Search This Blog

Saturday, 15 August 2015


ABSTRACT: The worldwide eugenics movement of the late nineteen and early twentieth century was initiated at University College London by Sir Francis Galton, Sir Ronald Fisher, and Karl Pearson, who were also iconic researchers in the areas of Statistics and Genetics. It caused widespread maltreatment and human suffering, in particular for people thought to be inferior, or with mental health issues. 
     During the post-McCarthy and Kennedy eras, the barbaric  CIA Mind Contro/ MK Ultra experiments at McGill and Columbia Universities and elsewhere in North America preceded a modern era of clinical psychiatric psychiatry, where toxic psych meds with debilitating side effects, brain destructive ECT, lobotomies, and other invasive brain surgeries have predominated.
     Readers may also wish to refer to my blog post concerning the British psychiatrist William Sargant who worked at St. Thomas's Hospital, London.  

NOTE ADDED 23rd July 2019. This blog post mainly sticky tapes passages from Wikipedia together in very amateur style However it has recently helped Scott Forster and I prepare a more scholarly article for submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the History of Eugenics at UCL, and we are hoping that this will create major impact. Please click on UCL SUBMISSION


                                                              VIDEO (Jan Atwill)

Eugenics (/jˈɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race, stock, kin")[2][3] is a set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population.[4][5] It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics), or both.[6] Alternatively, gene selection rather than "people selection" has recently been made possible through advancements in gene editing (e.g. CRISPR).[7] The exact definition of eugenics has been a matter of debate since the term was coined. The definition of it as a "social philosophy"—that is, a philosophy with implications for social order—is not meant to be definitive, and is taken from Frederick Osborn's journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy".[8]
While eugenic principles have been practised as far back in world history as Ancient Greece, the modern history of eugenics began in the early 20th century when a popular eugenics movement emerged in Britain[9] and spread to many countries, including the United States and most European countries. In this period eugenic ideas were espoused across the political spectrum. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies meant to improve the genetic stock of their countries. Such programs often included both "positive" measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and "negative" measures such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. People deemed unfit to reproduce often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges of different IQ tests, criminals and deviants, and members of disfavored minority groups. The eugenics movement became negatively associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust—the murder by the German state of approximately 11 million people—when many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials attempted to justify their human rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[10] In the decades following World War II, with the institution of human rights, many countries gradually abandoned eugenics policies, although some Western countries, among them Sweden and the US, continued to carry out forced sterilizations for several decades.

A major critique of eugenics policies is that regardless of whether "negative" or "positive" policies are used, they are vulnerable to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power. Furthermore, negative eugenics in particular is considered by many to be a violation of basic human rights, which include the right to reproduction.



                                       SIR FRANCIS GALTON AND THE ROOTS OF EUGENICS

The celebrated geneticist and Bayesian statistician Sir Francis Galton coined the term 'eugenics' at University College London in 1883. He genuinely believed that eugenics could be used to improve the well-being of the population.


                                                     SIR RONALD FISHER, EUGENICS

                                                     SIR RONALD FISHER WIKI

Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher FRS[2] (17 February 1890 – 29 July 1962), known as R.A. Fisher, was an English statisticianevolutionary biologistmathematiciangeneticist, and eugenicist. Fisher is known as one of the chief architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis, where he outlined Fisher's principle as well as the Fisherian runaway theory of sexual selection, as one of the three principal founders of population genetics and for his important contributions to statistics, including the analysis of variance (ANOVA),maximum likelihoodfiducial inference, and the derivation of various sampling distributions.

Fisher was Professor of Eugenics at University College London from 1933-39

Fisher thought that adjustments to population size could improve the population. In 1930, he published his magnum opus

                                 THE GENETIC THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION

which completed the fusion of Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian inheritance. James Crow said that it was ‘arguably the deepest and most influential book on evolution since Darwin’. In it, Fisher analyzed sexual selection, mimicry, and sex ratios, where he made some of the first arguments using game theory. The book touches on many other topics. As was the case with his other works, The genetical theory is a dense book, not easy for most people to understand. Fisher’s tendency to leave out mathematical steps that he deemed obvious (a leftover from his early training in mental mathematics) frustrates many readers.
The genetical theory is of particular interest to us because Fisher there lays out his ideas on how population size can speed up evolution. As we explain elsewhere, more individuals mean there will be more mutations, including favorable mutations, and so Fisher expected more rapid evolution in larger populations. This idea was originally suggested, in a nonmathematical way, in Darwin’s Origin of Species.


