posted July 24, 2007 02:07 AM              

How to Detect Mind Control
from CTRL

Name Calling

This can include being called negative names (used inappropriately) like liar, psychotic, paranoid, crazy, communist, etc. The purpose, intentional or unintentional, of the usage of these names is to discredit the person they are being used on, without discussing the facts of the debate or topic. Sometimes names are used to shock the listener, which may put the listener into a more susceptible mind state and not critically think about the topic but simply accept the negative name or opinion subliminally.

Glittering Generalities

Democracy, capitalism or other ideas are often discussed in these terms. These terms may be described positively without a critical analysis of all sides of the issue.

The important thing is to look at the ideas behind the terms and analyze them critically. A group may also only discuss the positives of the organization, ignoring any negative criticism about the group. The important thing is to check out any group or organization as completely as possible before joining. But I believe it is also important to trust people when they are safe, so that we can recover by sharing and connecting.

Exaggeration

A user of propaganda may use terms like "many," "a lot," "numerous," or "a few" without backing up these numbers or statistics. The usage of these words may make a person or organization look better or worse without data or substantial proof.

Emotional Manipulation

Sometimes it is important to look at the argument(s) with as little emotion as possible, and try to see the facts only.

From http://carmen.artsci. washington.edu/propaganda/fear.htm, "...there are four elements to a successful fear appeal: 1) a threat, 2) a specific recommendation about how the audience should behave, 3) audience perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat, and 4) audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended behavior." Groups may also use these techniques on their members. They may say, "If you don’t do this, then the world will end, we will close, etc." For members that are very needy or attached to the organization or person making the statement, this threat may be very difficult to ignore.

In E-mail, this may be caused by the use of capital letters or other techniques. The writer may say things like, "apples are always red," and then, "apples are always blue," to cause confusion in the reader and make them more susceptible to the ideas in the E-mail. While the mind is trying to figure out which statement is true, the reader’s mind may become more susceptible to the suggestion or idea.

Sutphen in his article talks about "Shock and Confusion," how people go into a meditative state when scared and are more likely to be compliant to the second suggestion. If people are made to feel guilty that they were given something, they are more likely to follow the next command, like give money, etc.

For survivors, I think the important thing is to realize when these techniques are being used on us. To fight the second suggestion and not follow it blindly. This may entail leaving the area immediately and going to a safe spot. Online this may mean reading certain E-mails with support people present. And to avoid those that may use these suggestions on us whenever possible. Learning how to develop safe support systems and safe resources can help with this. I believe it is dangerous to believe that we can’t be MC’ed.

Guilt may also be used as a technique, especially on survivors. Making people feel like they haven’t done enough for a particular group or organization, asking people to do things without considering all sides of the issue or their own needs.

Neediness can also be used. Survivors may be looking for approval, acceptance and a place to discuss their feelings. So they may not be able to critically decide what support systems may be the safest for them. Groups will first be very nice or overly nice to them (love bombing), but this will often disappear later and emotional manipulation and threats or guilt may be used to try to cause the desired behavior.

Subliminal Commands

The techniques used to create subliminal commands can vary. I believe they usually create a meditative state in the individual. I have heard that TV can cause these states. "Glassy eyed stares" or "being spaced out" are often used to describe this state. Shock or fear or other extreme emotional states may also be used to create meditative states. These commands may help the writer bypass the reader’s conscious mind.

Specific triggers may be used on survivors. These may sound like the ideas of those that do not believe in the existence of recovered memory or ritual abuse. These can include calling a person paranoid, psychotic or crazy (see "name calling") and allude to the fact that a person’s paranoia is connected to a psychotic disorder, which, I believe, usually isn’t the case. This can be used to try and get the survivor to doubt their own reality and the reality of their memories. (See SMART issue #27 for the low rate (less than 5 percent) of "false" memories.)

Subliminal triggers may also be used intentionally or unintentionally to remind a survivor of a specific ritual or past program. Repeated use (or the one time use) of certain terms, that could be triggering for survivors, could qualify. The writer may be using these terms to scare or trigger the reader.

A colleague of mine wrote me and told me that she uses three criterion to determine online if a person may be a perpetrator of MC.

1) If the person uses guilt.

2) If the person tells them to "f_ off." (Could be considered a technique to shock the reader.)

3) Using lots of triggers to control their actions.

I think the one thing that all 3 above have in common is they entail some sort of emotional manipulation and/or trigger.

