Wuhan Institute

BioWeapons Expert Says Coronavirus Is Biological Warfare Weapon

Technocrat scientists around the world are using CRISPR technology in top-secret labs to develop doomsday-type biological warfare weapons. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is such a center, and the most likely source of the coronavirus outbreak.

TN does not endorse either GreatGameIndia or Dr. Francis Boyle, but the globalist censorship is notable and significant. For instance, the globalist publication, Foreign Policy, strongly refuted the “conspiracy theory” on January 29 with the headline, The Wuhan Virus Is Not a Lab-Made Bioweapon, and attacked GreatGameIndia and ZeroHedge in particular. ZeroHedge has been permanently banned from Twitter.  ⁃ TN Editor

In an explosive interview Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act has given a detailed statement admitting that the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive Biological Warfare Weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knows about it.

Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

In an exclusive interview given to Geopolitics and Empire, Dr. Boyle discusses the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China and the Biosafety Level 4 laboratory (BSL-4) from which he believes the infectious disease escaped. He believes the virus is potentially lethal and an offensive biological warfare weapon or dual-use biowarfare weapons agent genetically modified with gain of function properties, which is why the Chinese government originally tried to cover it up and is now taking drastic measures to contain it. The Wuhan BSL-4 lab is also a specially designated World Health Organization (WHO) research lab and Dr. Boyle contends that the WHO knows full well what is occurring.

Dr. Boyle also touches upon GreatGameIndia‘s exclusive report Coronavirus Bioweapon – where we reported in detail how Chinese Biowarfare agents working at the Canadian lab in Winnipeg were involved in the smuggling of Coronavirus to Wuhan’s lab from where it is believed to have been leaked.

Watch Dr. Francis Boyle’s interview with Geopolitics and Empire below:

Dr. Boyle’s position is in stark contrast to the mainstream media’s narrative of the virus being originated from the seafood market, which is increasingly being questioned by many experts.

Recently, American Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas also dismantled the mainstream media’s claim on Thursday that pinned the coronavirus outbreak on a market selling dead and live animals.

In a video accompanying his post, Cotton explained that the Wuhan wet market (which Cotton incorrectly referred to as a seafood market) has been shown by experts to not be the source of the deadly contagion.

Cotton referenced a Lancet study which showed that many of the first cases of the novel coronavirus, including patient zero, had no connection to the wet market — devastatingly undermining mainstream media’s claim.

“As one epidemiologist said: ‘That virus went into the seafood market before it came out of the seafood market.’ We still don’t know where it originated,” Cotton said.

“I would note that Wuhan also has China’s only bio-safety level four super laboratory that works with the world’s most deadly pathogens to include, yes, coronavirus.”

Such concerns have also been raised by J.R. Nyquist, the well known author of the books “Origins of the Fourth World War” and “The Fool and His Enemy,” as well as co-author of “The New Tactics of Global War”. In his insightful article he published secret speechs given to high-level Communist Party cadres by Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian explaining a long-range plan for ensuring a Chinese national renaissance – the catalyst for which would be China’s secret plan to weaponiz viruses.

Nyquist gave three different data points for making his case in analyzing Coronavirus. He writes:

The third data point worth considering: the journal GreatGameIndia has published a piece titled “Coronavirus Bioweapon – How China Stole Coronavirus From Canada And Weaponized It.”

Read full story here…




Killer Robots: Still No International Laws To Govern Their Use

Technocrats in militaries around the world are in a pitched arms race to develop fully autonomous killer robots. Proponents claim that it will make warfare more efficient and yet more ‘humane’ because fewer people would be killed.

This is insane thinking. The risk of misuse by rogue and authoritarian government and terrorists is 100 percent. However, Technocrats invent because the can, not because there is a demonstrated need to do so. ⁃ TN Editor

Countries are rapidly developing “killer robots” – machines with artificial intelligence (AI) that independently kill – but are moving at a snail’s pace on agreeing global rules over their use in future wars, warn technology and human rights experts.

From drones and missiles to tanks and submarines, semi-autonomous weapons systems have been used for decades to eliminate targets in modern day warfare – but they all have human supervision.

Dramatization/Simulation

Nations such as the United States, Russia and Israel are now investing in developing lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) which can identify, target, and kill a person all on their own – but to date there are no international laws governing their use.

