General Interest => Thought Reform => Topic started by: Awake on January 29, 2011, 06:56:35 PM

Title: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Awake on January 29, 2011, 06:56:35 PM

I thought that one of the most important topics to discuss for program survivors is the topic of Dissociation, as it is a subject of focus for anyone who has endured a traumatic experience. However I think it is a particularly important subject as it relates to troubled teen programs, and there are many issues of which Dissociation is at heart of the matter. There are a few questions/ issues that I find come to attention:

1.   Dissociation has been an explanation for mental illness and for the hypnotic state that pre-dates Psychoanalysis, yet only recently has received general acceptance.

2.   Dissociation is the influential precursor to Freud’s Psychoanalysis, with remarkable impact such as on Freud’s theory of the unconscious/ conscious mind, yet Psychoanalysis had initially rejected the concept of Dissociation. However it survived in less dominant fields.

3.    Dissociative reactions, such as PTSD, or even Dissociative Identity Disorder, that can result from extreme situations faced in troubled teen programs, and possible unevaluated or misinterpreted symptoms.

4.   The creation of Dissociation as an intended therapeutic aim in considering certain program histories and influences, and the implications of ‘dissociation/ re-association’ approaches  in forced therapy concerning identity and personality formation, particularly in adolescents.

So I think it is an issue with several controversies, and I also think it is a pretty interesting subject. I am also curious if others will identify with dissociation as an experience and/ or possible intention of their program. For now I’m going to quote some articles that hit upon some broader points in this regard in order to get more specific.

“The National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
VOLUME 8. NUMBER 3 ISSN 10.50-1835 S1MMER 1997

Charles R Marmar, M.D.
Department of Psychiatry,
University of California, San Francisco and
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center, San Francisco

The past decade has witnessed an intense reawakening of interest in the study of trauma and dissociation. In particular, the contributions of Janet, which had been largely eclipsed by developments within modern ego psychology and cognitive behavioral therapy, have enjoyed a resurgence of interest. Putnam (1989) and van der Kolk and van der Hart (1989) have provided a contemporary reinterpretation of the contributions of Janet to the understanding of traumatic stress and dissociation. Recent research on the interrelations among trauma, memory, and dissociation is presented in a forthcoming book by Bremner and Marmar.

Paralleling the resurgence of interest in theoretical studies of trauma and dissociation, there has been a proliferation of research studies addressing the relationship of trauma and general dissociative tendencies. Chu and Dill (1990) reported that psychiatric patients with a history of childhood abuse reported higher levels of dissociative symptoms than those without histories of child abuse. Carlson and Rosser-Hogan (1991), in a study of Cambodian refugees, reported a strong relationship between the amounts of trauma the refugees had experienced and the severity of both traumatic stress response and dissociative reactions. Spiegel and colleagues (1988) compared the hypnotizability of Vietnam combat veterans with PTSD to patients with generalized anxiety disorders, affective disorders, and schizophrenia, as well as to the normal comparison group. The group with PTSD was found to have hypnotizability scores that were higher than both the psychopathological and normal controls.

Recent empirical studies have supported a strong relationship among trauma, dissociation, and personality disturbances. Herman and colleagues (1989) found a high prevalence of traumatic histories in patients with borderline personality disorder. A profound relationship has been reported for childhood trauma and multiple personality disorder (MPD). Kluft (1993) proposes that the dissociative processes that underlie multiple personality development continue to serve a defense function for individuals who have neither the external nor internal resources to cope with traumatic experiences. Coons and Milstein (1986) reported that 85% of a series of 20 MPD patients had documented allegations of childhood abuse.

Similar observations have been made by and Putnam and colleagues (1986), who reported rates of severe childhood abuse as high as 90% in patients with MPD. The nature of the childhood trauma in many of these cases is notable for its severity, multiple elements of physical and sexual abuse, threats to life, bizarre elements, and profound rupture of the sense of safety and trust when the perpetrator is a primary caretaker or other close relationship.

Peritraumatic Dissociation. The studies reviewed dearly demonstrate the relationship between traumatic life experience and general dissociative response. One fundamental aspect of the dissociative response to trauma concerns immediate dissociation at the time the traumatic event is unfolding. Trauma victims not uncommonly will report alterations in the experience of time, place, and person, which confers a sense of unreality of the event as it is occurring. Dissociation during trauma may take the form of altered time sense, with time being experienced as slowing down or rapidly accelerated; profound feelings of unreality that the event is occurring, or that the individual is the victim of the event; experiences of depersonalization; out-of-body experiences; bewilderment, confusion, and disorientation; altered pain perception; altered body image or feelings of disconnection from one's body; tunnel vision; and other experiences reflecting immediate dissociative responses to trauma. We have designated these acute dissociative responses to trauma as peritraumatic dissociation.

Although actual clinical reports of peritraumatic dissociation date back nearly a century, systematic investigation has occurred more recently.  Wilkinson (1983) investigated the psychological responses of survivors of the Hyatt Regency Hotel skywalk collapse in which 114 people died and 200 were injured. Survivors commonly reported depersonalization and derealization experiences at the time of the structural collapse. Holen (1993), in a long-term prospective study of survivors of a North Sea oil rig disaster, found that the level of reported dissociation during the trauma was a predictor  of subsequent PTSD. Koopman and colleagues (1994) investigated predictors of posttraumatic stress symptoms among survivors of the 1991 Oakland Hills firestorm. In a study of 187 participants, dissociative symptoms at the time the firestorm was occurring more strongly predicted subsequent posttraumatic symptoms than did anxiety and the subjective experience of loss of personal autonomy.” - ... iation.pdf (

Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia

The unconscious is like a great holding area or reservoir of unprocessed events. Anything we don't or can't assimilate consciously goes there. The unconscious holds irrelevant things such as images of strangers we see on the street. It also holds important things that need to be brought into conscious awareness but may be too big to fit our existing system (conscious mind). There are times when people are unable to fully assimilate the significance of an overwhelming experience such as a car accident. One of the passengers calmly calls an ambulance, administers first aid, and reroutes oncoming traffic. Once the ambulance arrives, she falls apart and cries hysterically. In order to take care of the immediate priorities, she dissociated her feelings and emotions temporarily….

