Barbara Hartwell

My photo
Independent Investigator, Intelligence Analyst, Journalist. Former CIA (NOC, Psychological Operations) Black Ops Survivor. Sovereign Child of God. Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Ordained 1979, D.Div.) Exposing Government Lies, Crimes, Corruption, Conspiracies and Cover-ups.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Time To Set The Record Straight: Part 2

June, 2001



I have found it necessary to withdraw from the public arena for several compelling reasons: Serious concerns about my safety, including threats to my life. Financial destitution. Disability/chronic illness.

I have found nobody among my family, friends and associates willing to provide any serious backup, financially, professionally or otherwise. On the contrary, I have been abandoned and betrayed by so many people, I've lost count. For far too long, I have been up against the most brutal persecution all alone, with nobody I can rely on for the type of solid support I need.

A whistleblower is often the lone gun. And what's it like to be the target of a CIA "neutralization campaign"?

The enemy deploys their massive artillery with impunity, manned by inexhaustible battalions of troops.

I am outmanned and outgunned.

I won't back down, nor will I sacrifice my principles. I will not compromise with my adversaries. And I will not be intimidated by their threats and other forms of persecution.

This is a strategic retreat --NOT a surrender. But enough is enough. I need a break. And come hell or high water, I am going to take one.


I can no longer afford to spend my time doing research and writing articles for which I am not paid, while trying to fend off the severe harassment I have been targeted for over the past seven years, which I can only compare to trench warfare.

I need to do whatever it takes to reduce the extreme stress, in order to avoid a total collapse. I have suffered from post traumatic stress disorder for many years. And in my case, since the traumatic stress is ongoing --not just a one-time, past-tense "stressor" from which I am attempting to recover-- I have no choice but to remove myself from all stressors which are under my control --until I can catch my breath and make a new battle plan.

In lieu of further public activism and publishing articles on the Internet, I plan to spend the better part of my time finishing my book, titled Hardwired: The True Story of a CIA Black Ops Survivor.

Those people who are seriously interested in my research and experiences can buy the book. At least I won't be working for no compensation. I am thoroughly exhausted and I am no longer willing to burn myself out nor allow my resources and energy to be totally drained, meanwhile being forced to struggle for basic survival.

I've known plenty of people who pay lip service in support of Freedom and Justice for All. And who complain about outrageous violations of human and constitutional rights. But for the most part, that's where their efforts seem to stop. Few are willing to put themselves on the line to fight for what they say they believe in --not if it threatens their personal comfort and security. Not if they have to make serious sacrifices for the cause. As for myself, I've had no comfort, nor security, for many years. Sacrifices? I've exhausted my store.

I'm also tired of being an unpaid investigator for those who are too lazy to do their own research and seem to take for granted that just because I have "gone public" with my own case as a survivor of CIA mind control and related black operations, I owe it to them to work overtime to answer their personal queries or provide them with research data, much of which they could with a little effort, find for themselves.

I have not made any money by publishing my newsletter, except for the occasional donations I received from people who wish to support my work. There are simply not enough of these supporters and the contributions to my Legal Defense and Research Fund --few and far between-- don't begin to pay even the work-related expenses I incur. Much less the living expenses of daily survival.

I have had my phones and electricity cut off several times. Recently, I returned from a trip I made in an attempt to get some desperately-needed R&R, only to find my Internet service cut off, since my payments were way behind. I scraped up the money and got my service restored, but as a result, was unable to afford to buy food for an entire week. I've had enough of living like Old Mother Hubbard.

Having said my piece about that, and vented some of my frustration, I do feel the need to finish what I started in Part 1 of this report. It would not be fair to the readers or to myself to leave these issues hanging, and as the title clearly proclaims, to Set the Record Straight is very important to me.


A Response to Barbara Hartwell: Ted L. Gunderson Analysis of the Barbara Hartwell Article Entitled Time To Set the Record Straight, was published on March 26, 2001 on a website called Educate Yourself.

Ken Adachi, the website's editor, supplied a preface in the form of an "Editor's Note" presumably to "educate" the readers about a few of the various persons featured in Ted's article. But before I address the article itself, I have a few comments directed to Mr. Adachi.

I think it would have behooved Mr. Adachi to "educate" HIMSELF prior to writing his preface. His editor's note is chock-full of misinformation, not only about myself, but apparently, also in regard to others, namely Kurt Billings, Stew Webb, Virginia McCullough and Kate Dixon.

I'm sure these others are each very capable of addressing any such misinformation about themselves. Virginia McCullough and Kate Dixon have already done so. See: Bay Area Observer Demands Retraction From Ted Gunderson, and Ted L. Gunderson, In Your Case, Even Bad Publicity Is Good Publicity.

In the same link you'll find my article, More on the MKULTRA Controversy, as well as my brief letter to Mr. Adachi, in which I have pointed out the ignorance and lack of professionalism which is apparently characteristic of Adachi's peculiar brand of yellow journalism.