Changing the Topic

Rather than deal with the specific topic, a group or person may try to change the topic, or discredit the other side, rather than deal with the criticisms or arguments in the debate. A variety of propaganda techniques may be used to try and do this. This technique has occasionally been used by politicians and others.

Repetition

One way of remembering something is to constantly repeat it. This is one way we learn to remember new words and songs. Rather than debating the points of the debate, a debater may simply continue calling a person a liar or crazy or a traitor, etc. (see "name calling") without backing up their statements. How often is an idea in an argument presented without a source or logical backing. This is one place in a debate or argument where a debater may show their "true colors." Are they interested in debating the points of the argument or are they using propaganda and mind control techniques?

Testimonials

Individuals that are not qualified to discuss the particulars (the specific facts) of a debate or product may join the debate or ad campaign and make statements that may have little or no logical backing or factual basis. Organizations and companies may use a variety of techniques to encourage such participation.

Band Wagon

The user of propaganda may encourage people to join the cause without asking them to think about the facts and other side of the argument. This may include a kind of hero worship, including fancy clothes, high expenditures, claims of a large following, etc. I think the most important thing is to follow your instincts and recovery, not someone else. Other people may have valid and helpful things to say, but I believe our recovery has to be our own.

Logical Fallacies

These will be intentionally used by the user of propaganda to manipulate opinion.

Example: John likes apples.

Hitler liked apples.

John likes Hitler.

This can be used in politics. Equating communism to fascism because one or several communist governments may have been fascist is an example of this. A person may agree with someone on one topic and disagree with the same person on another topic. The user of propaganda may try to lump the two people or a group of people together that disagree with them, suggesting a conspiracy, when it may only be people agreeing on a certain topic.

You might hear that we can’t trust anyone if certain people aren’t safe. This is a logical fallacy and isn’t true. It may take time for the survivor to trust again, but I think we need to keep trying to trust safe people, so we can heal.

Unwarranted Extrapolation

This is another logical fallacy. A person receiving a criticism may claim that a critique of themselves or their group may cause divisiveness in society or their movement. ("Love it or leave" is an example of this.) The repetition of this idea may reinforce the idea in the reader’s mind. An alternative way of looking at this is that the same critique could also make the movement stronger, by encouraging people to think about their choices and use caution before making those choices. It may encourage all those in the movement to become healthier, making the movement even stronger.

In all logical fallacies, and in terms of propaganda in general, try to see the other possible conclusions of the argument, not simply those presented by the user of propaganda.

How to Avoid Blindly Accepting Propaganda and Being Mind Controlled

(Please note: these are only suggestions. You may want to analyze each of them to see if they have any value to you and if necessary, add some of your own.)

"The subjects easiest to influence are usually young, trusting, gullible, and non-critical people from protective backgrounds or people who may be particularly vulnerable because of some recent unsettled transition (my note: survivors may also fit in this category)...the rejects are likely to be individuals who have easy access to accurate, critical, or counterbalancing information. Insolent, self-centered, street-wise, highly critical or recalcitrant individuals are generally culled out..." Though everyone is susceptible to some degree.

1) Try to find out both sides of the story.

2)Learn about propaganda and mind control techniques and learn how to recognize them. If necessary, learn to avoid those using these techniques (this may be online or offline.) The media and advertisements may be a good place to start either learning about these techniques or avoiding them. At times, advertisements don’t even discuss the product or its attributes at all.

3) When in a potential situation where you can be MC’ed or propagandized, learn how to recognize the feelings of going into a meditative state and learn some of the techniques for getting out of these states. (Details are at "Conference trigger management and safety" are available via E-mail, snail mail (for $1.00 US only) or at http://members.aol.com/smartnews/page5/NBpresentation99.htm) I believe that avoidance of these situations is usually the best way to keep from being MC’ed or propagandized.

4) The user of propaganda or mind control techniques may exhibit a "lack of morals," lying and/or disregarding the rules of the debate, list, group or society. This is similar to the "us vs them" or may be justified by "the ends justify the means" arguments organizations may use, see SMART #29 (Cult Information Article.)

5) Try to use your gut feelings. If something doesn’t feel right, step back or remove yourself from the situation. I believe that a legitimate group or organization will give an individual the time and room to make their own choices (see "Emotional Manipulation" above).

I believe the following statement also applies to being MC’ed and/or fooled by propaganda. From FactNet, "No one "joins a cult." People recruited into destructive groups think they are doing something else, something beneficial and worthwhile. Anyone can be recruited given the right sales pitch and the right conditions in one’s life. We are all potential victims." While I believe it is necessary to learn from our mistakes, I think that feeling too much guilt doesn’t help. It may be necessary to make an amends when safe. This may be simply by getting healthy and possibly educating others.

