Nice Essay

From silent movies to modern films, classic literature, to comic-books, the concept of mind control, or brainwashing is a theme that has been prevalent. Bram Stoker’s Dracula has held the fascination of generations of readers and movie goers alike with his ability to bend the will of his victims with the power of his compelling gaze. In Stanley Kubrik’s A Clock-Work Orange a futuristic society attempts to cure the violent tendencies of its criminals by subjecting them to painful stimuli while forcibly subjecting them to view repeated violent images. Frank Sinatra stars as a man conditioned by the Koreans through the utilization of hypnosis and drugs to be an unwitting political assassin in classic film The Manchurian Candidate. While popular novelist Dean Koontz’ tales abound with insidious top secret experiments in brainwashing conducted by the CIA.

Despite the many instances, including the specific cases to be explored in this paper, in which there is compelling evidence to show that brainwashing techniques can and have been utilized with chillingly effective results, experts continue to disagree as to whether brainwashing is an authentic scientific phenomenon, or as much a fiction as the films and novels in which it is popularly portrayed. The majority view–holding brainwashing to be little more than science fiction– is manifested in the fact that the assertion that one was being mentally controlled or coerced by another generally fails as a defense to criminal charges. This is most notably observed in the cases against Patty Hearst, the Manson accomplices, and those who participated in the atrocities committed in the name of the Third Reich’s “Final Solution” during World War II.

The argument can be made that although evidence of brainwashing was quite convincing at least in the cases of Patricia Hearst–an heiress who was kidnapped and supposedly brainwashed by the Symbionese Liberation Army and was later prosecuted for participating with her kidnappers in an armed robbery,–and Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, and Leslie Van Houeten–the Manson girls who will be discussed later in this paper,– the nature of the crimes was such as to make it inconceivable not to hold the participants fully liable for their actions in the absence of proof of insanity as legally defined, whether one actually believed they were brainwashed or not. This is particularly true in the Manson case, where prosecutor Vince Bugliosi himself argued the mind control tactics used by Manson, in an effort to show that it was on his orders that the murders were committed; yet the jury found the girls fully liable for their actions, ultimately sentencing them to death.

Most commentaries on the topic from the field of Psychology can be found in relation to the area of cults. Here where evidence of brainwashing is often all but undeniable, experts still strongly disagree over its existence; in fact, the APA has taken the official position that studies analyzing the use of brainwashing tactics in relation to cults lack scientific validity as does the concept of brainwashing itself. Those who consider brainwashing to be nothing more than a myth, assert that while strong methods of what they would classify as persuasion may be exerted, the human capacity for free will can not be overcome. Lowell Streiker, author of Mind Bending, a text examining cult religions, quotes psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, whose opinion on the matter serves as an excellent summation of this school of thought.

“The critical question thus becomes: What is brainwashing? Are there, as the term implies, two kinds of brains: washed and unwashed? How do we know which is which?

Actually, it is quite simple. Like many dramatic terms, ‘brainwashing’ is a metaphor. A person can no more wash another’s brain with coercion or conversation than he can make him bleed with a cutting remark.

If there is no such thing as brainwashing, what does the metaphor stand for? It stands for one of the most universal human experiences and events, namely for one person influencing another. However, we do not call all types of personal or psychological influences ‘brainwashing.’ We reserve this term for influences of which we disapprove…”(Streiker, 1984, p. 153)

Experts subscribing to the view that brainwashing is indeed a valid concept, while in the minority, are hardly few in number. Respected professionals such as Dr Margaret Singer, Dr Joost Meerloo and have written extensively on the subject and have even testified as to the validity of brainwashing in several criminal and civil cases.

References to the techniques used in mind control, along with suggested methods of treating those who have fallen victim to these techniques, can be readily found in scientific journals. One such reference, printed in the American Journal of Psychotherapy, is an article entitled, Toward a Theory of Therapy with Cultic Victims. Although the question of the scientific validity of brainwashing is not addressed within the article, the authors lay out typical brainwashing techniques in describing experiences patients have been exposed to, and stress the severe psychological damage that may result.

“…This pathology is usually imposed by the following means.

(1) The individual is removed from family and friends.

(2) The individual is taught to ignore and separate from his/her experiential base.

(3) New and sometimes very conflicting philosophical systems are inculcated. Total allegiance to the leader is required and often deification is clearly demanded. Profound fear of talking with others who are not members of the group is constantly reinforced…Individuals are controlled in every aspect of personal life…Personal decision making is negated and methods of teaching not to think or not to feel are practiced and supervised…” (Morse & Morse, 1987, p. 566)

The authors go on to report that those subjected to such tactics can suffer long lasting effects, with many patients exhibiting symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress. In these cases, any contact with stimuli victims had been exposed to during “indoctrination” might cause the victim to display symptoms of “confusion, flashbacks, and panics.”

Another source lending legitimacy to the concept of brainwashing comes from within Congress. The House of Representatives Report on Jonestown–Findings, in describing factors involved in the Jonestown Massacre, states:

“Among the tactics he (Jones) practiced with engineered precision are the following recognized strategies of brain washing:

Isolation from all vestiges of former life, including and especially all sources of information, and substituting himself as the single source of all knowledge, wisdom, and information;

An exacting daily regimen requiring absolute obedience…

Physical pressure, ranging from depravation of food and sleep to the possibility and reality of severe beatings. As a compliment to the physical pressures, he exerted mental pressures on his followers…”(House of Representatives, 1979)

The report goes on to list several other tactics, some specific to Jonestown, and others common to many situations in which brainwashing tactics have been utilized.

The first scientific studies of mind control can be traced to the work of Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov beginning in the early twentieth century. While conducting studies on the canine digestive system, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1904, Pavlov hypothesized that the brain and nervous system played a large part in the digestive process, and began conducting experiments to learn more about this connection. What he discovered was what we now call the process of Classical Conditioning.

The process by which Pavlov first discovered the principals of Classical Conditioning are commonly known by any student who has ever taken a General Psychology course. Studying the connection between digestion and neurological processes, Pavlov began pairing the sounding of a metronome with the immediate introduction of meat powder. He knew that the introduction of the meat powder naturally caused the dog to salivate, but what he discovered was that after repeatedly pairing the stimuli, the sound of the metronome alone would be sufficient to cause the dog to salivate. What is not so commonly known is the progression of Pavlov’s work after this point.

While conducting his experiments in Classical Conditioning, a natural disaster led Pavlov to a fascinating discovery. When a flood swept through Leningrad, Pavlov’s dogs were trapped in their cages. Panic set in as the dogs struggled to keep their heads above the rising water. Fortunately a lab assistant was able to save the animals before the water level reached the top of the cages. Resuming his experiments, he found that, in the majority of the animals, conditioned behavior had been extinguished. Intrigued by this event, the scientist hypothesized that stress caused by the conditions of the flood had led to the extinction, and began to conduct further research on this vein.

Repeated experiments showed that when subjected to prolonged stress, the animals would “break down” and conditioned responses would be extinguished. Terming this response a “protective transmarginal inhibition,” he went on to classify three separate stages of the phenomenon. During the first phase, “equivalent transmarginal inhibition,” dogs showed little distinction in their responses to either strong or weak negative stimuli. In the second stage, termed the “paradoxical” stage, he found that the dog would react more forcefully to a weaker negative stimulus than to a stronger. Of these stages it is the last stage that is of most interest and significance in relation to the concept of brainwashing.

William Sargant,(1957) author of Battle For The Mind, describes the “ultraparadoxical” stage, “…positive conditioned responses suddenly switch to negative ones; and negative ones to positive. The dog may then, for instance, attach itself to a laboratory attendant whom it has previously disliked, and try to attack the master whom it has previously loved. It’s behavior in fact, becomes exactly opposed to all its previous conditioning.”(p. 30) This phase of transmarginal inhibition forms the basis for the concept of brainwashing– to subject an individual to enough stress to induce break down thereby erasing the previously conditioned beliefs, moralities, and attachments that a person once held, and recondition them with those that suit the goals of the person or entity utilizing brainwashing techniques, who will hereafter be referred to as the controller.

In the midst of Pavlov’s studies came the communist revolution in his country. Communist leaders quickly seized on the implications that his work could have in regards to the elimination of political dissent. Methods for which Pavlov’s work had laid the foundations were now used for the “reeducation” of political dissenters, and also to elicit confessions from those whose political dissent was determined to be a danger to the regime. Sargant writes of the effect of these methods, “Many people are also bewildered at the spectacle of an intelligent and hitherto mentally stable person who has brought up for trial behind the Iron Curtain and prevailed upon not only to believe but to proclaim sincerely that all his past actions and ideas were criminally wrong.”(1957, p. 20)

To avoid tarnishing the reputation of a brilliant man whose work lent great contributions to the field of psychology, it must be noted that Pavlov never intended for his experiments to be used for the purposes of human mind control. His intentions were to expand the base of knowledge relating to neurology and brain function with the goal of aiding in the treatment of those who had been exposed to severe stress. He was no sadist, and was as interested in curing his animals as he was in inducing their symptoms. Although the Communist government in the Soviet Union seized on the value of his work, exploiting it towards their own means of interrogation, and “reeducation,” Pavlov was, in fact, openly against government control of the free flow of ideas and speech.(Sargant, 1957)

An understanding of the difference between the concept of brainwashing, and that of intense persuasion is important in the discussion of brainwashing techniques. Because both rely on Classical Conditioning, an explanation of this concept is necessary. In Classical Conditioning, a stimulus that naturally produces a physical or emotional response is repeatedly paired with one that does not. By the repeated pairing of these stimuli, the stimulus that had previously elicited no response will come to elicit the same response as the stimulus with which it was paired, even when no longer paired with the original stimulus.