It is clear --to me anyway-- that Adachi's main source for his "Editor's Note" was none other than Ted L. Gunderson himself. And so, in his "educational" preface, Adachi offers profiles of various individuals --a sort of rogues' gallery-- and echoes what are clearly the opinions of Ted Gunderson & Co., stating these opinions as if they were facts.

It is also clear that despite my request, Adachi found it convenient NOT to publish my letter to the editor on his own site. Which tells me that objectivity, fairness and journalistic integrity are sadly lacking in Mr. Adachi's repertoire.

But enough of Mr. Adachi, except to say that for those who wish to "educate" themselves, let's hope they find a more reliable source of information than the personal biases, outright lies and slanted viewpoints --toadying to the various persons he chooses to feature in his editorial commentaries-- which comprise Mr. Adachi's website . Perhaps a more fitting name for the site would be  "Indoctrinate Yourself ".

The so-called "response" which Ted Gunderson wrote to Barbara Hartwell has me somewhat baffled. That's because most of Ted's "analysis" addresses people who were never mentioned in my article, some of whom I don't even know, such as Robert Ghostwolf, Debbie Nathan, Art Bell et al. Ted actually "responded" to very little of my own testimony and avoided most of the issues I brought up, rather than addressing them.

I think I understand that Ted was trying to make a point: He believes he is being targeted in a larger conspiracy to discredit him, and says he believes that I was influenced by some of the alleged conspirators and (as Mr. Adachi phrases it ) "joined in with others striving to discredit him".

As far as my alleged part in this conspiracy, nothing could be further from the truth. The various people with whom I discussed my dealings with Ted Gunderson, and to whom I repeatedly confided that I wanted to believe nothing but the best about Ted, should know.

I told everyone that I was willing to continue to give Ted the benefit of the doubt, no matter what negative opinions certain others may have held. And I had flatly refused to "join in" as part of a campaign with any others who may have had their own reasons to try to discredit Ted.

First of all, I don't make it my business to try to discredit anyone. The way I see it, those persons who become "discredited" usually manage (sooner or later ) to discredit themselves by their own words and actions. They don't need any help from me. (By their fruits shall you know them.)

Secondly, the only issues I have ever publicly addressed are those which related directly to MY OWN dealings with Ted. I have no desire to hurt anyone, nor to speak ill of anyone; only to speak up in my own defense or on behalf of others whom I believe have been misrepresented or wronged; and to air my disagreements and grievances, whether they can be resolved or not. Sometimes my differences with others are quite simply, irreconcilable, as they seem to have been with Ted.

Secondly, I am not and have never been a "team player". I don't join groups; I refuse to toe anybody's party-line, and I don't jump on the bandwagon just because others want to recruit me for their own agendas.

For this reason alone, the very idea that I would "join in" with anyone as part of a campaign to discredit Ted is ludicrous and laughable, as anyone who really knows me well could attest. As it happens, Mr. Adachi knows nothing whatsoever about me, and I'm beginning to wonder how well Ted Gunderson knows me, since he has put forth some very inaccurate ideas regarding me as well as the general scenario in which the events he describes unfolded.

Although I don't doubt that Ted, like many of us who have been involved in public presentations of conspiracy-related research, may have been targeted by various people or collectives whose interests it would serve to discredit him, I have no reason to believe that some of the people he mentions --at least the ones I know of, such as Kurt and Lee Ann Billings, Mike Ruppert, Virginia McCullough, Kate Dixon and Stew Webb-- had any such conspiratorial agenda in mind.

As far as I know most --if not all-- of these people had each, at one time or another, in all fairness, given Ted Gunderson the benefit of the doubt, before they individually decided --each for his/her own reasons-- that he no longer deserved it.

Mike Ruppert's commentary on Ted Gunderson is also published on NewsMakingNews, as part of what was posted as a front page story: The Players, The Power, The Plays, The MKULTRA Controversy. (NewsMakingNews link above.)

But it is not my place to speak for others, nor to presume to discern their various motives. So speaking strictly for myself, I repeat: I never at any time "joined in" with anyone who was part of a campaign to "discredit" Ted Gunderson. Anyone who has ever spoken with me about Ted knows that the only thing I was interested in was finding out the truth.

In order to satisfy my own standards about the truth of any issue, I need facts, solid evidence and the testimony of witnesses I deem credible. Only armed with these etiological tools --along with my own spirit-filled intuition-- can I hope to establish what I believe to be the truth.

Now, by this point, there may be some people who take me for a fool for having continued to give Ted the benefit of the doubt. There may be others who believe just the opposite, thinking me a fool for breaking off an association with someone whom I have repeatedly publicly stated --including in Part 1 of this article-- was instrumental in helping me.

I don't particularly care what anyone thinks of me and I do not give in to pressure from others simply because they want me to side with them. But whether or not I have been a fool, for one reason or another, I will stand up in my own defense; especially when I find misinformation being published about me, such as that which Ted has written in his analysis.


Let me start with the most salient piece of misinformation, which runs as a thread throughout Ted's report and which seems to serve as the basis for his "analysis" of me and my situation.