“Some kind of human control is necessary … Only humans can make context-specific judgements of distinction, proportionality and precautions in combat,” said Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

“(Building consensus) is the big issue we are dealing with and unsurprisingly, those who have today invested a lot of capacities and do have certain skill which promise advantages to them, are more reluctant than those who don’t.”

The ICRC oversaw the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions that define the laws of war and the rights of civilians to protection and assistance during conflicts and it engages with governments to adapt these rules to modern warfare.

AI researchers, defence analysts and roboticists say LAWS such as military robots are no longer confined to the realm of science fiction or video games, but are fast progressing from graphic design boards to defence engineering laboratories.

Within a few years, they could be deployed by state militaries to the battlefield, they add, painting dystopian scenarios of swarms of drones moving through a town or city, scanning and selectively killing their targets within seconds.

Death by Algorithm

This has raised ethical concerns from human rights groups and some tech experts who say giving machines the power of life and death violates the principles of human dignity.

Not only are LAWS vulnerable to interference and hacking which would result in increased civilian deaths, they add, but their deployment would raise questions over who would be held accountable in the event of misuse.

“Don’t be mistaken by the nonsense of how intelligent these weapons will be,” said Noel Sharkey, chairman of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.

“You simply can’t trust an algorithm – no matter how smart – to seek out, identify and kill the correct target, especially in the complexity of war,” said Sharkey, who is also an AI and robotics expert at Britain’s University of Sheffield.

Read full story here…




Amazon Bezos

Big Tech Technocrats Embrace Military Technocrats

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the military/industrial complex and the scientific elite in the same breath, lest we ‘become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.’ Big Tech and the Pentagon are chock full of Technocrats.

Bezos’ warning that Big Tech and the Pentagon need to be be tightly affiliated is a clear sign that Technocrats are in control of both.⁃ TN Editor

Amazon CEO and founder Jeff Bezos gave a dismal outlook for the nation if U.S. tech companies decide to not support the Pentagon’s war business.

“If big tech is going to turn their backs on the Department of Defense, this country is in trouble, that just can’t happen,” Bezos said at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California.

“Look I understand these are emotional issues, that’s okay, we don’t have to agree on everything, but this is how we are going to do it, we are going to support the Department of Defense. This country is important,” he added.

As Silicon Valley courts a closer relationship with the Pentagon, tech firms have faced backlash for pursuing lucrative Defense Department contracts.

Last year, Google announced that it was working with the U.S. military to analyze drone videos by using artificial intelligence.

The controversial contract, dubbed Project Maven, caused thousands of employees to protest the initiative.

In the wake of the firestorm, Google decided to not renew the contract upon its expiry in March 2019.

Loosely referencing the sequence of events in the wake of Google’s Project Maven, Bezos said that tech firms should support the U.S. military’s efforts.

“I know it’s complicated but you know, do you want a strong national defense or don’t you? I think you do. So we have to support that,” he said.

“We are the good guys, I really do believe that,” Bezos said.




climate

Professor: UN Might Use Military To Enforce Climate Agenda

Speaking of the 2011 Greece crisis, this professor says, “There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through.” Now, the United Nations is in the same predicament with nations not adopting its bogus climate change agenda. This gives expression to Al Gore’s statement ‘deniers deserve to be punished. ⁃ TN Editor

Action to address climate change has been left so late that any political response will likely become an international security issue — and could threaten democracy.

That’s the view of Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen, who also says climate inaction could lead to armed conflict.

“At some point this whole climate debate is going to tip over,” he tells RN’s Late Night Live.

“The current way we talk about climate is one side and the other side. One side is those who want to do something, and the other is the deniers who say we shouldn’t do anything.”

He believes that quite soon, another battle will replace it. Then, politicians that do ‘something’ will be challenged by critics demanding that policies actually add up to realistic solutions.

When decision-makers — after delaying for so long — suddenly try to find a shortcut to realistic action, climate change is likely to “be securitised”.

Professor Wæver, who first coined the term “securitisation”, says more abrupt change could potentially threaten democracy.

“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says.

“And then it’s within their competencies to decide ‘and you are doing this, you are doing this, you are doing this, this is how we deal with it’.”

A risk of armed conflict?

