Extract taken from a papercopy.
I don't know from what place in the original text it is quoted.


A factual account by Alan W. Scheflin, Edward M. Opton, Jr., and co-author Rodney Plotnick, from 1978. Mr. Scheflin is a professor of Law at the University of California, and Dr. Plotnick is professor at the University of California Medical School.

The ultimate bastion of freedom is biological: each of our stubbornly separate brains reside in their individual case of bony armor. Law, religion, morality and conscience are all more or less ephemeral, but Nature's marvelous fortress, the skull, has always stood as an impenetrable barrier to those who would impose their wills totally upon others. As long as a man's thoughts remain his private possession, domination ends at the scalp.

History, to be sure, is largely the record of men's efforts - often considerably successful - to impose their wills on one another. But these attempts to expunge individuality and impose totalitarianism have always carried within them the seeds of self-destruction. Repression produces rebellion: tyranny generates revolution: when autocracy strains to hold down the lid on individuality, it necessarily exhausts its energies and halts the process of social evolution which alone could ensure its long term survival.

But what if man could manipulate man directly? What if he could eliminate the expense of prisons and police find substitutes for censorship and propaganda. and put away the paralyzing instruments of fear which have served as his main technologies for exercising dominion over his fellows? What if men could enter one another's brains to impose their will directly?

Mind-manipulation research has been conducted for decades by hundreds of scientists in dozens of countries on thousands of people hundreds of thousands of times. Behavior modification, a major school of psychological thought, dominates many university psychology departments; psychosurgery has been endorsed by a national commission established to investigate its dangers; micro-miniature electronic circuits are making control of the mind through direct brain stimulation a real possibility.

Is an increase in mind-manipulation technology inevitable? There can be little doubt that it has seemed so during the past two decades. Perry London, in his seminal book Behavior Control, surveys these developments with a heavy heart:..."The development of a refined technology of behavior control in modern society is as inevitable as the maintenance of all other technologies is certain" ..And the nature of the refinements will make real what has hitherto been mostly a fantasy of the ignorant control of the mind. As 1984 draws near, it appears that George Orwell's...concepts of the technology by which tyranny could impress its will on men's minds were much too modest. By that time, the means at hand will be more sophisticated and efficient than Orwell ever dreamed, and they will be in at least modest use, as they have already begun to be, not by the will of tyrants, but by the invitation of all of us, for we have been schooled to readiness of their potential risk. The capacity for control will continuously grow, evolving from benevolence."

The introduction of professional medical specialists into brain-washing research produced a wide array of colourful terms to describe the process: "menticide," "thought reform," "coercive persuasion," "brain warfare," and the most pungent of all, "mental douche." It was Edward Hunter, however, who best stated the political significance:... "The war against men's minds has for its primary objective the creation of what is euphemistically called this "new Soviet man." The intent is to change a mind radically so that its owner becomes a living puppet - a human robot - without the autrocity being visible from the outside.

The aim is to create a mechanism in flesh and blood, with new beliefs and new thought processes inserted into a captive body. What that amounts to is the search for a slave race that, unlike the slaves of olden times, can be trusted never to revolt, always to be amenable to orders, like an insect to its instincts. The intent is to atomize Humanity."


CIA interest in mind manipulation began with the Agency's formation in 1947. A decade earlier the Moscow Show Trials had scared the Western world into thinking that Soviet psychologists had developed a subtle new interrogation technique capable of extracting complete and detailed confessions from even the most innocent and recalcitrant defendants. This new technique, which did not appear to depend upon the more brutal, scar-producing forms of torture, had a further advantage. It seemed to produce a reorientation of the victim's mind, making him sound as if he really beleived - perhaps actually making him believe - that he was guilty of the most heinous treason against his native land.

