1 Covert Harassment Conference 1-2 October 2015, Berlin, Germany

2

3 DR. NICK BEGICH Mind Control: A Brave New World together with HAA RP -

4 The Update

5 DR. BEGICH: Hello, and thank you for being

6 here and thank you to Peter and the rest of the team for

7 putting this together.

8 Everyone hears me okay, yes? In the back?

9 Okay. Good.

10 All right. I want to give a little bit of

11 background in terms of my interest in these area s. For

12 those that don't know my family story, it really goes

13 back quite a ways.

14 My father was in the United States Congress in

15 the early 1970s during the Nixon Administration. He was

16 lost in a plane with Hale Boggs. Some of you ma y

17 remember this if you've got a little bit of gray hair.

18 Hale Boggs was our House majority leader at the time,

19 one of the most powerful people in the United St ates

20 Congress. He was also a Warren Commissioner. H e had a

21 strong dislike for J. Edgar Hoover, because he b asically

22 read everybody's mail, tapped everybody's phones ,

23 including the United States Congress, and then,

24 essentially, blackmailed political leaders to fo llow

25 whatever script he laid out.

1

1 Boggs was a pretty outspoken individual. At

2 the time -- it was just before the second electi on of

3 Richard Nixon -- Boggs came to Alaska to work on my

4 father's campaign, which would have been his sec ond term

5 in the United States Congress.

6 Boggs, before they flew out on October 16th,

7 three weeks before the second election of Richar d Nixon,

8 began to talk about this scandal brewing in Wash ington,

9 DC. In fact, that very scandal, had it unfolded a

10 little bit differently -- for those that remembe r, the

11 planes disappeared.

12 Three weeks later, Nixon's elected for his

13 second term. It wasn't too much long after that that

14 the Watergate scandal broke. Agnew was thrown o ut of

15 office. Ford moved up. Then Nixon resigned. F ord

16 moved up again. For those that don't remember,

17 Rockefeller then slid into the Vice President's slot.

18 And then one of the old Manson women from the Ch arles

19 Manson days tried to assassinate Ford, which wou ld have

20 put Rockefeller in the White House.

21 What would have otherwise happened, most

22 likely, the election would have taken place. Ni xon

23 would have won. Agnew and Nixon would have been thrown

24 out at the same time. The Democrats would have

25 controlled the Congress. The Speaker of the Hou se would

2

1 have elevated to the Presidency. The Democrats would

2 have been in control. But the opposite, of cour se,

3 happened and history tells us a lot about what r eally

4 happened there.

5 Twenty years later there was a report, an

6 investigative report by a publication called "Ro ll Call"

7 in Washington, DC. That report was looking into all of

8 these various Congressional deaths. You know, p lane

9 crashes are kind of the hazard of political lead ership,

10 it seems like.

11 But in researching that, what they found in the

12 FBI files were a couple of telexes -- this goes before

13 FAX machines -- and telexes coming from Californ ia into

14 Washington, DC reported that two people had been found

15 at a crash site. Those sources were later looke d at by

16 the FBI to determine whether they were credible. A

17 follow-up telex came through saying, yes, they w ere.

18 That plane was never recovered. There were no s urvivors

19 officially; yet 20 years later, we find out, in fact,

20 there were.

21 So I know about conspiracies. Conspiracies are

22 conversations that happen in a room like this wh en

23 there's a bunch of people standing on the outsid e who

24 might not agree with us. But the reality is, ev en in

25 the political life, even at the highest levels, things

3

1 happen. Things happen that aren't easily explai ned.

2 Maybe a few decades go by before the truth is fi nally

3 revealed.

4 So I have a strong motivation foundationally in

5 terms of how I approach controversial issues. I don't

6 do it with fear. I 've been doing this work for over 20

7 years. Fear isn't part of the equation. In fac t, that

8 is the absolute adversary for getting anything

9 accomplished on this planet.

10 My interest in these areas started with HAARP.

11 And how many in this room do not know anything a bout

12 HAARP?

13 Okay. Well, that's a lot better than it used

14 to be. All right. It used to be the other way around.

15 Twenty years of this work and the work of others have

16 kind of brought this into the public.

17 So the first image -- I'm going to use HAARP as

18 sort of the backdrop as I move into the mind con trol,

19 mind effects-related technology. This is just a n image

20 in my part of the world. I come from Alaska. I don't

21 know if -- maybe I've come the farthest for this

22 presentation. But I appreciate being here and I

23 appreciate the opportunity to inform people abou t this

24 subject.

25 So HAARP is a large array, a field of antennas

4

1 in Alaska, currently 180 antennas. They're

2 approximately 20 meters tall. They have a cross dipole,

3 which you can see, which is the very top of thes e

4 antennas. And what these are designed to do is focus or

5 concentrate radiofrequency energy into a relativ ely

6 small space.

7 If you think about the energy of a flashlight,

8 for instance, or a torch, as they say here in Eu rope, I

9 shine that against the wall, the beam starts out small,

10 and then it broadens as you get further away fro m the

11 source.

12 The same is true with radiofrequency energy.

13 You can think about it as an inverted funnel sta rting

14 here at the transmitter and then spreading out a nd

15 getting thinner and thinner, less dense, which i s why

16 the further you get away from radio broadcast an tennas,

17 the weaker and weaker the signal.

18 With HAARP, the opposite occurs. They have

19 figured out a way through what's called cyclotro n

20 resonance, which would be focusing or concentrat ing the

21 energy. So if you could visualize it, it would look

22 like sort of a cork-screwing kind of motion that got

23 smaller and smaller as you move further and furt her away

24 from the transmitter.

25 So it concentrates that energy or focuses that

5

1 energy so you can manipulate it in various ways. And so

2 the HAARP array, which was originally designed b y a

3 gentleman, Bernard Eastlund, who's now deceased, was

4 intended to do a number of things as a weapons

5 application. This is the earlier version when i t was

6 half the current size of the transmitter in Alas ka. You

7 can see the field of antennas. In this case the re were

8 90 antennas in the array.

9 And here's another image as they expanded the

10 array to 180. And another image showing the arr ay.

11 Now, they also upgraded the technology pretty

12 substantially over the years. So it became much more

13 efficient. So with a much smaller system you cr eate

14 much bigger effects.

15 So what does it do? Essentially, it 's sending

16 energy or focusing energy up into an area known as the

17 ionosphere, which in this image in miles -- I ap ologize

18 for that -- is approximately 37 miles to 620 mil es out

19 into space.

20 Now, this is a highly energized area. If you

21 think about radiofrequency signals or shortwave signals,

22 they would come from the earth, they'd bounce of f of us,

23 and then bounce back down to the earth to transm it over

24 large distances.

25 The ionosphere also is an area that can be

6

1 disturbed by solar radiation, radiation from the sun.

2 When it becomes destabilized, it interferes with

3 terrestrial communications of every kind.

4 So part of the idea in this technology was to

5 learn how to stabilize the ionosphere during the se

6 periods or deliberately disrupt the ionosphere t o

7 interfere with communications on a global basis.

8 Now, what caught my interest when I first

9 looked at this issue of HAARP was a very short a rticle

10 in a publication, an Australian publication, tha t talked

11 about this big system in Alaska.

12 Now, I come from a family that's pretty

13 politically engaged. Besides my dad being in th e

14 Congress, my younger brother just finished a ter m in the

15 United States Senate. My family's been involved in

16 politics a very long time.

17 Alaska is a very big region, but we're a really

18 small population; 700,000 people in our entire r egion.

19 And when you think about big projects, you know, you

20 think you know something about them.

21 Well, I 'm reading about this project in my

22 state in a journal in Australia and I'm going, y ou know,

23 why doesn't anybody know about this?

24 And so I decided I would go in and look into

25 this issue independently. And I did. I picked up maybe

7

1 30 articles and papers, design specifications, s ome

2 things, and with friends encouraging me to publi sh, I

3 published the first article that I had written o n HAARP

4 back in 1994. So it's been a very long time ago .

5 What also caught my interest was the idea that

6 they were primarily utilizing, in some applicati ons,

7 extremely low frequency signals or ELFs. These are

8 signals that can be biologically active, can aff ect us

9 as human beings and in very specific ways.

10 And in particular, certain applications of the

11 technology -- and this gives you sort of a graph ic

12 illustration of the focus. These view graphs, a ctually,

13 were given to me by the inventor, Bernard Eastlu nd,

14 prior to his passing. And we utilized them in o ur

15 publications and in some of our work. So this g ives you

16 kind of a graphic showing the radiofrequency fro m the

17 array, moving up into the ionosphere and focusin g that

18 energy.

19 His initial concept was to create a global

20 shield, to be able to utilize the natural magnet ic field

21 lines that surround the earth, be able to punch energy

22 into this and then create this kind of global sh ielding

23 effect. And the idea was that any electronic de vice

24 piercing that energy would be disrupted, like

25 satellites, intercontinental ballistic missiles,

8

1 virtually any electronic device that ran into th is field

2 of energy that was being amplified would be dest royed.

3 Now, one of the other interesting parts of

4 this -- and this kind of shows that, again, util izing

5 one of Eastlund's graphics. So you can see like a field

6 line and then you see this cork-screwing energy going

7 around it. That energy naturally is occurring f rom the

8 southern polar regions into the northern polar r egions.

9 And, in this case, they actually couple -- actua lly

10 utilize the energy on the ground to couple with the

11 natural energy, and then coming from the north t o the

12 south, create this cork-screwing effect, which

13 accelerates the electrons and then creates this global

14 shield.

15 Now, that was his initial concept. And as a

16 concept, it caught the attention of a number of people

17 and eventually got funding from the Congress, in itially

18 at 30 million, and over the last few decades now over

19 almost 300 million, which in dollars is not a lo t of

20 money, but when you consider, this is sort of th e

21 pinnacle of bill ions of dollars spent in ionosph ere

22 research over many decades.