An example has already been presented with Pavlov’s dogs. When Pavlov presented the dogs with meat powder (the unconditioned stimulus), they naturally salivated (the unconditioned response). The sounding of a metronome(an unconditioned stimulus) produced no such reaction. However, after repeatedly sounding the metronome immediately before presenting the meat powder, the dogs would begin to salivate (conditioned response) at the sounding of the metronome (conditioned stimulus), even in the absence of the meat powder.

A prime example of Conditioning can be seen in television advertisements, where advertisers attempt to pair their products with something consumers are thought to have positive feelings towards, in order to cause the same positive feelings to be transferred to the product. For instance, a recent commercial for Cadillac pairs the image of the automobile cruising a roadway with Led Zeppelin music playing in the background. Most likely through the use of extensive marketing studies, those in charge of the campaign have concluded that Led Zeppelin is popular with the specific consumer audience being targeted, and have further concluded that the music elicits positive feelings within this audience. By pairing the two in commercials, they are hoping that by the principals of Conditioning, these positive feelings will transfer to their product, increasing sales.

Although many would confuse this process with brainwashing it is missing at least two key elements, breakdown, (or as Pavlov termed it, the ultraparadoxal phase of protective transmarginal inhibition,) and isolation. The breaking down of the subject’s prior conditioning, beliefs and values through some sort of stress is a key distinction between simply using the concepts of conditioning to elicit a desired response, and actual brainwashing. While conditioning may be a very effective means of bending the will to one’s objectives, as attested to by the amounts of money advertisers are willing to spend securing song rights and celebrity endorsements, it is not nearly as effective as it would be if a break down were induced.

Going back to the Cadillac commercial, many factors could influence whether conditioning will actually be achieved by any given consumer. Suppose for instance, a consumer is already driving a Lincoln. The consumer may already have positive feelings towards the automobile he is currently driving, although positive feelings toward the Cadillac may have resulted from viewing the advertisement these may not be strong enough to override his feelings toward the Lincoln. Or suppose that after viewing the Cadillac commercial, the consumer then views a commercial for a Hummer featuring Arnold Shwartzenegger; his positive feelings about his favorite action film star transfer to the Hummer, and override any feelings he may have had about the Cadillac.

This leads to another important distinction between simple Conditioning and Brainwashing, isolation. Even when transmarginal inhibition has been achieved it is important that subjects be kept from outside influences that will affect subsequent conditioning. There must be no other alternatives offered to interfere with the belief system the controller is attempting to instill. It will be shown time and time again that those who have been successful in the utilization of brainwashing tactics have either physically isolated their subjects, or employed other tactics to assure that theirs would be the only doctrines available for consideration.

Before any controversies over the subject of brainwashing had ever arisen, before any scientific experimentation in the area had ever been conducted, in fact, before anyone had ever even heard of the term, the basic elements of brainwashing were being exploited. An excellent example of early utilization of these tactics can be found by examining the practices of the Christian Church during its early history.

In the time of the Roman Empire, Christianity was outlawed, and Christians persecuted and forced to operate as underground societies, but with the decline of the Empire came the rise of Christianity. As the erosion of the Roman Empire forced an end to its reign over England and other European countries by 303 A.D., Christianity was recognized as a lawful religion, and Church leaders became perhaps the most powerful force in the lives of the European people.(Stuckey & Roberson, 2001) Although certain crimes such as murder and theft were tried in “secular” courts, the Church had its own court system, known as “ecclesiastic” courts, and people could be tried and punished in these courts for any number of offenses labeled as “crimes against the church.”

The list of crimes for which one could be prosecuted in ecclesiastic courts included, but was not limited to, adultery, fornication, incest, bigamy, defamation, and blasphemy (Stuckey & Roberson, 2001) The crime of blasphemy was a catch-all so to speak, and could include speaking out against the Church, any of its representatives or practices, or any other related “offense” the church saw fit to punish.

Further, the methods of trial employed in instances where one was accused of such crimes, far from actually establishing the guilt or innocence of the accused, was often a death sentence in and of itself. One favorite method of trial, utilized by the church, called “trial by ordeal,” consisted of the accused being forced to place his or her hand in boiling oil, the priest or bishop would then wrap the scalded appendage. If after a prescribed period of time when the wound was unwrapped, it had healed, the person was declared innocent of the charges. This outcome, however, especially in light of the far from sanitary living conditions of the time, was highly improbable. The far more likely result would be that the wound would become infected, and the accused would die a painful death.

The severe stress of living under such tyranny manifested itself in the form of the outbreaks of “mass madness” occurring during the Middle Ages. In one such madness, Tarantism, or St. Vitus’ Dance, individuals would dance frantically for hours on end, believing themselves to have been bitten and subsequently possessed by a spider. Another, “Lycanthropy” manifested itself in individuals who believed themselves to be turning into wolves, having been possessed by the creature. (Comer, 2002)

Utilization of brain washing tactics by the Church reached its apex with the Inquisitions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Criteria used by Inquisitors in determining who would be accused and subsequently called in for secret examinations were, at best, vague, and there was no way for the people of determining who would be next. Those taken for questioning, being forbidden to tell family and friends where they were going, were at the unmitigated mercy of their Inquisitors.

If during the questioning, these victims were determined to be guilty of heresy, or other crimes against the Church, they were imprisoned, and urged to confess under penalty of torture. The catch to this, (aside from the fact that confession would itself result in a death sentence often in the form of burning at the stake,) was that the confession had to be genuine, under the threat that were it not genuine, the confessor, after being burned to death here on earth would suffer eternal damnation, and continue to burn in the flames of hell. “They had to believe themselves genuinely guilty of crimes suggested by the Inquisitors or conveniently invented by their overwrought imaginations.”(Sargant, 1957, p. 215) The following is a description of the questioning of Joan of Arc:

“The instruments of torture were shown to her, and next to them the torturers…Also present was the usual array of greffiiers de douleurs and the notaries d’angoisse, trained in the indispensable art of picking confessions from the incomprehensible shrieks of the victims. …(she was given) sufficient time to take in the nature of the assembled implements, the pullies and cords, the winches and the rack, the malles and the funnels, the hooks, the gridirons, the knives, the boot, the pincers, and the braziers…Then…Joan was required and advised to make true answer to a number of different points, on pain of being delivered to the officers, who…are here ready to put you to the torture, and thus force you to return into the way of truth, and to acknowledge it, that thus the salvation of your soul and body may be assured…”(Sargant, 1957, p. 215)

Not only were individuals forced to confess to their own indiscretions, but they were often forced to inform against others, including their own families. Husbands were forced to inform against wives, parents against children, and so on. The penalty for failing to come up with adequate information in this area was also torture and death. In this atmosphere the amount of stress was significant. There was no one for an individual to turn to for comfort, even the closest of family members could be the instrument of one’s demise. No one dared speak out against the Church, even to the most trusted of confidants in the most private of atmospheres.

Another tactic employed by the Church to instill fear into people was one which will be seen as common to most of the cases of mass brainwashing presented in this paper. That is the creation of an enemy, protection from which must be perceived by subjects as capable of being provided solely by the person or entity utilizing brainwashing elements. If the fear of whatever enemy is presented is powerful enough, it will serve to create a strong bond of dependency on the controller, who is perceived to provide protection, and the subject, who perceives such protection as vital to his or her well being. The stronger the perceived fear, the stronger the resulting bond is likely to become.

The enemy utilized by the Church inspired enough fear to create an incredibly powerful dependency in the masses. That enemy was Satan, who was perceived as having the power to claim anyone’s soul at any time. The Church held itself out as being the only entity having sufficient power to protect the people from the deceptions of Satan, and only complete faith in the Church, and unconditional adherence to all its policies would be sufficient to protect an individual from the eternal pains of hell.

Considering all of these stresses placed upon the people by the Church, coupled with the generally dismal living conditions of the time, it is not surprising that these techniques were highly successful in ensuring the brainwashing of the masses. The totality of subservience is attested to by the fact that no successful revolt against the tyranny of the Church occurred. The stresses endured by the masses, it could be argued, were sufficient to induce breakdown, leaving them little choice but to fully embrace the ideology of the Church as right and just. The all–encompassing crime of blasphemy was sufficient to ensure that the people were not exposed to any other ideology, nor criticism of any Church policy.

