior could be induced, and, through those methods, individual behavior could be absolutely controlled” (Wolfe, 1996b, p. 25). After ousting Crichton-Miller in 1933/34, Rees, with immediate Rockefeller funding, oversaw work at the clinic using electro-convulsive shock (ECT), barbiturates, and hypnosis in brainwashing experiments (Minnicino, 1974, p. 39). In 1940, he recruited Eric Trist, who had also been researching drug and hypnosis-induced abreaction as a Rockefeller Foundation Medical Fellow at an English hospital. Rees’ primary interest was never in therapy as a positive, health-restoring sense. Rather, it was in psychiatry as a means of social control.

Meanwhile, in the Soviet Union, physiologist/psychologist Ivan Pavlov was making similar discoveries. 30 days of modern warfare, Pavlov found, pushed most men beyond the limits of psychological endurance, and similar, breakdown inducing stress could be artificially produced through other means (as cited in Huxley 1958, pp. 59-61). As in dogs, a political prisoner subjected to just the “right” amount of stress (i.e., just before breaking point) becomes unusually suggestible, and at that point, new behaviour patterns can be installed.

Thus, the lesson of World War I, for both Rees and Pavlov, was that shell shock/combat fatigue/continuous high level stress is enough to break down an individual to the point where their behaviour can be reliably controlled/reprogrammed.

Orwell writes in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984, p. 389): “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” One of the key principles established in psychological warfare research of the 1950s is that the mind must first be “depatterned” before it can be reprogrammed. In Pavlovian conditioning, for example, “First the old patterns have to be broken down in order to build up new conditioned reflexes” (Meerloo, 1956, p. 45). In Chinese “thought reform” techniques, there was, according to CIA Director Allen Dulles (1953, p. 20), “a ‘brain washing’ which ‘cleansed the mind of the old and evil thoughts spawned by imperialists of the West,” (followed by) a “brain changing” which implanted the ’new and glorious thoughts of the Communist Revolution.”

Dulles himself, however, was presiding over experiments to achieve a very similar result. Tavistock’s Ewen Cameron, the Scottish-born U.S. citizen who had risen to become the president of the American Psychiatric Association, president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, and president of the World Psychiatric Association, performed mind control experiments for the CIA in the 1950s, which involved the use of electroshock and drugs to “depattern” victims and put them into an “almost vegetative state” in which they could do nothing but listen to pre-recorded messages “for sixteen to twenty hours a day for weeks; in one case, Cameron played a message continuously for 101 days (Klein, 2007, pp. 30-32). Cameron called this “psychic driving.”

In a variation on Machiavelli’s advice that injuries should be inflicted “all at once,” Klein describes depatterning as “attacking the brain with everything known to interfere with its normal functioning- all at once,” the aim being to make prisoners “so regressed and afraid that they can no longer think rationally or protect their own interests” (Klein, 2007, pp. 7, 31, 16). In such a state of shock, prisoners will typically give their interrogators whatever they want.

MKULTRA and other CIA mind control programmes in the 1950s and 1960s yielded the KUBARK/(CIA) Manual (1963), intended as a guide to “interrogation” (torture). In order to break down a prisoner, the Manual claims, it is necessary to apply “a kind of psychological shock or paralysis. It is caused by a traumatic or sub-traumatic experience which explodes, as it were, the world that is familiar to the subject as well as his image of himself within that world (CIA, 1965, p. 66)

TAVISTOCK INFLUENCE. (Webmaster: I.e., ‘Networks’ of Rockefeller/Rees/State & Foundation-Sponsored Psychiatrists operate covertly as “shock troops” in civil society to control civilian populations and enforce City of London/Wall Street banker policies.

Psychiatry as a means of social control was the ethos of the Tavistock Institute, whose methods after World War II would become “the means of class war” (Minncine, 1974, p. 52), i.e., “a weapon of the ruling class” (Marcus, 1974, p. 22), intended to “guide the population into accepting the policy designs Of (…) a small Anglo-American international financial established, centered in London and its extension, Wall Street (Wolfe, 1996b, p. 28).

Lamenting that it would be difficult in peacetime to arrange the kind of psychological experiments that Tavistock psychiatrists had carried out on service personnel during World War II (Sir Lord General John Rawlings) Reese (III) (1945, pp. 52, 120) proposes “legislation that will make it possible for people of every social group to have treatment when they need it, even though they do not wish it, without the necessity to invoke “the law”)- in other words, an extralegal means of coercing psychiatric “treatment”/experimentation.