As always, please use your own judgement and try to research everything as fully as possible. Don’t accept anything anyone says simply because they say it or claim to be an expert or whatever. Try to check it out for yourself. I am not an expert, and I am continually learning new things about myself and the above topics.

Neil Brick

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources

Please note: These sources are listed for educational information only. We are not necessarily recommending them as resources for survivors.

"The Battle for Your Mind," by Dick Sutphen, "Persuasion and Brainwashing

Techniques Being Used on the Public Today," is at
http://www.magnet.ch/serendipity/sutphen/brainwsh.html

"Propaganda Techniques," by Aaron Delwiche and linked pages at http://carmen.artsci. washington.edu/propaganda/contents.htm (pictures may be triggering)

"Q & A on mind control," FactNet, Inc., http://www.factnet.org/ rancho2.htm#one (Please note: at http://www.factnet.org/cris_xpt.htm (which may be triggering) FactNet lists names on their cult experts page, SMART has heard allegations about a couple of these people and several may not be pro-survivor.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER

CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and ‘conspiracy theory’, with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazis need not apply.

posted July 24, 2007 09:18 AM            

I always figured people who employ these very pathetic and obvious tactics were just argumentative, unreasonable, and ignorant-about-the-topics-at-hand people.

However, if they're being sinister about these tactics, ie. behaving as such on purpose ... perhaps they are trying to MC others? It's a possibility.

Then again, attempting to MC others isn't always succeeding at such, is it? Though, reading this, it's hard to believe they haven't ever succeeded.

Or perhaps people of like mind really do just flock together?

And I'm sure people all over the net, indeed the world, will naturally differ on who they believe people in their experiences are MCers and MCees ...

A conundrum.

Just thinking out loud here.

posted July 24, 2007 01:51 PM              

I think when people call us names, they are putting their own insecurities on us, it's their reflection..I've learned to ignore it!

I think it's good to be aware of all of this!

And, to learn to not let people get to you, for some, it's just a game, they are bored..

LOve and Reverence to ALL. ...

posted July 24, 2007 03:33 PM            

So now we're all trying to "mind control" each other?

quote:

---

I always figured people who employ these very pathetic and obvious tactics were just argumentative, unreasonable, and ignorant-about-the-topics-at-hand people.

---

posted July 24, 2007 04:27 PM              

anyone for whom this material holds something of a helpful nature is now paranoid. (see first paragraph of article).

another method usually employed ~

Changing the Topic

Rather than deal with the specific topic, a group or person may try to change the topic, or discredit the other side, rather than deal with the criticisms or arguments in the debate.

there are those who always will appear to disagree, ridicule, and "discredit."

also, the article itself states that these techniques "...can include being called negative names (used inappropriately) like liar, psychotic, paranoid, crazy, communist, etc. The purpose, intentional or unintentional, of the usage of these names is to discredit the person they are being used on, without discussing the facts of the debate or topic."

so, as is evident in the author's explanation, some of the behaviors are unintentional, though the effect is the same.

is it really necessary to repeat that, without referencing the article?

oh yeah.....

Repetition

One way of remembering something is to constantly repeat it. This is one way we learn to remember new words and songs. Rather than debating the points of the debate, a debater may simply continue calling a person a liar or crazy or a traitor, etc. (see "name calling") without backing up their statements. How often is an idea in an argument presented without a source or logical backing. This is one place in a debate or argument where a debater may show their "true colors." Are they interested in debating the points of the argument or are they using propaganda and mind control techniques?"

posted July 24, 2007 06:15 PM            

I mean, Isis is supposedly trying to MC by saying she thinks that idea is paranoid, thus discrediting the article and/or those who subscribe to the theory?

Or is naiad trying to MC by suggesting that Isis is trying to MC, thus discrediting Isis as nothing more than a MCer?

Who is really MCing? And how would we know whether it's on purpose or not? And would it matter?

I don't know. It's kind of a sweeping generalization to suggest that anyone who doesn't subscribe to this theory is thus a MCer, isn't it?

What about ... we disagree? Have a different perspective?

And even people who do use those tactics ... what if they really just don't know how to debate/discuss? Should their opinions not matter? Not be given credence to ... but shouldn't they be able to express themselves without fear of being labelled a MCer just because they aren't good at the way they think or express themselves?