The architects of BLUEBIRD were a corps of brash young men most of whom had served in Colonel "Wild Bill" Donovan's flamboyant OSS during the Second World War. These men - Richard Helms, James Angleton, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, U. H. Marshall Chadwell. Colonel James Drum and Frank Wisner-had learned from Donovan that one should demand the impossible in order to attain the improbable. Donovan's operation threw a network of spies all across the world, and their intervention into the internal affairs of foreign nations helped manipulate an Allied victory. The global reach of OSS covert activity had a solid support base at home. Donovan had managed to attract to his fledgling organization the cream of academia.

Their scholarship soon proved the value of including intellectuals in the intelligence efforts. When BLUEBIRD's planners began drafting the CIA's mind-manipulation program, they drew heavily on the lessons they had learned from "Wild Bill". Why merely develop sophisticatcd interrogation techniques, they reasoned, when there might be the possibility of obtaining total control over a person?


(a) Can accurate information be obtained from willing or unwilling individuals?

(b) Can agency personnel (or persons of interest to this agency) be conditioned to prevent any unauthorized source of enemy from obtaining information from them by any known means?

(c) Can we obtain control of the future activities (physical and mental) of any individual, willing or unwilling. by application of SI and H techniques. [We believe these abbreviations stand for Subconscious Isolation and Hypnosis. but the documents give no further indication of their meaning]

(d) Can we prevent any unauthorized source or enemy from gaining control of the future activities (physical and mental) of agency personnel (or persons of interest to this agency) by any known means?

On August 20, 1951, BLUERIRD officially became project ARTICHOKE and a new phase of governmental assault on the mind had begun.

On January 25, 1952, the Chief of the Medical Staff of the CIA received a memorandum on the scope of ARTICHOKE. In that document the "mission of the project" was stated to be:

(1) The evaluation and development of any method by which we can get information from a person against his will and without his knowledge.

(2) How can we counter the above measures if they are used against us?

(3) Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against such fundamental laws of nature such as selfpreservation?

The various mind-manipulation programs conducted by the CIA were the subject of a review by the Inspector General in 1957. "Influencing human behavior," the report began. "is a most complex subject because very little of a positive nature is known about the extent to which human behavior can be predicted, directed and controlled."

At this time, 1955. Georgetown University was planning to construct a new hospital. The CIA channeled money through the Fund and acquired onesixth of the hospital space for research involving covert biological and chemical techniques of warfare.

ELECTRODES IN THE BRAIN: Doctor Robert Heath of Tulane University told the New York Times that a CIA doctor had approached him in November 1962 to talk about his working for the CIA. Heath had done pioneering work with a technique of implanting electrodes deep within the brain. According to Heath, the CIA physician, Dr. E. Manifield Gunn, said that the CIA would provide funds for the study of the "pain center" in the brain. Heath told the Times that he found that idea "abhorrent." Heath said. "I took the stance that if I were going to be a spy, I'd be a spy. I wanted to be a doctor and practice medicine." When the Times contacted Dr. Gunn, they heard a slightly different story. Gunn stated that he did not offer Heath any money and that he was not interested in changing the direction of Heath's research.

No avenue of experimentation was ignored and no population was ruled out as being unfit to act as experimental guinea pigs, men, women, children, prisoners, mental patients, criminal sexual-psychopaths, schizophrenics, the elderly, and even terminally ill cancer patients were all used to perfect for the CIA, the techniques of total control of the mind.

MKSEARCH. This program was intended to "develop, test and evaluate capabilities in the covert use of biological, chemical and radioactive material systems and techniques for producing predictable human behavioral and/or physiological changes, in support of highly sensitive operational requirements." Does it seem likely that unwitting testing ended? It does not seem likely to us that only one project using behavioral drugs was conducted under MKSEARCH. When closing down MKSEARCH in 1972, Sidney Gottlieb wrote that four projects were still in progress.

The public record of mind manipulation in the 1950s made people properly apprehensive that the sanctity of the mind might not survive the decade. But the secret record of mind manipulation was even more frightening. It is difficult now to imagine what impact the recent CIA revelations would have had in the 1950s. The CIA chose to stay clandestine. It withheld details of its mind-control programs from most of its own personnel and from virtually all outsiders, including the Congress.