Professor Wæver says despite “overwhelmingly good arguments” as to why action should be taken on climate change, not enough has been done.

And he says that could eventually lead to a greater risk of armed conflict, particularly in unstable political climates.

“Imagine these kinds of fires that we are seeing happening [in Australia] in a part of Africa or South-East Asia where you have groups that are already in a tense relationship, with different ethnic groups, different religious orientations,” he says.

“And then you get events like this and suddenly they are not out of each other’s way, they’ll be crossing paths, and then you get military conflicts by the push.”

He isn’t the first expert to warn of the security risks of climate change.

Chris Barrie, former Defence Force chief and honorary professor at the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, wrote in October that “climate change is a threat multiplier”.

“It exacerbates the drivers of conflict by deepening existing fragilities within societies, straining weak institutions, reshaping power balances and undermining post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding,” he wrote.

And current Defence chief Angus Campbell has warned that increased incidences of climate change-related natural disasters could stretch the capability of the ADF.

Letting ‘the dark forces’ loose

Professor Wæver argues that delayed action will lead to more drastic measures.

“The longer we wait, the more abrupt the change has to be,” he says.

“So a transformation of our economy and our energy systems that might have been less painful if we had started 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

“If we have to do that in a very short time, it becomes extremely painful.”

He says classifying climate change as a security issue could justify more extreme policy responses.

“That’s what happens when something becomes a security issue, it gets the urgency, the intensity, the priority, which is helpful sometimes, but it also lets the dark forces loose in the sense that it can justify problematic means,” he says.

This urgency, he says, could lead to more abrupt action at an international level.

“If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.

“A bit like what we saw in southern Europe with countries like Greece and the debt crisis and so on.

“There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through.”

Read full story here…




DEVCOM

Army DEVCOM: 2050 Vision For Cyborg Super-Soldiers

Scientific Progressivism is the lust of Technocrats and the scourge of humanity. Hacking the human body to create more efficient high-tech killing machines cannot possibly advance humanity. ⁃ TN Editor

Future armies could be made up of half-human half-machine cyborgs with infrared sight, ultrasonic hearing and super-human strength, equipped with mind-controlled weapons.

In a US Army report, experts from Devcom – the Combat Capabilities Development Command – outlined a number of possible future technologies that could be used to enhance soldiers on the battlefield by 2050.

These include enhanced limbs for increased strength, an eye that provides infrared and ultraviolet vision, and an audio device that provides ultra- and subsonic hearing.

They also suggest a future soldier could have a neural device that optimises brain power and allow them to control weapons with their mind.

The ‘thought experiment’ involved dozens of scientists, military personnel, ethicists and other experts discussing future technologies, what impact cyborgs would have on society and how it would change warfare.

The term ‘cyborg’ was first coined in a NASA study on the long-term impact of space study by Manfred Clynes and Nathan Cline.

The word is a portmanteau formed from cybernetic organism and is an organism that has been optimised by creating interactions between flesh and machine.

The study involved breaking down the future design of a cyborg soldier into the main areas of enhancement likely to be possible by 2050.

They examined changes to the eyes, ears, brain and muscular system through four ‘case studies’ examining the different technologies that could be developed and what impact they would have on society and warfare.

The study predicted that human machine enhancements would become widely available before 2050 and likely be led by medical use rather than the military.

‘The healthcare market will fuel human machine enhancements primarily to augment the loss of functionality from injury or disease’, the report claims.

Devcon suggests that as well as being better fighters, enhancing soldiers with technology could improve their chance of survival if hit during battle.

‘One could argue that failure to invest in responsible development of these potentially lifesaving technologies would be unethical.’

Authors of the report suggest that a lot of work would need to be done on changing ‘hearts and minds’ to make people more receptive of adapted soldiers, especially after they return to civilian life.

They say that an individual re-entering civilian life with enhanced abilities would have a defined competitive advantage over non-enhanced individuals.

The team questioned whether soldiers with enhancements should be ‘throttled’ back to a normal level when entering society and if so what normal levels should be.

They also raised concerns over national security.

One participant in the study said: ‘If I can’t walk into a sensitive compartmented information facility wearing an iWatch or carrying a cellphone, how will security be confident it is safe to allow a cyborg to walk in there?’