Too many variables here, I think. And Isis has a good point ... a lot of people here could be accused of MCing if that article is to be fully believed. A gaggle of "lefties" and a smaller gaggle of "righties" and everyone in between, all attempting to MC each other on different occasions in the past/present, neither aware or admitting that they are doing such and thus accusing everyone else of MC.

It's just too broad a label, imo. I've never read a theory like this before, either. I wonder how it developed.

On another level, if we look at books like The Celestine Prophecy, the basic idea that humans struggle for energy (mental and emotional or psychic energy) when they argue with each other is a bit similar. Though it isn't exactly MC, it's more about getting more energy for yourself and building up your Ego by depleting the other person's energy through negativity. Though you don't directly influence the other person's behavior or choices ala mind controlling someone to do your bidding in any way, you can have a negative effect on how they feel/think for a little while. Dunno' how much effort it would take for someone to be so energetically depleted to behave in a way they wouldn't consciously have wanted to or make similarly negative choices.

And where is the personal responsibility? Are all our failings in life due to being victims of MC through negative people, the media, the government ... in other words, it's everyone else's fault and not ours that we lost our jobs, had a failed relationship, made a very stupid decision, etc? After all, we were being MC so how can we be responsible for what's happened ...

According to TCP, if those people being affected refused to give in to the battle in the first place, they wouldn't be affected. But nobody is really "innocent". Each person constantly switches roles, each trying to get the subconscious, energetic upper hand, thus all of us being occasional victims and occasional victimizers. But that's just a theory, too. (That is to say, not that I do or don't agree with it but that I don't expect anyone else to agree with it.)

Maybe the words "mind control" have too many negative connotations attached? It sounds a bit too Sci-Fi and also doesn't make allowances for people's own responsibilities to themselves or the fact that everyone can possibly engage in this behavior at different times. Ironically, Mind Control is a bit of a shock label, isn't it? Suggesting there are innocent minds being preyed upon by nasty MCers who want to rule the world ... mwahaha.

posted July 24, 2007 06:22 PM              

again, the article states that the behavior can be unintentional, but that the effect is the same -- NOT that someone is "unconsciously" mind controlling. the action falls on the receiver, not the giver. so if it is unintentional, as the article states, the effect is still there. this is very helpful for some people to know. maybe not you. but maybe, just maybe, some people, not as knowledgeable.

you don't have to accuse anyone of trying to mind control by suggesting that the information in this article is helpful to some people.

apparently it isn't helpful to you or Isis...but why the avid and sustained effort to completely and totally discount it?? to convince so thoroughly that there is absolutely no such thing.

posted July 24, 2007 06:37 PM              

quote:

---

This can include being called negative names (used inappropriately) like liar, psychotic, paranoid, crazy, communist, etc. The purpose, intentional or unintentional, of the usage of these names is to discredit the person they are being used on, without discussing the facts of the debate or topic.

---

please note the vast difference in the above statement, to Eleanore's re-phrasing below ~

quote:

---

Well, it is a bit hard to see clear cut logic in the assumption that everyone who employs those tactics, knowingly or not, is trying to MC others.

---

why the effort to discredit this article, by restating the ideas in derogatory ways?

i understand that the ideas might not apply to everyone....but to some they might prove very informative. but i suppose that they're just being paranoid....and illogical....and cheesy.

posted July 24, 2007 07:05 PM            

I think the article sounds like paranoia to the extreme because as Eleanore pointed out, it's just too damn general and could apply to anyone. We all have to worry now that we're being subtly mind controlled by people that don't agree with us? Or that they're trying to do that? That's paranoid as far as I'm concerned. That's my opinion.

And if you don't agree with me, I'm going to use my Republican Party Secret Decoder ring to employ mind control...

/does Jedi hand wave..."You are a Republican"

posted July 24, 2007 07:15 PM            

I think it was the insinuation that Jwhop is employing MC techniques.

posted July 24, 2007 07:51 PM              

quote:

---

Ahh naiad...I see..so having an opinion contrary to...anyone...and expressing it in a way that is...contrary...is knowingly or unknowingly attempting to engage in mind control...

---

well, to me, having a contrary opinion and calling someone a name, or discrediting him/her, simply because of a differing opinion, are not necessarily the same thing.

quote:

---

We all have to worry now that we're being subtly mind controlled by people that don't agree with us? Or that they're trying to do that? That's paranoid as far as I'm concerned. That's my opinion.