Children rely extensively on adults for interpretation. Their developing comprehension is largely fashioned after that of their parents or caregivers. If caregivers are emotionally damaged, their own skewed view of the world is imposed upon their children.

Unresolved issues in the parents' unconscious are misinterpreted for the child. This is a common phenomenon known as projection. For example, if parents feel shame but cannot admit it, they may deny it, separate themselves from it, disown it, dissociate from it, and project it onto their children. They then condemn their children as being shameful. In psychology this is described as retaliatory defense. In other words, the shame the parents have within themselves but cannot accept is expressed by shaming the children. In fact, the less parents are able to accept the "monster" within themselves, the more readily they are able to see it in their children.

Emotionally troubled parents frequently reinforce skewed interpretations with abuse. If the abuse is extreme, as practiced by destructive families, a child's conscious world becomes overwhelmed. The extreme abuse is dissociated into the unconscious, but it cannot be made to fit, even in a misinformed way. The trauma remains dissociated. To survive, children tap into extraordinary coping skills, fashioned from within their own unconscious.

Clinical (Amnestic) Dissociation

Our instinctive reactions to an assault are fight or flight. However, neither works when children are abused by sadistic adults. The only option left is to freeze, and take flight through the mind. A common initial coping mechanism is to escape the body. It is the beginning of clinical (amnestic) dissociation, which allows a shutting out of an unbearable reality. It is held unassimilated---in effect, frozen in time. A dissociated experience can be split up to store the emotions separate from bodily sensations, and the sensations separate from the knowledge of an event. In dissociating an experience, children split off a part of their self to hold the trauma. In some cases the dissociated aspects of self, immediately or over time, form their own and separate sense of self….

Some children maintain a complete split between their everyday life and the abusive episodes. They may be seen smiling when posing for family photographs. Perpetrators often use such photographs to prove there is nothing bad going on….

Clinical Diagnosis

Aftereffects of trauma are still being researched, and diagnostic terminology continues to evolve. Some existing terms are being retired and new terms are being proposed. In keeping with evolving trends and thinking, we will use the term post-traumatic reactions to indicate the overall condition; and the terms post-traumatic fear, dissociative experience, and dissociative identity to indicate the most prevalent reactions. Professionals are recognizing that post-traumatic reactions exist on a continuum, and many survivors use more than one coping strategy to survive. Trying to arrive at an exact diagnosis using existing terminology can be complex. It is sometimes more confusing than helpful to try to find the right "label."

The current list of specific diagnosis includes but is not limited to PTSD, also know as Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSS); various dissociative disorders, which include Depersonalization Disorder, Dissociative Fugue, Dissociative Amnesia, and Dissociative Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (DD-NOS); Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), formally referred to as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD); and catatonia or catalepsy….” - (  -

Dissociation - Current List of Specific Diagnosis (2003)
(Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia)
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

The development of characteristic symptoms following a psychologically distressing event that is outside the range of usual human experience. The characteristic symptoms involve re-experiencing the traumatic event, avoidance of stimuli associated with the event or numbing of general responsiveness and increased arousal. This group of symptoms was initially recognized in conjunction with other types of trauma. Professionals noticed that some survivors of car accidents had reactions similar to those of soldiers returning from combat. In the past this group of symptoms was alternately called shell shock, battle fatigue, or combat neurosis.

With PTSD, aspects of the traumatic event are dissociated, but the event is not forgotten. Treatment usually focuses on processing the unassimilated parts of the trauma by giving expression to it, thereby healing the aftereffects. The trauma may be re-experienced through dreams, behaviors, emotions, and bodily responses. Sometimes the trauma or aspects of it are re-experienced through flashbacks, nightmares, night terrors, and/or startle responses. Although symptoms of PTSD may feel frightening and are a cause of great distress, they are the body/mind's attempt to heal. The trauma is breaking through into conscious awareness, where it can be assimilated and healed. (DSM-IV)

PTSD is characterized by:

-recurrent or intrusive distressing recollections of an event( images, thoughts, perceptions)
-re-experiencing the trauma of the event through dreams or flashbacks
-feelings of emotional numbness and detachment from others
-irritability or exaggerated startle responses, or hyper-vigilance
-sleep difficulties
-anger or anxiety
-difficulty concentrating
-physiological responses to situations or events that symbolize or resemble the original stressful event or situation.

Symptoms of the disorder may occur within hours of the stressful event. Or they may not appear until months or years later” - ( -

“This is a prepublication version of the version published in the Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2005, 18(5).

