Edited, July 11, 2021, v.5
*Dedication page: “To the Fellows and Staff 1964-5 at the Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioural Sciences”
First, we should jump directly to Arthur Koestler’s conclusions (Chapter 18 – The Age of Climax, pp. 313-339) and what he advocates as a “solution” to the “problem” he perceives with humanity.
In my opinion, the reader can see how this relates directly to what is happening currently with the release of COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines.”
Koestler refers to one of the literal mind control conferences he participated in, a 1961 symposium on Control of the Mind at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center (p. 333).
He quotes another participant, Professor Holger Hydén of Goeteborg University who wrote the paper “Biochemical Aspects of Brain Activity.”
“In considering the problem of control of the mind, . . . : would it be possible to change the fundamentals of emotion by inducing molecular changes in the biologically active substances in the brain? The RNA, in particular, is the main target for such a speculation, since a molecular change of the RNA may lead to a change in the proteins being formed. . . . “
He points out there are both positive and negative aspects to the
“application of a substance changing the rate of production and composition of RNA and provoking enzyme changes in the functional units of the central nervous system”
The use of this particular substance increased “suggestibility.”
He notes that
“a defined change of such a functionally important substance as the RNA in the brain could be used for conditioning.”
He is referring to not just tricyano-aminopropene, but to
“any substance inducing changes of biologically important molecules in the neurons and the glia and affecting the mental state . . .. It is not difficult to imagine the possible uses to which a government in a police-controlled state could put this substance.”
At first they would
“subject the population to hard conditions. Suddenly the hardship would be removed, and at the same time, the substance would be added to the tap water and the mass-communications media turned on.”
He said this would be much cheaper and effective than to
“let Ivanov treat Rubashov individually for a long time, as Koestler described in his book.” (pp. 333-334)
He is referring to Koestler’s novel Darkness at Noon.
Koestler then comments that
“biochemistry can serve the powers of light or of darkness. Its dangers are terrifying; but we are now concerned with its beneficial possibilities.”
Then he quotes another participant of the “Control of the Mind” symposium, Dean Saunders, of the San Francisco Medical School who says that modern chemists have provided
“an abundant array of new chemical compounds of varying and diverse structure which influence the central nervous system to distort, accelerate, or depress the mental state and behavioural characteristics of the individual.”
There is a “very strong possibility” of
“a full spectrum of chemical agents which can be used for the control of the mind in the majority of its activities.”
“. . . Here at our disposal, to be used wisely or unwisely, is an increasing array of agents that manipulate human beings . . . It is now possible to act directly on the individual to modify his behaviour instead of as in the past, indirectly through modification of the environment. This, then, constitutes a part of what Aldous Huxley has called ‘The Final Revolution’ . . . ” (pp. 334-335)
(Hydén and Saunders are quoted from Control of the Mind, the publication based on the symposium. See Farber, S.M. and Wilson, R.H.L., eds.,1961.)
Note that top advisor to U.S. presidents Zbigniew Brzezinski repeated similar claims about research intended to control the human mind.
Tampering with human beings genetically and through hypnosis–and chemically damaging them to create a caste system–was fundamental to the dictatorial system described in Huxley’s novel Brave New World.
Koestler comments on the reference made by Saunders:
“Huxley was haunted by the fear that this ‘Final Revolution’, brought about by the combined effect of drugs and the mass media, could create ‘within a generation or so for entire societies a sort of painless concentration camp of the mind, in which people will have lost their liberties in the enjoyment of a dictatorship without tears’. In other words, the state of affairs described in Brave New World. As an antidote, Huxley advocate the use of mescalin and other psychedelic drugs . . . .”
That last part refers to Huxley’s contradictory “antidote”–drugs, LOL–which is generally presented as a project of empowerment rather than the advocacy of a key technique used for dictatorship in his novel Brave New World. This basic deception continues today!
Koestler explains how he admired Huxley’s “personality and work” but disagreed with Huxley’s over-selling of psychedelic drugs like mescalin in Heaven and Hell.
“this is precisely what I do not mean by the positive uses of psychopharmacology.”
First, he says that mescaline and LSD experiments “involve serious risks.” He also says it is wrong to think that drugs can add faculties to the mind that are “not already there.”
Contrary to even what current advocates of psychedelics say, Arthur Koestler denies that pills can provide insight, wisdom or creativity.
However, the psycho-pharmacist
“cannot add to the faculties of the brain—but he can, at best, eliminate obstructions and blockages which impede their proper use.”
I think he is just as wrong about this assumption as Huxley was about his advocacy of psychedelics.
“cannot aggrandise us—but he can, within limits, normalise us; he cannot put additional circuits in the brain, but he can . . . improve the co-ordination . . . . That is all the help we can ask for—but if we were able to obtain it, the benefits to mankind would be incalculable; it would be the ‘Final Revolution’ in a sense opposite to Huxley’s—the break-through from maniac to man.” (p. 336)
Notice his philosophy that he sees the human being as a “maniac,” as not yet truly human and that the human mind can be “improved.”
So you can see that Koestler saw man’s current state—his brain—as fundamentally defective.
He argues in his book up to this point that the self-transcending aspect of the human individual as a “holon” (he presents his Open Hierarchical Systems theory throughout the book) is more flawed than the self-assertive aspect because of our tendency to become caught up in a hypnotized state of mass-minded devotion to destructive causes.
Koestler is concerned, not with psychiatric illness, but with
“a cure for the paranoic streak in what we call normal people, i.e., mankind as a whole: an artificially simulated, adaptive mutation to bridge the rift between the phylogenetically old and new brain, between instinct and intellect, emotion and reason.”
