Mens
cujusque is est quisque.
(A man’s mind is the man himself.)
~
Cicero
Most everyone
is privy to a family secret. Sometimes you may be tempted to
think that you know about the family secrets of others. But
the truth of the matter is that most times people tend to chatter
on about second-rate peccadilloes in families, while the truly
disturbing matters are left unspoken. Should the subject matter
arise, it becomes the proverbial elephant in the living room
that no one dare admit exists. Oddly enough, these secrets tend
to get blurted on occasion and for no apparent reason.
Governments
have family secrets as well. Like families, the lesser secrets,
when finally exposed, are subject to over-analysis and inflated
importance. But the deeper darker secrets occasionally bubble
to the surface, only to be quickly brought down low again, with
no one daring to comment on what was revealed. One such secret
of our government is the fact that the CIA has on occasion dabbled
in the kind of mind control made famous by the movie The
Manchurian Candidate. The existence of this fact is
not the product of a madman’s diaries but comes straight
from the CIA's own records. Since the government has only
given the sketchiest of details concerning exactly what the
CIA was up to, the topic of mind control runs the gamut from
serious scholarly research to outlandish paranoia. However,
there are thoughtful speculations being made about the scope
and duration of past secret CIA programs as well as whether
such programs are still on-going today.
Without
delving into the shadowy world of what did or did not take place
(no one will ever know for sure) and staying within the parameters
of what has been officially revealed – that the
CIA gave mind altering drugs to people without their knowledge
or consent – there is still much that can, indeed, must be said
about this foray into this ultimate evil.
What an
attack on the independence of a person’s mind represents is
an attack on the very principle
of self-ownership. It would not be hyperbole to say that
if any government went about a plan of forcibly tampering with
the volitional abilities of the human person, such a government
would have engendered itself with an evil beyond that of any,
or indeed all, previous man-made evils. No slave-master, however
cruel, could reach the deepest caverns of the mind. No slave,
however coercive the duress which he suffered, was ever robbed
of the ability to morally judge the actions he was forced to
carry out. Without a mind, the individual person ceases to exist.
Our very criminal law, however flawed it may be on occasion,
respects the concept that no one is liable for an act over which
their mind has no control.
While the
public was repulsed to learn that one of Jeffrey Dahmer’s fantasies
was to create zombie
sex slaves, there is no such general gag reflex at the revelation
that someone, somewhere in the bowels of our intelligence community,
may have fantasized about creating government sex slaves, or
government work slaves, or government war slaves. What is more
disturbing is that this sick lust for total domination was not
shouted down but funded and put into experimental testing.
Though
we don’t have any hardcore proof about what exactly the CIA
was trying to do, we can turn to film to give us some clues
as to what the possibilities were. Aside from the aforementioned
The Manchurian Candidate, there is Stanley Kubrick’s
A
Clockwork Orange. Anyone familiar with the film realizes
that even under the seemingly altruistic banner of using mind
control techniques to control the "anti-social," such
efforts are destined to be the tools of political gamesmanship
and reap unforeseen dire consequences. The dark comedy Brazil
probably comes closer than any to showing the everyday application
of not only mind tampering but also the traditionally "softer"
versions of thought manipulation, like propaganda.
But perhaps
more powerful would be to imagine how the endings of great movies
would turn out if the government protagonists had the power
to rape men’s minds. For one example, think of the Academy Award-winning
epic Braveheart.
After more than two and a half hours of following the exploits
of William Wallace, the film would not end with his disemboweling
by the royal authorities while letting loose with a recalcitrant
cry of "FREEEEDDOOOMMM." Instead, William Wallace
would have emerged after his captivity at the hands of the Crown
to announce that Longshanks was misunderstood and that Scotland
was better off with him overseeing it than it would ever be
trying to self-govern. The film could have ended with Wallace
going off to the Highlands to shill for his former adversary.
You can very easily envision such unsatisfying alternate endings
to Gladiator,
Robin
Hood, and Rob
Roy. (Then again you could just watch Invasion
of the Body Snatchers.)
What this
thought experiment in movie endings shows is that the drama
of human existence and the struggle for human freedom involve
the clash of wills. It is an ancient motif – the will of the
individual rising against all odds to fight for what is right.
In these stories, sometimes the good guys win and sometimes
not. But if governments are ever allowed to harness the ability
to sap the will of the mind and soul, there will be no more
drama, there will be no freedom. There will be only the dybbuks
of the state where once there were men.