According to Ted Gunderson:

"It appeared to me that Barbara was being reprogrammed and/or influenced by the Billings.

For a period of time, she showed signs of breaking out of the grasp of the CIA. So what did the CIA do ? They planted Kurt Billings, a CIA mind control victim/programmer, in her lap."

Ted also states: "...for a time after this Barbara was part of the campaign against me. She has stopped this and apologized to me."

I don't know the sources from which Ted derived his idea --which I have done my best to refute-- that I was part of this "campaign". I do know that I have not spoken to Ted Gunderson since January of 2000.

The only communication from that time to the present between Ted and myself was through an intermediary, a mutual friend and professional colleague. On several occasions I had discussed with Bob Eurie the conflict I was having re Ted.

In one such conversation, in the early winter of 2001, I told Bob that I felt badly that things had turned out the way they had between me and Ted. I had asked our mutual friend (who spoke to Ted on a regular basis) to tell Ted that I was sorry that the disagreement between us had caused a rift in our friendship and that I had no hard feelings about Ted. That I still cared about Ted and hoped that someday our differences might be reconciled.

But I never "apologized" to Ted for having any (non-existent) part in a campaign to discredit him, nor did I ever resolve my differences with Ted. Perhaps Bob, in his efforts to be a peacemaker, relayed a different message than the one I asked him to deliver. Being a supporter of both Ted and myself, he may have felt divided loyalties which finally weighed in for his greater support of Ted.

My last conversation with Bob was disturbing. He relayed back to me a message from Ted: That Ted wanted me to know he was still "on my side" no matter what. I was happy to hear this.... that is, until Bob segued into trying to persuade me that what I REALLY needed was to be "deprogrammed".

This, he thought, would solve the worst of my problems (Yeah, right.) I can only surmise that this piece of unsolicited advice was a result of Bob discussing my "problems" with Ted --and probably Sue Ford, the self-styled mind control "expert" who had repeatedly admonished me about the dangers of not being formally deprogrammed.

Anyway, after hearing the latest from the newest recruit for the Committee To Deprogram Barbara Hartwell, I quickly got off the phone saying Thanks, but no thanks and God bless you, Bob. And saying to myself: Another one bites the dust!

In any case, Ted has made it abundantly clear that he believes I am still operating under programmed control. Ted says CIA "planted" Kurt Billings for the purpose of "reprogramming" me. Otherwise, why would I have been "critical" of Ted or Sue Ford aka Brice Taylor, when according to Ted, I had never been critical of either of them before?

But hold it right there, Ted.

I certainly HAD been critical of Sue Ford in the past, even confiding some of my problems with Sue to Ted himself, long before I ever met Kurt Billings and long before I publicly addressed these issues, and with good reasons.

Those reasons are outlined in Part 1 of this report. I certainly did not need to be "influenced " or "reprogrammed" by Kurt Billings to be "critical" of Sue Ford. It just so happened that when Kurt and I compared notes we realized that we had each independently made similar observations. Our experiences in our respective dealings with Sue were also very much alike. Namely that Sue had behaved in a manipulative, exploitive and self-serving manner.

But our common assessment of Sue Ford did not end there. Both of us saw clear indications that Sue was still being routinely handled and that she had not in fact broken mind control programming, despite her vociferous claims to the contrary.

Kurt and I both have the training to offer a considered professional opinion on such matters. That's not to say our opinions are gospel. They are only opinions. However, considering that Sue Ford has publicly slandered both of us by offering her own such opinions of each of us, we are certainly entitled to state our own opinions in order to clear our names.

As for being publicly critical of Ted, for the purpose of "discrediting" him, that was certainly not my intention. I was simply telling the truth about my disagreement with Ted's allegation that Kurt was a "CIA plant "; and my unwillingness to continue a professional association with Sue Ford, whom Ted continues to unconditionally endorse.

But in good conscience, I have no longer been able to endorse the activities, the viewpoints or the credibility of Sue Ford for quite some time. And considering his latest public statements about me, I have finally reached the point where in order to clear my own name and defend my reputation, I have no choice but to adopt the same position regarding Ted Gunderson.


I quote from Ted's article:

"The next time I heard about the Billings, they were involved with Barbara Hartwell and the result was that Barbara began publicly criticizing Brice Taylor [aka Sue Ford] and myself."

For the sake of argument, let's examine Ted's ideas regarding the purported disinfo/slander campaign against him as a hypothetical scenario.

CIA "plants" Kurt Billings for the purpose of "reprogramming" Barbara Hartwell. The agenda of CIA in this operation? To make BH a part of the campaign to discredit Ted Gunderson. As a result, BH joins in with other conspirators (also working for CIA? Also under mind control?) and having been successfully "reprogrammed", back in the "grasp of the CIA", she is activated in a mind-controlled mission.

Objective: To discredit Ted Gunderson. (And let's not forget the redoubtable Brice Taylor).