23 What caught my attention in terms of the

24 technology of Eastlund -- I'm going to skip some of

25 these that are not so relevant -- was the idea t hat you

9

1 could manipulate the ionosphere -- and I'll use this as

2 a better example. So one of the thoughts was th at if

3 you could punch or pulse energy into the ionosph ere --

4 so think about this energy going up and, like, a hammer

5 ringing a bell. Every time it hits that ionosph ere, the

6 ionosphere itself vibrates and then it begins to send a

7 signal in the ELF range. So you have a high fre quency

8 signal going up, punching the ionosphere, the io nosphere

9 which is energized then acts as a broadcast ante nna in

10 the sky bringing back an ELF signal to the earth , and in

11 this case covering an entire hemisphere.

12 Now, ELF signals, extremely low frequency

13 signals, are very long wavelengths. They penetr ate the

14 earth and sea. They're utilized for communicati on with

15 submarines, as an example, the depth, because sh ort

16 wavelengths won't penetrate the earth and sea. They're

17 also used for what's called earth-penetrating

18 tomography, which in simple language or by analo gy would

19 be like x-raying the earth or looking into the e arth for

20 underground structures.

21 But one of the side effects of ELF is the

22 entrainment effect on the human mind. Because E LF

23 signals will lock onto in what's called a freque ncy

24 following response. And you can use a lot of di fferent

25 techniques to create a frequency following respo nse.

10

1 You can use flickering light, you can use binaur al beat,

2 which I'll explain in a few minutes. You can us e

3 electromagnetic fields such as this, or even the power

4 grid itself can be modulated in such a way to cr eate a

5 signal that the human body will join with, will couple

6 with, and begin to follow. It doesn't take a gr eat deal

7 of energy to accomplish this.

8 This is the one that triggered my real interest

9 in HAARP, because this is the one that everybody kind of

10 ignored and said, oh. In fact, the HAARP planne rs said,

11 well, if ELF has a biological effect, it 's a sid e

12 effect. It 's an unintended consequence. We hea rd that

13 phrase earlier today. But I don't believe that. I

14 believe that it 's an intended consequence. It 's

15 intended to grade populations in very specific w ays.

16 Now, this book was mentioned by my friend

17 earlier today, "Between Two Ages", by Zbigniew

18 Brzezinski. And why this is an important book, it was

19 written, actually, in 1973, when Brzezinski was at

20 Columbia University. This is before he became N ational

21 Security Adviser to President Carter. This is a round

22 the time that Kissinger and he and others were s tarting

23 to think about the Trilateral Commission organiz ing this

24 think tank, so to speak.

25 Now, find this book. I really encourage you to

11

1 find this book and read it, because it is not a

2 prediction of what will come with technology. I t 's the

3 blueprint, in fact. You can read this.

4 When I first read it -- he writes in a pretty

5 convoluted style. It 's a little difficult even in

6 English to understand. But I really encourage y ou to

7 read it because he predicted the economic change s that

8 took place, the political changes that took plac e in the

9 world over the last 40 years with a great deal o f

10 accuracy. And some will say it really wasn't th e

11 prediction. It was the plan.

12 If you look within this text between Pages 54

13 and 56, you'll see a section that's dedicated to the

14 kind of technologies we're talking about today, a mind

15 control technology. And what Zbigniew reference d was a

16 guy named J. F. Gordon MacDonald. And he was a

17 geophysicist at UCL. He wrote a book -- or, act ually, a

18 chapter in a book and the chapter was called, "H ow to

19 Wreck Your Environment", which this is before Ea rth Day,

20 okay, so he could get away with that. It was 19 69 when

21 that book was actually published. But what he s aid that

22 caught Zbigniew Brzezinski's attention was, he s aid, if

23 we could ever figure out how to electronically s troke

24 the ionosphere in just the right way, we could r eturn a

25 signal to the earth that would influence the beh avior of

12

1 people over huge geographic areas.

2 Now, that's a pretty profound thing. But we

3 didn't have a way to stroke the ionosphere in 19 69. But

4 we did by the 1990s. And that was, in fact, and is, in

5 fact, the HAARP system that can accomplish this.

6 So the idea was -- and it was kind of, in a

7 gross sort of way, primitive, if you will, but w hat the

8 intention was, was that if you could pulse the

9 ionosphere, return this ELF signal to the earth, you

10 could agitate the population in very specific wa ys. You

11 could make them passive, less aggressive, or the

12 opposite by just amplifying that signal. And I' l l

13 explain a little bit of that as we go on.

14 The other person that comes out in the last

15 presentations, Jose Delgado, and this book he wr ote,

16 "Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychoc ivilized

17 Society". And this is, again, a 1960s book. Th ose

18 images that you saw in just this short video cli p of

19 Delgado's work, there is a good section in this text as

20 well showing that.

21 But in those days they used implants. They had

22 to physically put something in the brain. And w hat Jose

23 Delgado originally did -- he was actually educat ed in

24 electrophysiology at the University of Madrid. He

25 graduated in 1950. Electrophysiology, as a degr ee

13

1 field, thinking about it in 1950, now 65 years a go, most

2 people don't even realize that's an area of high er

3 education today, much less that far back.

4 One of my mentors, Raul Makayla (phonetic), he

5 actually graduated University of Madrid in 1958, and his

6 area of interest was, essentially, the same, bio magnetic

7 and electric fields, effects on human physiology , and he

8 spent his career studying that.

9 Delgado, at Yale University, he initially was

10 mapping the brain of primates and humans by stim ulating

11 various portions of the brain to figure out what was

12 responsible for what kind of activity. And then he

13 began to utilize the implants in those dramatic ways in

14 those film clips with the charging bull and he t hrows

15 the switch and the bull stops, to demonstrate th at you

16 could take a creature from passive to highly agg ressive

17 to passive to highly aggressive, just like flipp ing on

18 and off the lights in your living room.

19 What Delgado discovered by the mid-'80s is that

20 you didn't need any implants. You just needed t o

21 manipulate the energy itself. And you didn't ne ed a

22 great deal of energy.

23 Now, we've heard -- I forget the amount of

24 energy surrounding us now. Was it a quintill ion ? I

25 believe it was 18 zeros after the one that we he ard

14

1 earlier. Back when I wrote the HAARP book in '9 4, just

2 radiofrequency energy alone, it was 200 million times

3 more around us every day than nature created in 1994.

4 Now, when you think about it, what did Delgado

5 discover? He discovered that one-fiftieth of th e amount

6 of energy in the natural background noise of the earth

7 was sufficient to manipulate the behavior of hum an

8 beings if you could hit the right frequencies, i f you

9 could hit those window frequencies that stimulat ed that

10 kind of activity.

11 Now, if you think about this -- again, by

12 analogy, think about dialing through the radio s tations

13 on a radio. In between the stations you get the white

14 noise, the static, you get no clear signal. But when

15 you have resonance between the transmitter and t he

16 receiver, then you get a nice, clear signal.

17 The same is true in our physiology. Whether

18 you're looking at stimulating or affecting a spe cific

19 element in the body, molecules in the body, cell

20 structures or organ structures or even the human mind,

21 it's about manipulating the underlying energy.

22 When you think about medical science in terms

23 of how the fork in the road is and how this kind of

24 applies to why don't we know more about this tod ay,

25 well, there's lots of literature now. 25,000 so urces, I

15

1 think we heard quoted earlier today. 25,000 sou rces

2 talking about the energy interactions with the h uman

3 body. That is a lot of information.

4 But what happened in medical science? A lot of

5 people that went into life sciences, they were r eally

6 good in the chemistry, a little weak in the math , so

7 they went to life sciences. People who were a l ittle

8 better in the math, they went to physics. And t hen once

9 upon a time, these two came together and we got

10 biophysics, which is really the root of real hea lth

11 science. If you really want to get to the meat of it,

12 you've got to get to the energetic interactions that

13 create chemical reactions that then manifest in the

14 body.

15 And that's what we kind of miss in so much of

16 our medicine. We followed a pharmaceutical mode l as

17 opposed to an electromagnetic model. In the '30 s, prior

18 to World War II, that fork in the road was being

19 explored pretty aggressively, the energetic mode ls. But

20 they were somehow lost in that shuffle and we en ded up

21 with the pharmaceutical industry, and the result s of

22 that, I think we can all not be quite so proud o f.

23 In terms of where the technology is going and

24 where a lot of the science is going, it will be

25 electromedicine that cures most of what we call

16

1 incurable. It will also be that which enhances or

2 debilitates human consciousness itself.

3 Now, Jose Delgado, when he figured out that you

4 didn't need implants, you just need to manipulat e the

5 energy itself, this became kind of the essence o f sort

6 of where everything went from there.

7 But I want to roll back a little bit, a little

8 bit back in time, and talk more about the evolut ion of

9 mind control as technology starting with the wor k at

10 Harvard University of a gentleman, Estabrook, wh o was

11 working in the Harvard hypnotherapy labs in the 1920s.

12 You can look Estabrook up. Look him up at the L ibrary

13 of Congress and you'll see his list of publicati ons, and

14 I recommend that you do that.

15 What he decided was that you could create what

16 we would call today a Manchurian candidate. You could

17 take certain individuals, put them in a very, ve ry deep

18 state of hypnosis and then over a period of time train

19 them so they would be like this super spy that y ou could

20 send into another country and they'd hang out fo r a year

21 or two, but if they got captured, they wouldn't really

22 remember any of their former self, and then when they

23 came back, in this case, into the United States, that we

24 would then give them the appropriate suggestions and

25 then extract the intelligence from them.