This was just a thought experiment and we are unlikely to see an ‘enhanced soldier’ with all of these changes by 2050, however there is some suggestion in the report that part, if not all of the technologies could be fairly common within 30 years.

Read full story here…




DARPA: ‘Militarized Microbes’ To Spread GMO Bacteria

DARPA is piled high with Technocrats who invent advanced military applications for the armed forces. Ethical and moral considerations are foreign to the discussion as to the wisdom of building dystopian killing machines. ⁃ TN Editor

The Pentagon’s DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) wants to be able to spread genetically modified bacteria as “explosives sensors.” The United States government could very well be looking into ways to militarize microbes.

The Pentagon has teamed up with Raytheon for this project, which seems like it should come straight out of a dystopian science fiction story. The government wants to develop a system capable of delivering genetically modified bacteria underground, according to a report by RT.

Initiated by DARPA, the same agency that led programs to create telekinetic super soldiers and weaponized robotic insects, the project seeks to program two bacterial strains to monitor ground surfaces for explosive materials, defense contractor Raytheon said in a joint press release with the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

So the genetically modified bacteria are for your own good!

The first of the two strains, known as a “bio-sensor,” will “detect the presence or absence of explosives buried underground,” while the second will produce a “glowing light” in the event such materials are found. Remotely operated cameras or drones would then be sent to survey the area to find the glowing germs, and ultimately the buried explosives. –RT

We already know that some bacteria can be programmed to be very good at detecting explosives, but it’s harder underground,” said Raytheon researcher Allison Taggart. “We’re investigating how to transport the reporting bacteria to the required depth underground.”

Though the Pentagon claims it only plans to use the system for defensive purposes only, some may find the idea of militarized microbes off-putting while conjuring apocalyptic scenarios of a runaway genetically engineered superbug.

DARPA has undertaken some projects that should raise the alarm in many. However, it almost seems as though we’ve reached a point where the masses don’t care what’s being done to them, in their name, and with the money stolen from them. And these are just a few of the things we know DARPA is working on.

Read full story here…




killer robots

Microsoft Head Says Rise Of Killer Robots Is ‘Unstoppable’

A new global arms race? Forget nukes, it’s killer robots. Any nation or terrorist group with a screwdriver can join the melee to build killer robots. To the Technocrat mindset, it’s a much more efficient way to destroy things and kill people. ⁃ TN Editor
 

The rise of killer robots is now unstoppable and a new digital Geneva Convention is essential to protect the world from the growing threat they pose, according to the President of the world’s biggest technology company.

In an interview with The Telegraph, Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, said the use of ‘lethal autonomous weapon systems’ poses a host of new ethical questions which need to be considered by governments as a matter of urgency.

He said the rapidly advancing technology, in which flying, swimming or walking drones can be equipped with lethal weapons systems – missiles, bombs or guns – which could be programmed to operate entirely or partially autonomously, “ultimately will spread… to many countries”.

The US, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia and the UK are all developing weapon systems with a significant degree of autonomy in the critical functions of selecting and attacking targets.

The technology is a growing focus for many militaries because replacing troops with machines can make the decision to go to war easier.

But it remains unclear who is responsible for deaths or injuries caused by a machine – the developer, manufacturer, commander or the device itself.

Smith said killer robots must “not be allowed to decide on their own to engage in combat and who to kill” and argued that a new international convention needed to be drawn up to govern the use of the technology.

“The safety of civilians is at risk today. We need more urgent action, and we need it in the form of a digital Geneva Convention, rules that will protect civilians and soldiers.”

Speaking at the launch of his new book, Tools and Weapons, at the Microsoft store in London’s Oxford Circus, Smith said there was also a need for stricter international rules over the use of facial recognition technology and other emerging forms of artificial intelligence.

“There needs to be there needs to be a new law in this space, we need regulation in the world of facial recognition in order to protect against potential abuse.”

Read full story here…

 




China Invents Handheld Sonic Weapon For Crowd Control

Certain frequencies that do not normally appear in nature in harmful intensities, can be used as a potent weapon leading to incapacitation, hearing loss, vomiting, organ damage and heart attacks. Yet another Technocrat solution to social engineering. ⁃ TN Editor
 

China has developed the world’s first portable sonic gun for riot control, the Chinese Academy of Sciences said.