---

again, the article is not about having differing opinions, or that disagreement implies mind control. it's about the attempt to manipulate people into not using their cognitive faculties. it points out that techniques such as guilt, name calling, discrediting the individual, among others, are maniplative methods that can cause people to let their emotional reactions override their thinking process.

the article itself suggests that we all would do well to, "Learn about propaganda and mind control techniques and learn how to recognize them. If necessary, learn to avoid those using these techniques (this may be online or offline.)"

so you see, the article is not saying that disagreeing, or expressing disagreement, is mind control, but it is detailing the manipulative methods that can be used to persuade people without their realizing what is happening. it also suggests that we ourselves be aware of our own propensities to engage in such behaviors, and try to curb them.

the following suggestions in the article are very useful, and not indicative of a paranoid personality assessing a situation, but rather a thoughtful person being aware of what's going on around him ~

- Try to find out both sides of the story.

- When in a potential situation where you can be MC’ed or propagandized, learn how to recognize the feelings of going into a meditative state and learn some of the techniques for getting out of these states.

your thoughts about my or anyone else's paranoia are certainly your own, and i don't wish to change them. should you think such things about me, i am very pleased to allow you that. and what is the difference to you whether i take something personally or not?

posted July 24, 2007 07:58 PM              

quote:

---

Naiad,
I think it was the insinuation that Jwhop is employing MC techniques.

He may use some of them, but he wouldn't perceive them as such, and has even gone so far as to say that he's not out to influence anyone's opinion here (not that I agree with his self-assessment).

---

oh so it's unabashed Jwhop support then....hehe....ever the victim...

actually, there are topics on which i agree with Jwhop....and i have voiced my agreement on these topics. perhaps his mind control worked on me then...lol.

posted July 24, 2007 08:08 PM              

If you think about it, name calling, can be just from one's upbringing, ever run into those families that are all calling each other names, sometimes joking, sometimes not?

As I stated, it's too general, and I don't see anyone trying to Mind Control anyOne, it's your choice, you can walk away at anytime, it's your free wi11 to continue...

I repeat alot, the same things over and over again, and they are things I cannot prove, they come from Heaven, does that make me a Mind Controller? Should I stop sharing what is shone to me?

It's not my intent to Mind Control anyOne, I just want to share my experiences. ...

posted July 24, 2007 08:36 PM              

perhaps others aren't though, and don't realize the effect the use of fear, guilt, name calling, repetition of name calling, discrediting, et al, can have on their consciousness and emotional reaction. there are people who will use these methods to try to influence people, advertisers and politicians being some of the most visible ones.

if you disagree with this perspective, and believe that nobody ever tries to emotionally influence, persuade or manipulate anyone ever, than i leave you to your beliefs.

however, i do believe that there are many people who would benefit from knowing and understanding such things.

posted July 24, 2007 09:11 PM              

when you think of Mind Control, you could think of all the stuff posted on the reptilians in Universal Codes...that's not what we are talking about is it?

We're talking more about how we were raised in society, and this is what we are living, it's a part of Life, there are good people and there are bad people, but I'd like to think that we are generally good, and may make mistakes in trying to convey our points..

there are some that do this stuff intentionally, those are the one's we want to avoid.

Just so you know, I'm glad you posted this..all perspectives are good to look at, and then we must analyze them for ourSelves, without insulting anyOne.

posted July 25, 2007 07:17 AM            

If Isis believes the article is paranoid then what? She should not share that? Is she automatically wrong? Is she subconsciously trying to MC others? Should she phrase it differently?

"I think the article is too broadly worded and generalized, is guilty of precisely what it is supposed to be alerting one to, and exhibits a possibly extreme and certainly irrational fear and/or distrust of other people."

The article could be right ... or it could be wrong. How does one prove such a thing? And how is someone's opinion on the article to be judged as right or wrong considering that the premise of the article has not and possibly cannot be proved conclusively?

Sure, maybe people are trying to mind control you. Or maybe you are just defensive, take things too personally, recognize yourself in the negative things other people write/say and/or want someone else to blame for things you've done in your life.

How would anyone know what's really going on? We'd have to take somebody's word for it and/or draw our own conclusions. I think that's what we're doing here.

And, honestly, reading over the tactics in the article, jwhop certainly isn't one who comes to mind aside from name calling which most everyone has done over time. Guess it's a possibility that we're all out to mind control each other.

posted July 25, 2007 11:06 AM            

quote:

---

And, honestly, reading over the tactics in the article, jwhop certainly isn't one who comes to mind aside from name calling which most everyone has done over time.

---

posted July 25, 2007 12:12 PM              

quote:

---

if Isis believes the article is paranoid then what? She should not share that? Is she automatically wrong? Is she subconsciously trying to MC others? Should she phrase it differently?