(Webmaster: In other words, “targeted individuals.”)

This, presumably, will be targeted along eugenics lines at the “constitutionally inferior group,” the psychopathic tenth of the community,” the “dullards” that form a “social problem group,” reproducing “defective children” (Rees, 1945, pp. 43-45). In order to implement this, Rees (1945, p. 133-134) calls for “shock troops,” i.e., “mobile teams of well-selected, well-trained psychiatrists, who are free to move around and make contacts with the local situation in their particular area,” but whose loyalty lies with the network and not local institutions. Achieving this would require support both from the “great foundations” and the state.

The Rockefeller Memorandum of 1946 led to the formation of a new institution, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, which, though initially constituted as a division of the Tavistock Clinic, was spun off in 1947. In return for offering up his network, now several hundred strong (Wolf, 1996b, p. 24), to the Rockefeller family, Rees was rewarded with a new appointment in 1948. Stepping down from the Tavistock Institute, he became President of the UN World Federation of Mental Health, founded by former Bank of England Governor Montagu Norman and resurrected from a previous Rockefeller front organization, the International Committee for Mental Hygiene (Minnicino, 1974, p. 43). Also in 1948, Rees’ ally, Brock Chisolm, was appointed as the first Director-general of the World Health Organization, confirming the founding connection between the WHO and the Rockefeller-Rees axis. From his dominant position, Rees was able to plant his proteges in key positions (Marcus, 1974, p. 23), grow a transnational network of influential practitioners and research labws- over three dozen affiliated organizastions- and thereby dominate the postwar mental health profession (Minnicino, 1974, p. 42; Wolfe, 1996a, p. 25). In the United States, Rees’ influence expanded into the National Institute of Health and the National Institute of Mental Health, complementing Rockefeller control over the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association (Marcus, 1974, p. 23).

These institutional origins of the mental health profession, rooted in the Reesian idea of psychiatry as a means of social control, raise serious questions about that profession. For example, to what extent is the routine prescription of antidepressants really intended to treat depression, and to what extent is it about facilitating social control via biochemical means? Is mental illness deliberately inculcated within the population, so that such “treatments” can be prescribed? It has been suggested that psychiatry could be used to “neutralize” dissidents: “The “brainwashed” dissident is mentally murdered in fact; (and) provided the Rockefeller forces control the majority of the psychiatric profession, especially the state-controlled psychiatric institutions, a fairly efficient form of murder can be perpetrated (…) (Marcus, 1974, p. 18). This is not so very different from the Soviet abuse of psychiatry for political purposes (see Chap. 5).

Tavistock Methods of Counterinsurgency

Winston Churchill claimed in 1943: “The empires of the future are the empires of the mind” (cited in Alkon, 2006, p. 93). The battlefield would, thus, shift “away from control of territory, to control of the minds, not merely of the colonial peoples, but of the United States and the rest of the Western world” (Wolfe, 1996b, p. 24).

In terms of counterinsurgency, Tavistock’s three “primary weapons against the working class” were food control, resettlement, and counter-gangs (Minnicino, 1974, p. 50). The first two make people more susceptibler to behavior modificastion, while the latter is used to infiltrate and subvert resistance movements. From the resultant psychological wreckage, new leaders based on “weak ego” types can be “selected out,” and controlled by Western intelligence (Minnicino, 1974, p. 42).

In Malaya, for example, where a pro-communist labour movement swept the peninsula after 1945, threatening to hand control of the strategically vital Straits of Malacca to the Soviet Union, British intelligence not only infiltrated the commnist armed guerillas, but also destroyed the rice crop and punctured food cans, sending the population into near starvation. This false flag operation was blamed on the guerillas, and the population was told it could obtain food by resettling to “New Villages” set up by the government. More than half a million Malayans (a tenth of the population) were resettled, by force if necessary (Minnicino, 1974, p. 48).

(Webmaster: In America today, we have weather warfare and directed energy weapons to create fires, massive storms and hurricanes, to accomplish these same ends…. Carried out essentially by the same elite banking powers to build their SMART Cities and Fourth Industrial Revolution).

In the “psychologically manipulated environment of the camps,” it was possible to “profile the population, and select out the future Malaysian Government and Civil Service,” passing political control of the country to Western intelligence(Minnicino, 1974, pp. 49, 52).