The rifle-shaped instrument, which was jointly developed with military and law enforcement, is designed to disperse crowds using focused waves of low frequency sound, the academy’s Technical Institute of Physics and Chemistry website said on Wednesday.

The device’s “biological effect” would cause extreme discomfort, with vibrations in the eardrums, eyeballs, stomach, liver, and brain, scientists said.

Studies dating to the 1940s found that low frequency sound energy could, depending upon intensity and exposure, cause dizziness, headaches, vomiting, bowel spasms, involuntary defecation, organ damage and heart attacks.

Sonic weapons are typically large and have to be mounted on vehicles. Until the Chinese development, which has no moving parts, they were powered by electricity to drive a magnetic coil to generate energy. This meant they needed a large and stable source of power.

The Chinese government launched the sonic weapon programme in 2017 and its conclusion is unlikely to be related to the months of anti-government protests in Hong Kong.

Professor Xie Xiujuan, lead scientist on the project, said the device was powered by a tube-shape vessel containing an inert gas. When heated, the gas particles vibrate and a deep, monotonous sound is emitted.

The prototype had passed field and third-party tests and the project team has completed its assessment of the device’s effects on the body, the academy said.

Read full story here…




Ex-Google Engineer: ‘Killer Robots’ Could Start War

As governments ramp up the AI arms race to direct autonomous robots with a ‘licensed to kill’, the risk horrible mistakes rises as well, including the possibility of starting a robot war.  ⁃ TN Editor

A new generation of autonomous weapons or “killer robots” could accidentally start a war or cause mass atrocities, a former top Google software engineer has warned.

Laura Nolan, who resigned from Google last year in protest at being sent to work on a project to dramatically enhance US military drone technology, has called for all AI killing machines not operated by humans to be banned.

Nolan said killer robots not guided by human remote control should be outlawed by the same type of international treaty that bans chemical weapons.

Unlike drones, which are controlled by military teams often thousands of miles away from where the flying weapon is being deployed, Nolan said killer robots have the potential to do “calamitous things that they were not originally programmed for”.

There is no suggestion that Google is involved in the development of autonomous weapons systems. Last month a UN panel of government experts debated autonomous weapons and found Google to be eschewing AI for use in weapons systems and engaging in best practice.

Nolan, who has joined the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and has briefed UN diplomats in New York and Geneva over the dangers posed by autonomous weapons, said: “The likelihood of a disaster is in proportion to how many of these machines will be in a particular area at once. What you are looking at are possible atrocities and unlawful killings even under laws of warfare, especially if hundreds or thousands of these machines are deployed.

“There could be large-scale accidents because these things will start to behave in unexpected ways. Which is why any advanced weapons systems should be subject to meaningful human control, otherwise they have to be banned because they are far too unpredictable and dangerous.”

Google recruited Nolan, a computer science graduate from Trinity College Dublin, to work on Project Maven in 2017 after she had been employed by the tech giant for four years, becoming one of its top software engineers in Ireland.

She said she became “increasingly ethically concerned” over her role in the Maven programme, which was devised to help the US Department of Defense drastically speed up drone video recognition technology.

Instead of using large numbers of military operatives to spool through hours and hours of drone video footage of potential enemy targets, Nolan and others were asked to build a system where AI machines could differentiate people and objects at an infinitely faster rate.

Google allowed the Project Maven contract to lapse in March this year after more than 3,000 of its employees signed a petition in protest against the company’s involvement.

“As a site reliability engineer my expertise at Google was to ensure that our systems and infrastructures were kept running, and this is what I was supposed to help Maven with. Although I was not directly involved in speeding up the video footage recognition I realised that I was still part of the kill chain; that this would ultimately lead to more people being targeted and killed by the US military in places like Afghanistan.”

Although she resigned over Project Maven, Nolan has predicted that autonomous weapons being developed pose a far greater risk to the human race than remote-controlled drones.

She outlined how external forces ranging from changing weather systems to machines being unable to work out complex human behaviour might throw killer robots off course, with possibly fatal consequences.

“You could have a scenario where autonomous weapons that have been sent out to do a job confront unexpected radar signals in an area they are searching; there could be weather that was not factored into its software or they come across a group of armed men who appear to be insurgent enemies but in fact are out with guns hunting for food. The machine doesn’t have the discernment or common sense that the human touch has.