                                                                   KARL PEARSON

Karl Pearson FRS[1] (/ˈpɪərsən/; originally named Carl; 27 March 1857 – 27 April 1936[2]) was an influential English mathematician and biometrician. He has been credited with establishing the discipline of mathematical statistics,[3][4] and contributed significantly to the field of biometrics, meteorology, theories of social Darwinism and eugenics.[5] A major proponent of eugenics, Pearson was also a protégé and biographer of Sir Francis Galton.
In 1911 he founded the world's first university statistics department at University College London. A sesquicentenary conference was held in London on 23 March 2007, to celebrate the 150th anniversary of his birth.[3]


                             THE DARK SIDE OF EUGENICS (ARTICLE IN USA TODAY)


                             THE GALTON LABORATORY

                              EGON PEARSON

The iconic UCL statistician Florence David was Karl Pearson's research assistant when she was young, and she was Egon Pearson's colleague and then Professor of Statistics, before moving to California in 1968. It is unclear how much she was involved in the Eugenics program.

From Wiki:After Karl Pearson died in 1934, David returned to the Biometrics laboratory to work with Jerzy Neyman, submitting her four most recently published papers as her PhD thesis, and earned a doctorate in 1938.




                                                          UCL FACES RACE

UCL Faces Race: Past, Present, & Future

  • First Applicant: Dr Caroline Bressey (UCL Equiano Centre, UCL Geography)
  • Second Applicant: Dr Nathaniel Adam Tobias Coleman (UCL Philosophy)
  • Additional Collaborators: Dr Debbie Challis (Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL Museums & Collections)
  • Awarded: £4,000
111 years after it housed Francis Galton's 'Eugenics Record Office' in 50 Gower St, UCL is facing up, to the legacy of having been the first and, perhaps, the only university to have a Professor of Eugenics. We are facing up to how, in the past, research undertaken at UCL constructed unjust racial hierarchy, to how, in the present, that racial hierarchy which remains is being challenged by institutions, historical memory, and contemporary research, and to how, in the future, we must adapt, in order to become a beacon, in Britain, for researching, teaching, and studying 'race', racialisation, and racial injustice. UCL is calling for a conversation that is courageous and critical. Please join that conversation!
Our conversation will respond to the National Student Survey's finding that UCL's students who self-define as 'Black' are 9-10% less satisfied than their ('White' or 'Asian') peers ( and Our Provost believes that 'it is very important in a highly competitive environment that we get this right' ( For this reason, we shall launch our first event with a question that a student at UCL has recently raised: 'Why do we celebrate someone like Francis Galton who hated us?' ( Just as UCL is in two minds about a eugenicist tenant and benefactor who founded, and underwrote UCL's pioneering research into, human genetics (, Yale, too, is in two minds about a eugenicist professor (Irving Fisher), of whom Harvard's Department of Economics once said that 'No American has contributed more to the advancement of his chosen subject' ( For this reason, we are working with Prof John Martin, to harness the Yale UCL Collaborative, to address our student's question.
We will develop this conversation, in our second event, by giving space to discuss the ways in which unjust racial hierarchy is both sustained and challenged, in current research and teaching, and in the recent recruitment and retention of staff and students, at UCL. This discussion will touch upon the several institutional changes undertaken by UCL, since 'Why isn't my professor black?' ( and the demands of the National Union of Students for 'Liberation, Equality, and Diversity in the Curriculum' (
Finally, in our third event, we will present some of the initial findings of our fact-finding mission to Yale's Department of African American Studies, as those findings have developed, in response to the prior two events. This will be an opportunity, for staff and students at UCL, and for members of the communities that UCL serves, to respond to the emerging proposal for Black Studies / Critical Race Studies at UCL.
From those who attend, we will seek feedback on paper questionnaires. For those who cannot be present, there will be an opportunity to participate, by emailing or by tweeting #uclfacesrace. A research assistant will be employed to monitor and analyse these contributions. 