In Kenya, the Mau Mau rebellion (1952-1960) wa met with similar tactics, i.e., food control and resettlement, in a process called “villagization.” The insurgency (i.e., Mau Mau) was infiltrated using what Brigadier Frank Kitson referred to as “counter-gangs,” i.e., British intelligence-controlled units, comprised of brainwashed prisoners from POW camps, used to penetrate national liberation movements so that these leaders could be murdered, ostensibly by rival factions (Wolfe, 1996a, p. 26). The British experience in Malaya and Kenya confirmed the viability of such tactics to the CIA (Minnicino, 1974, p. 46).

When the CIA brought in Sir Robert Thompson, who had served in the Malayan operation, to help with the Vietnam War, Thompson renamed the resettlement camps “strategic hamlets.” The Taylor-Staley strategic hamlet programme in South Vietnam, as it became known, resulted in 1.3 million farmers and workers being forcibly relocated to 12,000 “fortified villages, surrounded by barbed wire fences and ditches fortified with bamboo spikes” (Schlesinger Jr., 1965, p. 549). Food control was applied to the camps in an attempt to “psychologically smash” their inhabitants, with a view to selecting out future leaders to replace the ineffectual Diem regime (Minnicino, 1974, p. 50).

Counterinsurgency Against the Domestic Population

As years of mounting social tensions in the West reached a climax in 1967/68, counterinsurgency methods started to be deployed at home as well as abroad, as recommended by the American Institute of Research, a CIA think tank, in 1967 (Minnicino, 1974, p. 51). This was most evident in the treatment of African-American population, “by far the one group that throughout the twentieth century kept alive a spirit of resistance and rebelliousness” (Wolin, 2008, p. 58).

The purpose of “Operation Phoenix” was to “neutralize” civilian members of the revolutionary underground in South Vietnam (Valentine, 2017, p. 24). The same “neturalisation” tactic was deployed against effective black organizers in the United States. An FBI memo dated march4, 1968, states: “Through counterintelligence, it should be possible to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them (…)” (Glick, 1989, p. 78). On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. On December 4, 1969, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were murdered in a “gestapo-style attack set up by the FBI (Chomsky, 2015).

The difference between Vietnam and the United States, Markus (1974, p. 18) notes, is that the political climate in the latter does not “yet permit open deployment of Special Forces-type assassination teams against civilian populations generally.” But, he argues, CIA infiltration of courts, prosecutor’s offices and police forces can be used for frame-up purposes, which are not less effective n eliminating political opponents- and the corporate media can be expected to cover it up. Provoking violence that can be prosecuted then becomes a domestic counterinsurgency tactic: “Much of the violence in which U.S. radicals have become involved turns out to have been the responsibility of the FBI or police,” with infiltrators and covert operations being used (Glick, 1989, p. 66). Kitson’s “counter-gang” concept, deploying mind-controlled operatives to infiltrate and subvert foreign resistance movements, here enters the domestic arena.

Tavistock was also the “driving force” behind the drugs counter-culture of the late 1960s (Wolfe, 1996b, p. 28), aimed at neutering youth resistance. This grew naturally out of the role of Tavistock’s Ewen Cameron and William Sargant in MKULTRA experiments involving psychotropic drugs and mind control. The function of drugs, according to the KUBARK Manual, “is to cause capitulation, to aid in the shift from resistance to cooperation” (CIA, 1963, p. 99). In Huxley’s Brave New World, first published in 1932, the use of the drug soma provides a “holiday from reality” without side effects (Huxley, 1956, p. 65). Huxley promotes mescaline in Doors of Perception (1954), and in Brave New World Revisited (1958, pp. 70, 73) discusses adrenochrome, serotonin, and LSD-25. The U.S. college students who had engaged in various forms of direct action against the system in the 1960s were, by the end of the decade, “a collection of domped up zombies, “change agents,” and shock-troops for Tavistock’s Brave New World” (Wolfe, 1996b, p. 28).

The concept of “medication into submission,” so as to “prepare the pattern of mental submission so beloved by the totalitarian brainwasher” (Meerloo, 1956, pp. 55, 60), also goes some way to explaining the CIA’s notorious history of bringing narcotics into the United States (Scott & Marshall, 1991; Scott 2003) and releasing them particularly in black communities. It is also worth asking critical questions about the escalating use of prescription medications since the early 1960s, given that “vast swaths of the (population) have been rendered docile and comfortably numb, silenced, sedated and marginalised over decades of “massive over-prescription” (Broudy & Arakaki, 2020).

References

Marcus, 1974,

Minnicino, M., 1974, Low intensity operations: The Reesian theory of war. The Campaigner, 7(6), 37-55.