Although the Church had utilized brainwashing tactics without any specific knowledge of the science relating to the process and the communist government of the Soviet Union had subsequently made some use of Pavlov’s scientific findings in obtaining the confessions of political dissenters, the Maoist regime in China was the first to institute a widespread program of conversion based on the utilization of brainwashing tactics. And it was the somewhat successful employment of brainwashing techniques by Maoists to convert American POWs during the Korean War that brought the concept of brainwashing to the attention of the American public. It was also the Maoists who first used an actual word to describe brainwashing techniques. The program they instituted to achieve the conversion of the masses to communist ideology was called, Szu–hsiang kai–tso, loosely translated as “ideological remolding” or “thought reform.”(Walsh, 2001) Prior to the deployment of this program for American POWs, Szu–hsiang kai–tso was employed in Chinese and Korean villages as they fell into Maoist hands.

It is worth noting that although this program was carried out with brutal precision, the original goals of the program were presented in such a way as to at least put forth the appearance that its underlying intensions were altruistic. Mao Tse-tung, leader of the Chinese communist revolution, said that he was instituting this program for the good of the people, rather than to cause them any harm or to impose any form of oppression upon them. “In 1942, Mao Tse-tung himself explained the purpose of thought reform as being to ‘punish the past and warn the future,’ to ’save men by curing their ills’ and to expose errors. The object is like curing a disease. The purpose is to ’save the person, not to cure him to death.’”(Glasser & Possony, 1979, p. 498) Assuming Tse-tung genuinely believed these statements (which he most likely did not,) consideration of the effects of the program in actual practice shows the inherent danger of brainwashing tactics, independent of the outwardly projected intentions of those utilizing such tactics.

The utilization of Szu-hsiang kai-tso, was a highly successful program, carried out in four phases. After villagers had been subjected to severe stress induced by having their village captured by an invading army, charismatic officials would then be sent in to gain the people’s confidence, and would begin the introduction of Communist ideology in a non threatening manner. In this way, these officials would be perceived as protectors against the invading army, regardless of the fact that they themselves were a part of it. “…Communist officials would behave like brothers to the people. Everything was handled in a simple manner, with no unpleasant actions taken. They would use simple slogans for doing things in a different way. The soldiers would sometimes even help the farmers in the field. During that time, the peasants would begin to feel that Communism was truly a better way of life.”(Keckeisen, 2002, p. 71)

During the first phase, having gained the people’s trust, it became effortless for these officials to gather information about the villagers themselves, and the village hierarchy in general. This information was then used to institute the second phase of indoctrination, turning those at the bottom of the hierarchy against those closer to the top. It would be revealed to those of the lower rank that a class reversal was to take place. In accordance with communist principals, they were to be the new elite. The catch was that they would first have to demonstrate allegiance to the party through participating in the overthrow of the upper class.

Once the cooperation of the lower ranks had been secured, Communist leaders would then gather the village together under the pretext of a “town meeting.” Those of status in the village would be called upon to confess their crimes against the lower class. They were in a no win situation; whatever their response, they were to be beaten by chosen members of the lower class. The village had now been successfully divided against itself.

Now that the classes had been divided, the goal of phase three was to turn friends and relatives against each other. It was now time to “purge” the people of their crimes. Individuals were encouraged to confess to their own crimes, as well as to inform on others for past transgressions. The breaking of family ties was specifically targeted. “The Communists organized women’s groups to break family ties, for in China the family had been the basic unit that held the people together. Children were singled out for special praise if they informed on their parents.” (Keckeisen, 2002, p. 71) The last phase seems to have been engineered to induce complete breakdown.

Accusations having been made, it was now time to punish the accused. The punishment was public execution. The preferred manner of execution was either beating or stoning the person to death, and the entire village was forced into the role of executioner. None were exempt from participation in the horrendous ordeal. Husbands, wives, even children of the victims were forced to take their part in the executions. Once sufficient trauma had been induced, Communist leaders placed themselves in the role of saviors. Family ties now broken, in an atmosphere laden with guilt and suspicion, it was they to whom the people would turn for solace. Phase four complete, the road to indoctrination was now perfectly clear. For the villagers, life as they had once known it had come to an end; their minds were now the equivalent of unformed clay, to be shaped at will. On average, the ideological remodeling of an entire village took only eight months.

The onset of the Korean War gave Maoist leaders new subjects on whom to apply the Szu-hsiang kai-tso program, American POWs. One author writes of the situation, “The Korean War was really two conflicts in one. One was the highly publicized battle between the forces of the United Nations and those of North Korea and China, whose goal was the Communist unification of Korea. The other war was fought behind the barbed wire of the prisoner of war cages, with slogans and lectures on political theory. The prize was the hearts and minds of the U.N. POWs, for many of whom the hardest fight began after being taken captive.”(Keckeisen, 2002, p. 70)

Strategies undertaken to achieve the conversion of POWs were similar but not identical to those used within the villages that fell into Communist hands. First, officers were separated from the enlisted men to discourage any leadership under which the men might band together in resistance to indoctrination. Thereafter, officials treated newly arriving prisoners much as villagers subjected to the first phase of Szu-hsiang kai-tso had been treated. Officials well versed in the English language, and having knowledge of American history and customs were employed to gain the confidence of the men, and elicit person information from them. Prisoners were also instructed to fill out forms detailing a variety of personal information.

To assure that the information provided would be as accurate and comprehensive as possible, prisoners were told these forms had originated from, and were to be returned to, the Red Cross. In actuality, they were developed by the Maoists themselves, and information obtained through them would be used to determine individual strategies for indoctrination.

Once the confidence of the men had been gained, and enough personal information about each individual had been obtained, indoctrination began. Methods of indoctrination varied from case to case in accordance with what had been determined to be each individual’s particular strengths weaknesses, beliefs and prejudices. Some were rewarded for any signs of compliance, given better food, blankets, and improved living conditions. For others harsher conditions were imposed, including food and sleep deprivation, and occasionally physical torture. In all cases Communist ideology was constantly preached, and soldiers were urged to make confessions concerning the war crimes perpetrated by American forces, chief among these being the use of biological weapons. Respected Psychiatrist, Joost A.M. Meerloo (1956) describes some of the means employed to induce the break down of POWs:

“If a prisoner resisted Communist doctrines, his life became easier…but if a prisoner resisted…the tortures applied included:

Making a prisoner stand at attention or sit with legs outstretched in complete silence from 4:30am to 11pm and constantly awakening him during the few hours allowed for sleep.

Keeping prisoners in solitary confinement in boxes about five by three by two feet.

Withholding liquids for days ‘to help self reflection.’

Binding a prisoner with rope passed over a beam, one end fixed as a hangman’s noose round his neck and the other tied to his ankles. He was then told that if he slipped or bent his knees he would be committing suicide.

Forcing a prisoner to kneel on jagged rocks and hold a large rock over his head with his arms extended. It took a man who had undergone this treatment days to recover the ability to walk.

At one camp North Korean jailers pushed a pencil like piece of wood through a hole in the cell door and made the prisoner hold the inner end in his teeth. Without warning a sentry would knock the outer end sideways, breaking the man’s teeth or splitting the side of his mouth. Sometimes the rod was rammed inward against the back of the mouth or down the throat.

Prisoners were marched barefoot to the frozen Yalu River, water poured over their feet and they were kept for hours with their feet frozen to the ice to reflect on their crimes.”(Meerloo, 1956, ch.1, p. 9)

Under these conditions many soldiers actually did write and sign detailed confessions as to their participation in fictitious war crimes. Although most recanted these confessions upon their return to the United States, many stated that the coercion they had been subjected to was of such extent that their resulting confusion caused them to believe these statements to be true at the time. The American government gave credence to the effect of brainwashing tactics employed on these soldiers. Of the 565 soldiers investigated, only 47 were tried for treason in connection with false confessions made against their country, and of these, only 12 were held to be responsible for their actions. (Keckeisen, 2002, p. 71)

Aside from the obtainment of many false confessions against themselves and their country, signed by trained soldiers, the success of Korean brainwashing tactics is apparent; at the conclusion of the war, when POWs were to be released, 21 American soldiers refused repatriation. Twenty one soldiers, trained to resist torture and other forms of interrogation by the enemy, men who had bravely fought for their country, now refused the chance to return home.

Although Maoists deliberately used a well planned brainwashing strategy, knowledge of scientific studies in brainwashing and a deliberately engineered program based on these techniques is not necessary to achieve these results. Those perceptive in human nature may manipulate others to their will using similar techniques, and obtaining similar results without ever having knowledge of the techniques discovered by Pavlov, those used by communist governments, or even the concept of brainwashing itself. Such will be shown to be true of “cult” leaders who manipulate their followers to the point that they seem to be nothing more than unthinking robots whose only impetus is to follow their leader’s commands.

The Manson Family and Jonestown congregation offer convincing evidence that brainwashing techniques may be successfully utilized to the extent that individuals may be manipulated into doing anything the controller might command. Some may even be brought to the point at which they will have little compunction against even the breaking of what most would consider the ultimate taboo, the taking of human life. An examination of these two cults will explore the brainwashing techniques exploited by Manson and Jones, and determine what–if any–characteristics of their members would have made them more receptive to such techniques. Were these individuals truly responsible for their own actions? Were they merely puppets, reduced to the point at which their every thought and action had become controlled by the orchestration of diabolical puppeteers? Or, as prosecutor Bugliosi would argue in the Manson case, was it a combination of both?