The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, in Sweden the eugenics program continued until 1975.[25] In addition to being practised in a number of countries, eugenics was internationally organized through the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations.[26] Its scientific aspects were carried on through research bodies such as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics,[27] the Cold Spring Harbour Carnegie Institution for Experimental Evolution,[28] and the Eugenics Record Office.[29] Its political aspects involved advocating laws allowing the pursuit of eugenic objectives, such as sterilization laws.[30] Its moral aspects included rejection of the doctrine that all human beings are born equal, and redefining morality purely in terms of genetic fitness.[31] Its racist elements included pursuit of a pure "Nordic race" or "Aryan" genetic pool and the eventual elimination of "less fit" races.[32][33]
As a social movement, eugenics reached its greatest popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. At this point in time, eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments and influential individuals and institutions. Many countries enacted[34] various eugenics policies and programmes, including: genetic screening, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and segregation of the mentally ill from the rest of the population),compulsory sterilizationforced abortions or forced pregnancies, and genocide. Most of these policies were later regarded as coercive or restrictive, and now few jurisdictions implement policies that are explicitly labelled as eugenic or unequivocally eugenic in substance. The methods of implementing eugenics varied by country; however, some early 20th century methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals, and racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany) as "degenerate" or "unfit", the segregation or institutionalization of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and their mass murder.[35] The practice of euthanasia was carried out on hospital patients in the Aktion T4 centers such as Hartheim Castle.

Lebensborn birth house in Nazi Germany. Created with intention of raising the birth rate of "Aryan" children from extramarital relations of "racially pure and healthy" parents.
By the end of World War II, many of the discriminatory eugenics laws were largely abandoned, having become associated with Nazi Germany.[35][36] After World War II, the practice of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within [a population] group" fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[37] The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims "the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons".[38] In spite of the decline in discriminatory eugenics laws, government practices of compulsive sterilization continued into the 21st century. During the ten years President Alberto Fujimori led Peru from 1990 to 2000, allegedly 2,000 persons were involuntarily sterilized.[39] China maintains its forcible one-child policy as well as a suite of other eugenics based legislation in order to reduce population size and manage fertility rates of different populations.[40][41][42] In 2007 the United Nations reported forcible sterilisations and hysterectomies in Uzbekistan.[43] During the years 2005–06 to 2012–13, nearly one-third of the 144 California prison inmates who were sterilized did not give lawful consent to the operation.[44]
Developments in geneticgenomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century are raising numerous questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in the subject. Some, such as UC Berkeley sociologistTroy Duster, claim that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics.[45] This view is shared by White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who stated in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College that advances in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are moving society to a "new era of eugenics", and that, unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, "where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products".[46] In a 2006 newspaper article, Richard Dawkins said that discussion regarding eugenics was inhibited by the shadow of Nazi misuse, to the extent that some scientists would not admit that breeding humans for certain abilities is at all possible. He believes that it is not physically different from breeding domestic animals for traits such as speed or herding skill. Dawkins felt that enough time had elapsed to at least ask just what the ethical differences were between breeding for ability versus training athletes or forcing children to take music lessons, though he could think of persuasive reasons to draw the distinction.[47]
Some, such as Nathaniel C. Comfort from Johns Hopkins University, claim that the change from state-led reproductive-genetic decision-making to individual choice has moderated the worst abuses of eugenics by transferring the decision-making from the state to the patient and their family.[48] Comfort suggests that "[t]he eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence, and a better adjustment to the conditions of society; and the health benefits, the intellectual thrill and the profits of genetic bio-medicine are too great for us to do otherwise."[49] Others, such as bioethicist Stephen Wilkinson of Keele University and Honorary Research Fellow Eve Garrard at the University of Manchester, claim that some aspects of modern genetics can be classified as eugenics, but that this classification does not inherently make modern genetics immoral. In a co-authored publication by Keele University, they stated that "[e]ugenics doesn't seem always to be immoral, and so the fact that PGD, and other forms of selective reproduction, might sometimes technically be eugenic, isn't sufficient to show that they're wrong."[50]

In particular, Charles Edward von Coburg, the youngest grandson of Queen Victoria, was responsible for orchestrating the maltreatment of mentally disabled people in Nazi Germany


                                 BOOK BY EDWARD J. LARSON

In the first book to explore the theory and practice of eugenics in the American South, Edward J. Larson shows how the quest for "strong bloodlines"expressed itself in state laws and public policies from the Progressive Era through World War II. Larson shows how the seemingly broad-based eugenics movement was in fact a series of distinct campaigns by small groups of determined individuals for legislation at the state level.