But let's be realistic. Why would CIA think I have the political clout to make a significant contribution to discrediting one of their presumably most high-profile targets, namely retired Senior Special-Agent-in-Charge, 27 year veteran of the FBI, Ted L. Gunderson?

Why not use someone with "official" status, with unquestionable government-sanctioned bona fides? Or maybe a bogus whistleblower or slick disinfo agent having access to a large and formidable public forum. Someone with the resources and backing to mount an effective assault on Ted's credibility.

Now, in fact, this is a fair approximation of what Ted suggests to be the case about Art Bell. Art Bell is regarded as a celebrity. His radio show has one of the largest audiences in the world. He has tremendous influence in shaping public opinion. But even assuming Ted's hypothesis were true, why would someone like Art Bell (described by Ted as "the American hero" ) need any help from the likes of me?

As for myself, it is ironic that not only have I been blacklisted from mainstream media due to my whistleblower status; but reliable sources --as well as my own common sense and personal experience-- tell me I've even been blacklisted by certain promoters/producers of alternative media.

I've also been set up by certain talk-show hosts who invited me on their programs for the purpose of ridiculing or discrediting me. (Clay Douglas, of The Free American, a crony of the infamous Mark Phillips, comes to mind, but that's another story...)

Let's face it: I certainly haven't won any popularity contests --among ANY faction or collective of influential persons, no matter what their agenda or their politics. Most of these groups don't like me because I insist on remaining autonomous and refuse to join up and be a mouthpiece for whatever it is they're promoting. I haven't yet published any books. And the talent scouts are not beating a path to my door to invite me for speaking engagements. Having nothing to sell, I have nothing to promote.

So I repeat: Why me? Why would CIA consider it imperative that I be involved in the campaign against Ted Gunderson?

Does the scenario that Ted Gunderson presents make any sense? Not to me, but then maybe I'm a little dense. Or maybe I should just find myself a good "deprogrammer". Maybe then I'll finally see the light.

But let's get real: Although I am aware that CIA would like nothing better than to have me back in their grasp, and have in fact made many such efforts to that end, including for the purpose of "reprogramming" me, any such attempts have failed. Always have, always will.

Ted, Sue and their entourage may believe what they choose. But, as God is my witness, I'm outta there! I have shown my adversaries that I'm willing to lay my life down fighting for my freedom, if that's what it takes. And they know I mean business. Bottom line: They'll never take me alive.

But even so, I can't imagine CIA's reason for wanting me back under their control would be so that I could become just another cog --and a low visibility one at that-- in a disinfo machine against Ted Gunderson.

No, I'm sorry to say that CIA has far more weighty issues with me, and they have nothing to do with Ted Gunderson. Sorry Ted, it doesn't compute. I only wish my life were that easy.


Ted states:

"I suggest that Brice Taylor has been targeted due to the books she has written about her mind control victimization and the public stance she has taken over the years to expose mind control and ritual abuse."

But I disagree with Ted yet again. I don't believe for a minute that the "stance" that Sue Ford has taken would make her a REAL target of the CIA perpetrators of mind control.

On the contrary, her public presentations and books promote exactly the sort of sex-scandal-and-satanism sensationalism which would appeal to the lowest instincts and echelon of the general public; while also serving to create a smokescreen which provides a distraction from the REAL black operations which CIA and their minions are so desperate to keep under cover. Bread and circus, that's the ticket.

Investigative journalist Rayelan Allan, editor of Rumor Mill News, agrees. Though she doesn't cite Sue Ford as a particular example, her assessment of the CIA's basic disinformation strategy is strikingly similar to my own.

Here, a few excerpts from her article, Barbara Hartwell --CIA Mindcontrol Survivor:

"I have steered clear of most of the mind control victims who have 'gone public' and written books about their experiences. Gunther [CIA agent Gunther Russbacher, Raye's ex-husband ] told me that the 'famous ones' were created as 'cover stories', designed to sidetrack researchers and the public, rather than expose mind control. This was done in a sensational way in order to discredit ALL serious research into mind control.

Needless to say, the type of mind control the CIA and NSA created is NOT about making sex slaves for high-ranking NWO government and corporate leaders.

....the CIA and NSA have a lot more important things on their agenda than creating sex slaves for satanic rituals and satisfying old men's perversions.

Gunther told me that if Congress ever got the 'balls' to conduct a hearing into mind control, that the Monarch women would be 'trotted' out to discredit the entire hearing and make researchers and actual victims of mind control [ Manchurian Candidates] look like fools."

Now let's hear from investigative journalist Robert Sterling, editor of The Konformist.

An excerpt from Robert's article, Lurid Sex Tales of the New World Order:

"Speaking of dubious tales, the ones that both Cathy O'Brien and Brice Taylor present are, frankly, implausible and ludicrous. To take them as absolute truth shows the undeniable sign of having a faulty bullshit detector, and endorsement of such tales stigmatizes the endorsers as an unreliable source. The end results of these stories is the same as disinformation. Perhaps it is all unwitting and unintentional, but if it is, it certainly is fortunate for those in the military-intelligence establishment, as the CIA couldn't have planned for it to come out any better if they tried."