The term brainwashing was first used by journalist Edward Hunter. In 1951 Hunter published Brain-washing in Red China: The Calculated Destruction of Men's Minds, an account of the Chinese thought-reform program. Hunter was stationed in Hong Kong in the late 1940s. While there, he made contact with men and women who successfully fled the Chinese mainland. They described a process of re-education and indoctrination which Chinese citizens were forced to undergo after the Communist takeover. The news appalled Hunter, and he researched their stories. His book is a description of the fruits of this investigation. Several years later (1956) Hunter published Brainwashing, an immensely popular book about American POWs who resisted Korean, brainwashing pressure, Through Hunter's literary efforts, brainwashing became a household word.

Edward Hunter was a CIA employee when he wrote his book: He joined the CIA at its inception. having formerly been a "propaganda specialist" with the OSS. In adaption to his journalistic accomplishments, Hunter has also served as a "psychological warfare specialist in the Pentagon" and a consultant for various Congressional committees. The facts surrounding Hunter's work strongly suggest that his popularization of the brainwashing concept was a part of his job.

Hunter may have substantially contributed to OPC's survival and expansion, but his ultimate impact is much more significant. Hunter brilliantly captured the essence of the Cold War Struggle in his [parse? illegible], and policitians scrambled to make effective use of it. We earlier quoted Allen Dulle's "Brain Warfare" speech as evidence of the social impact of the concept of "brainwashing" on the American public. The United States was once again at war, but in a struggle unlike any ever seen before. The exigencies of Cold war Diplomacy, Truman Doctrine foreign policy, and the proliferation of domestic loyalty oath programs made brainwashing a natural ideal for exploitation in Congress. On testimony in 1958, Hunter said it best:

Mr. Arens: Who are the antagonists in this total war?

Mr. Hunter: They are the Communists on the one side and all the other peoples

of the world on the other.

Mr. Arens: When you say there is a total war, what do you mean? It is obvious that there is very little shooting going on in the world today. What are the devices of this total war?

Mr. Hunter: War has changed its form. The communists have discovered that a man killed by a bullet is useless. He can dig no coal. They have discovered that a demolished city is useless. Its mills produce no cloth. The objective of communist warfare is to capture intact the minds of the people and their possessions. so they can be put to use. This is the modern conception of slavery, that puts all others in the kindergarten age.

Mr. Arens: Is the United States part of this battlefield?

Mr. Hunter: The United States is the main battlefield in this Red War. I mean specifically the people and the soil and the resource of the United States.

According to Hunter, "brainwashing" was the linchpin of Communist ideology. As he told the House of Un-American Activities Committee, brainwashing was more than a technique. it "was a strategy for the conquest of the world by Communism...the framework for the entire activity of the Communist hierarchy." With the publication of his book, Hunter told the Committee. "for the first time, our side now has the pattern through which the international Communist movement [has] made its advance throughout the world."

Hunter's fears were echoed throughout the executive branch of government in the Cold War era. As Gary Wills has noted. 'It was not enough to be American in citizenship and residence - one must be American in one's thoughts." But how does the government know which Americans are still pure in thought and which may have become "Un-American" in their minds though not in their deeds? "How are we to know what others think about the doctrines of Americanism unless we investigate their thoughts, make them profess their loyalty, train children up in the government orthodoxy?.. In the war of minds, anyone not fully committed to the propositions of freedom is an enemy." Here, then, is the political advantage to be gained from the myth of brainwashing. It encourages investigation into the private lives of individual citizens, even those men and women whose conduct has crossed no legal or ethical boundary. Here too is to be found the significance of the mind-control programs conducted by the CIA. If America was fighting an ideological adversary, every person's mind was a possible enemy. If those minds could be investigated, and perhaps controlled, freedom could be assured.