                                       BOOK REVIEW

Review: Sex, Race and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South, Edward J Larson, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, £13.00, pp 251.
In 1901, a southern physician, John E Purdon, suggested castrating rapists to deter “assaults on women and children by the animalised negroes”. He evidently considered this an enlightened alternative to lynching. There is something rather peculiar about the South’s thought processes, then, not just its institutions. Not surprisingly, Southerners had a quite distinct approach to eugenics, too, as Edward J Larson demonstrates in Sex, Race, and Science.
Society “…must end these animalistic blood-lines, or they will end society”, declared J S Ullman, in his 1915 Presidential address to the Mississippi State Medical Association. Crime and immorality were considered by eugenicists to be closely linked with mental retardation, as testified by the fact that many of those in prison, receiving welfare, or involved in prostitution were people of low IQ.
Henry Herbert Goddard, the Research Director of the Vineland Training School for Feeble Minded Children, New Jersey, introduced the Binet-Simon tests from France, in 1908. Researchers were soon reporting a tidal wave of mental retardation. H H Laughlin, Davenport’s assistant at the Eugenics Record Office, estimated in 1914 that 15,000,000 Americans (the “lowest one tenth”) needed to be sterilised, while Goddard suggested in 1913 that housing the 15,000 feeble minded children in New York City alone would require 30 large institutions. At this date there were 4! The huge potential cost of segregating those deemed defective eventually led American eugenicists to favour sterilisation to cut off the future supply. New marriage restrictions were thought to be of limited utility here because of the (alleged) lack of moral inhibition of the mentally deficient. Nor was birth control regarded as an alternative to segregation because the “wholly and irremediably unfit” would be unable to regulate their own reproduction.
Interestingly, no state institutions for segregating mentally inferior Negroes were ever built in the deep South during the golden age of American eugenics, roughly 1895 to 1945. Only the “white trash” (or “human rubbish”, to quote W L Funkhouser, writing in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, 1937), were targeted for segregation and sterilisation, Larson notes. Although the Southern blacks were generally considered nearer to animality than the whites, most Southern eugenicists did not believe there was any need to improve the inborn qualities of the former, maintaining that they could contribute nothing to the progress of civilisation.
Larson shows how the eugenic discourse neatly dovetailed into public health campaigns to eliminate contagious diseases in the Southern states in the 1920s. Parallels were made between the need to isolate the victims of smallpox and the necessity of segregating the mentally retarded. Attempts to reduce infant mortality and to prevent the birth of mental defectives seemed of a kind. Compulsory reporting and quarantine laws passed in the 1920s in order to eradicate TB provided a useful precedent for eugenicists. So did the statutes to counteract syphilis which 32 US states had passed by 1918, and which mandated medical examination for prostitutes, inmates of prisons and vagrants.
Larson gives us a precise profile of the southern eugenicist. The deep South was a relatively backward region of the US, with a dearth of scientists and other academics, so that mental health officials, faute de mieux, initiated the campaigns for eugenic legislation with the support of private physicians. Eugenics was attractive to these middle class professionals because it justified an enhancement of their social role and power. The paucity of Southern universities also helps explain why sterilisation was generally adopted later in the South than in the North and West, despite the existence of longstanding laws to prevent miscegenation.
The South’s variegated response to eugenics tells us much about the social and ideological forces which supported or opposed the application of science to social problems. A predominantly agrarian way of life encouraged strong family ties and the notion of extended kinship. There was opposition in the South to any interference with parental rights, as evidenced by resistance to compulsory school attendance. Eugenicists, with their demands that mentally defective children be segregated in state homes, were also challenging these sacrosanct Southern notions of family and parental rights. Worse still, they sought to regulate marriage. But indicatively, no Southern state ever imposed eugenic marriage restrictions, unlike most Northern and Western states. The debates preceding the passage of the federal Immigration Act of 1924 also show that most Southern congressmen who supported it did so on nativist not on eugenic grounds. They opposed all immigration, including that of reputedly superior stocks from Holland or Sweden.
