http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html
Coercive Mind Control Tactics
Terminology note: Today Mind control or brainwashing in academia is commonly referred to as coercive persuasion, coercive psychological systems or coercive influence. The short description below comes from Dr. Margaret Singer professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley the acknowledged leading authority in the world on mind control and cults.
a short overview
Coercion is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as:
To force to act or think in a certain manner
To dominate, restrain, or control by force
To bring about by force.
Coercive psychological systems are behavioral change programs which use psychological force in a coercive way to cause the learning and adoption of an ideology or designated set of beliefs, ideas, attitudes, or behaviors. The essential strategy used by the operators of these programs is to systematically select, sequence and coordinate many different types of coercive influence, anxiety and stress-producing tactics over continuous periods of time.
In such a program the subject is forced to adapt in a series of tiny "invisible" steps. Each tiny step is designed to be sufficiently small so the subjects will not notice the changes in themselves or identify the coercive nature of the processes being used. The subjects of these tactics do not become aware of the hidden organizational purpose of the coercive psychological program until much later, if ever. These tactics are usually applied in a group setting by well intentioned but deceived "friends and allies" of the victim. This keeps the victim from putting up the ego defenses we normally maintain in known adversarial situations.
The coercive psychological influence of these programs aim to overcome the individual's critical thinking abilities and free will - apart from any appeal to informed judgment. Victims gradually lose their ability to make independent decisions and exercise informed consent. Their critical thinking, defenses, cognitive processes, values, ideas, attitudes, conduct and ability to reason are undermined by a technological process rather than by meaningful free choice, rationality, or the inherent merit or value of the ideas or propositions being presented.
How Do They Work?
The tactics used to create undue psychological and social influence, often by means involving anxiety and stress, fall into seven main categories.
TACTIC 1
Increase suggestibility and "soften up" the individual through specific hypnotic or other suggestibility-increasing techniques such as:Extended audio, visual, verbal, or tactile fixation drills, Excessive exact repetition of routine activities, Sleep restriction and/or Nutritional restriction.
TACTIC 2
Establish control over the person's social environment, time and sources of social support by a system of often-excessive rewards and punishments. Social isolation is promoted. Contact with family and friends is abridged, as is contact with persons who do not share group-approved attitudes. Economic and other dependence on the group is fostered.
TACTIC 3
Prohibit disconfirming information and non supporting opinions in group communication. Rules exist about permissible topics to discuss with outsiders. Communication is highly controlled. An "in-group" language is usually constructed.
TACTIC 4
Make the person re-evaluate the most central aspects of his or her experience of self and prior conduct in negative ways. Efforts are designed to destabilize and undermine the subject's basic consciousness, reality awareness, world view, emotional control and defense mechanisms. The subject is guided to reinterpret his or her life's history and adopt a new version of causality.
TACTIC 5
Create a sense of powerlessness by subjecting the person to intense and frequent actions and situations which undermine the person's confidence in himself and his judgment.
TACTIC 6
Create strong aversive emotional arousals in the subject by use of nonphysical punishments such as intense humiliation, loss of privilege, social isolation, social status changes, intense guilt, anxiety, manipulation and other techniques.
TACTIC 7
Intimidate the person with the force of group-sanctioned secular psychological threats. For example, it may be suggested or implied that failure to adopt the approved attitude, belief or consequent behavior will lead to severe punishment or dire consequences such as physical or mental illness, the reappearance of a prior physical illness, drug dependence, economic collapse, social failure, divorce, disintegration, failure to find a mate, etc.
These tactics of psychological force are applied to such a severe degree that the individual's capacity to make informed or free choices becomes inhibited. The victims become unable to make the normal, wise or balanced decisions which they most likely or normally would have made, had they not been unknowingly manipulated by these coordinated technical processes. The cumulative effect of these processes can be an even more effective form of undue influence than pain, torture, drugs or the use of physical force and physical and legal threats.
How does Coercive Psychological Persuasion Differ from Other Kinds of Influence?
Coercive psychological systems are distinguished from benign social learning or peaceful persuasion by the specific conditions under which they are conducted. These conditions include the type and number of coercive psychological tactics used, the severity of environmental and interpersonal manipulation, and the amount of psychological force employed to suppress particular unwanted behaviors and to train desired behaviors.