17

1 And this is what Estabrook was working on. By

2 the 1930s, a lot of his work was being classifie d and he

3 continued to work in this field up through the 1 960s.

4 His last book -- and I always like to read the l ast

5 thing someone writes, you know, because it tells you a

6 lot about, sort of, the conclusions and there ar e things

7 that you might discard bits and pieces as scienc e

8 enlightens you and your experience enlightens yo u. And

9 what he talked about in that last book were the

10 experiments he was involved in using LSD and oth er

11 hallucinogenics in mind control, which he actual ly

12 talked about in a favorable sense.

13 And for those of you that remember, the CIA was

14 heavily involved in this in the 1960s and, in fa ct, the

15 whole area pre-1960s going back even to the Kore an War,

16 which is sort of my next mark on the timeline.

17 The Korean War, we had prisoners, patriotic

18 young Americans come back from war and they're h anding

19 out Communist leaflets on street corners, and th e term

20 or the phrase brainwashing came into being. Tha t's

21 where it came from. It came from that series of events

22 after the Korean War.

23 The idea of being able to manipulate people's

24 behavior and change them so profoundly became of

25 interest to the predecessor of the Central Intel ligence

18

1 Agency and then later the Central Intelligence A gency.

2 And what they looked at were lots of different w ays to

3 manipulate human behavior.

4 Now, when I was researching my first book with

5 Jeane Manning, "Angels Don't Play This HAARP", I was

6 looking for a good source document that would sp eak to

7 this, because you always read about this in seco ndary,

8 tertiary sources. And so I'm in a book room, a big

9 surplus book room, and I'm telling this guy that I know,

10 I really need this source. And as I'm having th is

11 conversation, I reach unconsciously behind me in to a box

12 and I pull out this book.

13 This is a really interesting one. This is

14 actually a presidential report. This is a repor t that

15 was commissioned at the time, 1975, to look at t he

16 abuses of the CIA. Now, this came out of the Ch urch

17 Committee reports, which were Congressional hear ings

18 that took place in the early '70s to investigate the

19 abuses of the Central Intelligence Agency, the k ind of

20 abuses that we read about today, because nothing really

21 changed. Supposedly, this was to change things.

22 Now, what's in this report? The LSD

23 experiments were in this report. The idea the C entral

24 Intelligence Agency was domestically infiltratin g civil

25 rights groups, antiwar groups, people that, esse ntially,

19

1 opposed the government within the United States, which

2 was not part of their mandate, in fact, was ille gal.

3 The fact that they were reading people's mail, u til izing

4 unwitting victims and experiments for mind contr ol. All

5 of this came out in this report in 1975. And ye t, the

6 CIA continues to do it even to this day.

7 Think about the kinds of activities that have

8 been reported pretty widely over the last few ye ars,

9 whether it 's digging through garbage to blackmai l other

10 diplomats, which is something our Intelligence c ommunity

11 does, whether it 's to send pallet loads of money into

12 countries like we did in Afghanistan to bribe of ficials

13 as a way of doing business, or whether it 's to

14 assassinate people with drones, kidnap people an d

15 torture them.

16 Now, most of us don't know people like this,

17 but this is the government that I unfortunately have

18 guiding my country right now. It's a government of

19 criminals. Now, people want to talk about, oh, this

20 couldn't happen here.

21 It has happened here. It 's happened for

22 decades in the United States. This report by th e

23 President's Commission touches the very tip of t hat

24 iceberg.

25 This is another document. This is -- this guy,

20

1 Captain Tyler, he later became a colonel and ret ired.

2 He was involved in pretty much the sort of esote ric side

3 of some of the government research. This book - - this

4 chapter out of this book is called, "Low-Intensi ty

5 Conflict and Modern Technology". It was prepare d by

6 Maxwell Air Force Base in 1984. And it was talk ing

7 about a large -- a variety of technologies.

8 But in this particular one, if you look at,

9 certainly, the subject lines, you have stimulati on of ,

10 bones* generation, healing of fractures, treatme nt of

11 disease, healing of wounds. You look at behavio r

12 modification in animals. You know, some of thes e things

13 that are listed here were kind of under the myst erious

14 category. They couldn't really explain what was

15 happening in 1984.

16 But the idea was to stimulate research in these

17 fields. So a number of things happened. A lot of money

18 started to flow into these areas. One of the re ports

19 that came out in the 1980s as a result of some o f this

20 was the Radiofrequency Dosimetry Handbook. It w as a

21 big, thick handbook. It was produced by the Uni versity

22 of Utah under contract to the United States Air Force to

23 determine the radiofrequency dosages that were r equired

24 to override every vital organ of the human body, whether

25 it be the heart, the liver, the lungs, the kidne ys, just

21

1 sort of preempt their natural function to be abl e to do

2 it remotely.

3 And the idea was to take that leap of

4 technology and begin to apply it into weapon sys tems.

5 Mind control. "The Economist". Cover story. S ome of

6 you will remember this one. This is 2002, I bel ieve.

7 Yeah, 2002. And what this cover story was about was

8 about the ethics of mind control. Not saying, h ey, does

9 it exist or doesn't it exist? It's just saying it's

10 here right now. We really need to be debating w hether

11 we should advance this technology, whether we sh ould

12 limit this technology. "The Economist" is certa inly a

13 credible publication. Not too much happened fro m this

14 story.

15 This is -- unfortunately, it 's not showing up.

16 November -- you can get this one on my website. I' l l

17 give you my website, because this is a very impo rtant

18 document. The Navy set up a new set of regulati ons for

19 human experiments. It was approved in 2006. Yo u know,

20 in history, that's like tomorrow and yesterday, right?

21 It's, like, now. And in this they specifically call out

22 mind control experiments and who has the authori ty to

23 approve them. And the persons with the authorit y to

24 approve them is under secretaries of the Navy in the

25 case of Navy Intelligence or Naval research.

22

1 Now, it's not just CIA. Naval Intelligence

2 does this work. The Marines have a section on

3 non-lethal weapons that this falls under. The A ir Force

4 has the electromagnetic directorate, which is wo rking in

5 an area called controlled effects, which deal, a gain,

6 with mind control and physiological effects on h uman

7 beings. In fact, they publish a publication cal led

8 "Technology Horizons". I believe it's the June 2004

9 issue. You can look it up. The cover story is on

10 controlled effects.

11 Now, what are controlled effects? The first

12 effect is attacking hardware; you know, like equ ipment,

13 like machines, to be able to interfere with the flow of

14 electrons through circuits to disrupt those mach ines to

15 operate. Not using bombs and bullets and the th ings of

16 history, but using energy itself to manipulate h ardware.

17 The second sort of level of controlled effects

18 talked about in that article is the idea of mani pulating

19 the software, the systems that run those systems , so

20 that you can disrupt the software, then you disr upt the

21 hardware, and things collapse.

22 And the third leg of controlled effects is the

23 human operator. And what they say in this parti cular

24 article produced by the electromagnetic director of the

25 Air Force is that we can target or create the il lusion

23

1 of all of the senses in the human body; sight, s ound,

2 touch, taste, to give people complete memory set s,

3 complete experiential sets that you wouldn't be able to

4 distinguish the synthetic from the real.

5 Now, think about that for a moment. What does

6 that do to court testimony in 20 years if this b ecomes

7 the norm? They're now talking about using this for

8 post-traumatic stress syndrome folks, people com ing back

9 from warfare. This just sort of cleans up the g arbage

10 of the mind and gets rid of that stress. Some p eople

11 think that's a great idea. Personally, I think that's

12 the biggest mistake we could ever make. Because

13 whatever those servicemen and women were engaged in --

14 what used to happen in warfare -- what happened in World

15 War II when everybody came back, they said, I do n't ever

16 want to see my children in these things, I don't want to

17 see my grandchildren in these things. Wars need to be

18 put down, not amplified.

19 When you take the human factor out of warfare

20 and it becomes like a videogame, then our willin gness to

21 withdraw from direct conflict no longer happens.

22 And think about where our military science has

23 gone. In fact, I want to mention another very i mportant

24 publication. It was produced by the US Army War College

25 in the early 1980s. It 's called the "Revolution of

24

1 Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War". An d this

2 particular paper was talking about revolution of

3 military affairs. What is that exactly?

4 This is a leap as important as the introduction

5 of gunpowder in the middle ages in Europe, as im portant

6 as atomic weapons in the last century. And that 's how

7 they characterize it. And what this is is the l eap

8 where we move from ordinance, from bullets, bomb s,

9 things that rip tissue and tear things up, to

10 electromagnetic weapon systems that keep sort of the

11 hardware intact, but debilitate the human operat or to

12 the point of being combat ineffective. Or conve rsely,

13 enhance the possibilities within our own combata nts

14 while degrading the abilities of others.

15 There's simple ways that you can achieve this.

16 You can introduce to the battlefield certain ele mental

17 compounds that in small background amounts would not be

18 considered dangerous. Let me give you iodine as an

19 example. We all need a certain amount of iodine in the

20 body to maintain thyroid function. But if you h ave too

21 much iodine, you'll get poisoned. You'll die. You'll

22 get sick.

23 So what can you do? You can send a signal in

24 that resonates the very same signal strength and

25 frequency as iodine, you can send that signal in and the

25

1 body will begin to react as if its gotten this m assive

2 load of iodine and show all the symptoms of iodi ne

3 poisoning. You check the thyroid; check the blo od, it 's

4 not there. Mystery illness.

5 Something as simple as that for manipulating

6 large populations, not necessarily with their co nsent

7 and not necessarily with clear knowledge, and no thing

8 shows up in the background that would say why th is

9 poison actually exists that would account for th is. A

10 simple way.