On the morning of August 9, 1969, Winfred Chapman, a maid employed at the home of actress Sharon Tate, reported to work at 10050 Ciello Drive at 8am as usual. Minutes later, her screams, “Murder! Death! Bodies, Blood!” shattered the stillness of the morning in the quiet Bel Air neighborhood, as she fled from the horrific scene.

Arriving on the scene a short time after, LAPD officers, well accustomed to investigating scenes where victims had met with violent ends, were confronted with a scene more horrendous than any they had previously encountered. The body of eighteen year old Steven Parent was discovered in the driveway, still in his vehicle, he had been shot 4 times. Defensive stab wounds to his hand showed he was aware of his attackers and struggled for his life. The bodies of heiress, Abigail Folger and film director, Voytec Frykowski were found outside the residence; Folger had been stabbed 28 times. Frykowski had been stabbed 51 times, struck over the head with a blunt object (later discovered to be the gun used in the shootings–the handgrip had been broken due to the extent of the force of the blow), and had been shot twice. In the blood drenched living room of the home, lay the brutalized bodies of well–known Hollywood “hairstylist to the stars,” Jay Sebring, and beautiful actress, Sharon Tate. Both were bound with rope. Sebring had been stabbed 7 times, and shot once. Tate had been stabbed 16 times. Tragically, she had been in her eighth month of pregnancy with a baby boy, whom doctors would determine could have been saved had Tate’s body been discovered within 20 minutes of her death. Written on the front, door in what would later be determined to be Tate’s blood, was the word “PIG.”

The next day, Frank and Susan Struthers, the children of Rosemary LaBianca, arrived at the home of their mother and stepfather, Leno LaBianca, at around 9:30pm. Frank had arrived home earlier; confronted with the unusual situation of drawn shades, the teenager had become uneasy. When his knocks on the door received no reply, he walked down the street, phoning his older sister for assistance. Upon entering the home, Joe Dorgan, who had accompanied Susan, discovered the mutilated body of Leno LaBianca, and phoned police.

Arriving at the LaBianca home, (within the same vicinity as Ciello Drive, scene of the Tate murders) police were again confronted with a scene of surrealistic brutality. Leno LaBianca, discovered in the living room of the home had been stabbed 26 times. His hands were tied with a leather thong and a cord was wrapped around his neck. The word “WAR” had been caved into his stomach with a two–prong fork which now protruded from his throat. Rosemary was found in the couple’s bedroom. Her hands were also tied. She had been brutally stabbed 41 times; a number of the wounds later determined to have been inflicted post mortem. Printed on a wall was the word “RISE,” on another, “DEATH TO PIGS,” and on the refrigerator, “HELTER SKELTOR.” Like the epitaph from Ciello Drive, the words were printed in the victims’ blood.

The perpetrators of these crimes were not drug dealers, as the police first suspected in the Tate case. They were not Satanists, as the newspapers speculated, and they were certainly not participants in a robbery gone wrong. The individuals accused, and ultimately held responsible for the heinous crimes, turned out to be three girls barely out of their teens, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie VanHouten, a boy of the same age, Tex Watkins, and a rather small, intense looking man in his early thirties named Charles Manson.

As the perpetrators were not those to be expected to commit such a heinous crime, even more remote from the ordinary was the motive. In fact the motive was one that was completely original–Helter Skelter. A song included on the Beatles’ White Album, Manson read sinister meaning into the words of Helter Skelter, determining its true meaning to be a racial war between blacks and whites.

Chief among the ideologies Manson preached to his “Family,” was the idea that the Beatles, whom he believed to be the four horsemen of the apocalypse, were speaking to him through their music. One of the things they were trying to tell him was that “Helter Skelter is coming down fast.”(a phrase often repeated by members of the Family, and found written on a door recovered from the Spahn Ranch which was admitted into evidence in the trial.) This racial war would be the apocalypse prophesized in Revelation 9 of the Bible (to which he thought the White Album’s Revolution#9 referred ) The only whites to survive Helter Skelter would be himself, and those loyal to him, whom he would take with him to hide in a “bottomless pit” to wait out the war. This bottomless pit would be Utopia, the legendary cities of gold and lands of milk and honey combined. It was, Manson said, somewhere in Death Valley.

Another thing he told his followers was that he, himself, was Jesus Christ, or JC, as Manson referred to him. He also taught that there was no right or wrong, “anything you do is right” Just do what “your love” tells you he would say; and at other times, “I am your love.”

At some point, Manson decided that Helter Skelter was not “coming down” quickly enough. Many of those associated with the Family heard Manson state that something would have to be done to get the war started, “whitey” would have to show “blackey” how to do it. On two consecutive nights in August of ‘69, Manson told selected Family members to put on dark clothes, arm themselves with knives, and get into a car. This was not the first time Family members had been ordered to do such a thing.

In what appears to be a calculated attempt to prepare followers for what was to come, Manson instituted the practice of regularly ordering his followers to carry out what he referred to as “creepy crawly missions.” During these missions, Family members would dress in dark clothing, arm themselves with knives, and break into homes selected by Manson. Although the residents of the homes targeted for these missions were not harmed, and in fact were not even made aware of the Family’s presence, they served as rehearsals for the brutal crimes which were to be committed. Whether consciously or not, Manson’s employment of these creepy crawly missions likely served to erode taboos which may have existed in his followers minds, thus limiting their capacity to commit the atrocities he would later order them to carry out.

On the first night, Manson’s commands were directed to Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, Linda Kasabian, and Tex Watkins. It seems Watkins had earlier been instructed by Manson as to the details of what was to be done that night. The girls on the other hand were instructed only to do exactly as Watkins indicated. All, with the exception of Kasabian (who did follow instructions to the point of going along with the others, and helping to conceal evidence after the crimes, but did not participate in the murders) obeyed without question. The massacre of Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Voytec Frykowski, Jay Sebring, and Steve Parent was the result.

On the second night, Manson again ordered selected Family members into a car, but this time he himself was driving. He drove to 3301 Waverly Drive, and entered the house alone. Returning to the car after some time, he said that he had tied the occupants, and that they were calm, as they did not know that they were going to die. He ordered Krenwinkle, Leslie VanHouten (who had not been along the previous night,) Atkins, and Watkins to get out of the car. He then drove away, telling them to hitch a ride home when they were finished. This time there was no dissent, all complied. The brutal murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca resulted.

Had Manson simply preached his warped ideology to his followers, and had they acted on his orders simply because of their belief in him, this would certainly not fall under the definition of brainwashing as has been presented. Were this to have been the case, it could clearly have been said that Manson exerted a strong influence over his followers, yet their decision to act on his commands was one made of their own free will, and was one for which they were undoubtedly fully accountable. This, however was not the case, as an examination of Family life will show, the strategies exploited by Manson match quite closely with those necessary to achieve brainwashing.

Charles Milles Manson was born in 1934, the illegitimate son of an alcoholic mother, who apparently did not want the child. Bounced back and forth between his mother and other relatives in his youth, Manson’s first brush with the law came in 1948, when at only thirteen years of age, he was convicted of armed robbery and subsequently sentenced to a juvenile facility. After his release, Manson continued to commit various offenses, drifting in and out of the prison system, until ultimately being convicted for a violation of the Mann Act, Manson and sentenced to a federal penitentiary for ten years.

Released at the age of 32, after having spent the better part of his life behind bars, Manson drifted to Haight-Ashberry, where he found the accepted lifestyle of drug use, panhandling, and “free-love,” quite suitable. It was here that he met Mary Brunner, an unattractive librarian, who was to become the first member of the Manson Family.

Although Brunner at first objected to Manson’s bringing other women into their home, Manson’s charm and manipulation ultimately won her over, and in a short time he had attracted many other young girls, including Catherine Share and Lynette Fromme to form the core of his Family. Using the favors of the women as a lure, Manson began to convince young men to join his growing commune as well. The men, he would in turn utilize to draw more women. The group drifted from place to place, increasing in number, and finally settling at Spahn Ranch.

Every aspect of life at the ranch was completely controlled by Manson. Where and when to eat or sleep, when, how and with whom to have sexual relations, even names individuals were to use– all were dictated. Manson often spoke about the necessity for the death of the ego. Family members were encouraged to give up their own identity, merging with the group. Personal possessions were not allowed, even clothing was kept in a communal pile for all to share. To this end, Manson discouraged followers from using their own names and gave them aliases to use in their place. Even these aliases were not their own, and like the clothing kept in the community pile, they were often used interchangeably among Family members.

Manson himself used such an alias, claiming his own middle name to be Wilson. This alias however had nothing to do with the demise of his own ego. Rather it was another tool of manipulation. As Susan Atkins, (christened by Manson as Sadie Mae Glutz among other names,) would later explain the meaning of his chosen name: “Charles’ Will is Man’s Son;” further proof for his audience that he was indeed Jesus Christ, and his commands were to be followed.