President Harry Truman has written in his Memoirs that the CIA was established to provide the President with a centralized intelligence organization which could deliver coordinated information as needed. Truman received dozens of intelligence estimates from the various military intelligence agencies. He found it cumbersome to go through multiple reports when they were duplicative, and

disturbing when they were contradictory. A central organization to collect, and analyze intelligence information would provide an efficient means of keeping the President informed. That was what Truman wanted, but not exactly what he received.

Many years later he was asked whether it had been wise to establish the CIA. His reply is worth quoting at length:

"Think it was a mistake. And if I'd known what was going to happen, I never would have done it. I needed...the President needed at that time a central organization that would bring all the various intelligence reports we were getting in those days, and there must have been a dozen of them, maybe more, bring them all into one organization so that the President would get one report on what was going on in various parts of the world...Now that made sense, and that's why I went ahead and set up what they called the Central Inteligence Agency...But it got out of hand. The fella...the one that was in the White House after me, never paid any attention to it, and it got out of hand. Why, they've got an organization over there in Virginia now that is practically the equal of the Pentagon in many ways and I think I've told you, one Pentagon is one too many."

"Now, as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don't just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own, and there's nobody to keep track of what they're up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they'll have something to report on. They've become...it's become a government all of its own and all secret. They don't have to account to anybody...That's a very dangerous thing in a democratic society, and it's got to be put a stop to. The people have got a right to know what those birds are up to. And if I was back in the White House, people would know. You see, the way a free government works, there's got be a housecleaning every now and again, and I don't care what branch of the government is involved. Somebody has to keep an eye on things...And when you can't do any housecleaning because everything that goes on is a damn secret, why, then we're on our way to something the Founding Fathers didn't have in mind. Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix."

It was during the Eisenhower years that the CIA first began toppling governments and manipulating the affairs of nations on a worldwide rather than limited scale. It was during the Kennedy administration that the CIA added political assassination to its list of covert activities.

On November 16, 1961, President John Kennedy delivered a speech at the University of Washington. He told his audience. "We cannot, as a free nation, compete with our adversaries in tactics oj terror, assassination, false promises, counterfeit mobs, and crises." Kennedy neglected to mention that six weeks earlier he had approved Operation MONGOOSE, a CIA project to assassinate Fidel Castro. It was not the first time that American intelligence agencies had attempted political assassination. But it was the first time during peace.

When Lyndon Johnson assumed the Presidency, he led the CIA into an entircly new field of operations. According to the legislation creating the CIA and defining its authority, the CIA is forbidden to engage in any domestic intelligence ativities unless they are directly connected to the acquisition of foreign intelligence information. Johnson feared a rising tide of disent over his Vietnam policies. He authorized the CIA to engage in domestic surveillance, contrary to its powers. According to William R. Corson, Johnson's "hopes for peace and the Great Society had been dashed on the rocks of Vietnam, leaving him an almost total captive of the military hierachy and the intelligence community, whose complicity in the illegal activities to curb dissent over the war insured his silence and effectively proscribed his ability to accept the peace proposals which had been worked out in Paris by Averell Harriman and Cyrus Vance."

By the time Richard Nixon became President, the CIA had reached full maturity. It had become virtually a separate branch of government, conducting its own policies in foreign relations. By the late 1960s, the CIA had become so independent that President Nixon felt threatened by its power. His dilemma was how to make the intelligence agencies answerable to his needs without depleting its vast resources for world manipulation. Nixon turned to Henry Kissinger for advice. Kissinger, according to William Corson, "believed it was necessary to reorganize the intelligence community ostensibly to make it more consistent with the changed world he and Nixon were orchestrating, in reality to make the Nixon/Kissinger foreign policy a self-fulfilling prophecy and one written by the intelligence community."

As the CIA broadened the horizons of its covert interventions, it was natural that the human mind would be included in the list of arenas ripe for manipulation. With each forward step, and there were none that went backward, the CIA's clandestine operations kept growing, as did the smaller mind-control program. Each started in modest proportion, and they both continued to expand because there was no reason not to.