-Dissociation: An Insufficiently Recognized Major Feature of Complex PTSD-

Onno van der Hart - Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Ellert R.S. Nijenhuis Cats-Polm Institute, Zeist and Mental Health Care, Assen, The Netherlands
Kathy Steele -Metropolitan Psychotherapy Associates Atlanta, Georgia


The role of dissociation in (complex) PTSD has been insufficiently recognized for at least two reasons: the view that dissociation is a peripheral, not a central feature of PTSD, and existing confusion regarding the nature of dissociation. This conceptual paper addresses both issues by postulating that traumatization essentially involves some degree of division or dissociation of psychobiological systems that constitute personality. One or more dissociative parts of the personality avoid traumatic memories and perform functions in daily life, while one or more other parts remain fixated in traumatic experiences and defensive actions. Dissociative parts manifest in negative and positive dissociative symptoms that should be distinguished from alterations of consciousness. Complex PTSD involves a more complex structural dissociation than simple PTSD.” [/b]- ... 20ptsd.pdf (  -

“Dissociation is a partial or complete disruption of the normal integration of a person’s conscious or psychological functioning.[1] Dissociation can be a response to trauma or drugs and perhaps allows the mind to distance itself from experiences that are too much for the psyche to process at that time…

HistoryThe French philosopher and psychiatrist Pierre Janet (1859–1947) is considered to be the author of the concept of dissociation.[12] Contrary to most current conceptions of dissociation, Janet did not believe that dissociation was a psychological defense.[13][14][15] Psychological defense mechanisms belong to Freud's theory of psychoanalysis, not to Janetian psychology. Janet claimed that dissociation occurred only in persons who had a constitutional weakness of mental functioning that led to hysteria when they were stressed. Although it is true that many of Janet's case histories described traumatic experiences, he never considered dissociation to be a defense against those experiences. Quite the opposite. Janet insisted that dissociation was a mental or cognitive deficit. Accordingly, he considered trauma to be one of many stressors that could worsen the already-impaired "mental efficiency" of a hysteric, thereby generating a cascade of hysterical (in today's language, "dissociative") symptoms.[12][16][17][18] Despite this, clinicians have routinely preferred Freud's motivational explanation of dissociation as a defense against pain or displeasure to Janet's explanation that dissociation is due to constitutionally-impaired mental efficiency. Clinicians' preference for the Freudian explanation is directly reflected in today's most popular understanding of dissociation; namely, that dissociation is a defense against trauma.

Although there was great interest in dissociation during the last two decades of the nineteenth century (especially in France and England), this interest rapidly waned with the coming of the new century (Ellenberger, 1970). Even Janet largely turned his attention to other matters. On the other hand, there was a sharp peak in interest in dissociation in America from 1890 to 1910, especially in Boston as reflected in the work of William James, Boris Sidis, Morton Prince, and William McDougall. Nevertheless, even in America, interest in dissociation rapidly succumbed to the surging academic interest in psychoanalysis and behaviorism. For most of the twentieth century, there was little interest in dissociation. Discussion of dissociation only resumed when Ernest Hilgard (1977) published his neodissociation theory in the 1970s and when several authors wrote about multiple personality in the 1980s.

Carl Jung described pathological manifestations of dissociation as special or extreme cases of the normal operation of the psyche. This structural dissociation, opposing tension, and hierarchy of basic attitudes and functions in normal individual consciousness is the basis of Jung's Psychological Types.[19] He theorized that dissociation is a natural necessity for consciousness to operate in one faculty unhampered by the demands of its opposite.

Attention to dissociation as a clinical feature has been growing in recent years as knowledge of post-traumatic stress disorder increased, due to interest in dissociative identity disorder and the multiple personality controversy, and as neuroimaging research and population studies show its relevance.” - (  -


Pierre Janet originally developed the idea of dissociation of consciousness from his work with hysterical patients. He believed that hypnosis was an example of dissociation, whereby areas of an individual's behavioural control separate from ordinary awareness. Hypnosis would remove some control from the conscious mind, and the individual would respond with autonomic, reflexive behaviour. Weitzenhoffer describes hypnosis via this theory as "dissociation of awareness from the majority of sensory and even strictly neural events taking place." (  -

…. I found the above to be an important wide angle to begin with. I will follow with more specific issues of dissociation and what that could mean in programs…..
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Awake on January 29, 2011, 07:00:41 PM
I hope that this will be a very interesting look into Pierre Janet’s period of influence on Freud, psychology, hypnosis, dissociation, and his approach to mental illness. I chose to highlight  portions of the article, but here for full review ( .

Pierre Janet And Dissociation: The First Transference Theory and Its Origins In Hypnosis
John Ryan Haule (
This article was published in the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 29(2) (October, 1986): pp. 86-94.

‘Abstract. This paper describes Pierre Janet’s pioneering work in the area of hypnosis which was based on suggestion and dissociation. Janet was the first to describe somnambulism as a phenomenon whereby two or more states of consciousness are dissociated by a cleft of amnesia and seem to operate independently of one another. Janet’s early understanding of rapport also had roots in dissociation in that the patient seemed unable, due to dissociative restriction of the conscious field, to perceive anyone other than his own therapist. The implications of this dissociated conscious field for treatment led Janet to provide structure in therapy by assigning tasks and to mirror the patient’s experience rather than to confront it. These techniques are important even today in the treatment of dissociated states. ‘ [/i]

The French hypnotist Pierre Janet (1859-1947) is the source for most of the dissociation theory to be found in the writings of C. G. Jung (1946/1966). Janet began his career as a philosopher, who used hypnosis to explore the dissociative propensities of the human mind. Following his doctoral dissertation in philosophy, he rapidly completed a medical degree and, with the sponsorship of J. M. Charcot, opened a laboratory at the Salpêtrière in Paris, where he continued his research into the nature and treatment of dissociative conditions. Hypnosis continued to be his investigative tool and therapeutic intervention of choice because it was, in his view, a form of dissociation. "Hypnotism may be defined as the momentary transformation of the mental state of an individual, artificially induced by a second person, and sufficing to bring about dissociations of personal memory" ( Janet 1919/1976 , p. 291). "Dissociation" is the key word in the definition; he means the phenomenon that we presently see as diagnostic of multiple personality, that is, the simultaneous development of subpersonalities, parallel memories, in complete ignorance one of another.