Now a few more comments of my own regarding sex slaves, satanic ritual abuse and the cases of the notorious " Monarch women". And BTW: My bullshit detector is functioning just fine.

Cathy O'Brien, co-author (with Mark Phillips) of TranceFormation of America, publicly touts herself as: "The ONLY vocal and recovered survivor of the CIA's MKULTRA mind control program".

Taylor/Ford, not to be outdone, claims that she is: "The HIGHEST LEVEL survivor of the CIA's MKULTRA project EVER to go public."

But are these grandiose and self-important claims really true? Not on your life.

And I would be more than happy to explain why.

First of all, I would hardly consider Cathy O'Brien to be "recovered" in any way, shape or form. If she has in fact "recovered" from her mind control abuses, why in hell is she still involved with a man like Mark Phillips?

Phillips has proven himself --by his own words and actions-- to be NOT the hero who "rescued" O'Brien from her evil tormentors, as he so modestly claims, but rather a slick, smooth-talking con man and containment/disinfo agent. (I read somewhere that he actually worked at one time as a used car salesman --I can't verify that, but it certainly fits the bill.)

Phillips has also cashed in bigtime on the tales he and O'Brien are selling. Sell disinfo and make a buck: the CIA's answer to free enterprise.

And.....the ONLY recovered survivor? Well, if O'Brien represents the ONE-AND-ONLY to have publicly "vocalized" her shocking story, I guess the rest of us mute and miserable MKULTRA survivors might as well admit defeat and throw in the towel.

Unless of course, we should be so lucky to find a knight in shining armor like Mark Phillips to "rescue" us from certain doom. An ancillary benefit: A handy excuse to continue to evade self-responsibilty. We could trade in our previous handlers and programmers for a new-and-improved model: An all-around, multi-purpose Mr. Fix-it. Not only's cost-effective. For CIA, that is.

And what about Sue Ford aka Brice Taylor? Sue proclaims herself the HIGHEST LEVEL MKULTRA survivor EVER to go public.

I can shed some light on that humble claim as well. But I don't know where to start....

Perhaps I could start by pointing out that in the REAL black operations, the "highest level" roles were certainly not filled by "sex slaves".

And in fact, any "high-level" operative (whether trained under mind control or not) to be utilized in the most highly classified black ops is considered by CIA as a major investment. To train and groom a truly professional operative requires a good deal of time and money. CIA doesn't squander their investments. No, indeed. They're banking on hefty returns.

"Sex slaves" or "presidential models" as they euphemistically like to call themselves, would in fact be considered the most "low level" and "expendable" of mind-controlled operatives, if in fact catering to the debauchery of high-ranking gov't officials was their primary role.

And "national security" considerations go far beyond mind-controlled prostitution and pornography "going public". As if THESE issues would be the most pressing concern of the criminal elements of the U.S government perpetrating illegal covert operations?

No doubt about it: The perps of gov't mind control are a sleaze-ridden and degenerate bunch. But using "sex slaves" as the "highest level" operatives? Give me a break.

Have I made my point? I sure hope so, but if not, those who may have been hoodwinked by these shamelessly ludicrous claims are free to continue deluding themselves.


Back to Kurt Billings. If Kurt, the alleged "CIA mind control victim/programmer" was indeed sent to "reprogram" me, as Ted claims, he must've, sure enough, been slacking on the job. (Shame on you, Kurt!)

Or maybe it was Mission Impossible. Considering the fact that never at any time was I in the same room alone with Kurt for even a few minutes, is it conceivable that such a thing could happen? Maybe in a science-fiction spy thriller, but not in the real world.

Most times when I saw Kurt and his wife Lee Ann in person, there were other people ("outsiders") present and it was usually in a public place, such as a lecture hall. All other communications between myself and the Billings were by phone calls or e-mail. (Could "email-reprogramming" be the latest advance in CIA's psychotronic weaponry?)

Furthermore, I never had the opportunity to speak with Kurt in any real depth or detail about my own previous programming, though I very much wanted to. This was because of the severe harassment and sabotage of our communications, which both Kurt and myself were targeted for, in attempts by the perps to make sure that such a thing did NOT happen.

It was very clear to both Kurt and myself that the perpetrators of CIA mind control did everything in their power to PREVENT a situation in which Kurt might be able to assist me in recovering some of the more deeply buried memories of my experiences and programming. Or a situation in which I --as a living example and survivor-- could add to the body of evidence by validating some of Kurt's detailed research into the CIA's MKULTRA program and related black operations.

And BTW: I never asked Kurt to "deprogram" me; nor did he ever make such an offer to me.

As I have previously stated in other articles, I had already broken my programming in 1994 after years of battling with my handlers, with no help from any "deprogrammers", nor other human agency, nor formal methodology.

Kurt was simply one of very few people I had ever met who understood much of what I talked about and came from a similar CIA/Military-Intelligence-community family background. (As Ted Gunderson spared no effort in pointing out.)