Eugenics in the deep South represented a challenge to traditional beliefs. The South was a bastion of evangelical Protestantism. Religion was more significant in the lives of people in this region. Larson suggests that the evangelical Protestant doctrine of “salvation and sanctification for all, solely by divine grace” was hard to reconcile with eugenic notions of “fixed, inherited degeneracy and superiority”. Christianity, according to his interpretation of it, values all life regardless of any apparent defects as to quality, and was therefore the major obstacle to the spread of eugenics in the South. It could be argued, against this view, that the Calvinist notion of an elect is, in fact, analogous to eugenic doctrine. Steve Jones, for one, characterises John Calvin as “the ultimate genetic determinist” (see his In The Blood). Some churches supported the failed 1945 Alabama Sterilisation Statute, for example, as Larson has to acknowledge.
Feminism and eugenics were mutually reinforcing historical movements. Throughout the South, well educated, upper class women (suffragettes, it goes without saying) played a leading role in the setting up of sexually segregated institutions for the mentally impaired. For the members of the influential women’s clubs, negative eugenics was a natural extension of childcare. Campaigners for milk stations and well baby clinics in the South argued that without compulsory sterilisation, efforts to reduce infant mortality would enable the unfit to survive.
Whereas traditional Southerners were suspicious of eugenics, “Progressive” politicians and journalists regarded it as part and parcel of any sensible reform package, no less than compulsory school attendance, limits on child labour, the prohibition of alcohol, the enactment of women’s suffrage and the improvement of prisons, schools and asylums. There seemed to be a strong humanitarian case for institutionalising mentally backward girls, a potentially exploitable group. Most Progressives were urban middle class professionals who believed in applying scientific expertise to problems of human behaviour. Progressivism in general and eugenics in particular, however, had less impact in the South than in the rest of the US because of the relatively small size of the regions’ urban middle class. Whereas Indiana enacted the first compulsory sterilisation statute, in 1907, followed by California, in 1909, similar statutes were not enacted in the South until the 1920s. The belated advent of eugenics was part of the gradual assimilation of this region to the urbanised, industrial order, involving what Weber aptly called the “disenchantment of the world”.
Larson praises the “notable achievements” of the American eugenics movement. This judgement seems rather generous. No Southern state had the resources to accommodate the entire mentally defective population. All the institutions set up for this purpose were overcrowded and under funded, with long waiting lists. Only a fraction of the target population was in practice segregated. The total number of those sterilised, likewise, only scratched the surface of the perceived problem of retardation. In short, the program of the eugenics movement in the South was impractical, even utopian and a failure by its own lights. And from the 1930s onwards, geneticists in the US and elsewhere cast increasing doubt on the “scientific” rationale for compulsory segregation and sterilisation i.e. the notion that “inferior” parents necessarily produce “inferior” progeny and that there are single genes determining feeblemindedness.
Although Larson considers that compulsory eugenic legislation was completely inconsistent with the American ideals of personal freedom and equality, he thankfully abstains from too much “bootless moralising”, (to quote one reviewer, J C Fletcher), although the phrase “rabid eugenicist” is unfortunate. Sex, Race, and Science, despite its lurid title, is generally a coolheaded piece of scholarship. The publication of this invaluable work and of other regional studies of eugenics, notablyEugenics And The Welfare State: Sterilisation Policy In Denmark, Sweden, Norway, And Finland (1996, edited by G Broberg and N Roll-Hansen) indicates that this branch of the history of science is at last receiving the dispassionate attention it requires.