Janet is also the nearly forgotten founder of the analytic tradition in psychology. Breuer and Freud (1895/1957, p. 12) credit him and other Parisian dissociationists with some of the fundamental discoveries which made their Studies on Hysteria possible. Although he was born 3 years after Freud, Janet’s reputation as a psychological investigator was already more than a decade old when Freud published The Interpretation of Dreams. Probably two factors concerned with style more than anything else account for the nearly century-long eclipse which has dimmed Janet’s influence upon twentieth-century psychology. The first of these is Janet’s stubborn nineteenth-century belief in the triumph of careful, plodding, scientific investigation. His style is dry, his images often very mechanical, and as Ellenberger points out (1970, p. 408), he did not cultivate a troop of disciples to champion his methods and principles. The other factor is Janet’s faithfulness to hypnosis, which had come into vogue around 1880 and then passed again into disrepute shortly after the turn of the century. Janet learned very early in his career the "contaminating" side effects of suggestion and, therefore, became very careful to imitate Pasteur (he liked to say) and keep his "cultures isolated." It was not without some bitterness, therefore, that he finally gave up his attempts to convince the world of psychology that hypnosis was a very powerful model and tool for investigation and therapy: "Hypnosis is quite dead until the day of its resurrection" (Janet, 1919/1976, p. 203).

Because of his dry style and because he almost never discusses a case fully from start to finish, it is possible to read a great deal of Janet’s voluminous output (15,000 published pages according to Schwartz, 1951, p. 31) without fully appreciating his sensitivity to the emotional intensity of the rapport and the effects it may have upon the patient….

Given this inconsistency, Janet’s accurate, detailed descriptions of the rapport are particularly surprising. He describes it variously as "influence," "adoption," and "electivity." In rapport, the patient has "adopted" the therapist as the axis of his universe….

Because of this dissociative mechanism, the patient declares that his therapist is "the only person in the world able to understand him" (Janet 1919/1976, p. 1155). Janet calls this "a strange illusion," for "it is by no means certain that we do understand them." Rather, their act of adoption means "that they themselves have made up their minds to talk seriously" (Janet, 1919/1976, p. 1156).

Janet had recognized this phenomenon already in the late 1880’s; he argued with Binet, who believed that Janet’s greater success with Lucie than any other hypnotist was due to the greater intensity of Janet’s suggestions. Janet insists that "It is due to the quality and not the intensity" of the suggestion. Specifically, it is the quality of the command’s being tied to the person of Janet himself ( 1889/1973 , p. 185). Rapport, in this early period of Janet’s career, was seen as a kind of a "negative hallucination" for everything but the hypnotist. It is as though the patient is "anaesthetic" for all sensory phenomena except the person, voice, and commands of the therapist. In the dissociation-generated sensory void in which the hysteric or "somnambulistic" finds himself, he (unconsciously) "elects" to perceive the hypnotist.

In his 1896 address to the International Congress of Psychology (published in 1898/1925), Janet says that many of these facts were already known to "the old magnetizers" (citing Bertrand, Dupotet, Charpignon, Noizet, and Despine d’Aix, whose books were published 40 to 80 years earlier). These earlier researchers were in agreement that rapport is characterized by (a) the patient’s inability to tolerate contact with any but "his own" hypnotist, (b) the patient’s "own" hypnotist being the only individual who could "put him to sleep," and (c) the patient’s inability, due to the dissociative restriction (rétrécissement) of his conscious field, to perceive anyone other than his own therapist.

Janet referred to the hypnotic process as " influence somnambulique ." Before 1900, Janet saw "somnambulism" as the essential condition, of which hysteria, hypnosis, multiple personality, and spiritualism were variations….

Janet describes the patient as having sentiments and thoughts about the hypnotist which he has never had before, a mixture of fear and affection, sometimes with hallucinatory images. Such phenomena are not found in patients who have been hypnotized only rarely or who have been hypnotized by a large number of hypnotists (Janet 1898/1925, p. 452f). In short., it represents an intense relationship with the therapist, precisely the kind of situation in which "transference" phenomena are most likely to appear. Furthermore, Janet deems a rapport of this kind indispensable for the cure….

In the third phase, which Janet calls " la periode de la passion somnambulique, " The apparently curative effects of the hypnotic influence have disappeared and the original symptoms have returned. In addition, however, the patient now has a great longing to be "put to sleep" (artificially dissociated) and is obsessed by the thought of "his own" hypnotist….

…. He tells us ( Janet, 1919/1976 , p. 1163) that a relationship of "influence . . . cannot possibly be established" without spending a great deal of time alone with the patient. "If you wish (the patient) to adapt himself to your personality, begin by adapting your own personality to his" (Janet, 1919/1976, p. 1170)…

Whereas Kohut’s concern is to describe a mechanism for the curing process, and Janet’s researches -- especially in the first 30 years of his career -- focus on the dissociated states attained by his patients, particularly important is the state he refers to as "complete somnambulism," the paradigm for what the Paris school of hypnosis hoped to achieve. Subjects capable of attaining the state of complete somnambulism were rare; indeed, Janet likened the quest for the perfect patient to the alchemists’ search for the philosophers’ stone (Janet, 1919/1976, p. 84) His brother Jules came near to finding such a patient in Marceline

Janet refers to Marceline as "une Félida artificielle," a reference to Azam’s famous patient from the 1860’s, "Félida X, who spontaneously passed from a debilitated personality to a fairly healthy one and back again. As the years went by, the healthier personality predominated more and more. Felida X was the "philosopher’s stone" of the Paris school of dissociationism, for her story proved that a healthy personality may reside within the neurotic, alongside or below the pathological personality(s). Janet’s "artificial" Félida, however, became pathologically addicted to her relationship with her hypnotist. When he tried to diminish this by holding less frequent and shorter sessions, she began to starve herself even more (Janet, 1910, p. 344). A similar situation occurred with the patient Janet calls Irène, who at one point seemed to have been cured of hysteria through complete somnambulism but reappeared 6 years later with a less debilitating but more persistent neurosis (Janet, 1919/1976, passim).

