Medication and Submission
The idea of using mind-altering drugs to modify behavior is so common that it merits its own chapter in a book about the subject of thought control. The author's tone implies that this is more legend than fact, but the popularity of the legend has caused those who seek to practice thought control to consider whether there may be some truth to it.
It is noted that the use of drugs is common, particularly in dysfunctional societies. Consider the correspondence between alcoholism and poverty: the unhappier a person is, the more likely they are to self-medicate to cope with the daily misery of their lives. The same is true of sedatives, narcotics, and other drugs - their use is a symptom of a dysfunctional society. Or more aptly, they are a symptom of an individual who finds the society in which he lives to be unacceptable.
He also suggests that "magic thinking is still rampant" in the field of medicine, and practitioners think of themselves as deities who have the power to do anything - hence the belief that some pill or procedure exists that can instantly make a person suggestible, agreeable, and compliant. And so, experimental drugs and unsound surgical procedures are leveraged in pursuit of a "scientific" cure for non-compliance. And patients are all too eager to accept treatment voluntarily if a pill can be prescribed to make them happy.
The Search for Ecstasy Through Drugs
Descriptions of drug experiences often describe it as being an ecstatic state, being removed from reality and in touch with a "higher order of things" that is similar to a religious experience. Drugs are seen as expanding the mind and enhancing creativity, but at the same time they are associated to a neglect of the necessities of life because the user has departed from mundane concerns. For that reason, they are often sought out as an escape from a gloomy reality - the greater the level of poverty and oppression in a society, the higher the level of alcohol and drug abuse.
Drugs are often seen as an individual problem, but there are also instances in which drug use is a societal event. The use of drugs by organized religions to find spiritual enlightenment is not uncommon. It is also common for drugs to be part of a Bohemian/counter-cultural movement. Drug use is also common in accepted social events, from the Greek Bacchanalia to the modern-day fraternity party, binge-drinking is a central element of the experience.
There's a brief mention of drugs in initiation and community-building rituals. Mutually participation in chemically-induced escapism is seen to build bonds between people. And the decadence of the ruling class is very often a totalitarian leaders' attempt to build a bond between himself and the most powerful members of society. Likewise, it is common in criminal circles for gang leaders to give addicting drugs like cocaine or heroin to their charges - though it this case it is not the bonding experience of the high but the fear of the pain of withdrawal that binds people to a leader for the sake of retaining their supply.
The author suggests that it is not unthinkable that a dictator might use drug addiction as a means of subordinating and retaining control over followers. History documents the practice - the way in which Chinese rulers used opium to pacify their people, British sailors were given daily rations of beer and rum, and the narcotic Qat remains in use to manage laborers in the Middle East. Countries that provision drugs to their people are often the most vigilant about drugs obtained from other sources - using "legal" drugs keeps them in line, and "illegal" drugs are a substitute that undermines authority.
It's suggested that this remains in practice in the present day: in the author's native Britain, the use of alcohol is encouraged by the culture and the use of heroin is tolerated. He speculates that this is because they are mind-softening drugs that makes people submissive and stupid. For democracy to work, it requires people to be intelligent, aware, and vigilant against the encroachment of government upon personal liberties - but if the population can be kept stupefied, they can be easily manipulated and will offer little resistance.
Hypnotism
The use of hypnosis is particularly attractive to totalitarians. To bypass the mind's reasoning and logical defenses and implant suggestions deep in the subconscious, such that a person can be compelled to do things against their will, is the manipulator's greatest ambition. And while it is generally considered that hypnotism is hokum, far more legend than fact, the potential of so great a weapon has not been ignored, and extensive studies into its use have been done my totalitarian governments in hopes that it might be real.
This is not to say that all of hypnotism is completely bogus: a psychologist can use hypnotism to enable a person to improve their recollection - but gaining access to stored memory is far different to re-programming the mind. At the same time, it has been seen that hypnotism can create false memories or false associations that can be useful in alerting human behavior. If a hypnotist can break a connection of a stimulus to a response, he can also create a new connection that serves his purposes.
As an aside: testimony given under hypnotism or even after hypnotism is typically viewed with a jaundiced eye. It's questionable whether the hypnotist has retrieved valid memories, invalid ones, or even attempted to implant false memories. And in any instance being compelled to recall an account is in violation of a few constitutional amendments (unlawful search and seizure, the right to refrain from testifying against oneself, etc.) But in a political climate that is less concerned with personal rights, this testimony may be admissible and hypnotism may be regarded as an acceptable means of interrogation. Specific mention is made of the case of the People v. Camillo Leyra (1950), in which a confession obtained under hypnosis was thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Because hypnotism is not infallible, it has been suggested that some people are more sensitive than others and have a greater ability to be influenced by it. However, this can be said of people who are wide awake: some are simply compliant and submissive by nature, even when a command is given explicitly, they will comply. Being able to pretend that they were under the influence of hypnosis simply makes it easier for them to justify being so gullible - just as a person who has debauched himself will eagerly blame his behavior on alcohol or drugs. Thus, hypnotism and drugs are not effective in controlling people, but in giving people a greater willingness to be compliant because they can escape responsibility for their choices.
All people have hidden desires - we are animals and our basic drives are vulgar, base, and selfish. Being "civilized" means restraining ourselves from pursuing certain urges because they are harmful to ourselves or others. But given an opportunity to act out, we often will. Consider that "crowd psychology" is merely a release of inhibitions that comes from believing that one will not be held personally accountable for their actions - very civilized and benign individuals will behave horribly when they're caught up in the spirit and can hide within an anonymous mass. Interrogation of criminals often shows that they knew that their actions were wrong, but they expected not to get caught. Hypnotism is yet another way of releasing a person from their inhibitions, or offering them a plausible excuse for acting on impulse.