Even children were not exempt from Manson’s design to strip the Family of all personal possessions and identity. In the Manson Family, mothers were not allowed to raise their own children. Stripping the women of this most basic of human instincts, to love and care for their own offspring, further alienated them from both their own sense of identity and from society around them, thus reinforcing their subservience to Manson.

Another method commonly employed in brainwashing, is the disorientation of the subjects as to the passage of time. Significantly, there were no calendars or clocks on the Spahn Ranch.

Perhaps the most effective tool utilized to achieve the breakdown of Family members was Manson’s method of using their own sexuality against them. Upon the introduction of a new female into the Family, Manson would have sex with the girl regardless of whether or not she was willing. During this encounter, he would discover any negative feelings she might have about her own body and would then exploit these negative self images to his own means, on the one hand telling her that he found her body beautiful, and on the other subtly emphasizing the negative aspects. This ritual was usually performed with the girl being forced to stand naked in front of a mirror.

He also encouraged all Family members to abandon whatever morality or personal boundaries they might have concerning sexual encounters, which he labeled “sexual hang–ups.” After discovering an individual’s personal sexual taboos, he would then force them to perform these acts with either himself or other Family members. Although he often condemned homosexuality, there were several instances in which he forced himself on heterosexual males in the group, both privately and in the presence of others. This too, he justified as being a necessary means of eradicating sexual hang-ups. Dr. David Smith, when questioned by prosecutors concerning the extent of Manson’s control over his Family, commented as to these tactics of sexual control, “A new girl in Charlie’s Family would bring with her a certain middle class morality. The first thing that Charlie did was to see that all this was worn down. That way he was able to eliminate the controls that normally govern our lives.” (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974, p. 164) Another method of sexual exploitation favored by Manson was to conduct group orgies, during which he would orchestrate every move, including the pairing of sexual partners, and the acts they would perform.

In the instance that sexual exploitation and manipulation proved insufficient to cause breakdown and total unquestioning obedience, Manson was not above using physical punishments to achieve these results. One Family member whom he singled out in particular was sixteen year old Dianne Lake who, among other abuses, was punched in the face and whipped with an electrical cord by Manson for disobedience. The girl was later institutionalized, and required psychiatric treatment to help her recover from the damage Manson’s abuse had caused.

If life in the Family was so abusive, than why did new members choose to stay? Although on the face of things, Manson’s followers were free to come and go as they pleased, making it seem unlikely that he achieved the isolation of his subjects, a close analysis proves this not to be the case. Manson’s tactics of stripping individuals of their “egos,” and their children as well as his sexual exploitation, served as the first step in isolating them from society as a whole. Finally, the presentation of a common enemy, in the form of the “establishment” ensured that this isolation would be complete.

The “establishment,” already resented by many young people of the time, included almost all adults (or at least those over thirty). In Manson’s case it also included former friends, and actual family members, anyone who was not a member of, or in close association with, the Family. These were the “pigs” to whom the bloody epitaphs written at the scenes of the massacres referred. Manson’s introduction of another “enemy,” the black race, and the atrocities they would supposedly inflict on the whites at the onset of Helter Skelter, served to further foster the Family’s fear and dependency, making them extremely hesitant to leave the group.

Even had these conditions not existed, there remained the fact that the freedom to come and go at will was not as clearly available as it might seem. Those who did try to escape the Family lived in constant fear of being hunted down and either brought back or killed. As police later discovered, there were instances in which fleeing Family members actually were hunted, and were lucky to have escaped with their lives.

After the point of breakdown had been reached, Manson assured that there would be no conflict with the indoctrination of his ideology by discouraging any questions of his sermons. If something he said did not seem to make sense (there were a large number of contradictions in Manson’s philosophy) followers were directed to accept it at face value, questions of clarification were simply forbidden. Family members were frequently rebuked for asking questions, and Manson made it clear that free thinking was not to be tolerated.

This prohibition against questioning extended not only to verbal inquires, but also to one’s own thoughts. This was especially true in the case of the women, who were constantly told they were inferior and not capable of rational thought. A woman’s function, according to Manson, was limited to pleasing men and bearing children, nothing more. This inferiority was instilled with as much fervor as any other of Manson’s tenets, and there is no doubt that the vast majority of Family members believed it to be true.

Manson’s followers were encouraged in the belief that Manson, being the messiah, had the power to read minds, and so they would not have been likely to allow themselves to internally question any of Manson’s teachings. Manson was so skillful at manipulating others into believing that he had this power, that not only did most of his followers firmly believed this to be true, but many individuals with whom Manson came into contact outside of the group also perceived Manson as having supernatural powers. Many earnestly reported detecting strong “vibes” emanating from Manson even outside of his physical presence. Even Vince Bugliosi (the prosecutor in the Manson trial) admitted to having a moment of doubt as to Manson’s professed powers, when after a knowing look from Manson, his watch stopped on the spot.

Given the fact that many who had not been exposed to brainwashing tactics applied by Manson were nonetheless persuaded by his manipulations into believing that he possessed some form of supernatural power, it is not surprising that Family members who were exposed to such tactics fell under his power to the extent that they did.

If the fact that the girls, after being subjected to the tactics described, obeyed Manson’s orders to the point of committing brutal murders for which they had no apparent motive of their own is not enough to convince skeptics that they had become victims of brainwashing, than their actions during their trial may be. Further attestation to the success of Manson’s brainwashing techniques can be found in the fact that these girls were actually willing to die for him themselves. Charged with murder, and faced with the death penalty, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie VanHoueten actually allowed Manson to run their defense.

Despite the impassioned and persistent pleas of their respective attorneys, the girls rejected defenses which, if not entirely clearing them of charges against them, would likely have resulted in conviction of a lesser charge than murder in the first degree. Had the girls rejected Manson’s wishes and taken the advice of their attorneys, it is probable that the death penalty would not have been sought. Instead, they continued to follow the command of their puppet master.

Susan Atkins, at Manson’s urging, refused a plea bargain offered by the prosecution which would have resulted in her being charged only with murder in the second degree. Further, none of the girls allowed their attorneys to present any psychiatric testimony concerning the effects that Manson’s tactics may have had on their mental culpability for the crimes with which they were charged. In fact as per Manson’s wishes, and with the girls’ consent, none of the defense attorneys presented any case at all on behalf of their clients.

Aside from allowing Manson to effectively eliminate any hope that they might escape a sentence of death, additional manifestations of the effect of Manson’s tactics can be seen in the girls’ behavior throughout the trial. Not only did none of the three display the slightest sign of remorse for what they had done, but they seemed to have completely failed to appreciate the seriousness of the proceeding. Instead of paying attention to evidence being presented against them, they spent their courtroom time sketching, giggling, and whispering amongst themselves. In general, the girls acted though the entire process was an incredibly boring waste of time.

When such behavior is looked at from a psychological standpoint it would seem to reflect symptoms, such as flat or inappropriate affect, often indicative of severe psychological disturbance. Whether or not a professional psychiatric evaluation would have found this to be the case can only be speculated upon. No such evaluation was ever made public. And as no evidence of the effects of Manson’s tactics was allowed to be presented during the guilt phase of the trial, neither was any such evidence concerning the girls behavior ever offered during the sentencing phase. Without the benefit of any such mitigating testimony, this strange attitude continued through the sentencing phase of the trial. This totally inappropriate and offensive behavior may have held even greater weight with the jury than any evidence presented by the prosecution. The young girls were seen as cold blooded, remorseless deviants deserving of nothing less than the severest of penalties. All three of the girls, along with Manson himself, were sentenced to death.

These girls were no angels. Even before meeting Manson, all three already lived within the counterculture that existed in California at the time. They were all involved in the illegal use of narcotics to one extent or another, and all had had multiple sexual partners. But the same could have been said of many young men and women of the time. They had never been arrested for any violent crime, and no one who knew them would have imagined that they were capable of carrying out the atrocities for which they were convicted. Had they not met Manson, they, like other former “hippies,” would most likely have outgrown their rebellious stage, settling down to lead normal– or at least not seriously criminal lives.

If these girls were in fact victims of the effects of brainwashing, than they were again victimized by the sentence to which they were condemned. Although the sentence–after a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which temporarily declared the death penalties of all 50 states to be in violation of the Constitution–was converted to life imprisonment, it seems highly unlikely that any of the girls, now women in their 50’s, will ever have a chance of living a normal life outside of prison walls. If the concept of brainwashing is considered, Manson’s tactics led not only to the horrific deaths of seven innocent people, but also effectively took the lives of those who, having fallen under his complete control, were robbed of the ability to think for themselves, and subsequently committed murder at his command.

Those who would argue brainwashing is a nothing more than a fiction may point to the fact that members of the Manson Family were individuals already possessed of criminal tendencies, drawn to a guru with those same tendencies. The ensuing group dynamic facilitated the release of what inhibitions these individuals may have possessed allowing for the commission of heinous crimes; crimes they already possessed the capacity to commit. Although this argument may hold some weight in the case of the Manson Family, the same can certainly not be said of the tragic fate of 913 members of the People’s Temple in Jonestown.