One reason why expansion of CIA illegal activities went unchecked is because in early 1954, the Justice Department entered into a secret arrangement with the CIA. The Justice Department agreed to refrain from prosecuting criminal acts conducted by CIA personnel if there was, in the Agency's opinion, a possibility that secret or sensitive information might be revealed in the course of a trial. This arrangement was negotiated by Lawrence Houston, General Counsel of the United States. It was in effect until January, 1975, thereby giving the CIA a twenty-one year carte blanche to violate the law.

Another reason why the CIA was able to expand its covert potential, including its mind -control program, is the lack of accountability of the Agency before Congress. In 1956. Senator Leverett Saltonstall expressed what has become the Congressional attitude toward the CIA.

The Lie is the means by which the CIA gets the goods on the President. When the President first learns about CIA illegal operations, or first orders that they be done, he has become a co-conspirator and is equally culpable in their misdeeds. They know it and he knows it. Because the President's hands are no longer clean, the CIA has a special power over him, the power to disclose his complicity. From that point on, the President is at their mercy.

The CIA's twenty-five-year crusade to unlock the secrets of the mind could not have been undertaken without the parallel development of covert operational authority. There would have been no justification for it and no need to do it. But invasion of the mind was a natural by-product of the clandestine mentality which received continual support and attention with each successive administration in the White House.

CIA covert operations were undertaken across the world. There was no reason why the mind should remain sacrosanct. For the CIA warriors, it was just another battlefield. Intervention into the mind followed the pattern of intervention into the internal affairs of other nations, Both were deemed necessary to protect U.S. national security interests. With the brain as another covert battlefield, appropriate weapons of war had to be fashioned. For twenty-five years, perhaps even longer, CIA scientists labored to equip Agency soldiers with the armaments they needed. As long as the issue of presidential accountability goes unsettled, and with it the vital inquiry into the legitimacy of covert warfare, the sanctity of the mind remains threatened. As political analyst Richard J. Barnet has cogently observed, "it has yet to be demonstrated what security interest the United States has in manipulating the politics of other countries other than the perfect security of world domination, the dream that destroys great nations."

They were eager to see what they could learn about ESB (Electrical Stimulation of Brain) and to explore what they could do with it. Most were motivated by scientific curiosity, but some, at least, must have been attracted by visions of practical applications. such as those suggested by Arthur C. Clarke: "Perhaps the most sensational result of this experimentation, which may be fraught with more social consequences than the early work of nuclear physicists, is the discovery of the socalled pleasure or rewarding centres in the brain... The possibilities here, for good and evil, are so obvious that there is no point in exaggerating or discounting them. Electronic possession of human robots controlled from a central broadcasting station is something that even George Orwell never thought of, but it may be technically possible long before 1984."

The most controversial of Dr. Heath's experiments was his attempt to straighten out a homosexual. In addition to objections from homosexuals (and others) to the basic idea, there is disagreement as to what happened. Heath and a collaborator, Charles E. Moan, reported that the patient, 24 years old, had been exclusively homosexual since he was twelve, and was an abuser of alcohol and drugs as well. Electrodes implanted in his septal area made him relaxed, self-confident, and euphoric. The stimulation also aroused him sexually, and while in the excited state

he responded positively by masturbating to "stag" movies that his doctors provided.

A year later it was reported that "he has solved many of his personal problems and is leading an actively and exclusively heterosexual life."

Dr. Jose Delgado and many others have observed that ESB could threaten human integrity. The individual cannot defend himself against ESB. Delgado pointed out, because if electric stimulation is sufficiently intense it always prevails over the will. "The possibility of scientific annihilation of personal identity, or even worse, its purposeful control, has sometimes been considered a threat more awful than an atomic holocaust." For that reason, ESB research has been subject to resistance on a number of grounds, theological, moral, ethical, philosophical and political. Delgado regards all these bases of opposition as "debatable," especially when deviant behavior conflicts with society. "Habitual criminal conduct" epitomizes the situation in which he feels that medical intervention on the brain is justified.

Delgado's arguments for intervention will not persuade everyone, but they would persuade many.