But so what? Just because Kurt, as a twenty-year researcher of mind control, had the capacity to understand more than most people about my background and the ways in which I was utilized by CIA, does that mean that he was "planted" to reprogram me?

And lastly, if ANYONE were sent on a fool's errand to "reprogram" me and actually made such an attempt, I would have kicked his ass first and asked the questions later. (Assuming he was still conscious.)

But that's history. I've already been there, done that. I am nothing, if not a dangerous woman. (Kurt Billings, "CIA programmer": Take Note and Abort Mission.)

Gunderson and Ford have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate their foolish allegations that Kurt was "planted" to "reprogram" me. And --if it were possible-- even LESS to substantiate that the alleged "reprogramming" was successful.

Please, take it from me. I was THERE, and the scenario these folks are setting has no basis in reality. It just didn't happen.

What's more, these false allegations are libelous to both Kurt Billings and myself. Not just misinformation, but PUBLIC DISINFORMATION, considering its purposeful dissemination, not to mention the total lack of evidence and documentation. Kind of reminds me of Sue Ford's latest book......

I must also say that I feel somewhat insulted that Ted could so greatly underestimate my intelligence, my perceptiveness and my strength of purpose. (If in fact he really believes the allegations he is making.)

Despite his purported beliefs about Kurt Billings, it seems strange that Ted would think I could have been so easily re-recruited, influenced or "reprogrammed" especially when he had ample opportunity to observe how severely I had been targeted precisely BECAUSE of my firm and intractable stand against my oppressors.

Also strange is that Ted never mentions this in his report. He stresses how "Brice Taylor has been targeted", citing as evidence " the numerous negative articles...written in an attempt to discredit both of us."

But there's not a peep from Ted regarding the extreme harassment directed at me, some of which he personally witnessed and documented and which he spoke about right alongside me in public lectures and on radio and TV programs.

But you don't need to take my word for it: The video and audiotapes where I spoke with Ted --complete with Ted's corroborating testimony regarding the neutralization campaign against Barbara Hartwell- are readily available. For a price, of course.


And speaking of those videotapes...Ted says, "Although there are allegations [the ones I made in Part 1 of this article] of profit made in the sale of books and videos, the only profit any of us working toward ending this abuse have received, is the reward of helping others."

I surely can't deny that's true of Yours Truly. Yes sir, I allowed my testimony to be captured on videos, without any expectation of financial returns, precisely because I was so dedicated to exposing the abuses of CIA mind control and the black ops in which I was exploited and victimized.

Because I wanted to see justice done. Not just for myself, but for any others who may have been victimized and had their lives destroyed by human rights violations.

And it's certainly true that I PERSONALLY have never seen a penny in "profits" from any of these videos. Making a profit was never my motive.

But can Ted and Sue truthfully say the same? The ONLY profit they ever received was in the warm fuzziness of "helping others "?

What happened then, to all the money from the voluminous videotape sales?

Did it evaporate into thin air? Was it transported into another dimension? Was it stolen by a Satanic cult? Was it abducted by lizard aliens?

Where's the money?

I guess maybe they donated it to charity....but enough of this nonsense....I think I feel a headache coming on.

Frankly, I certainly would have appreciated being able to ALSO earn some money from these enterprises, since everyone else involved has done so and since living in abject poverty is not conducive to my health or well-being.

And I certainly did not deserve to be exploited by others who pirated these videotapes, which are now being sold all over the Internet and by mail order. If those who are selling these tapes REALLY wanted to "help others" wouldn't you think they might start be helping just ONE of the CIA mind control survivors --namely myself-- who made it possible for this information to "go public"?

As I mentioned in Part 1 of this article, I have NOT EVEN SEEN some of these videos, in which I appear, because ironically, I can't afford to purchase them from any of the various "entrepeneurs" who are selling them.

And so I repeat: If that's not exploitation, I don't know what is!


It seems clear that Ted has now disavowed his previous endorsement of my credibility. He calls me a "victim" of CIA mind control ("whether she thinks so or not" ) rather than a "survivor". Which means he's saying that I'm still under mind control.

The distinction between "survivor" and "victim" makes all the difference in the world.

A "victim" can still be accessed and controlled. A "survivor" is someone who has successfully broken all such programming and controls. Whether s/he has totally "recovered" or not. Is there such a thing as TOTAL recovery from CIA mind control? I still don't know and maybe I never will. [I speak here of "recovery" from physical and emotional damages.]

But considering Ted's all-out crusade to endorse the credibility of "Monarch women" such as Sue Ford, maybe it's not such a bad thing after all, for me to have been struck from Ted's list of officially-endorsed mind control survivors.

Ted says: "I have no animosity against Barbara. I love her and always will."

Sadly, at this point, that's one of the few things in Ted's report that I believe may actually be true. I say this because --believe it or not-- I also still feel the same way about Ted, despite the obvious conflict of interests and irreconcilable differences. One of my all-time favorite quotes from Persian mystic Rumi: "Love is the astrolabe of God's mysteries" sums it up best. Yes, it's a mystery all right.