Leslie Jones

                                               EUGENICS IN THE UNITED STATES




Project MKUltra — sometimes referred to as the CIA's mind control program — was the code name given to an illegal program of experiments on human subjects, designed and undertaken by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Experiments on humans were intended to identify and develop drugs and procedures to be used in interrogations and torture, in order to weaken the individual to force confessions through mind control. Organized through the Scientific Intelligence Division of the CIA, the project coordinated with the Special Operations Division of the U.S. Army's Chemical Corps.[1] The program began in the early 1950s, was officially sanctioned in 1953, was reduced in scope in 1964, further curtailed in 1967 and officially halted in 1973.[2] The program engaged in many illegal activities;[3][4][5] in particular it used unwitting U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects, which led to controversy regarding its legitimacy.[3](p74)[6][7][8] MKUltra used numerous methodologies to manipulate people's mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosissensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.[9]
The scope of Project MKUltra was broad, with research undertaken at 80 institutions, including 44 colleges and universities, (MOST NOTABLY MCGILL AND COLUMBIA) as well as hospitals, prisons and pharmaceutical companies.[10] The CIA operated through these institutions using front organizations, although sometimes top officials at these institutions were aware of the CIA's involvement.[11] As the US Supreme Court later noted, MKULTRA was:

The highly eminent Scottish psychiatrist. Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron, who trained in Glasgow, was particularly active in Montreal during the Kennedy era, where his horrifying mind experiments were financed and orchestrated by the C.I.A. 

President John F.Kennedy was at odds with the C.I.A. and its erstwhile director Allan Dulles regarding their dirty tricks which 'stirred the shit' and created war in countries supposedly at peace with the United States. He must surely have known about the MK Ultra dirty tricks and would presumably have also strenuously objected to them. 

The MK Ultra experiments helped Big Pharma to encourage the rapid development of a different form of world wide psychiatry, where toxic psych meds, ECT, lobotomies, and other sorts of brain surgeries are used to mind control vast swathes of our populations, and to stifle much of our creativity and propensities for free thinking. Maybe the C.I.A.'s ultimate objective was to mind control and repress everybody, apart from a wealthy oligarchy.
                                                       Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron


                                                               Leonard Cohen

Project MKUltra

During the 1950s and 1960s, Cameron became involved in what has later become known as the MKUltra mind control program, which was covertly sponsored by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2] and which eventually led to the publication of the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation manual. He is unrelated to another CIA psychiatrist, Alan S. Cameron, who helped pioneer psychological profiling of world leaders during the 1970s and was not associated with the behavioral modification research program.[17]
Cameron had been hoping to correct schizophrenia by erasing existing memories and reprogramming the psyche. He commuted from Albany to Montreal every week to work at McGill's Allan Memorial Institute and was paid $69,000 from 1957 to 1964 to carry out MKUltra experiments there. In addition to LSD, he experimented with various paralytic drugs and electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power.[citation needed] His "driving" experiments consisted of putting a subject into a drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple statements. These experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression; many suffered permanent debilitation after these treatments.[18] Such consequences included incontinenceamnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents.[19] His work was inspired and paralleled by the British psychiatrist William Sargant, who was also involved with the Intelligence Services and experimented extensively on his patients without their consent, causing similar long-term damage.[20]
Naomi Klein states in her book The Shock Doctrine that Cameron's research and his contribution to MKUltra were not about mind control and brainwashing, but "to design a scientifically based system for extracting information from 'resistant sources.' In other words, torture."[21] She then cites Alfred W. McCoy: "Stripped of its bizarre excesses, Cameron's experiments, building upon Donald O. Hebb's earlier breakthrough, laid the scientific foundation for the CIA's two-stage psychological torture method."[22]

MKULTRA Subproject 68

MKULTRA Subproject 68 was one of Cameron's ongoing "attempts to establish lasting effects in a patient's behaviour" using a combination of particularly intensive electroshock, intensive repetition of prearranged verbal signals, partial sensory isolation, and repression of the driving period carried out by inducing continuous sleep for seven to ten days at the end of the treatment period. During research on sensory deprivation, Cameron used curare to immobilise his patients. After one test he noted: "Although the patient was prepared by both prolonged sensory isolation (35 days) and by repeated depatterning, and although she received 101 days of positive driving, no favourable results were obtained." Patients were regularly treated with hallucinogenic drugs, long periods in the "sleep room", and testing in the Radio Telemetry Laboratory, which was built under Cameron's direction. Here, patients were exposed to a range of RF and electromagnetic signals and monitored for changes in behaviour. It was later stated by staff members who had worked at the Institute during this time that not one patient sent to the Radio Telemetry Lab showed any signs of improvement afterwards.