All modern tracking systems are miniature radio transmitters mounted on individuals to report the person's whereabouts and sometimes his or her activities.

In the simplest form, the transmitters are worn outside the body, like the wristwatchradios that Ralph Schwitzgebel persuaded juvenile delinquents in Cambridge, Massachusetts to wear. Schwitzgebel's devices transmitted pulse rates and the boy's locations to a modified missile-tracking device.

In more advanced versions, the sensor could be placed in the body of the brain to report information on sexual, digestive, cardiac, respiratory, or other functions. For general-purpose systems, radio pickups could be mounted on utility poles, from which information would be sent to a centrally located computer. Less expensive, special-purpose systems could monitor "clients" only within a locality, sending the information to a local checkpoint. Schools, for example, could monitor the presence of children in the halls; prisons could check the location of inmates in or out of their cells; bartenders might be alerted to the entrance of persons known as alcoholics; banks could be warned of the approach of parolled bank robbers.

It invades the privacy not only of behavior but of thoughts; if it is less offensive than tracking, it is only because the polygraphs are episodic rather than continous. The catalog of a psychiatric equipment manufacturer includes a device for voice monitoring of patients in nearby rooms. The therapist can talk to the person under surveillance by means of a "Bug-In-Ear." Alternatively, he can deliver messages that the patient is sure to remember by means of the Whistle Stop Wireless Stimulator, a device that delivers an 800-volt shock. Either or both of these devices can be used in conjunction with the Barlow Male

Arousal Sensor or the Geer Female Arousal Sensor, transducers that fit around the penis and inside the vagina to inform the therapist of the patient's reaction to "erotic films, sexual fantacies and masturbatory activity." Although these devices are intended for use with individuals, they could readily be adapted to groups. The slight controversy that has attended the past ten years of their use suggests that group applications are not at all out of the question. In a National Institute of Mental Health publication, it has been suggested that "linkage of..transducers...would not be difficult and could, when included within an electronic locator system, provide the capability of precisely monitoring sex offenders within the community."

Already, the same review reports, "in the treatment of alcoholics, a distant observer has used a walkie-talkie type transmitter to deliver electric shocks to patients at appropriate moments in the treatment procedure. Tone signals have also been transmitted to persons over a location monitoring system... to reduce crime-related behaviors using this system, a person with a problem of aggression following drinking was conditioned to experience nausea when he was served alcohol following the presentation of a particular tone signal. Later, this tone signal was transmitted to him in bar rooms to reduce his drinking behavior."

Schools are not the only social institutions that would like to keep track of people. Supervision is a major cost of private business, and much of it consists of noting where employees are, not what they are doing - for example, working or snoozing. Automation of this supervision could be immensely profitable. Recently, businessmen have observed employees by means as intrusive as polygraphs, psychological tests, monitoring of their telephones at work and at home, and secret observation. It would not be surprising to see widespread use of a method that is potentially more intrusive and at the same time less expensive.

Tracking could also be combined with ESB by broadcasting to and from, the brain. Placement of a device inside the skull or in another part of the body is technically more difficult than strapping it to the wrist, but once placed, the device is more secure and can transmit more detailed information. But at least one type of important "internal" mental-physiological process could be monitored from the outside: Devices have been developed for measuring penile erection...The linkage of these transducers to a portable transmitter...would not be difficult and could. when included within an electronic locator system, provide the capability of precisely monitoring sex offenders within the community.

If these ideas seem to imply a cheerless future in which large numbers of us wilI be under the surveillance of electronic Big Brothers, the problem, some people say, lies in our attitude toward Big Brother. According to sociologist Gerald W. Smith, people will just have to overcome their 1984 fear that big brother is watching. The Los Angeles Times has suggested, tongue in cheek, that the fear of Big Brother can be overcome by implanting a tracking device in every infant at birth. "By the time the potential little crook grew up, he would regard his built-in transistor with affection - something akin to his security blanket."