Far from a criminal or deviant outcast from society, Jones outwardly projected the ideals toward which society strives. His philosophy appeared simply to advocate the furtherance of such altruistic practices as charity, brotherly love, and racial equality. His followers, although possibly lonely, possibly searching for companionship, faith, love, or something to bring a deeper meaning to their lives, were certainly unlikely to have possessed any criminal tendencies. They were men, women and children, black and white, old and young, well to do, middle class, and poverty stricken, yet all fell under Jones’ control.

On November 18, 1978, the bodies of US Congressmen Ryan, along with those of four individuals who had joined his party were discovered at an airstrip. Ryan and his colleagues had traveled to Jonestown, Guyana to investigate allegations of abuse within the community. They were subsequently murdered by members of the congregation who professed to have sought Ryan’s assistance in escaping the commune. Soon after, came the shocking discovery of the fate of those who had remained behind.

The commune at Jonestown, where so many had hoped to live a life of peace, and harmony, had become the scene of one of the most appalling massacres the world had witnessed outside of the context of war. One author writes of the congregations’ hopes for Utopia, “…eager to live the dream of an agricultural commune where they would pursue socialism and racial harmony. They built cottages, workshops and dormitories in tidy rows, grew fruit and vegetables and raised chickens and pigs…They made their own shoes, educated their children, and cared for the old and the sick.”(Suicides, 1997) This dream, however, would soon become a nightmare. At the conclusion of it all, the bodies of 913 men, women and children were found scattered throughout the compound, most the victims of poisoning, others shot to death, while apparently attempting to escape their fate.

It was later discovered that the majority of individuals had committed suicide, voluntarily consuming a beverage which they knew to be laced with cyanide. Those who did not, or could not, voluntarily do so were murdered by other members of the congregation. Parents murdered their infants by feeding them the poison. “The babies and small children, over two hundred of them, were the first (to die) with the poison poured into their mouths with syringes…One or two women who felt that the children should be able to live protested, but they were soon reassured…As parents watched their children die, they too swallowed the fatal poison.”(Steele, n.d.) “According to one witness, “…a little girl kept spitting out the poison until they held her mouth closed and forced her to swallow.”(Harray, 1992, p. 66)

How could such a thing have happened? What was it that brought ordinary people, seemingly wanting nothing more than to live their lives in peace and harmony with their fellow man, to the point at which they ended up committing suicide and murder? Attempting to answer this question, Joel Greenburg, in a 1979 article writes,

“In the year since that grisly slaughter in the forest shrouded commune, behavioral scientists have been conducting their own ‘psychological autopsies’ on the forces that would ultimately drive members of an entire community to knowingly drink grape punch laced with lethal amounts of cyanide…they have begun to shed light on Jones’ awesome power and control over his ‘flock.’ And in the end it was this very twisted and primitive idea of power that dictated the downfall of Jonestown…” (p. 378)

Following this path a step further, an examination of the congregation and its history shows strong evidence pointing to the conclusion that the answer lies in Jones’ successful utilization of brainwashing tactics.

As opposed to Manson, who having spent most of his life in correctional institutions, was decidedly one of society’s outcastes, Jim Jones, the self styled guru who would eventually mastermind the tragic death of hundreds of his followers, had managed to earn a position of respect in California society. Born in 1931, to parents of modest means, too busy struggling to put food on the family table than to pay much attention to the boy, Jones found a home in a fringe Pentecostal congregation called the Gospel Tabernacle. Although the Gospel Tabernacle was not exactly a mainstream religious institution in Jones’ hometown of Lyn, Indiana, “its members dwelt on the fringes of the community and were known as holy rollers and tongues people by the more conservative community of Lyn,”(Steele, n.d.) Jones nevertheless gained useful skills from his time with the church, which he would later use as a springboard to gaining a position in the community. It was here that he first saw the powerful potential in staging “spiritual healing,” and, more importantly, it was here that he first began preaching, and realized by the praise he received for it, the captivating effect he could hold over an audience.

Encouraged by his success within the congregation, in his early teens, Jones struck out on his own and began preaching his own brand of philosophy on the streets of Indiana. His speeches at this time, having more to do with social reform than religion, centered on the idea of attaining equality and brotherhood for people of all races and social classes. While his philosophy sounded altruistic, he was privately developing an urge for personal power, idolizing such iniquitous dictators as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. This urge for power led him to begin to exploit more extravagant tactics in order to draw larger audiences during his sermons. By his early twenties he was successfully applying the faith healing skills he had learned from his time with the Gospel Tabernacle.

His charismatic presence and extravagant healings paid off, and by 1956 his following was large enough to allow him to start his own congregation, The People’s Temple. Far from resembling the seedy hippie commune founded by Manson at the Spahn Ranch, The People’s Temple, opening a soup kitchen and instituting other charitable programs, quickly established itself as a respected institution within the community, to the point that Jones was eventually appointed head of the Indianapolis Human Rights Commission. With this appointment Jones, and his philosophy, came into the public eye, and many in the conservative Midwestern community began to criticize his liberal political beliefs.

Not one to suffer criticism lightly, Jones began seeking a more amiable location for the People’s Temple. Under the pretext that the Midwest would be a likely target in the event of a nuclear attack, Jones began a two year trek in search of a “safer” place to move the People’s Temple Congregation. After considering locations in Hawaii, Brazil, and Guyana, (where he would ultimately move his congregation in 1977,) he settled on Ukiah, California, moving his congregation there in 1965.

The early years in Ukiah were trying ones for Jones. His wife, because of his controlling behavior and constant philandering, filed for divorce. His congregation, of which only 68 chose to relocate, was thus decreased in number, was lacking in funding, and facing extinction. But Jones would not let his gambit for power die easily. In 1968, he applied for affiliation with a large church called the Disciples of Christ.

The grant of affiliation was the turning point for the People’s Temple. Provided with tax exempt status and church funding, Jones was able to institute many of the same programs that he had started in Indiana. His esteem in the community began to increase, and by 1973, his congregation was over two thousand strong and growing. Affiliation with the church however, did not mean adherence to its tenants. Jones accepted the benefits provided, then ignored the tenants of the Disciples of Christ, and continued to run his congregation as he chose. “With very little supervision from the church administration, Jones was able to ignore its requirement for Holy Communion and Baptism; instead he preached socialism and baptized new members ‘in the holy name of socialism.’” (Steele, n.d.)

Individuals joining the People’s Temple had no way of knowing that they would come under the influence of a megalomaniac who would employ insidious means to take control of their very will. Jones was considered a legitimate Minister, a respected member of the community (even if his “liberal” politics still came under criticism from more conservative elements) and he had even been appointed to the California Housing Authority. Although stronger mind control tactics would not be employed until the group was moved to Guyana, the foundations for these tactics was being laid subtle stages even while the congregation was still based in California.

As previously stated, Jones used his “faith healings” to attract new members to his congregation. As his hunger for power and control grew, so too did the scope of these showings.

“Jones widely publicized his services, promising miraculous healings where cancers would be removed and the blind made to see…To further convince his audience of his great powers he would make predictions of events that would always come to pass, and receive ‘revelations’ about members or visitors, things that only they could have known. Before their eyes, Jones would heal cancer patients and a mass of putrid tissue would be torn from the patient’s body.” (Steele, n.d.)

Once drawn in by such showings of Jones’ omnipotence, new members would be treated with warmth, kindness and understanding, reminiscent of the treatment of subjects of the Maoist program of Szu-hsiang kai-tso during the first stage of indoctrination.

Once suitably impressed with the altruism of the congregation, more and more demands would be made on the members. Slowly, subtly, demands on their time and financial resources were increased until at the highest level of commitment the “church” consumed their entire life. In this way, without having to use any physical force, Jones assured the continued devotion of his followers. Because of the sacrifices they had already been manipulated into making, they would now be exceedingly reluctant to leave the group, “At each new level of commitment, any reservations the person may have had could easily be rationalized and justified. By the time Jones’ demands had become oppressive, the individual members were so heavily committed that not to fulfill any new demands would require a complete denial of the correctness of all past decisions and behavior.”(Steele, n.d.) It was at this level that more extreme methods of thought control began.

Already isolated from friends and family members outside of the church by virtue of the prolific amount of time that church membership required, Jones now sought to further isolate members from each other, while at the same time discouraging any questioning of his philosophy. Employing tactics which are again reminiscent of the Szu-Hsiang kai-tso program, Jones would hold meeting of members who had reached the highest level of commitment, the purpose of which was to root out and punish those who displayed less than absolute devotion to Jones and his philosophies. Individuals were called upon to confess personal transgressions as well as to divulge the transgressions of other members, especially those of the people to whom they were the closest. It was also preferable that punishments for these transgressions be carried out by the offending party’s own family. Parents were called upon to dispense harsh physical punishments upon their children, husbands upon their wives and vice versa. As in other instances of thought control, an atmosphere of guilt and mistrust resulted.

At this point, Jones had taken the domination of his congregation about as far as he could. Considering the fact that he was essentially operating out in the open and dealing with a large group of people it was conceivably only a matter of time before someone would break ranks and go to the press with their story. Fearing publicity, exposure, and the ultimate condemnation of his tactics, Jones decided once again that it was time to relocate, this time out of the United States altogether, to the remote South American Nation of Guyana.