Coercive force is traditionally visualized in physical terms. In this form it is easily definable, clear-cut and unambiguous. Coercive psychological force unfortunately has not been so easy to see and define. The law has been ahead of the physical sciences in that it has allowed that coercion need not involve physical force. It has recognized that an individual can be threatened and coerced psychologically by what he or she perceives to be dangerous, not necessarily by that which is dangerous.
Law has recognized that even the threatened action need not be physical. Threats of economic loss, social ostracism and ridicule, among other things, are all recognized by law, in varying contexts, as coercive psychological forces.
Why are Coercive Psychological Systems Harmful?
Coercive psychological systems violate our most fundamental concepts of basic human rights. They violate rights of individuals that are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and affirmed by many declarations of principle worldwide.
By confusing, intimidating and silencing their victims, those who profit from these systems evade exposure and prosecution for actions recognized as harmful and which are illegal in most countries such as: fraud, false imprisonment, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct and other tortuous acts.
Latest Recommended Tool : We have now installed a Search Utility that will search all the world's Newspapers for reports on Cult Activity. Click Here to access this Search Page
We Strongly recommend that you read the Influence Continuum
Is someone trying to unethically influence you?
Continuum of Influence and Persuasion
Danger of Cults is Growing. [September 18, 1998]
Coercive Mind Control tactics, a short overview
What is mind control?
How does mind control work?
Q & A on mind control
Mind control and religion
Warning signs of a destructive cult
How to determine if a group is a destructive cult.
Excerpts from "Cults in Our Midst," by Dr. Margaret Singer .
Mind Control Exists
"How I healed the psychological injuries from my abuse in a cult" by Lawrence Wollersheim
We Strongly recommend that you read the CODE OF ETHICS FOR SPIRITUAL GUIDES
You need to be a member of Peacepink3 to add comments!
I am not a legal analyst or an officer of the court, i'm just a girl. Every single person who chooses to persue a legal course of action, keep a detailed diary with times dates and an accurate log of events. If you notice changes however subtle, keep a record. TRY to document statements of emotion fear hatred as a postscript keeping the diary itself as close to a document form as possible. Think of it as a police report. Getting into court will be damned near impossible without specific defendants namable ie; operators, branches, company,units and so forth. some of you have the right idea. there are a lot of helpful blogs on danger room.There are people with connectivity to operators in the science and military departments that would be helpful. There are members of government that are aware of technological tresspasses and some are vehemently against it, others strongly support it. The only way to make any significant changes is to lobby local state and federal law makers. If ever there is a specific threat write it word for word without embellishment in a public place. any information that is relevent is helpful,...male operator female operator time date. There is no room for hysteria in a legal venue and these legal transgressions will only stop with an injunction or policy change as instituted by authorities. If A PERSON ACTS LIKE A FREAK, THEY'LL BE TREATED LIKE A FREAK. don't be freaky.
Heather Bee said:
I don't know you but I sympathize for your struggles. I urge that every action be placed on a plane devoid of emotion (which are capable of being convoluted and dismantling the most basic defensive arguments). There are tools available. Passionately argue the points of legal debate and draw from precedence of basic civil liberties. No court could overlook the trampling of such basic human rights if and when it is presented with proper documentary evidence. Your simple thank you makes me feel better. I'm wishing we were all happy and free to persue our lives. Document document document and research.
Helpful legal definitions,(differ by state) if someone is threatening you or urging you to harm yourself:
Today, Washington law provides: "A person is guilty of promoting a suicide attempt when he knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide." "Promoting a suicide attempt" is a felony, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and up to a $ 10,000 fine. §§ 9A.36.060(2) and 9A.20.021(1)(c). At the same time, Washington's Natural Death Act, enacted in 1979, states that the "withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment" at a patient's direction "shall not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide."
Assault as a Threat
In some jurisdictions, assault is a threat to do bodily harm that inspires fear. This threat can come in the form of words or actions. If you angrily tell someone that you are going to hit, hurt or kill them, in some states this is enough to constitute assault if the person reasonably fears imminent harm on the basis of our threat. Reasonableness and intent are the key elements of assault. If a reasonable person would feel fear on the basis of your threat, and you intended to inspire that fear, you can be found guilty of assault.
Usually, words alone are not sufficient- the words must be accompanied with some type of action that inspires the person to believe that you have the potential to harm them and that the harm is imminent. If you tell someone "I am going to kill you" and move toward them in an aggressive manner, this can constitute assault. If you actually go on to perform the threatened action and harm your victim, you will also be charged with battery.