The stories of the imperfectly complete somnambulistics, Marceline and Irène, show a rather typical three-stage development: an opening phase of rapport building, a phase of somnambulistic influence in which the symptoms disappear for days or weeks at a time, and an addictive passion somnambulique in which the need for direction is so strong that the patient’s neurosis requires more and more frequent and lengthy sessions.

From this it seems evident that the real "philosopher’s stone" in Janetian psychology is not the perfect patient, the "artificial Félida," but rather the perfect rapport. Clearly, he had hoped to cure Marceline and Irène solely by means of inducing in them a profound state of hypnotic trance. The notion of "complete" somnambulism implies that the dissociated individual has a core personality which is whole. This healthy core can be reached when the patient trusts in and submits completely to the hypnotherapist. He does not direct her to outer activities but rather inwardly to her own healthy self. Her submission, the crucial element in the transformation, cannot be won by any means except through a powerful, affect-laden rapport which closely resembles erotic love.

 Janet’s explanation for his failures with these patients is that the primary cause of the rapport, the morbid need to be directed (besoin de direction), isa two-edged sword. On the one hand, no cure is possible without the rapport it makes possible. But on the other hand, the need to be directed is itself a primary symptom of the disease, which disappears when the patient is cured….

… the theories and methods of psychoanalyst and hypnotist Milton Erickson are quite compatible with those of Janet. Whereas Janet seems to have believed that he used hypnosis less and less as his career progressed, an Ericksonian, expanded view of hypnosis dispenses with the ritual of trance-induction as essential to the hypnotic process. Consequently, Erickson and his followers could subscribe wholeheartedly to Janet’s guidelines for adapting his own way of thinking to that of the patient:

"Our intervention needs to be masked; we must lead them (the patients) to believe that the decisions come from themselves, must allow for them to reap the full benefits of the work in hand" ( Janet, 1919/1976, p. 546). – excerpts from: (

Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: starry-eyed pirate on February 03, 2011, 08:35:48 AM
Thanks for your contribution, Awake.  Here's an old thread that might interest you.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11479&p=127884&hilit=pseudo+personality#p127884 (
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: starry-eyed pirate on February 04, 2011, 10:17:39 AM
Ah, it's a kind of a crazy ol post from when I first came around here, and it gets a little personal but, anyway, it tells the story fairly well and I'm more interested in understanding than I am in acquiring any kind of social prestige.
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Froderik on February 04, 2011, 10:34:04 AM
Quote from: "starry-eyed pirate"
Ah, it's a kind of a crazy ol post from when I first came around here, and it gets a little personal but, anyway, it tells the story fairly well and I'm more interested in understanding than I am in acquiring any kind of social prestige.

Right on, pirate.. it's a good read, I checked it out yesterday.. . I remembered having read it back then. Same with me, I look for understanding wherever I can get it, and if i don't have to resort to seeing a shrink about it so much the better...although at this point I would gladly see one if possible (I still have yet to talk to one about Straight.)

After getting out of Straight Inc I experienced a lot of what you mentioned in that repressing my natural spontaneity, for instance..

I remember feeling pretty awkward around people, including my old friends...and i didn't want to talk about Straight at all. I didn't even want people to know i had been there...I was embarrassed of it, if anything. It would have been easier to explain a lot of things to the average joe...but no one i knew had much (if any) knowledge about the place...
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: starry-eyed pirate on February 04, 2011, 11:01:53 AM
:roflmao: ...o. Man. Yeah.  :rofl:

social-identity-crisis-breakdown.  whoA! ...Gettin burned by the sun...
O0 :peace:  :poison:
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: starry-eyed pirate on February 04, 2011, 11:45:57 AM
I think the low affect is one of the most peculiar effects of the trauma, if "trauma" is really even the right word.  I would rather call it "imprisonment".  or "punishment".  Low affect is the inability to react spontaneously.  It means your face is dead, doesn't express emotion.  It comes from having to hide your natural inclinations under the threat of psychic destruction, having to hide who you are for every waking moment for the duration of your captivity.  Keeping secrets was a way of protecting identity.  But you could never betray yourself in group so you had to always be on your toes, so to speak, ready to deflect, twist, spin or turn any accusation that the group might lay on you into something you "felt good about".  You had to hide your "real self" behind your adopted $tr8 personality.  It seems that I maintained separate selves... separate identities, as a survival tactic.  Hmph. Such is Life.

Yeah, and I think the longer you were in there the worse it was.  The 1st time I copped out of $tr8 I was on day 64, and when I met my ol "druggie" girlfriend, I couldn't speak to her naturally.  I had to force the slang in an awkward way and it was noticeably uncomfortable, and I didn't even know how to act with her, it was surreal, but if I hadn't been returned to the program after 2 days, I think I could've made a pretty quick recovery, although, I would never think of my parents in the same way again. If I hadn't been kept there so long, I might've escaped the development of hardcore foreign mental attachments and patterns in my habitual thinking, which once established became practically unconscious, leaving discrepencies in my life, I still can't even describe.  The people who told me, years ago, to "just get over it" are quite naive.  It takes a very long time to even look at with any objectivity.