But as I think I have proven, I do not allow my personal feelings about people to get in the way of my pursuit of truth and justice. I'll admit I'm just a ruthless bitch-on-wheels when it comes seeing the truth exposed and justice done.

I still hope that some day, I may be able to resolve things with Ted. I say that with all sincerity and from my heart. Although the prospects for that are not looking so good, miracles have been known to happen.


I started my electronic newsletter, the Hartwell Intelligence Report, in 1999. For about two years, I published my reports by using an e-mail list as well as having my reports posted on various websites.

Most of the people on my subscriber list were those who had contacted me after reading my material on the Internet and asked to be placed on my e-mail list. In the beginning I didn't use blind copies when e-mailing my newsletter, because I was inexperienced in using the Internet and did not realize that some people did not want their names and e-mail addresses displayed to others.

When several people requested that I send my newsletter to them by blind copies, I changed the format so that everyone received blind copies. This worked out well. That is, until I made a simple mistake last year and inadvertently failed to send one of my reports by blind copies. All hell broke loose in my little corner of cyberspace, but that's history.

Unfortunately for me, history repeated itself one more time last March. Once again, it was a simple mistake when I failed to hit the blind copy icon. (Sometimes I make mistakes, what can I say?) The addresses on my e-mail list were exposed to all and sundry. And not just to those on my original list; they were also forwarded and posted on several websites.

Upon recognizing my mistake, I immediately --the next day-- issued an apology to everyone on my list --sent by BLIND copies. I acknowledged my responsibility for exposing their names and e-mail addresses and explained that it was a simple, inadvertent mistake on my part.

I don't blame those who were angry at the invasion of their privacy (there were several such people) or having their mail boxes jammed with unwanted e-mail from strangers. But alas, despite my polite appeals to the individuals who took advantage of my mistake and used my list to send their own messages, to nip it in the bud; and despite my repeated profuse apologies to those who were subjected to the e-mail deluge, the pirating of my list continued apace. And I took the heat.

Things quickly spiraled out of control. I --and all the others on the list-- began receiving e-mail exchanges from a few people who decided to exploit my mistake by using my list as a public forum to air all their grievances; some of whom tried to use my subscriber list as a free-for-all group therapy session, and perhaps most offensive, to proselytize and disseminate religious propaganda.

Which brings me to the last issue I will address in Part 2 of Setting the Record Straight. The religious issue.


Hi. My name is (fill in the blank) and I would like to share with you the GOOD NEWS and invite you to become a witness for Jesus. Jesus is Lord. He will solve all your problems. But if you refuse to be converted; if you don't accept HIM as your personal savior, you will burn in Hell for all eternity. ALL OTHERS who deny the ultimate supremacy of Jesus are FALSE religions. The apocalypse is drawing near.....Repent, while there's still time. Jesus is the ONE and ONLY answer. Amen.

Sound familiar? The last thing I needed was these sorts of propaganda tracts being disseminated to harass the subscribers of my newsletter.

Now, if I haven't yet been a winner of any popularity contests, I'm not likely to win one now. A lynch mob is more likely after I state my position on this subject. But I simply must. As an important part of Setting the Record Straight, I simply must. So here goes...

First let me state that I have nothing against fundamentalist Christians. In fact, I have nothing against any member of ANY religion. As long as the adherents of said religion do not engage in aggressive, intrusive tactics, in trying to foist their religious beliefs on me. As long as the adherents do not violate the rights and religious freedom of others in spreading their message or practicing their religion. Amen.

Now let me set the record straight on my own position regarding religion. I long ago made an informed and well-considered decision not to ascribe to any "religion" or be affiliated with any church.

This decision was not made lightly. I went through seminary training, where I studied all major religions of the world. I was ordained and licensed as a Universalist minister in 1979. I have not been a member of the Universalist church for many years, nor do I ascribe to their particular beliefs.

In addition to seminary training, I received many years of formal --albeit less traditional--training in various spiritual disciplines which began when I was 16 years old, in 1967.

But way before I had any such training --as far back as I can remember-- I have ALWAYS known God. Not "believed" in God. KNOWN God.

Since for me, God defies explanation, definition, categorization or limitation, I cannot further explain. I have always been willing to listen and to learn. That's why I went through seminary training and that's why I went out of my way to study spiritual disciplines. But speaking strictly for myself, being indoctrinated with various forms of religious dogma is not what knowing God is all about.

Many people, readers of my newsletter and articles, have assumed --falsely-- that I am a fundamentalist Christian, that is, in the "organized" religious sense. I make frequent mention of God in my writings and have stated that I broke mind control programming "by the grace of God". That's certainly true. But why, oh why, must so many people assume that it can only be THEIR "Christian" concept of God to which I refer?

Let me elaborate further. To me, God is neither male nor female. God is gender-neutral, although there are aspects of God which may be generally perceived as "feminine" or "masculine". There are unfathomable mysteries of God and to me, God is so very much more than this type of anthropomorphic icon.