11 One of the other ways that this technology can

12 be exploited is really quite simple. There was an

13 article produced by "Parameters", which is a mil itary

14 publication. "Parameters". You can look it up. It 's

15 the -- I believe it was the Fall 1998, but you c an look

16 up the article name called, "The Mind has no Fir ewall".

17 It's a very important article. This article tal ked

18 about all the various ways in which you could in troduce

19 mind effects or mind control technologies using modern

20 technology today. And the original article was actually

21 written in a military journal called "Orienteer"

22 published in what is now Russia.

23 What's interesting about this is it said you

24 could use any electromagnetic carrier, whether i t be

25 radio, TV, the Internet, now cell phones; but,

26

1 essentially, any of these carriers, you can modu late a

2 signal on them that will manipulate behavior of segments

3 of the population.

4 And the Russians demonstrated this in a couple

5 of different ways. There was a program. It was called

6 "Undercurrents". It aired in the CBC, which is the

7 Canadian Public Broadcasting System. "Undercurr ents"

8 did two really interesting stories that I got to

9 participate in. One was on HAARP and the other was on

10 mind control. And on the mind control story tha t they

11 did -- this was a very popular program in Canada at the

12 time and this particular segment was their highe st rated

13 that they had ever run. And they had folks that came in

14 who were involved in the "Star Wars" initiative during

15 the Reagan Administration that couldn't talk abo ut what

16 they did in the White House, but they could talk about

17 what they observed in Russia.

18 And one of the things that they talked about

19 was the idea that you could -- you could create, sort

20 of, this white noise and on this white noise car ry a

21 signal. And so they put out this message, bring us

22 cake. And Russians at tea time, you know, they eat

23 these little cakes? I guess you do that in othe r parts

24 of Europe as well.

25 And so at the appointed time they began to

27

1 broadcast this. And workers from within that bu ilding

2 and on the street were bringing cake into the me eting

3 room without really knowing why they were doing it.

4 They just felt like doing it. Well, that was, i n fact,

5 what they were programmed to do.

6 Now, this goes back. We're talking about

7 15-year-old technology. And when you think abou t sort

8 of where did it go from there, in 2006, there we re a

9 couple contracts left by DARPA, which does resea rch for

10 the defense industry in the United States. And DARPA

11 used to be run by a guy named Tony Tether. Tony Tether

12 was a good friend of Ben Eastlund's.

13 Now, what they were doing then was, they had

14 left two contracts to the University of Californ ia for

15 what's called electronic telepathy. Okay. Elec tronic

16 telepathy. The idea of reading another person's mind at

17 a distance by analyzing the emanations coming fr om this

18 area, being able to analyze that and determine a nd

19 interpret what it is. And then the other half o f the

20 contract was to create complex signals to see if you

21 could transfer that array, so to speak, of signa ls into

22 another person's consciousness and whether they would

23 perceive the same images.

24 Now, there was work done by Elizabeth Rauscher

25 and her late husband, Bill Van Bise, in this ver y same

28

1 area. In fact, I have a copy of their unpublish ed paper

2 where they actually built an electronic circuit where

3 they could take a person in one room and a perso n in

4 another room, attach this person to that circuit and

5 this person to that circuit, and then, you know, the

6 psychic card where they show the triangles, the squares

7 and the circles and the little squiggly lines, a hundred

8 percent accurate with nine test subjects who had never

9 experienced consciously in any way any sense of

10 extrasensory perceptions or psychic perceptions. They

11 did it with hardware, transferring thoughts from one to

12 the other.

13 Now -- which tells me it's probably a little

14 more simple than what DARPA's doing. But when B en

15 Eastlund was doing work on HAARP and he was doin g other

16 work for DARPA at the time and we had talked abo ut him

17 in our first publication, and then actually afte r

18 publication became friends, and Ben Eastlund's a ttitude

19 was, you know, some things just shouldn't be don e. And

20 one of the things that he had been working on wa s

21 whether modification technologies, which he was at that

22 time and when we first met, making that technolo gy

23 available to the military. And after some dialo gue with

24 us and others, he decided there's certain techno logies

25 that are not safe in the hands of military.

29

1 At one point along the course I began doing

2 quite a bit of work on this whole mind effects i ssue.

3 And I caught the attention of a woman, Dorothy L ay.

4 Now, Dorothy is one of the heirs to the Lay, as in

5 Frito-Lay and PepsiCo Corporation. So a very we althy

6 family. Dorothy was very interested in this tec hnology

7 specifically as it applied to victims.

8 And so she approached me at one point and asked

9 if I would become a member of her board of direc tors for

10 a non-profit that she was setting up to deal wit h these

11 kinds of technologies. And I've got to think ab out

12 whether I should tell you the rest of this story , and I

13 think I will, because why not?

14 So I have this thing, intuition. All of us

15 have it. I used to not pay as much attention to it as I

16 do today. When my intuition tells me something, I

17 listen, because when I really think about it, it 's never

18 been wrong. Neither has yours, if you really th ink

19 about it. Or maybe you don't think about it and just

20 start acting on it.

21 So my intuition said -- and this was a very

22 difficult time for me in 2002. In 2002, I had b een

23 betrayed by a very good friend, economically was

24 bankrupt in the middle of this work, because I s tarted

25 this work in '94. Economically was being crushe d. And

30

1 at that point I was deciding whether I was going to stay

2 in this work at all.

3 And I'm going through a bunch of my files and I

4 see this file and it's marked Lay. And I rememb er this

5 person had contacted us needing some information and we

6 provided it. And we never charge for that. I m ean, the

7 way we operated is, I sold books. And people li ke you

8 bought my books. And they allowed me to do this work.

9 I didn't write for grants where somebody could

10 manipulate me and control me and tell me what to say. I

11 didn't go out and find some publisher that would edit

12 out my work. I risked my own money. I publishe d my

13 book. And then I asked people to help me by sup porting

14 that work by buying that book. And I tell you, I made

15 two and a half million dollars and I spent that two and

16 a half million dollars over 20 years doing what I'm

17 doing right now.

18 A VOICE: Thank you.

19 (Applause.)

20 DR. BEGICH: And the whole idea was just to

21 educate. I didn't deal with victims. Okay. An d the

22 reason I didn't was because I felt that that was putting

23 the cart before the horse. We first need to edu cate

24 people that the technology is real, that this co uld

25 really happen to people and from that foundation , and

31

1 that became the foundation of my work in this.

2 So Dorothy calls me on the phone and she says,

3 will you be on my board? And I talked to her fo r about

4 an hour. At the end of the hour, I said, no, I can't be

5 on your board.

6 She said, well, why not?

7 I said, because my intuition is telling me I

8 really can't be on your board.

9 And she goes, well, I deserve more than that.

10 I said, okay. I don't know your board members,

11 I don't know who your board is, but something in here is

12 saying there's a problem there and I don't want to be

13 associated with them.

14 (Applause.)

15 DR. BEGICH: So it was a couple of months later

16 I got the call back. Because I told her also, I said,

17 you have millions. You have the ability. Go re search

18 what they say they're doing. Go see if it's rea lly

19 being done and find out for yourself. Do your d ue

20 diligence again.

21 And she did. A couple months later she came

22 back and she said, you were right. They were de frauding

23 me a number of ways. I've cleared out my board. It 's

24 just me now and my attorney. Will you be on my board?

25 Now, bear in mind, I'm in a pretty desperate

32

1 situation economically. At the time I have five

2 children at home. I've got people to take care of. I

3 have an economy that I've got to manage. And I tell

4 Dorothy, no, I can't be on your board.

5 She says, well, why not?

6 I said, well, I need to meet you first in

7 person, eyeball to eyeball. I said, we're going to talk

8 for three days. We're not going to talk about y our

9 foundation. I want to know everything I'm ever going to

10 read about you and your family in the newspaper. I want

11 you to have the same knowledge level of me. And I want

12 to know what your world view is before I join wi th you

13 in achieving that world view, because you have t he means

14 and I have the willingness if that world view is shared.

15 So we spent a few days. We decided that I

16 could do this. And for four years I worked with her.

17 And we put together, as her major effort was, a

18 conference on mind effects. But it wasn't open to the

19 public. It was closed to the public. And it wa s to

20 bring some key people together to have a convers ation

21 that would be open and free.

22 And one of those people I invited was Ben

23 Eastlund, who by then I'd gotten to know, had wa tched

24 what he had done in terms of his career. He was well

25 connected with DARPA at the time.

33

1 And I called him and I said, you know, Ben,

2 would you consider participating in this confere nce?

3 And he said, you know, if you had asked me this

4 seven or eight years ago, on a scale of one to t en, ten

5 being the relevance and importance of this, and one

6 being irrelevant and unimportant, I would have g iven

7 this a one or a two. He goes, but -- he goes, e very

8 time I talk to Tony Tether or others at DARPA, n obody's

9 laughing about mind control anymore and it's a n ine or a

10 ten and, yes, I' ll participate in your conferenc e.

11 The next person I asked was Garth Nicolson.

12 Does that name ring any bells for anybody? Okay . Garth

13 Nicolson was a full professor, I believe it was Texas

14 A&M. He taught medical students. He taught ove r a

15 thousand medical students. He was the guy that blew the

16 whistle on Gulf War Syndrome and testified in ou r

17 Congress six times before his wife was fired as a

18 molecular biologist from Texas A&M. And he was tenured;

19 they couldn't fire him. But they definitely har assed

20 him, because he was one of the first courageousl y enough

21 to step up to the plate and complain about what had been

22 happening in the Gulf War; we depleted uranium a nd some

23 of the other technologies that were being applie d there.

24 Well, the best thing that ever happened to him

25 was he got out of the university system. He for med a

34

1 nonprofit to deal with chronic disease. And he was

2 somebody that I watched maintain his course unde r really

3 difficult circumstances. So he was invited to t hat

4 conference.