Again using the pretext of his vision of nuclear holocaust, Jones convinced 1,000 of his most devoted followers to relocate to the remote jungle area, which would become Jonestown. This community was supposed to be the socialist utopia of which Jones had preached. In Jonestown all people would be equal; there would be no more racial or economic distinctions. There the congregation would live in peace and harmony sheltered from the evils of capitalistic American society and supposedly malevolent government. Here also, Jones was essentially free of public scrutiny. His exploitation of that freedom led to the escalation of mind control tactics, the effectiveness of which would lead to tragedy.

Far from the promised utopia life at Jonestown could more nearly be described as a living hell for its residents. Sessions of confessions, informing on other members, and retributions became more frequent, and the punishments more severe, escalating past the point of mere beatings in many cases to include such things as the application of electrical shocks. As had been the case in California, it was preferable that these punishments be exacted at the hands of family members, and in Jonestown they were increasingly carried out publicly. If these physical tortures were not enough to cause breakdown in and of themselves, the sexual degradation and exploitation that Jones, like Manson, subjected his followers to certainly should have been.

While Manson employed similar methods of sexual degradation in furthering the breakdown of his followers, the methods employed by Jones were somewhat more extreme, and obviously on a larger scale. Dr. Harray, a psychologist who had worked closely with those lucky enough to have escaped Jonestown before the massacre writes of Jones’ sexual degradation tactics,

“Both men and women were…coerced into having sex with Jones in private and with other people in public. Husbands and wives were forbidden to have sex with each other, but were forced to join others in watching their spouses being sexually humiliated and abused. In order to prove that he wasn’t a racist, a white man was coerced into having oral sex in front of a gathering of members with a black woman who was having her period. Another man was made to remove all his clothes, bend over and spread his legs before the congregation while being examined for signs of venereal disease. A woman had to strip in front of the group so that Jones could poke fun at her overweight body before telling her to submerge herself in a pool of ice–cold water. Another woman was made to squat in front of 100 members and defecate into a fruit can. Children were…forced to have hot peppers stuffed up their rectums…”(Harray, 1992, p. 67)

Also, like Manson Jones forced heterosexual members to publicly engage in homosexual encounters while at the same time condemning homosexuality.

Subjection to such brutal and abhorrent treatment not only produced such stress as would be likely to cause breakdown, but produced such revulsion and guilt as to cause the person to believe he or she would almost certainly be considered an outcast by society, thus precluding any desire to leave the group. He did not, however rely on this to ensure against defection. Other factors ensuring that members would remain in Jonestown included the fact that it was surrounded by miles of jungle and surrounded at all times by armed guards.

Like the Church had used fear of Satan and eternal damnation to guarantee the allegiance of the masses, establishing itself as the sole source of salvation from such a fate, so Jones used the common enemy of the CIA to instill fear into his congregation. Jones warned that the CIA was stalking the group, always lurking insidiously on the verge of attack. When the attack did come, Jones warned that no man woman or child would be safe from torture and death at the hands of the enemy. Jones’ proposed solution, however, should not have provided much solace. The ultimate solution would be for members to take their own lives before falling into enemy hands.

In the same way that Manson had first conditioned his followers to commit atrocities by first sending them out on “creepy crawly” missions, so Jones conditioned his congregation to meekly accept mass suicide. In repeated midnight rituals, the commune would awaken to the sounds of sirens signaling that a night of hellish terror was to begin. Some sense of that terror can be experienced when reading former Jonestown member Deborah Layton’s recollections of these rituals.

“During so-called ‘white nights,’ about 50 rifle-toting members would go from cabin to cabin to round up members as sirens blared…A mass meeting would ensue. Frequently…we would be told that the jungle was swarming with mercenaries and that death could be expected at any minute…we were informed that our situation had become hopeless and that the only course of action open to us was a mass suicide for the glory of socialism. We were told that we would be tortured by mercenaries if we were taken alive. Everyone, including the children, was told to line up. As we passed through the lines, we were given a small glass of red liquid to drink. We were told that the liquid contained poison and that we would die within 45 minutes. We all did as we were told.”(Greenburg, 1979, p. 380)

For those who escaped Jones’ deadly influence, and survived the Jonestown massacre, they will always live with the emotional scars from the experience; this is especially true for those who lost loved ones on that fateful day. One survivor who lost her mother and grandmother to the tragedy says, “I think about my mother and I think about what happened in Jonestown every day. I drive down the street in my car and I think about our family.”(Locke, 2000) Tim Stoen, who escaped from Jonestown himself, and was in the process of trying to extricate his six year old little boy from Jones’ clutches when the tragedy took place says, “While waiting in our hotel, we heard that Ryan and his four companions had been killed on the Jonestown airstrip. We realized immediately there would be a collective suicide. We knew our son would die. We couldn’t do a damn thing. It was the most horrible night of my life.”(Stoen, 1997, p. 44)

In the above cases it has been shown that manipulative leaders have utilized brainwashing elements, apparently overcoming the free will of their followers, both with and without full knowledge of the scientific theories relating to them. But might naturally occurring circumstances mirror brainwashing elements in such a way as to produce similar results? Interestingly, such a link appears to exist in relation to the events of September eleventh and the ensuing reaction of the American people and government. Although the question of whether or not the Bush administration is consciously exploiting brainwashing elements is an intriguing one, this along with all the implications thereof is an incredibly broad and complex topic. For this reason, this analysis will treat these events and the reactions to them as a naturally occurring phenomenon, demonstrating how they could be linked with these elements.

The day the Twin Towers fell, and the horrific image of their destruction, broadcast ad nauseaum for months after the event itself, is one that is impressed upon the mind of every American. Every television network and newspaper in the country displayed extensive coverage of the attack almost exclusively in the weeks that followed. It was the topic of water cooler and dinner table conversation; for most there was virtually no respite.

Aside from the trauma suffered by witnesses to and survivors of the attack, individuals living in the vicinity of ground zero, and those who lost loved ones in the tragedy, countless Americans were so shocked and frightened by the attack as they witnessed it in subsequent media coverage that they sought professional help for the anxiety and depression it caused them. The problem was so widespread that schools, churches and community centers across the country even set up walk-in counseling centers to help individuals cope with these feelings. Even among those who did not seek therapy, it would have been hard to find an American who did not suffer some form of anxiety in relation to the situation. Even though this trauma alone could arguably have been sufficient to induce the essential brainwashing element of breakdown in many Americans, the office of Homeland Security was formed and immediately instituted the security alert system.

Now in addition to the stress induced by coverage of the attack, Americans were subjected to the further stress of watching the alert system rise from yellow to orange and back again, with no clear instructions being given as to what they were to do to about it. “Remain vigilant;” “We have no clear information on what kind of attack may be carried out or where it might occur,” were the typical statements made in relation to an elevated alert level. In one instance media went so far as to run a headline warning individuals of the necessity of having an emergency supply arsenal in the event of attack. Among the items listed as essential supplies were masking tape and plastic, to be used to seal off a “safety room” in the event of chemical of nuclear attack. Frightened individuals, willing to grasp at any straw, soon emptied store shelves of these items. In some cases individuals took these warnings so seriously that they actually sealed their homes, causing a risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, thus necessitating the media to broadcast a warning against taking such extreme measures.

Further evidence of the effect of these stressors can be found in President Bush’s soaring approval ratings. A common enemy had been created in the form of Muslim terrorists. The danger from this enemy was ever present, posing as law-abiding citizens, they could be behind any corner, poised to strike without notice. No American was safe–”Remain vigilant.” As the Church was the source of protection against the fires of hell, as reverend Jim Jones was the source of protection against the CIA, as Manson was the source of protection against the chaos and destruction that would ensue in the wake of Helter Skelter, so President Bush now became the source of protection against the omnipresent threat of Muslim terrorists. After a hotly contested election in which George W. Bush had won the electoral vote, but not the popular vote, his approval rating had now soared to over 70%.

The American people overwhelmingly supported the administration’s decision to declare war on Iraq. This decision was based not on the fact that Iraqi president, Saddam Hussien was a brutal and oppressive dictator who consistently violated the human rights of his people, but on the president’s vehement assertion that the country had provided support to Al–Qaeda and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Although the president failed to present evidence to convince the United Nations of the validity of these allegations, and did not receive a mandate to proceed against Iraq, the war went ahead against the protests of many U.S. allies. Even so, the majority of American citizens failed to question the decision to go to war, and those who did so were often labeled “anti-American.” In one case, Michael Moore, while making a speech at the Academy Awards ceremony in March of 2003 dared to publicly question U.S. motives concerning the war. His speech was met with overwhelming audience criticism, and he was forced off stage before completing the speech. Other public figures who openly questioned US policy around the same time were similarly criticized.

Whether the allegations on which President Bush relied to gain the American people’s support in the war against Iraq are true remains to be seen. But what is most disturbing is the fact that the majority of Americans continue in the failure to question them. With Iraqi despot Saddam Hussien defeated, and American forces occupying Iraq since May of 2003, evidence of the ominous weapons of mass destruction which our President warned existed within the country has yet to be found. Where is the widespread outcry, the demand for investigation to discover the truth? After a campaign that devastated a nation, led to the loss of untold number of historical artifacts, and took the lives of hundreds of Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers alike, no such outcry appears to be forthcoming.