The Los Angeles Times was kidding, but Professor Smith was not. He and a colleague. Barton L. Ingraham, Professor of Criminology and Law at the University of Maryland, have published a detailed exposition of their ideas in a scholarly article entitled "The Use of Electronics in the Observation and Control of Human Behavior and Its Possible Use in Rehabilitation and Parole." Twenty-four-hour-a-day electronic surveillance, and therefore control, is now a possibility, they assure us.

Smith and Ingraham are particularly excited by the possibility of crime control through a combination of ESB, external monitors, tracking and computer technology. The computer would retaliate against the possible criminal on the basis of probabilities, eliminating the delay and difficulty of proving guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt...Ingraham and Smith echo Schwitzgebel's rationale, but they add some sophisticated or sophistic-arguments of their own. They distinguish between "objective" freedom, the freedom actually to do as one wishes, and "subjective" freedom, the feeling that one is free. Objective freedom, they conclude, is incompatible with modern society, but subjective freedom can be enhanced electronically:

"Subjective freedom is totally dependent on awareness, [it] is easily realizable within the context of an ordered society, whereas radical objective freedom is not. Since society cannot allow men too much objective freedom, the least it can do (and the wise thing to do) is to so order its affairs that men are not aware or concerned about any lack of it. The technique of telemetric control of human beings offers the possibility of regulating behavior with precision on a subconscious level, and avoiding the cruelty of depriving man of his subjective sense of freedom."

Furthermore. they assert. electronic control of deviance will give such an advantage to the nations that adopt it that any nation rejecting the technique may not survive. We might as well be among the survivors, even if that means radical changes in our central values: "Whether we like it or not, changes in technology require changes in political and social life and in values most adaptable to those changes". Finally, Ingraham and Smith argue, man would be better off without certain of his traits, such as aggression. It is a "resonable proposal," they say, for man to hasten evolution by modifying himself "into something better than what he has been for the last 100.000 years." They thus join Delgado in arguing

a government-science alliance to reshape the nature of man.

There have been many allegations that Manchurian Candidates exist. Within the last two decades the idea has been seriously presented as the explanation for political assassinations in the United States and elsewhere. Hypno-programmed agents, unconscious automatons blindly acting out other's instructions, have been popular subjects of speculation...Dr. Eduard Simson-Kallas is a psychologist who interviewed convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan twenty times after Sirhan was sentenced to San Quentin's death row in 1969. He told the San Francisco Examiner that Sirhan was hypnotically programmed. Sirhan could not be trusted to kill Robert Kennedy because he had always been a loser. "He failed at Pasadena City College. He played the horses and lost. He wanted to become a jockey and he fell off a horse." But, according to Simson-Kallas, he was the perfect choice as a programmed scapegoat. "I see him as an excellent follower willing to risk his life for an idea, not afraid of death. Basically, he is a very moral person."

Simson-Kallas became suspicious when he noticed that Sirhan could not explain his crime in vivid language. He seemed to be "reciting from a book," said Simson-Kallas. "The curious thing was that he didn't have any details. A psychologist always looks for details. If a person is involved in a real situation, there are details." As Sirhan began to trust Simson-Kallas, he asked to be hypnotized. "I don't really know what happened," Sirhan said. "I know I was there. They tell me I killed Kennedy," Sirhan continued. "I don't remember what exactly I did but I know I wasn't myself. I remember there was a girl who wanted coffee...So I gave her my cup and poured one for myself. That's the last I can remember until I was choked and manhandled by the crowd."

Freedom and dignity are special qualities; without them people are no longer human. If people imagine themselves as no more than objects in a mechanistic universe, they will be nothing more. And so each of us must examine his or her own life and reject those who urge us not to. We must be wary of those who promise us security and ask in return for our freedom. We must recognize that part of the price for freedom may well be insecurity, but that the price for complete security is inhumanity.

Man can control his future by regaining control over the present. Now is the time for public dialogue on mind manipulation and behavior control - while all of us, as free people, still have the chance to speak our own minds.

Return to Intoduction