5 I invited the daughter of my mentor, Raul

6 Makayla. She's an electrophysiologist. She ser ves on

7 one of the boards in Russia that regulates medic al

8 applications of lasers. She's an electrophysiol ogist.

9 Quite brill iant. We invited her.

10 We invited Rosalie Bertell. Does anyone

11 remember Rosalie Bertell? Okay. A few. Rosali e's

12 passed. Also deceased now. She was a mathemati cian,

13 physicist, biologist. She taught higher mathema tics to

14 doctoral students at Berkeley. She was also a n un.

15 It's kind of an odd combination. She was the le ad

16 statistician to go in to Bhopal for the World He alth

17 Organization after that huge chemical disaster. But she

18 was considered one of the top people in the worl d for

19 dealing with victims of radiological experiments ,

20 including electromagnetic radiation. She actual ly took

21 some of our work and added to it and published a book on

22 the HAARP system and its effect on human beings on this

23 sort of broad scale. So we had invited Rosalie, who had

24 been through some really difficult times as well , rose

25 out of her own ashes and maintained her ethical

35

1 platform.

2 The other person we invited was Alexander

3 Kaivarainen. Does anybody recognize that name? He was

4 the former head of the USSR Academy of Science

5 Biophysics Department for ten years. And this i s the

6 area that really gets into the meat of what we'r e

7 talking about here today. Now, what got -- Alex , I

8 believe, is deceased now also. You know, all th ese

9 guys, you know, they're a lot older than me and they

10 keep dying of old age. But Alex got his stimula tion in

11 science at a young age watching a demonstration of the

12 paranormal, ESP, telepathy, these kinds of thing s in

13 Russia when he was a teenager. And it just real ly

14 caught his interest.

15 When I met Alex, he was in his 60s and he was

16 the brightest top five physicists on the planet,

17 recognized by institutions around the world. An d what

18 he had determined is that there were rational re asons

19 for why these things manifested. So he was invi ted to

20 this conference and actually presented a paper g iving

21 the mathematics and the physics that lends itsel f to

22 these extrasensory possibilities, these things t hat the

23 military now calls anomalous human capabilities. We

24 used to call it extrasensory perception or ESP, but now

25 they give it a new name because there's a lot of

36

1 connotations with that that kind of get you disc redited

2 in certain segments of the scientific community.

3 So I want to talk -- roll back again a little

4 bit -- I want to talk about binaural beat, which I had

5 mentioned earlier in this presentation. And I j ump

6 around a little bit. It 's kind of my style. I used to

7 not even use these things, but I think people fe el more

8 comfortable using them.

9 The binaural beat. We can't hear these really,

10 really low frequency signals, because the human ear

11 doesn't quite work that way. Below a certain fr equency,

12 the human ear won't hear.

13 Now, a gentleman by the name of Robert Monroe

14 developed a method using binaural beat where you could

15 send in a signal within the range of human heari ng, say,

16 at 15,000 Hertz or pulses per second or cycles p er

17 second, coming in one ear at, say, 15,000, anoth er

18 signal coming in the other ear at, say, 15,007. Within

19 the cranium they will cancel each other out and leave a

20 beat frequency of seven, the difference between the two.

21 15,000, 15,007. The beat frequency becomes seve n Hertz,

22 seven pulses per second, which happens to be in the

23 upper Theta range, and this is where the brain t hen

24 drives to.

25 At the same time that that occurs, you get a

37

1 hemispheric balance, a distribution of energy ac ross

2 both hemispheres of the brain, the analytical si de and

3 the creative side and working together. This is

4 actually how human beings are supposed to functi on.

5 This is how young children predominantly functio n, with

6 more of a balance between the hemispheres, where the

7 energy is more balanced. And then we educate th em.

8 And with young girls, who we say are more

9 intuitive and have this other operation of the b rain,

10 and young boys are more analytical, and now we k ind of

11 treat everybody the same so we kind of dumb them all

12 down to the same level. But when you look at yo ung

13 children and you look at where their brain activ ity is

14 and between 3 and, say, 5 or 6 years old, they h ave

15 this predominant brain frequencies or a lot of T heta

16 brain frequencies coming in and then some ELF an d then

17 higher frequency ranges.

18 Now, what is Theta? Theta states if we're in a

19 Theta state, we're kind of like in that dream-li ke state

20 between awake and asleep where you're consciousl y aware

21 of your dreams. That's where 3 to 5 year olds s pend a

22 good deal of their time. That's why their imagi nations,

23 as we call it, are so active. And we keep sayin g, oh,

24 don't pay attention to that, don't pay attention to

25 that. This was our first attempt to shut down t he

38

1 intuitive combinations of the way the brain is a ctually

2 supposed to work.

3 In fact, for those who have a Christian

4 background, you know Jesus Christ himself said, look at

5 the little children, watch what they do. You kn ow, I

6 think I heard somebody say something about this earlier,

7 little children come to the table kind of innoce nt with

8 a view of the world that's quite different than the rest

9 of ours. But the brain activity of children is unique

10 and we begin to take that out of them in the str ucture

11 of the way we educate.

12 So what Robert Monroe -- he was actually a

13 radio engineer. He owned a bunch of radio stati ons. He

14 had this really weird experience. It 's an OBE, an outer

15 body experience, that he had that kind of threw him.

16 You know, it didn't make any sense to him. So h e

17 began -- he also noticed that in the background there

18 was this kind of noise that he perceived.

19 So he began to experiment and he created this

20 technique for binaural beat. He developed a who le

21 series. In fact, he actually got US patents on a

22 binaural beat. This is an image taken out of on e of

23 those US patents from 1994, and this is showing the

24 brain before the activity, before turning on the

25 Hemi-Sync, and this is after, showing a more eve n

39

1 distribution in a more rhythmic pattern in the

2 brainwaves as you see in the upper right-hand co rner.

3 Let me roll back again so you can kind of see

4 the comparison. Normal brain, kind of disorgani zed

5 activities happening all through the brain, and then a

6 coherent signal creating a hemispheric balance a nd an

7 optimization of brain potential.

8 So what did he do with this? He developed a

9 whole series of things; audio input technology,

10 essentially, to manipulate behavior, but where y ou're in

11 control of that manipulation. So you want to qu it

12 smoking, you get his CD on quit smoking. It aff ects the

13 brain in such a way, becomes compelling, very af fective.

14 Sleep disorders can be addressed in this way.

15 They have someone be able to relax, meditation,

16 concentration, accelerated learning. A whole ar ray of

17 things can be done. And they did this by workin g with,

18 over the course of many, many, many, many years, and now

19 his daughter doing the work of working with thou sands of

20 people to determine which signals actually creat ed which

21 effects and then developing technology that they could

22 place in the hands of individuals to make the ch oice on

23 how to use it.

24 Now, that's kind of an interesting way of

25 looking at technology. It was my area of intere st, in

40

1 the beginning of all of this work, was not looki ng for

2 the dark side of all of this, but in the mid-'80 s I got

3 very interested in light and sound stimulation o f the

4 brain that capitalized on sound signals and flic kering

5 light for brain entrainment. Entrain the brain where

6 the brain will follow that external signal or wh at's

7 called FFR, frequency following response. So ve ry

8 little energy.

9 Let me roll back to Delgado again.

10 One-fiftieth of the amount of energy the earth c reates

11 is sufficient to move your brain into very speci fic

12 states. Dialing that radio up, if you will. Th is is

13 just another technique for altering brain activi ty that

14 might be beneficial, but you're in control of it , not

15 somebody else.

16 I'm going to skip some of these just because

17 they're not so relevant. And I'm going to close the

18 images and let me just go back into the whole di alogue

19 of this, mind effects.

20 When I think about sort of where do we go with

21 this conference, when we put that conference tog ether

22 with the Lay Institute, our purpose was to put t ogether

23 these really good thinkers to try and see if we could

24 create a synergy between them.

25 And when I first got interested in doing

41

1 something actively in science, it wasn't about H AARP and

2 it wasn't about mind control. The role that I t hought I

3 would play -- and I was working in a government office

4 at the time, and it was -- my friend said, you m ake your

5 living with your left foot. Because I could mak e my

6 living, but the rest of my creativity could be e ngaged

7 elsewhere and me working in bureaucracy was real ly a bad

8 match.

9 But the point was, my youngest son, when I was

10 getting really frustrated with my work, said, ch ange

11 channels.

12 You know, I'm thinking about this, because I

13 had just given him this discussion about creativ ity was

14 like changing the channels on the TV set, right, and so

15 he's feeding it back, time to change the channel s, Dad.

16 So I thought about it. And what I decided I

17 would do is -- I read independently in science o ver 20

18 years. I had read some really compelling things from,

19 say, one guy in one branch of science. I though t, boy,

20 if this person could ever meet that person, you could

21 really see something happen.

22 And the first paper I actually ever presented

23 in science, I was 19 and it was at another obscu re

24 conference that I ended up in on biorhythm resea rch.

25 And my paper was contrasting at that time the So viet

42

1 method of research versus the US method. Now, t he US

2 method was compartmentalization, separate. You know,

3 distill things down to the smallest subspecialty and

4 then push these people into a corner and let the m do

5 this bit of the research. And then you've got n ine

6 other people over here and ten other groups over there

7 and fifteen groups over there, and somewhere all of this

8 stuff comes together and it gets really sloppy. Okay.

9 It's sloppy because there's a lot of repetition; it 's

10 very expensive.