Assault can give rise to both civil and criminal action. This means that you can be charged with assault by a state prosecutor and face potential criminal charges. The victim that you threaten can also sue you in civil court. This is a private action brought by another citizen, and the penalties are usually monetary.
Mrs. Heather you are right about what you said. What we are going through does cause problems in our life's. And the force that is being used on us. Does go against many laws. But getting into a court room just to be heard. Is one of the hardest things to do. Yes our rights are being stepped on. But what can we do. I have tryed many times to stop what I have been going through. It is hard to prove what we face everyday. But if you know how I can stop hate, torture, lies, and confussion please tell me what to do.
Heather Bee said:
The most frequently quoted statement by a Supreme Court justice on the subject of privacy comes in Justice Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead v. U. S. (1928):
"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect."
I don't know you but I sympathize for your struggles. I urge that every action be placed on a plane devoid of emotion (which are capable of being convoluted and dismantling the most basic defensive arguments). There are tools available. Passionately argue the points of legal debate and draw from precedence of basic civil liberties. No court could overlook the trampling of such basic human rights if and when it is presented with proper documentary evidence. Your simple thank you makes me feel better. I'm wishing we were all happy and free to persue our lives. Document document document and research.
The most frequently quoted statement by a Supreme Court justice on the subject of privacy comes in Justice Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead v. U. S. (1928):
"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect."
D.Mass. 1979) Judge Joseph L. Tauro for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found:
The right to produce a thought — or refuse to do so — is as important as the right protected in Roe v. Wade to give birth or abort [...] The First Amendment protects the communication of ideas. That protected right of communication presupposes a capacity to produce ideas. As a practical matter, therefore, the power to produce ideas is fundamental to our cherished right to communicate and is entitled to comparable constitutional protection.[77]
He went on to contend: "whatever powers the Constitution has granted our government, involuntary mind control is not one of them."[77] Two years later in Rennie v. Klein, 653 F.2d 836 (3d. Cir. 1981), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit avoided the First Amendment and Eighth Amendment arguments proffered by the plaintiffs, finding it "preferable to look to the right of personal security recognized in Ingraham v. Wright", a Fourteenth Amendment case, in analyzing the constitutional implications of the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication.[78]
Replies
Heather Bee said:
Today, Washington law provides: "A person is guilty of promoting a suicide attempt when he knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide." "Promoting a suicide attempt" is a felony, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and up to a $ 10,000 fine. §§ 9A.36.060(2) and 9A.20.021(1)(c). At the same time, Washington's Natural Death Act, enacted in 1979, states that the "withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment" at a patient's direction "shall not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide."
Assault as a Threat
In some jurisdictions, assault is a threat to do bodily harm that inspires fear. This threat can come in the form of words or actions. If you angrily tell someone that you are going to hit, hurt or kill them, in some states this is enough to constitute assault if the person reasonably fears imminent harm on the basis of our threat. Reasonableness and intent are the key elements of assault. If a reasonable person would feel fear on the basis of your threat, and you intended to inspire that fear, you can be found guilty of assault.
Usually, words alone are not sufficient- the words must be accompanied with some type of action that inspires the person to believe that you have the potential to harm them and that the harm is imminent. If you tell someone "I am going to kill you" and move toward them in an aggressive manner, this can constitute assault. If you actually go on to perform the threatened action and harm your victim, you will also be charged with battery.
Assault can give rise to both civil and criminal action. This means that you can be charged with assault by a state prosecutor and face potential criminal charges. The victim that you threaten can also sue you in civil court. This is a private action brought by another citizen, and the penalties are usually monetary.
Heather Bee said:
Michael Shaneyfelt said:
"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect."
The right to produce a thought — or refuse to do so — is as important as the right protected in Roe v. Wade to give birth or abort [...] The First Amendment protects the communication of ideas. That protected right of communication presupposes a capacity to produce ideas. As a practical matter, therefore, the power to produce ideas is fundamental to our cherished right to communicate and is entitled to comparable constitutional protection.[77]
He went on to contend: "whatever powers the Constitution has granted our government, involuntary mind control is not one of them."[77] Two years later in Rennie v. Klein, 653 F.2d 836 (3d. Cir. 1981), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit avoided the First Amendment and Eighth Amendment arguments proffered by the plaintiffs, finding it "preferable to look to the right of personal security recognized in Ingraham v. Wright", a Fourteenth Amendment case, in analyzing the constitutional implications of the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication.[78]