Internet Chess Club

MK-ULTRA: Project Monarch.


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


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

(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

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

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'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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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.