11 Now, the Russians, Soviets at the time, they

12 didn't have the money for that kind of research, to

13 spread it out that way, and they used a very dif ferent

14 method. They took experts from all of these dif ferent

15 fields, even though they didn't seem like they s hould

16 connect. They put them in the same room to work

17 together to develop science. That's why when yo u look

18 at the exposures that we had seen earlier, what are the

19 regulatory exposures of electromagnetic fields, the

20 Russians in the '90s and the '80s were a thousan d times

21 more stringent than they were in the US.

22 Well, why was it? Because they had actually

23 made the observations that we hadn't made and ac tually

24 connected the dots in a way to say, hey, this is

25 dangerous. That doesn't mean they followed thei r own

43

1 regulations, because they probably didn't. They did

2 whatever was expeditious there. But at least th ey

3 recognized the physiological responses to

4 electromagnetic fields and the fact that you cou ld

5 manipulate it.

6 What was discovered by a guy named Allan Frey,

7 he was looking at microwaves, and he discovered that

8 there's this flickering effect, but it only occu rred

9 when you pulse-modulated the signal. And if you look

10 at -- I heard earlier, it's always scalars. It' s always

11 scalars. It's not vectors. It's not electromag netic

12 fields as we think about them.

13 But if you look at the ones that affect human

14 psychology and physiology, if you look at those signals,

15 they have a very quick rise time and a very fast drop.

16 They're like the punch, like punching that ionos phere to

17 create the ELF. It's like those signals. Those

18 modulations on these other carriers are meant to trigger

19 that effect by you entraining to that pulse, tha t

20 firing, or some submodulation being carried on a general

21 carrier.

22 Now, if you remember the first Gulf War, the

23 first Bush War, and you remember how the Iraqi A rmy just

24 sort of gave up. The fourth largest Army in the world

25 just like school children on their first fire dr ill

44

1 throwing their hands up and surrendering, you kn ow,

2 thousands of guys to a few dozen. What was that about?

3 Now, I speculated on this. And then it was

4 Scottish media that later reported on this and s aid it

5 was Project Solo, which was a project operated b y the

6 United States. And what we did is we had this C -130

7 flying over the country at the time and it was t aking

8 and piggybacking the signal on the radio broadca st going

9 into the region that were broadcasting the Musli m music

10 and prayers.

11 So all these guys are in their bunkers

12 listening to their favorite radio station. Unbe knownst

13 to them, the subsignals being played on that bro adcast

14 created anxiety, high levels of anxiety and fear . And

15 then you watched this Army just collapse under t his.

16 And that was kind of the -- in my view, the

17 first test of could you really do this, could yo u do it

18 in this adversarial environment.

19 And one of my friends joked, hey, it 's the

20 perfect Republican weapon, right? You can keep all the

21 hardware in place, but totally wipe out the popu lation.

22 Zbigniew Brzezinski said, in between two ways,

23 it doesn't matter if it 's Republicans or Conserv atives.

24 They just use different rationale for accomplish ing

25 their political ends. On the conservative side, the

45

1 Neocon side, it might be the fascination with ga dgetry

2 and new technology, as Zbigniew Brzezinski said, and on

3 the liberal side it might be the idea that we're doing

4 this for your own good. The government is here, right?

5 And we've all heard that before.

6 The fact of the matter is, when you start

7 thinking about mind control technologies as a co ncept,

8 the idea that someone believes that they can int erfere

9 with your free will, this is something that most

10 religions in the world say God won't even do. Y et, men

11 think this is their appropriate direction in tec hnology,

12 to interfere with the way consciousness flows.

13 Now, think about for a moment what are the

14 things that -- what is the easiest way to manipu late

15 consciousness? The easiest way, the simplest wa y.

16 Create an environment of anxiety and fear. Beca use what

17 happens at that point is you cannot reach your h igher

18 states of consciousness.

19 If you look at Monroe, rhythmic patterns in the

20 Hemi-Sync as an example, higher states of consci ousness

21 are associated with those rhythmic patterns with in the

22 brain; not that incoherent scattering of death a nd

23 information and energy.

24 So if you create a certain environment of fear

25 and anxiety and you look at an EEG monitor and t he brain

46

1 activity of an individual, you see it's kind of

2 scattered in patterns. One person is experienci ng

3 higher emotions; love, compassion. You begin to see

4 rhythmic patterns.

5 Another simple way of seeing is something that

6 you can actually measure. Take two people that are in

7 love and they -- you know the saying, and I look ed into

8 her eyes, right? If you actually gaze into the eyes of

9 another individual and hold that gaze, you'll be gin to

10 mirror each other's brain activity in a pretty u nique

11 way. Your breathing will even synchronize if yo u do it

12 long enough. Two people's breathing begins to

13 synchronize. Their energy fields begin to synch ronize.

14 And at the same time, their awareness, their

15 intuitions elevate and their rhythmic patterns i n the

16 brain can be seen. If you can create an environ ment of

17 fear -- think about the advertising you see on

18 television. It 's all about how you smell, how y our

19 breath is, you know? It's all these things to m ake you

20 uncomfortable.

21 Think about the 6:00 news. Now, we heard

22 someone talk about the 6:00 news and how that ki nd of

23 works. You come home from a hard day at work. Most

24 people sit down in front of the television set. They're

25 already fatigued. They begin to watch the telev ision.

47

1 And then their spouse hollers, it's time for din ner;

2 it's time for dinner. How many of you've been t here,

3 right? Nobody's listening. No one's hearing. Because

4 they're in a light trance-like state.

5 Now, if you look in a dark room -- the

6 television is here -- look behind you at the whi te wall

7 and look at the flicker rate. If that flicker r ate is a

8 coherent signal within a certain range through t he optic

9 nerves, your brain will lock onto that signal. If you

10 monitor the brain activity at that time, you'll drop

11 into this highly-suggestive state and now you li sten to

12 the advertising.

13 Now, every school of psychology teaches

14 frequency following response today and that you can

15 create these kinds of effects. Would they apply in

16 advertising? Of course they would. That's why

17 advertising works so well. It works because it' s

18 convincing and compelling.

19 When you look at the 6:00 news, would somebody

20 utilize that in broadcasting the news of the lat est

21 propaganda from whatever source it's coming from ? I

22 would speculate -- today I would speculate and s ay yes.

23 When you think about how simple it is to create

24 that agitation. There was a person at Valencia

25 University who published a paper in 1995 talking about

48

1 this whole concept. And what he said back then was you

2 could create a complex signal, broadcast it out over a

3 large area that just created the sense that some thing's

4 not right. Unease.

5 And then you go watch the 6:00 news and they

6 indict some specific ethnic group, maybe it's Mu slims,

7 and then a certain amount of that anger gets div erted

8 that way. Well, in a day where a lot of things are

9 decided on the laser edge of populations, on maj orities,

10 this is a very, very powerful tool and one quite simple

11 tool to apply in the modern world.

12 When you think about news feeds today, how much

13 is really investigative reporting and how much o f it is

14 just spitting out somebody's press release, righ t? Very

15 little investigative reporting today because it' s

16 expensive, because it's not immediate, and when you look

17 at the news media today, it 's almost immediate a nd most

18 of it is just meant to entertain. It 's not mean t to

19 inform.

20 You know, freedom of the press, it used to have

21 something to do with keeping an informed public so we

22 could make good decisions and we could govern as a

23 public. Today we debate the media as freedom of speech.

24 Say whatever you want, say it however you want, but

25 nobody takes responsibility and we have the neut ered

49

1 neutral news. And if you really believe it's ne utral,

2 come on.

3 Everybody who assigns a story to a reporter

4 knows that reporter's biased. The editors have bias.

5 It comes out in the news and what gets published and

6 what doesn't. How many stories about mind contr ol hit

7 the news? Occasionally. The economists might p ick it

8 up. Somebody might pick up a little bit, a piec e of it.

9 But no one has really taken it on as a topic and

10 consistently pursued it.

11 Yet, when you think about modern technology and

12 the resolution -- now, we've been talking about things

13 that have happened in the past, and somebody eve n

14 mentioned this, MK-ULTRA is a program -- you've heard it

15 alluded to. That was the CIA's program. It had 144

16 subprojects under it.

17 Most of the records surrounding that were

18 shredded by a guy named Gottlieb, who was respon sible

19 for that at the Central Intelligence Agency duri ng the

20 Church Committee hearings. We never really got the

21 truth back then. But the resolution, the abilit y to do

22 this, has become increasingly refined as our tec hnology

23 has advanced.

24 When you think about technological advances,

25 one of the things I read says that technology fr om the

50

1 invention of the wheel to where we are today, it doubles

2 about every nine to ten months. Wow. Think abo ut it.

3 Invention of the wheel to where we are today, te n months

4 from now we're going to double that, and then we 're

5 going to keep doing that.

6 It used to be every five years in the 1980s,

7 and it kept shrinking as our computing power inc reased

8 and our ability to manipulate large amounts of d ata

9 increased.

10 Now, a super computer, think about a super

11 computer. A super computer will do somewhere, w hen I

12 was doing this work, about 280 teraflops a secon d, which

13 at that time would be like six bill ion people on the

14 planet with hand calculators doing a calculation every

15 60 seconds for 60 hours to do what that super co mputer

16 could do in a second.

17 Well, the next evolution -- some think it's

18 already here -- are the quantum computers. What will

19 the quantum computer do? A quantum computer in one hour

20 will do what a super computer does in a trill ion years.

21 It's back to this analogy of how much EMF do we have out

22 there.

23 Well, think about the same kind of

24 amplification and computing power. You look at privacy

25 as a concept. It doesn't exist in the world tod ay,

51

1 right? Virtually everything about us is catalog ued,

2 tracked, whether it 's your GPS on your phone, wh ether

3 it's your phone conversations -- in the United S tates,

4 every piece of mail is photographed for who it w ent to

5 and who sent it.