“The other scary thing about these autonomous war systems is that you can only really test them by deploying them in a real combat zone. Maybe that’s happening with the Russians at present in Syria, who knows? What we do know is that at the UN Russia has opposed any treaty let alone ban on these weapons by the way.

“If you are testing a machine that is making its own decisions about the world around it then it has to be in real time. Besides, how do you train a system that runs solely on software how to detect subtle human behaviour or discern the difference between hunters and insurgents? How does the killing machine out there on its own flying about distinguish between the 18-year-old combatant and the 18-year-old who is hunting for rabbits?”

Read full story here…




NPR Exposes CIA’s MK-Ultra, Mind Control, Torture

It is amazing that NPR would print anything on the CIA’s infamous and horrific MK-Ultra program from the Cold War era. Repatriated Technocrat scientists from Nazi Germany  played a key role after WWII. ⁃ TN Editor
 

During the early period of the Cold War, the CIA became convinced that communists had discovered a drug or technique that would allow them to control human minds. In response, the CIA began its own secret program, called MK-ULTRA, to search for a mind control drug that could be weaponized against enemies.

MK-ULTRA, which operated from the 1950s until the early ’60s, was created and run by a chemist named Sidney Gottlieb. Journalist Stephen Kinzer, who spent several years investigating the program, calls the operation the “most sustained search in history for techniques of mind control.”

Some of Gottlieb’s experiments were covertly funded at universities and research centers, Kinzer says, while others were conducted in American prisons and in detention centers in Japan, Germany and the Philippines. Many of his unwitting subjects endured psychological torture ranging from electroshock to high doses of LSD, according to Kinzer’s research.

“Gottlieb wanted to create a way to seize control of people’s minds, and he realized it was a two-part process,” Kinzer says. “First, you had to blast away the existing mind. Second, you had to find a way to insert a new mind into that resulting void. We didn’t get too far on number two, but he did a lot of work on number one.”

Kinzer notes that the top-secret nature of Gottlieb’s work makes it impossible to measure the human cost of his experiments. “We don’t know how many people died, but a number did, and many lives were permanently destroyed,” he says.

Ultimately, Gottlieb concluded that mind control was not possible. After MK-ULTRA shut down, he went on to lead a CIA program that created poisons and high-tech gadgets for spies to use.

Kinzer writes about Gottlieb and MK-ULTRA in his new book, Poisoner in Chief.


On how the CIA brought LSD to America

As part of the search for drugs that would allow people to control the human mind, CIA scientists became aware of the existence of LSD, and this became an obsession for the early directors of MK-ULTRA. Actually, the MK-ULTRA director, Sidney Gottlieb, can now be seen as the man who brought LSD to America. He was the unwitting godfather of the entire LSD counterculture.

In the early 1950s, he arranged for the CIA to pay $240,000 to buy the world’s entire supply of LSD. He brought this to the United States, and he began spreading it around to hospitals, clinics, prisons and other institutions, asking them, through bogus foundations, to carry out research projects and find out what LSD was, how people reacted to it and how it might be able to be used as a tool for mind control.

Now, the people who volunteered for these experiments and began taking LSD, in many cases, found it very pleasurable. They told their friends about it. Who were those people? Ken Kesey, the author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, got his LSD in an experiment sponsored by the CIA by MK-ULTRA, by Sidney Gottlieb. So did Robert Hunter, the lyricist for the Grateful Dead, which went on to become a great purveyor of LSD culture. Allen Ginsberg, the poet who preached the value of the great personal adventure of using LSD, got his first LSD from Sidney Gottlieb. Although, of course, he never knew that name.

So the CIA brought LSD to America unwittingly, and actually it’s a tremendous irony that the drug that the CIA hoped would be its key to controlling humanity actually wound up fueling a generational rebellion that was dedicated to destroying everything that the CIA held dear and defended.

Whitey Bulger was one of the prisoners who volunteered for what he was told was an experiment aimed at finding a cure for schizophrenia. As part of this experiment, he was given LSD every day for more than a year. He later realized that this had nothing to do with schizophrenia and he was a guinea pig in a government experiment aimed at seeing what people’s long-term reactions to LSD was. Essentially, could we make a person lose his mind by feeding him LSD every day over such a long period?

Read full story here…