---

Isis didn't originally say that the article itself was paranoid. she said, "To see something incredibly sinister in it is paranoid IMO." she was making the judgment on people who might benefit from this article...perhaps she herself sees the article this way, and in denial, projects her feelings on those she would see as inferior, who would 'see the article as sinister' would therefore be 'paranoid.' nowhere in the article does it say that anyone has sinister motives. it does say that advertisers and politicians use these methods in order to manipulate people and override their thought process. so again, you've taken something from this discussion completely out of its context, and rephrased it in a malignant way, to make it appear to be something it isn't in an effort to make your condescending point about those who might find validity in the article. i'm very intrigued about why this subject matter triggers such reactionary activity in you.

Isis re-phrased the words of the article to have a completely different meaning than they have as well. she said, "We all have to worry now that we're being subtly mind controlled by people that don't agree with us? Or that they're trying to do that? That's paranoid as far as I'm concerned."

so again, you’re arguing for something that she misconstrued from the article, not the article's valid points themselves. since you missed it, here is my response to her misconstrued words ~

quote:

---

again, the article is not about having differing opinions, or that disagreement implies mind control. it's about the attempt to manipulate people into not using their cognitive faculties. it points out that techniques such as guilt, name calling, discrediting the individual, among others, are manipulative methods that can cause people to let their emotional reactions override their thinking process.

the article itself suggests that we all would do well to, "Learn about propaganda and mind control techniques and learn how to recognize them. If necessary, learn to avoid those using these techniques (this may be online or offline.)"

so you see, the article is not saying that disagreeing, or expressing disagreement, is mind control, but it is detailing the manipulative methods that can be used to persuade people without their realizing what is happening. it also suggests that we ourselves be aware of our own propensities to engage in such behaviors, and try to curb them.

the following suggestions in the article are very useful, and not indicative of a paranoid personality assessing a situation, but rather a thoughtful person being aware of what's going on around him ~

- Try to find out both sides of the story.

- When in a potential situation where you can be MC’ed or propagandized, learn how to recognize the feelings of going into a meditative state and learn some of the techniques for getting out of these states.

your thoughts about my or anyone else's paranoia are certainly your own, and i don't wish to change them. should you think such things about me, i am very pleased to allow you that.

---

why do you have so much invested in discounting this article, to the point of deliberately twisting and misconstruing this discussion about it???

quote:

---

The article could be right ... or it could be wrong. How does one prove such a thing? And how is someone's opinion on the article to be judged as right or wrong considering that the premise of the article has not and possibly cannot be proved conclusively?

---

why is it so necessary to "prove" this article to you? this is not a science forum. is it that difficult to comprehend that politicians and advertisers use these tactics every day, in an attempt to manipulate people? that's quite conclusively and generally accepted. this article merely shows how that can be done, and suggests that people be aware. what is so reprehensible about this? why does this disturb you so, that people might possibly gain some awareness and control from understanding how these techniques work? if it's the article that confuses you, it's your tenacious insistence that there is nothing of benefit or use in this article that is truly baffling to me....you've labelled it illogical and cheesy. of course it's fine to disagree about its validity. but to re-phrase and paraphrase it in misleading and derogatory ways and the repeated insistence on undermining it at every chance, without actually referencing the specifics of it...well...why? upon your initial disagreement with its premise, my only response was that perhaps such information is not helpful to you, but maybe to others. sounds reasonable to me....but apparently not to you, as you have this ongoing, burning need to "disprove" or "prove" everything about it. there is much written in these forums that cannot be "proved", that is still of great value to the people reading here. in fact, much of what LG writes is not "proved" or even provable, yet, here we all are, at a website devoted to her, gathered here, some of us anyway, because of the power and validity of her ideas in our lives.

indeed the Celestine Prophecy says that none of our encounters are coincidental, and that often we will discover information in our lives at the precise time that it is needed. perhaps this informative material about how people can be manipulated without their knowing it might be just that for some. not for you, we all know that now. but perhaps for others.

quote:

---

Sure, maybe people are trying to mind control you. Or maybe you are just defensive, take things too personally, recognize yourself in the negative things other people write/say and/or want someone else to blame for things you've done in your life.