6 When you think about your telecommunications,

7 your Internet connections, Google, AT&T, Verizon , all of

8 them have violated the very essence of what pers onal

9 privacy is all about.

10 Because today, in the 21st Century, we need a

11 revolution, an evolution of what privacy is all about.

12 Because you, experiencing the victimization of t his

13 technology, are the pinnacle of the abuse. But everyone

14 is subject to abuse of personal privacy.

15 You used to think about it, it would start and

16 end in our physical doorway in our home. It has nothing

17 in your home compared to what is in data banks s tored on

18 every single human being in this room.

19 Now, people say, oh, don't worry about it. We

20 don't have the ability to collect. We don't hav e the

21 resolution to look into it. Quantum computers w ill give

22 that resolution. Whichever government finds qua ntum

23 computing first will be able to hack through eve ry

24 security code for every system on the planet wit hin

25 hours. They'll be able to predict with so much accuracy

52

1 by collecting all that data and analyzing that d ata, it

2 will almost seem a spiritual event.

3 But it will only be accurate up to a certain

4 point. And then there will be a little bit of a flaw.

5 And over time that flaw will amplify to where it 's big

6 flaws. But we'll rely increasingly on these sys tems to

7 guide our world, to guide our ideas, our philoso phy, and

8 how we pursue the world.

9 The Internet. What people think about that is

10 the world wide mind of the 21st Century. PBS, o ur

11 Public Broadcasting System, did a special called "The

12 World Wide Mind". And they say within 100 years -- and

13 I say within 20 years or even now -- maybe it al ready

14 exists now -- but within 20 years that you'll be able to

15 connect the physical minds of all of the people on the

16 planet in a world wide mind.

17 Now, that might appeal to some. It doesn't

18 really appeal to me from the standpoint of techn ology.

19 I think we already have that on a certain level. I

20 think we already are connected on a certain leve l. Our

21 belief systems limit our ability to access that level,

22 but I believe it's here.

23 And I've seen enough demonstrations of it. You

24 know, all those scientists I had in that room fo r that

25 mind effects conference, the part that really bl ew me

53

1 away that I didn't expect was what they really c entered

2 on was the idea -- and this was Rosalie Bertell, the nun

3 and physicist, and she said that the next leap i s going

4 to be the leap where we realize or we recognize or we

5 remember our extrasensory perceptions, our anony mous

6 capabilities as human beings and that becomes th e next

7 evolution of the human kind.

8 And what suppresses that is fear and anxiety,

9 because you cannot reach those cases of consciou sness as

10 long as you're in fear and anxiety. And anyone who

11 purports or is a victim of these technologies, d o you

12 have anxiety, do you have fear? Of course you d o. Do

13 you have the ability to reach those higher state s of

14 consciousness in that condition? It's physiolog ically

15 not possible.

16 So when you think about entire populations,

17 whether it 's religion injecting fear or whether it's

18 government injecting fear or as my friend used t o say,

19 you know, the king keeps you poor and the church keeps

20 you dumb, kind of was the early idea when you th ink

21 about how things evolved in Europe several hundr ed years

22 ago.

23 When you think about modern technology on the

24 backdrop of that concept, what's changed? Nothi ng's

25 changed. It's just the same deal. You know, 6, 000 wars

54

1 in 4,000 years, most of them over religion; let me give

2 you a clue, God doesn't need any help killing an ybody.

3 God can probably do it himself or herself.

4 The fact of the matter is, the idea that people

5 would just be evil on -- and I think I heard ear lier

6 today that the psychopaths are in the minority. I

7 believe they are. I think really evil-to-the-co re

8 people, they're out there, but they're not this mass.

9 Most people do things because they believe they' re

10 right, and then they want to impose their rightn ess on

11 other people.

12 And this is kind of a mistake and then we end

13 up in this conflict between ideas without being fair and

14 recognizing people's right to disagree. And I h eard it

15 said earlier, certain things you can't say in Ge rmany.

16 Certain things you can't say in a movie theater, too.

17 You know, you can't yell fire. Now, it makes go od

18 sense. You don't want to yell fire in a movie t heater.

19 Some would say what we're doing here is yelling

20 fire in a movie theater because we're letting pe ople

21 know what we know, what we've concluded from a g ood deal

22 of research.

23 You know, my books are written, every page at

24 the bottom of each page are the footnotes. Some of you

25 find that distracting. Personally, I want to kn ow where

55

1 the information came from as I'm reading it, not a week

2 later as I'm contemplating it. I want to know t he

3 source.

4 And so in the publications that I've written,

5 1600 source documents, reviews out of a matrix o f a

6 hundred thousand that we had available to us, mo re or

7 less. 20,000 have made it into my archives and 1600

8 have made it into four books on technology deali ng with

9 mind effects, dealing with HAARP, dealing with p ersonal

10 privacy issues. A lot of the things go unreleas ed in

11 the last four years.

12 You can look at my publications from 1999 and

13 2000, and you'll see the same things, because th e old

14 literature showed enough to come to those conclu sions.

15 When I testified in the European Parliament in

16 the '90s, at their invitation -- and this was an other --

17 a good side story for technology. A gentleman b y the

18 name of Thomas Spencer, he was from the UK, he w as a

19 Parliamentarian at the time, and he was the Chai rman of

20 the Environmental Subcommittee of the European

21 Parliament. And he had contacted me. Somebody had

22 given him the book on HAARP and he was very inte rested

23 in this. So we had a conversation. And at my e xpense,

24 I flew to Brussels and spent a few days with him talking

25 about the issue and brought with me a couple fee t of

56

1 unclassified documents for his research team to take a

2 look at.

3 What happened then is he moved in the European

4 Parliament -- he was a Conservative, by the way, and he

5 moved into a Foreign Affairs Chairman, a very po werful

6 position, an ideal position for dealing with the things

7 that we were dealing with at the time.

8 So we -- at his invitation, I came over to

9 testify in front of the group on security and

10 disarmament in the European Parliament on HAARP and on

11 non-lethal weapons, the kinds of things we've be en

12 talking about today, the manipulation of human b eings.

13 Now, they do it a lot differently than we do it

14 in the US. In the US, when you have public hear ings,

15 the public actually gets to come. In the Europe an

16 Parliament, the public meeting is you have to ha ve an

17 invitation to come. So that's kind of different . You

18 know, I hadn't really thought much about that.

19 And they also -- they can also do things behind

20 closed doors, which, you know, we theoretically can't do

21 in the United States. You can't have a meeting without

22 the public invited or the media invited.

23 So what happened the night before the hearing

24 is the Committee met with myself, one of the oth er

25 people testifying, and a member of the press and we

57

1 spent five and a half hours in a non-official me eting to

2 talk about these issues, so that when we actuall y gave

3 our testimony the following day, they would have

4 formulated a set of questions to give us the opp ortunity

5 to follow along. So it was a great way to do it ,

6 because then they at least had a good base of kn owledge.

7 Now, in that private meeting we demonstrated a

8 technology using infrasound where you could tran sfer

9 sound through electrodes attached to the skin wh ere you

10 would perceive that proverbial voice in the head . We

11 demonstrated that to the Parliamentarians in tha t closed

12 session.

13 And then we went into the hearing the following

14 day. And it was Rosalie Bertell, which is where I met

15 her, testifying on our side. It was -- I can't remember

16 the gentleman's name, but he was from a group ca lled

17 GRIP in Brussels that does research on weapon sy stems

18 particularly and he had done his Master's thesis on

19 HAARP, and so he was there.

20 We had someone from the International Red Cross

21 that had done work on non-lethal weapons and was a

22 specialist in this particular area. And then I was

23 there.

24 We each got 15 minutes to present. And then I

25 got an hour of questions from the committee in t he open

58

1 hearing where I had the opportunity to talk abou t some

2 of these things. And right around that time the re had

3 been this incident in Japan where children watch ing a

4 cartoon that had a certain flicker rate had caus ed over

5 700 children to go to the hospital with epilepti c

6 seizures. Now, remember, non-ionizing radiation is not

7 a problem, right? A flicker of the TV caused 70 0 kids

8 to go into the hospital.

9 Now, some say that was by design. Some say

10 that was by accident. But it was a perfect il lu stration

11 for talking about non-ionizing radiation in the European

12 Parliament because they had all read that story. It was

13 fresh.

14 The other thing demonstrating infrasound,

15 something that had never been demonstrated, to m y

16 knowledge, in that type of a meeting, to show th at you

17 could actually transfer sound without necessaril y

18 involving the ears.

19 Now, there's another technology that was

20 advanced by a guy named Woody Norris -- he won t he

21 Lemelson Prize at MIT for this particular techno logy,

22 and I believe the year was 2004. You can look u p Woody

23 Norris -- and his was using acoustic heterodyne where he

24 could send in two signals from two different sou rces,

25 point them at an individual in the crowd, and th ey would

59

1 hear this voice in their head and nobody else wo uld hear

2 it.

3 Well, he won a half a million dollars for that

4 prize, organized a company called ATCO. You can look

5 them up. They're a public company. And he sold that

6 technology to the military for perimeter protect ion.

7 You know, where they could have these sort of al arm

8 systems so when the protestors got too close the y'd hear

9 these warning signs that nobody else was hearing .

10 Now, you think about that for a moment.

11 Imagine -- this is why the European Parliament g ot

12 interested, because we used this il lustration. Now,

13 imagine a national leader standing up in front o f a

14 group and all of a sudden they hear voices in th eir head

15 that nobody else hears. That's the end of that guy,

16 right? I mean, he's out of there. And that's e xactly

17 what that technology can do. And that was one

18 demonstration.