To believe what I believe is my prerogative. And I never attempt to impose my spiritual beliefs on others. Freedom of religion. Live and let live. Respect the spiritual integrity of others. That's my creed.

Why then, do others, especially hidebound fundamentalist Christians, think it is their right to try to impose their beliefs on me? Or more relevantly, on the subscribers to my newsletter?

One such religious zealot, a man calling himself Pastor Mike Clute, exploited my e-mail list to proselytize for his fundamentalist ideas about Jesus. He even sent numerous private messages to me personally, in his attempts to convert me to his brand of the Christian faith.

Here, some excerpts from his e-mails to me:

"My Dear need to understand how the Creator works!!

"This [my inadvertent mistake in not sending blind copies] was no mistake but a grand and glorious break thru for the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.

No mistake, no mistake, no mistake. Let these people howl and complain [those who objected to receiving the flood of unsolicited e-mail] but what they think is an error and an intrusion is a glorious opportunity to escape the tail of the dragon whipping them to death, Rev. 12

I hope you can grasp just a speck of what I am trying to tell you Barbara.

You have done just what you were supposed to do [making a mistake in NOT sending blind copies] and Satan is angry, claro que si (Yes of course). But don't worry. Jesus is leading you on to victory.

Would you like to get into a position spiritually where these people [the NWO and CIA perps of mind control ] can no longer touch you or harass you?? Think about it....Read Rev. 3:9 and ponder the meaning of it and ask the Lord to make you part of His end time army. Rev 19."

Thus spake Pastor Mike Clute.

Somebody...please...pull the plug! Or, as they used to say in vaudeville shows: Get the hook!

Who does this guy think he is?

After weeks of having such messages arrive --and ignoring them until I could take no more, I sent him an e-mail, politely requesting simply that he REMOVE my name from his e-mail list. But that did not deter him from his quest. He e-mailed asking why I had an "attitude" toward him. So I decided to explain it to him. Finally, I bit the bullet and sent him a personal response.

Here, some excerpts from my one and only response to Pastor Clute's many intrusive messages:

"I don't have any "attitude" toward you. But I do have a serious problem with some of your actions and YOUR attitude toward me...

I find your religious proselytizing offensive and disrespectful. I don't need anyone to tell me what I should believe or try to foist their own religious beliefs on me. You are entitled to your beliefs, just as I am entitled to mine.

You directed your proselytizing at me personally, assuming --falsely-- that I needed spiritual guidance from you. Not respecting the spiritual beliefs of others by attempting to force your own religious beliefs on them is a form of totalitarianism.

As one who has studied the Bible (in several versions) for decades, in my opinion you only show your own ignorance and spiritual immaturity when you falsely assume that you and your fellow fundamentalist Christians have cornered the market on spiritual truth; and that anyone who does not conform to your beliefs is somehow lacking in the knowledge of God.

I do not waste my time arguing with others who try to convert me to their particular "brand", or who disagree with me. I simply ask that others respect my right to my own beliefs, just as I respect their right to their beliefs. That's what freedom of religion --or the individual's right to refrain from practicing a religion-- is supposed to be about.

Have I made my point? If so, that's all I have to say about the subject of religion. If not, oh well....

But while I think of it, just one more thing. Here's a quote that pretty well sums up my own Spirit-filled knowing of God:

"Do you need proof of God? Does one light a torch to see the sun?"

--Buddhist proverb (And no, I am not a Buddhist, any more than I am a hidebound fundamentalist .)

And lastly, to Set the Record Straight about my battle plan, here's another of my all-time favorites:

Knowing the other and knowing oneself,
In one hundred battles no danger.
Not knowing the other and knowing oneself,
One victory for one loss.
Not knowing the other and not knowing oneself,
In every battle certain defeat.

--Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

Barbara Hartwell
June, 2001

NOTE, added December 20, 2006:

My problem with the minister was his aggressive proselytizing; his false assumptions about a person he did not know; his intrusive behavior by exploiting my e-mail list for his own agenda.

But I should make it clear (and probably should have done in the original report) that I do in fact consider myself a Christian. That I am a believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, always have been, always will be.

The aggressive behavior of many fundamentalist Christians is offensive to me. One reason I refuse to get into arguments about "religion."

Unfortunately, there are many of these fundamentalist zealots who will accuse me of "denying Christ", simply because I tell them I don't want or need their rigid views of Christianity foisted upon me.

One such person, a loud meddling busybody, Pamela Schuffert, has publicly denounced me, simply because I told her (like the minister in this report) to MIND HER OWN BUSINESS and stop trying to "minister" to me.

In fact, Pam has told many lies about me and others, and continues to do so. Her "reports" may be found on Ken Adachi's New Age government disinfo website, Educate Yourself.

Pam Schuffert is also a supporter of Ted L. Gunderson (who married the widow of Anton La Vey, founder of the Church of Satan); and predicate felon/stalker, transvestite and child porno collector, Tim White.

If that's Pam's version of "Christianity" and these are her fellow "Christians", well then, something is very wrong with this picture. Amen and amen.