Much of his book is arguing that evolution made a mistake in how the characteristically human part of the brain interacts with the supposedly more primitive parts of the brain.
He says that if we can “increase man’s suggestibility,” then we can also do the opposite and “counteract misplaced devotion and that militant enthusiasm . . .” (p. 336).
“The most urgent task of biochemistry is the search for a remedy . . .”
The present range of drugs are “merely a first step” towards the goal of creating a “co-ordinated, harmonious state of mind.”
He doesn’t believe the goal is a more mystical state of mind,
“but a state of dynamic equilibrium in which thought and emotion are re-united, and hierarchic order is restored.”
I don’t believe it is possible to improve on nature. I believe that human beings need guidance of some kind. We have always recognized the need for moral and spiritual guidance in order to do the right thing.
It is ironic that so many people have been involved in research on controlling human beings—and yet they do not see that something is fundamentally tyrannical and screwed up about their own motives and goals.
Koestler is very emotionally driven in his attack on the human brain. He is not objective at all. Emotion and survival instincts are part of who we are.
He seems to think he can improve on the “balance” when the current balance doesn’t suit people like him, and that somehow we can trust people like him.
How can people protect themselves against those who oppress and abuse them unless they work together with each other? A functioning society that had true democratic self-governance would hold officials accountable and work to restore and maintain structures (justice systems for instance) that truly protected the most vulnerable from being victimized by corrupt, criminal gangs. That’s the issue totalitarians want to overcome with their lust for power.
The events of the years he experienced—the actions of Hitler and Stalin which he writes about—are proof that we cannot trust the advocates, promoters and the financial backers of modern, totalitarian ideologies, not that we need a Western “liberal” (provably not “loving”) version of totalitarianism which had already been promoted for many years before Koestler by authors such as H. G. Wells.
Koestler then proceeds to advocate a supposedly voluntary regime for his hypothetical “mental stabiliser” (p. 337):
“Its use would spread because people like feeling healthy rather than unhealthy in body or mind. It would spread as vaccination has spread, and contraception has spread, not by coercion but by enlightened self-interest.”
So he emphasizes the two key commitments and agendas of internationalists to–vaccination and contraception.
This reminds me of the “biological controls” advocated by H. G. Wells. Aldous Huxley advocated birth control in his 1950s book Brave New World Revisited–another technique of the dictatorship described in his novel presented falsely as a solution. Earlier in this chapter (p. 330), Koestler had put forward the standard globalist rant that the world is over-populated with too many humans. Now there are a lot more isolated people without families.
The “mental stabiliser” would “restore the integrity of the split hierarchy” referring to the supposed flaw in the coordination between the “old” and “new” structures in the human brain.
Note how he downplays the coercive nature of even some existing vaccination policies–which he had mentioned earlier (p. 328).
Then he inserts the coercive element slowly back into the mix showing how his argument is blatantly dishonest in starting off with the pretense of having a voluntary adoption of his hypothetical, mutating drug.
“Some Swiss canton might decide, after a public referendum, to add the new substance to the chlorine in the water supply, for a trial period, and other countries might follow their example. . . .” (p. 337)
Notice how he mentions chlorine but not fluorine. And when was the last referendum YOU participated in?
Alternatively, he suggests there might be a trendy movement among the young to take the new substance (pp. 337-338).
“In one way or the other, the mutation would get under way” (p. 338).
His schizoid Cold War mentality is evident (the link is to Buckley’s recommendation that America needs to be a “totalitarian bureaucracy”).
Referring to Russia and China, “It is possible that totalitarian countries would try to resist it.”
Yes, in the same way Russia didn’t want to go along with the subversive CIA modern arts and cultural agenda, which they supposedly aimed at Russia [see The Cultural Cold War by Frances Stonor Saunders].
So the West isn’t totalitarian even though it is holding mind control conferences and coming up with these types of ideas!?
Notice that Zbigniew Brzezinski, a key U.S. government advisor, complained that Russia (the Soviet Union at the time) was not Marxist enough or did not practice the internationalist, Western version of Marxism. People need to understand what American foreign policy has really been about!
Note that Koestler even refers to the use of contraception (p. 330) as amounting to “artificially simulated, adaptive mutation.”
The idea in general is to change man, to mutate man, to evolve man, to “improve” on nature.
A lot of the book amounts to emotional appeals about the supposedly broken brains of human beings, but somehow–in contradiction to that–we are supposed to trust other humans in elite academic circles to mutate us into a state of perfection!
Wouldn’t our “paranoid” group instincts somehow be built into us in order to protect ourselves and our families from predators?
And isn’t the goal of tyrants always our domestication, which is part of our real weakness–the same suggestibility he is talking about?
Something is missing–a spiritual aspect–that needs some kind of constant attention from us. We try to come up with our own solutions. We try to learn wisdom and pass it on. We seek inspiration.
I think the gap he is complaining about is freedom of choice, and we often fail to recognize it and make good use of it. We often make the wrong choices about how we use our lives.
We have blindly followed technologies such television for example as we are led along a path of shiny objects and entertaining visions that someone drops in front of us–and we pay the price.
What has been more consistent in modern times than our human capacity to be deceived and to become more and more passive as atrocities and abuses multiply?
The most aggressive and abusive are the ones who seek to cross boundaries that should not be crossed. The principles being broken are already spelled out in multiple Charters and international treaties. The violators of humanity–the ultimate revolutionaries–sell their agenda dressed in the clothes of philanthropy and science.