19 Now, some have said that you can pulse modulate

20 on a single beam and create the same effect or u tilize

21 something like HAARP, not so much for voice in t he head,

22 but for certainly changing emotional state of la rge

23 segments of the population.

24 When we looked at all of this, we even looked

25 back -- you know, where else could this have bee n used?

60

1 And there was a device in Vietnam called the Lid a

2 machine, L-i-d-a. A guy who researched this was a guy

3 named Ross Adey, who is, unfortunately, also dec eased.

4 Ross Adey was brill iant and was utilized by the

5 government, by private sector as an expert in th ese

6 kinds of areas.

7 Well, he was asked to look at -- this

8 particular device had been captured during the V ietnam

9 War. It was a Russian device. And it created t he

10 entrainment effect using flickering light and so und.

11 And they used it for interrogating prisoners by putting

12 them into that, like, trance-like state and then

13 extracting intelligence from them. Now, that's the

14 1960s. Again, this is low resolution, low techn ology.

15 As computing powers increased, as our knowledge

16 in human physiology has increased, as our knowle dge of

17 the electromagnetic nature of human beings has

18 increased, the ability to manipulate large segme nts of

19 the population comes easily achieved, either as a side

20 effect or unfortunate disaster of our technology .

21 You mentioned Swiss Re, Swiss Re Insurance.

22 Swiss Re Insurance wrote a paper on Electrosmog. I

23 believe it was 2002. And they said to the insur ance

24 industry then, don't insure electromagnetic fiel d

25 effects because it will result in a bigger lawsu it than

61

1 Firestone on their tires or the smoking industry ,

2 because the knowledge is here and now and nobody insures

3 that risk.

4 Lloyd's of London insures anything, but they

5 won't insure that risk. Nobody does. Because i nsurance

6 companies don't like to lose money. It's as sim ple as

7 that. And yet the telecom industry on cell phon es --

8 before cell phones were invented, the University of

9 Washington had investigated those very same freq uencies

10 on chick embryo studies and determined they were

11 harmful. Cell phones didn't exist then.

12 Then cell phones come out and everything's safe

13 all of a sudden. That same guy that did that re search

14 says, now, wait a minute, we did all this resear ch.

15 This is a dangerous thing. But the telecom indu stry is

16 a powerful adversary.

17 So it went to the Congress. You remember this.

18 There was a guy in Florida. Brain cancer. Big

19 controversy. It ended up in the Congress. Cong ress

20 said, we need a study. So the industry says, oh , we'll

21 pay for the study. They spend 25 million dollar s on the

22 study.

23 I can't remember the guy's name who did it, but

24 he eventually published a book because his findi ngs

25 were, hey, this is dangerous. All right. He is sues his

62

1 report. They figured, hey, they got him. You k now,

2 they got the 25 million into his queue. He got to spend

3 it all on these projects. He got to make some m oney

4 himself. Hey, he's our man.

5 Well, he wasn't. This guy actually had some

6 integrity, and I apologize for not recalling his name.

7 A VOICE: George Carlo.

8 DR. BEGICH: Which one is it?

9 A VOICE: George Carlo.

10 DR. BEGICH: George Carlo, that's correct. And

11 he wrote a book called, "Cell Phones", a very im portant

12 book.

13 And when it comes to children, one of his

14 observations was -- he had the simple observatio n of

15 damage to skulls. You know, you have a four-yea r-old, a

16 five-year-old, 400 percent more energy transfers to the

17 skull into the brain than an adult. Ten-year-ol d,

18 twelve-year-old, approximately 200 percent.

19 This is one of the main reasons why you don't

20 want children using cell phones or, even worse, the

21 portable phone in the home because it's even les s

22 efficient with the battery and the energy with e ven more

23 leakage. And what do we do? Try and find a har d line

24 phone today where you actually pick it up and ta lk into

25 it. You can't even find them anymore. They're almost

63

1 impossible to find.

2 When you look at what we have learned about

3 human physiology and the effects of electromagne tic

4 fields on the human physiology, it is the revolu tion in

5 science that will collapse the pharmacuetical in dustry

6 one day. And one day we're going to wake up and

7 recognize that the pea in the soup of electromag netic

8 radiation has been the cause and the root to mos t of the

9 chronic disease we see on the planet today.

10 When you combine that with that concept that I

11 used, that example of iodine, everyone has a lit tle bit,

12 now you have these complex interactions, 5,000 n ew

13 chemicals are introduced or compounds introduced to the

14 public every year without really any serious stu dies,

15 and then you add this on top of it, and now you have a

16 very toxic world. And then you take the technol ogy of

17 manipulation from the propaganda of World War II to the

18 downloading of that. What does the military hop e to

19 achieve? They want to be able to train military

20 personnel with a download. Blap. There's your 12

21 years' worth of education. Now, let's go on.

22 And now here's the thing. Think about that

23 kind of education. No critical thinking involve d. Just

24 programming. It 's like writing to a disk. No c ritical

25 thinking involved. Who controls that? Curricul um

64

1 controls the way in which our society goes. Thi s is the

2 risk.

3 What about evidence in courtrooms when you can

4 create a synthetic memory or wipe one out? What does

5 that do to a Democratic Republic or a Democracy where

6 people have the power? That power has been take n from

7 us as we become increasingly transparent to gove rnmental

8 agencies and they become increasingly opaque.

9 It is the opposite of what should be occurring.

10 There shouldn't be a camera in every household. There

11 should be a camera in every government office. Because

12 the technology's there. We should be able to di al in

13 and look at what our employees are doing, right?

14 Wouldn't you like to be able to dial up your

15 Congressional office and see that conversation t hey're

16 having in real time? And why shouldn't we be ab le to do

17 that? What do they have to hide?

18 You know, you think about government and you

19 start saying that and, you know, the only people

20 protected from that kind of intrusion in the US are

21 federal employees. They have a higher level of

22 protection than the average citizen within the c ountry

23 that I live in. For what?

24 And when you think about government, everyone

25 points to the politician. I can tell you, most

65

1 politicians are ignorant. In fact, most politic al

2 parties in the United States the preference is t o have

3 people that are -- they look like the news annou ncer,

4 but they couldn't think their way out of a phone booth,

5 right? We don't even have a phone booth anymore , but

6 they couldn't think their way out of one. Becau se they

7 want people that are smart enough to look good, but not

8 smart enough to think on their own. That's the ideal

9 politician for political parties, because they c an be

10 told what to do.

11 Look at how much money is being spent in

12 political outcomes. Huge amounts of money. Som e people

13 have pointed and looked at, like, Australia to m andatory

14 voting. Everybody votes now.

15 Worst possible thing that you could ever do.

16 And here's why: When the population doesn't vot e, who

17 pulls the lever? Those that are informed, right ? So

18 maybe 20 percent of the population votes, but at least

19 they're informed. They've educated themselves.

20 If you force people to vote to keep their

21 driver's license, their medical benefits, or wha tever

22 social programs you've got running and you say, you will

23 vote, now who decides what they vote on? Whoeve r can

24 buy the 30-second or one-minute ad on TV that in fluences

25 them. The moment they walk into the booth, they go, ah,

66

1 and pull the lever. Now we have a dangerous sit uation.

2 A very dangerous situation.

3 Democracy is something that each of us have to

4 claim internally. The change that people are lo oking

5 for in this group happens by a change in conscio usness,

6 by us recognizing what we are as human beings,

7 recognizing the potential that we have. Because you

8 know what these government programs yielded? Ev erybody

9 points to the fear side of the equation. But wh at they

10 really discovered was that every single soul, ev ery

11 human being has this anomalous capability.

12 Now, imagine if we could awaken those

13 capabilities, could you hide anything? I mean, if

14 people could literally look into the mind of ano ther

15 person, that makes a politician pretty vulnerabl e,

16 wouldn't it?

17 That is the next evolution that I believe is

18 happening and it's the only evolution, the only

19 revolution that can change the way things are. It

20 starts with human consciousness. It starts with what we

21 believe to be right and true and beginning to ac t on it.

22 Not from a foundation of fear, but a foundation of

23 confidence.

24 You know, somebody asked me once, what do you

25 think about faith? I said, faith is what you kn ow to be

67

1 right and true and you step into it on the idea that you

2 can achieve it. You believe it.

3 So many people I've seen in this work, they

4 keep jumping into things beyond their belief. T hey

5 don't believe they can achieve it. They try it anyway

6 and they fail, and they keep failing. And peopl e who

7 are doing good work otherwise step back, do what you can

8 do with confidence, do what you can do with know ledge,

9 don't wait for a group to form. The group's alr eady

10 here. It's called the human race. Act on what you know

11 to be right and true. If you make a mistake, cl ean it

12 up, learn from it, and move forward.

13 When you look across this room and you look at

14 all these folks with a little bit of gray hair, and

15 you've got the gray hair not by all of those gre at

16 things that happened in your life, but by the re al

17 disasters that happened in your life. You know, you

18 think about bad news is a stimulation for good n ews.

19 People ask me, you know your father's

20 disappearance, disappeared off the face of the e arth,

21 that must have been a horrible thing. Yeah, it was at

22 the time. I consider it the most important even t in my

23 life because it altered my course.

24 The worst things in our lives alter our course,

25 change our direction, activate that higher poten tial

68

1 that cause us to rise out of the ashes of our ap athy and

2 our defeats and stand on our feet again and move

3 forward.

4 The pain that people experience today is the

5 catalyst for the solutions tomorrow, whether we like it

6 or not, whether it 's falling down as a two-year- old or

7 standing up as an adult. If we stand up on the basis of

8 our ethics, on the basis of our values, and we

9 reinvigorate and let go of the fear and recogniz e what

10 we are as creative beings, we have the potential to make

11 change.

12 And with that, I' l l open it to questions.

13 (Applause.)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 24

25

69