The struggle for dominance between "selves" becomes more pronounced after the program pressure fades, and the "real self" begins to slowly re-assert itself within the context of an adult world your not ready for.  The social pressure to function in the society is so great though, that one finds one's self assuming a characterization of some archetypal identity in order to cope, as in my case, the "redneck personality".  So that after a while there are 2 eminence fronts, or public selves, the $tr8 personality and the coping, "redneck personality".  They are on the surface and together take up most of the whole, while underneath the wounded and fragile, "real self" struggles to return.

As the realization slowly dawns on you that you're separate selves/identities are in conflict with each other, you are primed for the grand-mal breakdown.

I think, $tr8 was one of the really harsh programs and if you were in there for 6 months, or even less, to a year or more I'd expect you to have experienced some similar form of the psychological shuckin and jivin. The longer you were in there the greater the potential for lasting psychological damage.

Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: seamus on February 04, 2011, 12:34:52 PM
Low affect is also a gardenvariety symptom of depression, which Ive concluded kinda comes with the territory. Some times too its like havig been drained,or depleted of some emotional material, just feelin empty like theres just nothin there,little if nothing to react with.Like an old car thats just plain out of gas.
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Awake on February 04, 2011, 01:24:06 PM
Quote from: "starry-eyed pirate"
Thanks for your contribution, Awake.  Here's an old thread that might interest you. ... ty#p127884 (

That is exactly what I was trying to get at in this thread, thanks Pirate. I read your post and it is very strikingly smilar to what I experienced in the after effects of Cedu, and other accounts I have read. I  can relate to much of what was said. My ability to communicate with people suffered in a way I couldn’t figure out. It was like I was always questioning whether I couldn’t trust other people, or myself, and seemed like trying to connect with others just added to my confliction. It seemed like there were times I was convinced my instincts were wrong and I just needed to trust others, but somehow I couldn’t judge my boundaries correctly because I’d be too open, or get taken advantage of, or maybe I was just misinterpreting it all. So then there were time I was convinced that people were manipulative, or fake, and even deluded to the point that they don’t know that’s what they are doing. I sort of took the attitude that people were ultimately going to take advantage of me even if they didn’t know it, I found myself being defensive and off-putting to people who were joking around or being friendly. At times I questioned if I was crazy or if everyone else was, either way I felt I had to accept that I could not identify with others and felt isolated with or without them. I also struggled with the program philosophy in the same way. Did that thinking really represent the nature of the people around me? If not people are certainly much better at maintaining false impressions than me. If they are being genuine, then I am just different. At times I was so distrustful of myself I wondered if the program was right about me, and I couldn’t even tell for myself how I was supposed to be myself. I actually let those Cedu tools seep in at times, all of them are pretty distinctly for the purpose of dissociating, or splitting the self concept into parts and putting them in conflict. Something I was going to bring up.

It is always difficult to try to judge from the perspective of any program but my own, but I have to wonder if creating dissociated states of mind was the overall intention, to crush the individual will by plaguing the mind with inner conflict and self doubt.
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Froderik on February 04, 2011, 02:00:17 PM
Christ almighty...this sort of thing can make it that much more difficult to live with another person.

Over the years I clung to people for survival, but hardly ever minded being alone.

I split on at least four women over the years, without even telling them I was leaving. Left a note once.
I'd take a cab or a plane and be moved elsewhere just like that, usually over what amounted to nothing..
Just because i somehow couldn't deal with living with someone..I had difficulty resolving everyday differences that arise in most relationships...

Like you, I sometimes could get to wondering what people are about, and whether i might be the one who is sane..

I try to be the easy-going type, but it doesn't always pan out that way...  :wall:  :timeout:  :heartbreak: :ftard:
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: dragonfly on February 04, 2011, 03:29:22 PM
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: dragonfly on February 04, 2011, 03:47:46 PM
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: starry-eyed pirate on February 04, 2011, 04:53:04 PM
Yeah, Awake, your post rings like a bell. Total social confusion. The misinterpretations.  Not even knowing where your boundaries were. That can even be more traumatic than the time spent in the program, well, in some ways.  Just because the pressures of the real world are on you by then and though you need time to reintegrate, the world aint gonna wait. ... You've been kidnapped, tied up, taken way an held for ransom...

And I really think all the instilled guilt and shame is a huge deal too, cause before the program I never felt that way.  I didn't have a "conscience".  That was something they developed within me.  And I learned how to feel guilty and ashamed.  And I have been manipulated and enslaved by those ideas ever since.  No one talks about it.  You just finally, somehow get out, and have to cope, there is no time to search for answers, this makes everything much more difficult, when if someone could have explained what we have discovered, here, for ourselves, on fornits, shortly after I got out, then I might have saved so much wasted time, but anyway...
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: starry-eyed pirate on February 04, 2011, 04:59:28 PM
Quote from: "dragonfly"
The whole Diedrich acid experience consciousness transmitted across the generations, inbred with the communists and there I was 16 months of a collective contact high replicating Chuck Diedrich's trip...
:roflmao:  :tup:  O0
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Awake on February 05, 2011, 12:54:45 AM
I am intending to connect a particular line of influence with this post that may point to earlier roots of program philosophies related to dissociation, I think it ties in with the discussion so far, however this may be more interesting in relation to CEDU, as it points to the philosophy behind the “I and ME” propheet. Although the Cedu version contained a hodgepodge of distortions, I don’t think you’ll find this to be an unrelated coincidence.