There's a brief mention of "mass hypnosis" which seems more magic than science, but which nonetheless has met with the fear of some and the desire of others. The notion that a person could easily manipulate a large number of subjects is again a highly attractive proposition to the totalitarian and a horror to the libertarian. But again, it is thus far the stuff of folktales and legends, without much basis in fact. Throughout the history of mankind, men have used speeches rather than pendulums to command armies and mobs, and this is not considered to be hypnosis. (EN: Though per the earlier example, it has a similar mechanism in that individuals in a crowd lose their inhibitions due to the expectation of anonymity.)
There's also a brief mention of personal charm - the manner in which some people seem to be able to gain the confidence and cooperation of others. However, this is not hypnosis but plays upon other psychological phenomena (attraction, liking, and the theory of reciprocation).
Finally, there are individuals with a pathological fear of mental intrusion - those paranoid personalities that have a constant and exaggerated fear of having their minds read or their thoughts influenced by external forces - hypnotism through television and radio signals, brain rays beamed down by satellite, and the like. It seems the modern equivalent of pandemonium - the fear of demonic influences that caused people to feel in constant danger. What level of concern is reasonable versus insane often depends on the level of credibility we give to the alleged sources of intrusion.
Needling for the Truth
Next, the author speaks to the use of "truth serums" - which is also a blend of fact and fiction.
The fact is that narcotics and soporifics have been used in interrogation to reduce the resistance of the victim. The use of these chemicals is similar to sleep deprivation or drunken havering: it does not compel a person to be honest, but dulls the mind so that they find it difficult to construct a plausible lie. It's also theorized that a person whose resistance is weakened will be less discerning about what he shares, such that he may be more forthcoming with information he might otherwise be reluctant to share.
The studies done into the use of truth serums have been inconsistent. In some instances, a narcotic has been ineffective at getting an individual to disclose accurate information. In other cases, a placebo has been highly effective in getting disclosure. This further suggests that it is often the willingness of the individual to collaborate rather than the influence of the drugs involved. Because of this inconsistency and the questionable nature of using drugs to extract confessions, pharmaceutical interrogation is deemed unacceptable and its evidence inadmissible.
Psychedelic drugs are also generally ineffective at drawing the truth out of subjects: both mescaline and LSD draw upon the content of memory in an erratic and unreliable manner, failing to extract factual accounts or succeeding in extracting fictionalized ones. The effect of these drugs on the mind is such that fiction far outweighs facts and the ravings of an individual under the influence are not only specious, but often highly bizarre.
Lie Detection
Next of kin to truth serum is the lie detector, which tends to be a physical rather than chemical device.
Such devices monitor patterns in autonomic functions, respiration and heart activity, that practitioners claim to be able to interpret as a means to indicate when a subject is being untruthful. And by asking binary yes/no questions, it is then assumed that if a person is lying about something, the opposite must be true.
Much of this is hokum, and reading these responses is no more scientific than reading tea leaves. The results of lie-detector tests are considered inadmissible by most western legal systems due to their proven inaccuracy.
However, lie detectors have been found to be quite effective in intimidating individuals into telling the lies that the investigator wishes to hear. In being subjected to such a test, it is clear to the victim that he is regarded as untruthful, and that the device is trusted - and that if there is any disagreement, the devise will be assumed to be correct in the eyes of the authorities.
Therapy as an Instrument of Coercion
Therapy and counseling are methods of behavior modification, and as such they are also instruments of coercion. A patient subordinates himself to a doctor to receive guidance and treatment to restore his health - and in this context the practitioner can insist that certain attitudes or behaviors are unhealthy unless they align with his own political agenda, or an agenda he is required to promote.
Psychology in general is an ethically questionable area, as the definition of a healthy mind is highly subjective and it is difficult to prove whether a patient fits that definition. Because the field is new and unproven, it is highly attractive to quacks, who use the apparent authority of their office to manipulate people into doing things for them, not the least of which is paying for specious treatments. States also leverage psychology to pronounce people insane whose ideas are contrary to the state's agenda.
In this sense, psychology is a clear weapon of coercion: any person who does not do what they are told, even if it is giving verbal support to the state's propaganda, can be pronounced insane, removed from society and confined to an institution where they will receive "therapies" that are tantamount to torture, until such time as they agree to support the state's agenda. And it is a great motivator for others to avoid this treatment by toeing the line.
Even legitimate practitioners face considerable moral issues, and must carefully consider whether their treatment of any patient is intended to restore him to health as an autonomous individual, or simply make him an obedient servant who conforms unwillingly to an arbitrary standard of normalcy.
The same extends to any form of self-help. Relationship and family counseling, career advice, and even religious guidance are all practices in which one person advises another to think and behave a certain way to achieve certain desire outcomes (and even to help them decide which outcomes to pursue). Even though the practitioner considers himself to be an advisor rather than a therapist, he is still attempting to influence the behavior of his victims, and there is the potential for him to misuse the trust they place in him to direct their behavior to serve ulterior purposes.
(EN: It's interesting to note that an increasing number of these professions are required to obtain certification. Ostensibly, it is to ensure that they conform to a code of ethics that requires them to pursue the best interest of their clients - but this can also be abused by the certificate authorities to require them to encourage specific behaviors of their clients.)
It is also noted that the idea that an individual has rights and that autonomy is important is largely western and democratic. In other cultures, in which the welfare of society supersedes that of any individual, governments may feel entirely justified in treating a person who refuses to submit to the service of authority as being insane, and by that cultural perspective it is perfectly moral to leverage therapy to control an individual and liberate him from the antisocial desire to serve his own interests.