Could it be possible that the average American citizen, especially in consideration of the brutality to which Hussien subjected his people, simply does not care if there is any truth to the accusations on which the invasion was justified? Is our thirst for revenge so great that we do not care at what cost it is obtained or at whom it is directed? Although these are possibilities, the alternative theory, that the circumstances unfolding in this country in the wake of the September eleventh so closely parallel the parameters of brainwashing that the American people are suffering the same effects as others exposed to such tactics have suffered, is one that should not be ignored.

Having considered the preceding cases in which there is reason to believe that brainwashing elements have been utilized with success in a variety of situations on diverse groups of individuals, the question then becomes, if any individual is vulnerable to the effects of such tactics, then what sets apart those who escaped being controlled? If the tactics of the Church were so successful, why does the institution not still reign supreme? Why were soldiers who signed confessions and those who refused repatriation in the minority? How did Linda Kasabian manage to exert the will not to commit murder on the orders of the man whom she believed to be Jesus Christ? If Jones’ tactics were so skillfully carried out as to cause 913 members of his congregation to commit suicide, and even to murder their own children at his command, than why do some members of the congregation survive to tell their tales; and why did 15 members choose to leave with the Ryan party? And what of evidence that some refused in the end to follow his directives, and were instead physically subdued and poisoned or shot while trying to escape? Why are many Americans now protesting American occupation in Iraq? Although the answers to these questions are both complex and multifaceted, they can be explained in part by another of Pavlov’s findings.

In conducting experiments on his animals in the area of transmarginal inhibition, Pavlov was able to identify four distinct temperaments, one of which would be possessed by each individual subject. These consisted of the “strong excitatory” type, the “lively” type, the “calm imperturbable” type, and the “weak inhibitory” type. Of these types, the “lively” and “calm imperturbable” would most closely correspond to a person who is well adjusted and self assured whereas the other two types would be less so.

The critical discovery that Pavlov made in relation to these different temperaments was that although the ultraparadoxal stage of protective transmarginal inhibition could be induced in all subjects regardless of the category they fell into, the amounts of stress required to induce this state varied significantly. In the “weak inhibitory” type, the amount of stress required to induce a state of inhibition was lowest, whereas the amount of stress required to reduce the “lively” type to this state was drastically greater, with the other types falling in between. British studies of soldiers who had experienced break down under the stress of battle showed similar resistance in those of varying temperament.

Thus one explanation for the fact that not every individual displayed total submission to brainwashing tactics is the possibility that they were never actually brainwashed in the first place. As previously stated the induction of break down is perhaps the key ingredient in the successful application of brainwashing tactics. It is critical that the subject be reduced to this state to avoid the interference of previously held morals and beliefs with the process of indoctrination. Should these morals and beliefs remain intact, subjects may continue to internally question the validity and morality of the doctrines imposed, such questions having great potential to lead to the ultimate failure of brainwashing.

While Pavlov himself fully realized the importance of attention to temperament and the necessity of attaining the ultraparadoxal phase of inhibition, it is in this area that those using brainwashing elements without full knowledge, (or often without any knowledge at all) of scientific studies in this area will fail. Knowing the potential for failure in the brainwashing process sheds light on the way in which individuals may be able to guard against its effects regardless of their particular temperament.

While Pavlov’s dogs may have responded to stressors in accordance with their individual temperamental type, humans possess the capacity to reason, and so may have the capacity to react more forcefully in certain situations than they normally would in others. It is here that assertions that the human capacity for free will negates the possibility of brainwashing as an effective means of one individual controlling another, thus negating the scientific validity of the process of brainwashing itself, may hold the most weight. Among those experts who recognize brainwashing as a valid phenomenon, the general consensus is that the ability to effectively question and analyze any given situation is the best defense against falling victim.

Robert M. Rowe (1979,) a consultant to the California Department of Education, has studied the effects of brainwashing, and seeks to develop ways to insulate children from falling victim to such tactics. He says that the optimum defense is the “development of strong questioning minds.” In studying the types of people who have become victims of brainwashing, like the Manson girls and the Jonestown congregation, he finds the common thread to be complacency and insecurity, rather than any kind of innate predisposition to deviance from the norms of society. These people fell under the control of devious leaders not because they identified with their motivations and ultimately wished to do what they did, but because they lacked the strength and self reliance to question the situations in which they found themselves.

Speaking of the likelihood that these people could have rebelled against their controllers once the situation became obviously dangerous to themselves or others, Rowe says that at this point it was probably too late for them to have been capable of doing so. The time to question is before indoctrination has been successfully completed. One must recognize the elements of brainwashing beforehand and be prepared to defend against them. This may explain the fact that the Maoist program of Szu-hsiang kai-tso, while highly successful in Chinese and Korean villages was less so in the case of POWs. These men were trained soldiers, and while not expecting to be targets of a brainwashing program per se, they were trained to resist enemy indoctrination and questioning; therefore, they fared much better than villagers who had received no such training. If an individual perceives brainwashing as an entirely fictitious concept, than the chances of recognizing and guarding against it are slim.

In spite of arguments that brainwashing and its effects have no scientific validity, and that the human capacity for freewill makes any individual solely responsible for his or her own actions, the fact that elements of brainwashing tactics can and have been utilized in the variety of settings discussed cannot be disputed. The only remaining argument concerns the extent to which these techniques may or may not have overridden the free will of those on whom they were applied. An examination of countless other situations, such as the compliance of the German people in the holocaust of the Jewish people, the kidnapping of and subsequent criminal acts committed by Patricia Hearst, the fate of the Branch Dividians in Waco, Texas, all will show the same essential elements linked to equally devastating results.

One might conclude that in all these cases, the individuals involved retained at all times the capacity to make decisions for themselves, but simply lacked the will to rebel. However, a dispute as to the semantics of the matter does nothing to change the existence of the link between brainwashing elements and the negative effects that have been experienced by those on whom they were applied. As such, whether or not one disputes the validity of brainwashing, an awareness of brainwashing elements coupled with an ability to analyze and question situations in which they appear to exist remains an important skill for every individual to possess especially given the many stressors existing in modern society.

The ever-present fear of terrorism and the possibility of attacks utilizing weapons of mass destruction, an uncertain economy, and the rise of technology which has led to a decline in community interaction for many, all serve to leave individuals increasingly vulnerable to brainwashing. Charismatic individuals can and will exploit this increased vulnerability. The puppet masters of the future may appear on the fringes of society, appealing to the disenfranchised, as did Charles Manson; they may appear as more main stream religious leaders, appealing to a wider audience as did Jim Jones; or they may appear as powerful political leaders who seek to mesmerize an entire nation, as did Mao Tse-tong and Adolph Hitler. Although the form in which they will appear remains to be seen, it is almost certain that they will appear in the future, as they have in the past. Those who dismiss brainwashing as science fiction, and thus lack the necessary skills to guard against it, may be the first to fall under their control.

References

Associated Press. (1997). Jonestown suicides shocked world. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://www.rickross.com/reference/jonestown/jonestown3.html

Bugliosi, V. & Gentry, C. (1974). Helter skelter. New York: W. W. Norton.

Comer, R. J. (2000). Fundamentals of abnormal psychology. (3rd ed.). New York: Worth.

Glaser, K. & Possony, S. T. (1979). Victims of politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Greenburg, J. (1979). Jim Jones: The deadly hypnotist. Science News, 116, 378–382.

Harray, K. (1992). The truth about Jonestown. Psychology Today, 25 (2), 62–70.

Keckeisen, G. L. (2002). The Korean War ‘brainwashing’ myth led to US countertechniques against communist indoctrination. Military History, 19 (3), 70–72.

Locke, M. (2000). Jonestown survivors remember. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://www.rickross.com/reference/jonestown/jonestown11.html

Meerloo, Dr. J. A. M. (1956). The rape of the mind. Retrieved September 26, 2003, from http://www.ninehundred.net/control/mc.html

Morse, J. C. & Morse E. L. (1987). Toward a theory of therapy with cultic victims. American Journal of Psychotherapy, XLI (4), 563–570.

Rowe, R. M. (1979). The challenge of Jonestown. Education, 101 (1), 60–62.

Sargant, W. (1957). Battle for the mind. New York: Doubleday.

Staff Investigative Group. (1979). House of Representatives report on Jonestown–Findings. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://www.rickross.com/reference/jonestown/jonestown1.html

Steele, F. (n.d.). Jonestown Massacre. Retrieved September 30, 2003, from http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/jonestown/index_1.html?sect=22

Stoen, T. (1997). The most horrible night of my life. Newsweek, 129 (14), 44–45.

Streiker, L. D. (1984) Mind bending. New York: Doubleday.

Stuckey, G. B. & Roberson, C. & Wallace, H. (2001). Procedures in the justice system. New Jersey: Prentice–Hall.

Walsh, Y. (2001). Deconstructing ‘brainwashing’ within cults as an aid to counseling psychologists. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 14 (2), 119–129.