Divided Consciousness: Multiple Controls in Human Thought and Action. Ernest R. Hilgard 1977

Ch.1 Divided Consciousness and the Concept of Dissociation

“The unity of consciousness is illusory. Man does more than one thing at a time – all the time – and the conscious representation of these actions is never complete. His awareness can shift from one aspect of whatever is currently happening inside his body or impinging on him from without, or events that are remembered or imagined. Furthermore, as an active agent, he is always making decisions and formulating or implementing plans, and he likes to believe that he exerts control over what he is doing; often, however, he may be deceived about the causes of his behavior.” P.1

“The problems of conflict, indecision, self- deception, on one hand, and persistence toward deliberately set goals, on the other, are important and baffling. Psychologists have proposed a number of ways of accounting for the manner in which an individual controls his behavior, especially when one kind of control is set against another, as in the voluntary – involuntary distinction, or the conscious-subconscious distinction. “

“Common criticisms of multiple personality make the assumption that this is a so called iatrogenic disease – that is, a disease created by the physician treating the person. The criticism has often been made, early voiced as a danger by Janet, and by William James, who was worried about one of Prince’s earliest cases. After hearing a lecture by Prince, James said:

It is very easy in the ordinary hypnotic subject to suggest during a trance the appearance of a secondary personage with a certain temperament, and that secondary personage will usually give itself a name. One has, therefore, to be on one’s guard in this matter against confounding naturally double persons and persons who are simply temporarily endowed with the belief that they must play the role of being double.” -- Divided Consciousness: Multiple Controls in Human Thought and Action. Ernest R. Hilgard 1977

(Ernest Ropiequet "Jack" Hilgard (July 25, 1904 - October 22, 2001) was an American psychologist, professor at Stanford university, who became famous in the 1950s for his research on hypnosis, especially with regard to pain control. Along with André Muller Weitzenhoffer, Hilgard developed the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales from the 1950s onwards. - (     )

“Although there was great interest in dissociation during the last two decades of the nineteenth century (especially in France and England), this interest rapidly waned with the coming of the new century (Ellenberger, 1970). Even Janet largely turned his attention to other matters. On the other hand, there was a sharp peak in interest in dissociation in America from 1890 to 1910, especially in Boston as reflected in the work of William James, Boris Sidis, Morton Prince, and William McDougall.”      

“Over a hundred years ago, in his Principles of Psychology (1890), William James put forward a fascinating account of the self. In that theory, he makes a distinction between two aspects of self, the self as subject, or the "I", and the self as object, or the "Me."  James goes on to investigate the nature of these two aspects of self. He concludes that the me comes in three basic types: the "material me", the "social me", and the "spiritual me." As for the I, James concludes that, at least for the purposes of psychology, there is no need to postulate a subject of experiences, a metaphysical I that goes beyond the physical being who does the thinking. Rather, he concludes that 'the passing thought ... is itself the thinker'….

The main distinction that James draws at the beginning of his chapter on Self in Principles of Psychology (1890) is between the self as known (or me) and the self as knower (or I)

The issue of what is most central to the self appears once again in James discussion of the spiritual self, which he defines as " either the entire stream of our personal consciousness, or the present 'segment' or 'section' of that stream, according as we take a broader or a narrower view " (1890, Vol. I, p. 296):

When we think of ourselves as thinkers, all the other ingredients of Me seem relatively external possessions. Even within the spiritual Me some ingredients seem more external than others. . . . The more active-feeling states of consciousness are . . . the more central portions of the spiritual Me. (James, 1892, p. 181)

These active-feeling states are "the very core and nucleus of our self, as we know it."

And these states are "often held to be a direct revelation of the living substance of our Soul." But whether this is so or not is "an ulterior question," a question James attempts to answer when he turns to what constitutes the self as knower, or I.

James sums up his view of the self as knower or I and its relationship to the me:

The consciousness of Self involves a stream of thought, each part of which as 'I' can remember those which went before, know the things they knew, and care paramountly for certain ones among them as 'Me,' and appropriate to these the rest. (1892, p. 215)  

The I which knows these past thoughts and appropriates them, "for psychological purposes" is neither a "Soul" nor "transcendental Ego" outside of time. "It is a thought at each moment different from that of the last moment, but appropriative ofthe latter, together with all that the latter called its own" (1892, p. 215).

James' logic here is that, since the stream of thought is constantly changing, there is no reason to suppose some "fixed" entity beyond the stream itself. Rather, there are "pulses of consciousness" or thoughts, which are unified in themselves, involving, among other things, the immediate awareness of the body, and that these thoughts, as I's can remember and appropriate prior thoughts in the stream:

The nucleus of the 'me' is always the bodily existence felt to be present at the time. Whatever remembered-past-feelings resemble this present feeling are deemed to belong to the same me with it.

” -- ... l_Self.htm (

George Herbert Mead  (1863–1931) was an American philosopher, sociologist and psychologist, primarily affiliated with the University of Chicago, where he was one of several distinguished pragmatists. He is regarded as one of the founders of social psychology and the American sociological tradition in general.

A final piece of Mead's social theory is the mind as the individual importation of the social process. As previously discussed, Mead presented the self and the mind in terms of a social process. As gestures are taken in by the individual organism, the individual organism also takes in the collective attitudes of others, in the form of gestures, and reacts accordingly with other organized attitudes. This process is characterized by Mead as the "I" and the "Me." The "Me" is the social self and the "I" is the response to the "Me." In other words, the "I" is the response of an individual to the attitudes of others, while the "me" is the organized set of attitudes of others which an individual assumes.[17] Mead develops William James' distinction between the "I" and the "me." The "me" is the accumulated understanding of "the generalized other" i.e. how one thinks one's group perceives oneself etc. The "I" is the individual's impulses. The "I" is self as subject; the "me" is self as object. The "I" is the knower, the "me" is the known. The mind, or stream of thought, is the self-reflective movements of the interaction between the "I" and the "me." These dynamics go beyond selfhood in a narrow sense, and form the basis of a theory of human cognition. For Mead the thinking process is the internalized dialogue between the "I" and the "me."  Mead rooted the self’s “perception and meaning” deeply and sociologically in "a common praxis of subjects" (Joas 1985: 166) found specifically in social encounters. Understood as a combination of the 'I' and the 'me', Mead’s self proves to be noticeably entwined within a sociological existence. For Mead, existence in community comes before individual consciousness. First one must participate in the different social positions within society and only subsequently can one use that experience to take the perspective of others and thus become self-conscious.