For more shocking stuff in Canada's history (paedophilia, torture, and medical experimentation on children), please click on DUPLESSIS ORPHANS.




From Ron Unger>>>>One thing that has fascinated many people is the weird "altered states" that can occur while waking, under the influence of hypnosis.
Many in our field have wondered about the connection between hypnosis and psychosis - R D Laing wrote a bit about that in his autobiographical book "Wisdom, Madness and Folly."
And like psychosis, hypnosis can be scary - in fact part of psychosis can involve fears of being hypnotized or mentally taken over.
And to complicate
things further, there have been real efforts to use hypnosis for nefarious ends. I would suggest that all of us become familiar with with the mind control program called "MK Ultra" which was carried out on people who did not give consent. A lead person in this effort was Paul Cameron, a former head of the American Psychiatric Association who makes that Lieberman fellow look like a saint! Paul used sometimes over a hundred unusually high voltage ECT "treatments," plus LSD and other drugs, plus hypnosis, to completely wipe out the minds of people and attempt to rebuild them according to his whims. Want to know more? Check out the free documentary, at or check out
Of course, lots of "paranoid" people worry that MK Ultra is just the tip of an "iceberg" of mind control efforts that continues into the present, and which affects them. For us to be able to talk to them in an intelligent and respectful way, it helps for us to at least be aware of what was done back then without the knowledge of people at the time. This doesn't of course mean everyone's worst fear is true, but it does help us step away from being certain that nothing "under the table" is going on.
Back to hypnosis though - it often seems to me that "psychosis" often involves people putting themselves in altered states, but then getting lost in the whole process. Usually I think they do so in an attempt to solve some kind of preexisting psychological problem, such as being depressed.
I think there's a lot more that could be uncovered about how this works. But one way to look at it might be to study how hypnosis can be used in a constructive way to escape from depression. A friend of mine, Ryan Nagy, has recently put together an online conference on using an Ericksonian hypnosis approach to treating depression. There are presentations by a lot of noted people including Bill O'Hanlon. This conference was designed to be helpful for people without a lot of background in hypnosis. Check it out here ......…/idevaffiliate.php…

History's Mysteries

Tim Vawter The psyche field can be a tough field to go up against. We can look at close connections between the Intelligence group who has apparently been running America since 1980, which is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld people, with the billion dollar corporations they have been protecting and nurturing like Eli Lilly.

A sample of those who have been on the Eli Lilly payroll includes: 

* Former President George Herbert Walker Bush (one-time member of the Eli Lilly board of directors) 
* Former CEO of Enron, Ken Lay (one-time member of the Eli Lilly board of directors) 
* George W. Bush’s former director of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels (a former Eli Lilly vice president) 
* George W. Bush’s Homeland Security Advisory Council member, Sidney Taurel (current CEO of Eli Lilly) 
* The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (a recipient of Eli Lilly funding) 

More than one journalist has uncovered corrupt connections between the Bush Family, psychiatry, and Eli Lilly

The Man Behind The Vaccine Mystery

The Search for the “Manchurian Candidate”: The CIA...

                                 BILL GATES AND HIS EUGENICS FOUNDATION


What... will happen when... the facts of heredity are... commonly known? One thing is certain: mankind will begin to interfere; perhaps not in England, but in some country more ready to break with the past and eager for ‘national efficiency.’ Mr. Galton has suggested a selection at the top, with State encouragement of families of superlative quality. More probably, and we suspect more effectively, selection will begin by elimination at the bottom... [While] contemporary socialism strives for the elevation of the unfit... that of the future will probably aim at their extinction. Ignorance of the remoter consequences of interference has never long postponed such experiments. When power is discovered man always turns to it. The science of heredity will soon provide power on a stupendous scale; and in some country, at some time, not, perhaps, far distant, that power will be applied to control the composition of a nation. Whether the institution of such control will ultimately be good or bad for that nation or for humanity at large is a separate question. —1905 review of Archdall Reid’s The Principles of Heredity

No comments:

Post a Comment