The kind that’s only in your mind.
The approved of kind.
Buried deep in over 600 pages of documentation (yes, I have now read it all) of Senator Sam Ervin’s Hearings on Behavior Modification – was a very interesting article.
I am bringing out just a couple points from it, all by themselves here, just so you can see this in all its glory without anything else around it.
Individual Rights and the Federal Role in Behavior Modification; A Study Prepared by the Staff of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Third Congress, Second Session; published November 1974; 655 pages. – found at Black Vault’s MKULTRA archives.
Starting on page 609 of the PDF page numbering sequence (not the doc numbering) –
We see –
Item VI.D.3 The Use of Electronics in the Observation and Control of Human Behavior and Its Possible Use in Rehabilitation and Parole, Burton L. Ingraham and Gerald W. Smith – Issues in Criminology, Vol 7, No. 2 (1972) pp 35-53
A telemetric system consists of small electronic devices attached to a subject that transmit via radio waves information regarding the location and physiological state of the wearer. A telemetry system provides a method whereby phenomena may be measured or controlled at a distance from where they occur-IE: remotely (Grisamore, 1965).
The great benefit derived from the use of such systems in studying animals (including man) lies in the ability to get data from a heretofore inaccessible environment….
It also provides long-range, day-to-day, continuous observation and control of the monitored subject, since the data can be fed into a computer which can act as both an observer and a controller.
An examination of published research in electrical stimulation of the brain suggests two crude methods of controlling human behavior:
- by “blocking” of the response, through the production of fear, anxiety, disorientation, loss of memory and purpose, and even, if need be, by loss of consciousness
- through conditioning behavior by the manipulation of rewarding and aversive stimuli…
I’ll be getting into the real meat of the article in another post because of why Ervin included it, these two quotes are just brief points for your understanding of this telemetry business. Today, some people call it psychotronics or non-lethal weapons, just to make things extra confusing for every one.
The article spends a fair bit of time going over the troublesome objections of privacy and human dignity – not troublesome to their morals, no. Troublesome in the sense that it tries to stop them from doing these things.
The authors also show their support of eugenics – still trying to beat that drum – as being right, and calls objections to their lovely ideas as being human vanity.
This is the argument that was raised when compulsory vaccination was proposed, and which is still being raised as to such things as birth control, heart transplants, and proposals for the improvement of man through eugenics.
…Unfortunately there is not time here to perform such a task or to rip away the veil of human vanity that so enshrouds these arguments.
Regarding Freedom, they write that the first thing that should be said with regard to that issue is that there is none to be found in most of our prisons, so ergo they argue it is an irrelevant argument.
What is wrong with those guys…
As part of trying to justify their crazy insane experiments, the author helpfully informs us of what some guy named Hebb said about it.
D.O. Hebb, “The Role of Experience.” Man and Civilization: Control of the Mind: A Symposium edited by Seymour M. Farber and W.H.L. Wilson, 1961 –
What I am saying implies that civilization depends on an all-pervasive thought control established in infancy, which both maintains and is maintained by the social environment, consisting of the behavior of the members of society…
What we are really talking about in this symposium is mind in an accustomed social environment, and more particularly a social environment that we consider to be the normal one. It is easy to forget this, and the means by which it is achieved.
This Hebb guy then tries to use Thomas Jefferson in support of his ideas, and I can tell you for a fact that there is no way in hell Jefferson, if he was here today, would ever support what these jokers have in mind for people under the cloak of “science”.
But, it is interesting that it’s still a sore point to these slavemaster types. I like that.
The thought control that we object to, the ‘tyranny over the mind of man” to which Jefferson swore ‘eternal hostility,’ is only the one that is imposed by some autocratic agency and does not include the rigorous and doctrinaire control that society itself exercises by common consent in moral and political values. I do not suggest that this is undesirable. Quite the contrary, I argue that a sound society must have such a control.
The irony here is that these two men who are using Hebb’s quotes in their article to support their crazy ideas (and specifically choosing to include the Jefferson part) are working for and are paid by the very types of autocratic agencies that they are trying to have believed are somehow elsewhere other than right where they are!
If you look carefully at this next part –
The problem of thought control, or control of the mind, then, is not how to avoid it, considering it only as a malign influence exerted over the innocent by foreigners, Communists, and other evil fellows. We all exert it…
From this point of view the course of developing civilization is, on the one hand, an increasing uniformity of aims and values, and thus also of social behavior, or on the other, an increasing emotional tolerance of the stranger, the one who differs from me in looks, beliefs or action-a tolerance, however, that still has narrow limits.
You’ll see some interesting slavemaster logic starting to reveal itself here. Particular their idea of what tolerance is – “narrow” limits.
That’s putting it mildly.
Probably couldn’t pass a hair between the borders of their idea of ‘tolerance’.
But here’s where you’re really going to see how they think. They have TYPES of freedom.
You’ve probably already guessed the one they like ain’t so good for the rest of us. And so it is…
Slavemaster logic – Objective freedom, the real thing, in other words, although made to look insane, as you’re about to see:
Objective freedom for each man is a product of power, wealth or authority, since it is only through the achievement of one or more of these that one can control so as not to be controlled-i.e., it is only through these that one can, one one hand, guard against the abuses, infringements, and overreaching of one’s fellow man which limit one, and, on the other hand, commit those very offenses against one’s neighbor and, by doing so, obtain all one’s heart desires.
Radical objective freedom is inconsistent with social life….may also be intolerable psychologically; one may actually feel “constrained” by an excess of options (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom, 1963).
Here’s the one they prefer for all of us, the majority of humanity –
Subjective freedom, on the other hand, is a sense of not being pressed by the demands of authority and nagged by unfulfilled desires. It is totally dependent on awareness.
Such a concept of freedom 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. [lack of freedom, that is]
I’m Free! … ? …. !
And finally –
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.
That one leaves me speechless, and that’s saying something.
This was almost 50 years ago now, do we honestly think they’ve changed since then?
Not on your life.