---

why does it matter to you? we all are defensive about some things; we all take things personally at times. perhaps part of taking responsibility for events in our lives has to do also with becoming more aware of the way that others can influence us and manipulate our emotions to act in ways that aren't conducive to our highest purpose. what's wrong with information that explains that? how is becoming more aware of these things such a reprehensible thing, as you make it sound? this article doesn't suggest that anyone is placing blame for their lives on others -- it's showing how to take responsibility for our own actions by being aware of how the behaviors it mentions can influence people unduly. everyone knows how enormous amounts of money are poured into advertising and political campaigns, to name a few entities employing these methods, to gain influence. it seems as though you are discounting that as well. to show people how these techniques can influence their thinking, is, to me, a valuable and useful endeavor, promoting self awareness and understanding. why are you so hostile to this...to the point of twisting the words of the article and disregarding the specifics in order to convince everyone of its "illogic and cheesiness?"

quote:

---

And, honestly, reading over the tactics in the article, jwhop certainly isn't one who comes to mind aside from name calling which most everyone has done over time. Guess it's a possibility that we're all out to mind control each other.

---

i really don't get the constant reference to Jwhop. neither i, nor the article, made any reference to him whatsoever. apparently it occurred to Blue Roamer, in an odd moment of good humor, and he mentioned it in a very lighthearted fashion. now, we can't seem to stop talking about him in relation to the article? why is that? the article doesn't in the least state that everyone who uses these tactics is trying to mind control people. in fact, it mentions specifically that people use these tactics unknowingly, and that we ourselves should become aware of our own tendencies to use them, and strive to not do so. what is so sinister about that? why do you continue deliberately overlooking that, and focus on the mistaken and misleading notion that the article is about everyone trying to mind control everyone else? it isn't. it is instead about learning how these actions can affect us unknowingly, however they occur. why the continued insistence on the invalidity of the article, and deterrence from the specifics and reality of its premise? that certain measures are designed to emotionally influence and manipulate, and learning how this works can help a person's awareness?

quote:

---

Good humor doesn't always equal mockery or trying to discredit someone or something either, btw. I'm usually just happy, for example.

---

posted July 25, 2007 12:32 PM              

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002172.html

and

posted July 26, 2007 07:31 AM            

Naiad, you said, "Isis didn't originally say that the article itself was paranoid." But she did go on to clarify herself quite clearly when it appeared you were taking her comments personally.

Isis

quote:

---

Just because I think the article you posted is paranoid, doesn't mean I necessarily think you're paranoid (or whoever else might agree with the article).

---

I thought it was pretty clear she was talking about the article itself. As was I.

I have nothing "vested" in discounting this article. Why do you keep seeing things that aren't there in what I am writing and in what Isis is writing? I have an opinion on certain aspects of the article that you disagree with. I've never set out to debunk it. Or is having questions and doubts about something inappropriate now? I question a lot of things. It doesn't mean that I think there is no merit in the things I wonder about. At least, not to me.

I never said anyone had to prove anything to me, either. I don't know about you, but I look for proof for the things I believe in ... and I'm fully aware that what counts as proof to me may not count as proof to others. It is, imo, a bit dangerous when applying something as truly sinister as mind control on such broad guidelines which could lead to unnecessary shock and fear for others. And the reason I wonder about proof is for the same reason that something like, "I'm being mind controlled" can be difficult to prove in court ... not that this forum is a court or that I expect any one here to prove it. I'm interested in research, cases, known instances of mind control that perhaps narrow the field more than this article does. No, I'm not suggesting everyone else should be interested in what I'm interested in. I didn't realize that referring to proof, or lack thereof, of mind control would be inferred as me implying that there is "no such thing" as mind control ... which is certainly not what I was saying nor is it what I believe. Again, I was discussing this particular article.

When I used the word "you" here

quote:

---

Sure, maybe people are trying to mind control you. Or maybe you are just defensive, take things too personally, recognize yourself in the negative things other people write/say and/or want someone else to blame for things you've done in your life.

---

I meant "you" in the general use of the word.

Dictionary.com
you
2. one; anyone; people in general

I only mentioned jwhop after having seen his name brought up a number of times before, first by BlueRoamer, then by you, then by AG, etc. He does seem to attract attention around here.

I don't believe I said anything about the article mentioning good humor. Again, as with all comments in this post ... I'm not saying that you said that I said, etc. unless I've actually stated, "you said". I was referring to Isis' decoder ring and my own Sci-Fi comments ... ie, just because we can make light of aspects of this article doesn't mean we are setting out to mock you or anyone else.

******

Perhaps, though, you are also using a subconscious form of mind control, naiad. In this thread alone, we see evidence of the following tactics in your posts. (For the benefit of clarity, I will try not to use general words like "you" when possible because, in these instances, I am referring specifically to you and/or what you have written, naiad.):

Name Calling

"i'm sure it's helpful for some people, the less sophisticated ones, like me, most probably."

re: jwhop " ... ever the victim"

Exaggeration

Regarding comments that the article is paranoid, you turn that into:

"so those who find validity in this information are "paranoid".....lol."

and

"anyone for whom this material"

Isis never stated in her post that she was referring to everyone or anyone. We were discussing the article and she referred to the fact that to see something incredibly sinister in the behavior as described by the article is, to her, paranoid. No one on here ever stated that they believed the article and agreed with it 100%, not even you. In fact, you yourself said that "this article might be helpful to some people" not that you supported it as absolutely true and always applicable. So why the strong reaction to others who may not agree with the article 100%?

Emotional Manipulation

(The following two quotes are from the article.)

"2)specific recommendation about how the audience should behave"

"Guilt ... asking people to do things without considering all sides of the issue or their own needs."

For example:

"there are those who always will appear to disagree, ridicule, and "discredit."

"apparently it isn't helpful to you or Isis...but why the avid and sustained effort to completely and totally discount it?? to convince so thoroughly that there is absolutely no such thing. "

(A comment which also falls under exaggeration, changing the topic and, naturally, is full of assumptions that, no matter how many times or ways we may explain what we said and why, will not be enough to convince naiad that we know what we meant to say and it was not what she assumed ... unless a drastic change has occurred that I am unaware of.)

The above comments are referring to the fact that Isis and I have dared to question the validity of certain points of the article ... thus suggesting that the way we chose to approach this article is somehow wrong and implying that we are to accept the article as truth, whole or partial, without considering all sides of this topic for ourselves.

Changing the topic

"my point is that even if this article is not helpful to you, it may be to others. why do you wish to convince me, and/or others, otherwise?"

"why do you have so much invested in discounting this article, to the point of deliberately twisting and misconstruing this discussion about it???"

(Which is also glaringly inaccurate, as I've already stated.)

"why is it so necessary to "prove" this article to you"

(Again, not accurate.)

"why does this disturb you so"

(Also an assumption as I am in no way "disturbed" by this article.)

"it's your tenacious insistence that there is nothing of benefit or use in this article that is truly baffling to me....you've labelled it illogical and cheesy."

(Gigantic assumptions and huge errors of comprehension regarding what I wrote and what naiad understood.)

"as you have this ongoing, burning need to "disprove" or "prove" everything about it."

(Also incorrect, an assumption, and wholly exaggerated.)

All the above also fall into Repetition as naiad is not only changing the topic from the article at hand and instead focusing on myself and Isis individually but has continually reiterated the false notion that Isis and I are out to debunk the entire article, insult anyone who may have seen any smidgeon of truth in it, and are hell bent on convincing everyone of what we believe.

Logical Fallacies

Simply look above to some of the quotes I've posted to see how this thread is full of naiad's logical fallacies regarding what I believe, am trying to say, the reasons why I'm posting here, etc. For example, when I wrote

"(Not trying to mock people here, just referring to my own leanings of "MC" being too loaded and Sci-Fi a label and putting me in mind of a cheesy B flick.)"

I was very clearly referring to the phrase "mind control" itself ... not the concept of mind control in general. That was rather the point of me referencing The Celestine Prophecy which is in many ways referring to a kind of "mind control" though the phrase "energy battle" is, imo, less loaded and clearer. But somehow, naiad turns that into me saying the entire concept of mind control (which exists outside of this one article and which I also find fascinating) is "cheesy".

******

Or am I just being paranoid?

******

Now, it could be that I went through so much "trouble" and "effort" because I have something "vested" in "convincing" people and am "disturbed" by this topic.

Or, it could be that this post took me less than 20 minutes and was just a simple example of how some of the things pointed out in the article can be seen as being too broad in some cases.

PS Anything which I have stated in this post that refers to how I have not stated same in previous posts is not intended to suggest that anyone else stated that I stated such things. Yes, I am repeating myself. I assure you I am not conscious of attempts to mind control anyone through repetition here. I just want to make sure I am being clear ... which is apparantly something I fail at regularly considering how many times I am misunderstood. I do keep trying to do better.

posted July 26, 2007 08:33 AM            

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, honestly, reading over the tactics in the article, jwhop certainly isn't one who comes to mind aside from name calling which most everyone has done over time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Isn't that his trademark?

---

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking. Sorry. I did say "aside from name calling" because I know he has done/does do it and so do many others. What exactly are you saying is his trademark aside from name calling?