Mead is a major American philosopher by virtue of being, along with John Dewey, Charles Peirce and William James, one of the founders of pragmatism.” -- (

I don’t know but, dissociation, hypnosis, the I and me, internal conflict…. Sounds a lot like Cedu to me, and add emphasis on a divided self concept in which one part is ‘real’ and the other is like an infection that needs to be exorcized, as indicated  by ‘running your anger’ at your ‘thinking’ in raps. (At cedu the tool of the “I and me’ is the “I” is your thinking which lied and could not be trusted, and the “me” was your feelings which was the real you. You were encouraged to cathartically play out this fight in raps.) All the tools were like that, and dissociation was a common theme. Very much of the time people were not yelling at each other, they were yelling at themselves. Yet again, it is very hard to tell what is ‘genuine’ in these displays, for they were always under the pressure from staff and peers. You had to be ‘working on yourself’.

I actually did not go through this propheet as it was at the end of the program, although I witnessed  that tool in action in raps on many occasions. Maybe some others can weigh in on this here. I get the feeling the I and Me was also a silent homage to the hidden influences preceding Cedu in a way.
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: seamus on February 05, 2011, 03:18:59 AM
dude, I have no problem with you or your brother. I dont care whos "rehab" was worse. what I care about is that things get passed down,so that dumb assed, non thinking parents dont do the injustice or puttin kids into a damaging ,nightmarish situation. now hav ing said that(sorry space key sticks) just where do YOU think the school of thought,that the people who fucked YOUR life came from. Im out o straight,but I realise theres more than 1 way to become fuct. the thing is how it got to be from point "a" to point "b:   tell the world,and then you both kill the demon that has allready hamstrung us,and you warn potential prlacements of parents because 20% of them(and im being super generous) might see the truth of how truly damaging this bullshit is. This thing is beyond the Idea of who was a "staff member" ( I was too). dfo what you gotta do but fuck dude it s bigger than pride. I dont do shit to hurt any survivor onthis forum,lookit up,l didnt our programs fuck us hard enough? Im just sayin givr your 2cents (i know its there). about what really went on what really caused it ,and how to dodge/change it.      I positivly refuse to get into the Idea of "an x staffmember said thus and so" fuck that,Im one too. and in stasnding here,thrying my balls off to be a better man than ive been inthose days. I dont hate you and I think you are misunderstood. You should say your bit. but for the obvious,please be careful how you say it. man , cmon be better than a "moderator"
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: starry-eyed pirate on February 05, 2011, 09:35:33 AM
Quote from: "starry-eyed pirate"
 ...No one talks about it.... if someone could have explained what we have discovered, here, for ourselves, on fornits, shortly after I got out, then I might have saved so much wasted time, but anyway...

...and just to be clear, I don't mean to imply that a quick little explanation would've made everything alright, but say, for example, if someone would'a' handed me Robert Lifton's book about the Brainwashing in China within a few weeks of graduation, and been willing to discuss it with me, then I think a whole lot of confusion and wasted time and energy could've been avoided.  No one debriefed us.
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Froderik on February 05, 2011, 10:32:18 AM
Quote from: "starry-eyed pirate"
Quote from: "starry-eyed pirate"
 ...No one talks about it.... if someone could have explained what we have discovered, here, for ourselves, on fornits, shortly after I got out, then I might have saved so much wasted time, but anyway...

...and just to be clear, I don't mean to imply that a quick little explanation would've made everything alright, but say, for example, if someone would'a' handed me Robert Lifton's book about the Brainwashing in China within a few weeks of graduation, and been willing to discuss it with me, then I think a whole lot of confusion and wasted time and energy could've been avoided.  No one debriefed us.

Things got interesting once the internet became commonplace, like a color TV, everyone has it now..let me text ya about what's going on in group, lol. So now people are reading (and then posting) about what happened to them as soon as they get out...

You get the feeling that the string-pullers at the top of the str8 pyramid didn't figure on this "talking out in group," even though it's 20 years after the it's a different world now in that regard...

Yeah it would have been good to have been debriefed.. things might have been a little different...then again, it would have been good to have never gone in at all, but we will never know what that is like, either..
Title: deleted September 8, 2011
Post by: Judge Joe Brown on February 05, 2011, 04:16:42 PM
deleted September 8, 2011
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Awake on February 05, 2011, 06:54:27 PM
@ Gatekeeper

I think there was always emphasis on ‘feeling’ being the real you  with the ‘truth’ and ‘little kid’, maybe not as explicitly stated like in the ‘I and me’. But I do seem to remember that this propheet gave staff the ability to attack a students ‘thinking’, by saying ‘that’s your thinking’ and essentially blame your ‘head’ for getting in the way of your ‘feelings’.  Wasn’t “I” associated with “thinking”? (Wasn’t the towel exercise a fight between I and Me?) I remember lots of language like ‘you’re in your head’, and that was generally recognized as a bad or ‘not the real you’. This is what I remember from raps, just like the rest of the tools, ‘you’re not living your Truth, that’s your Lie’, and so on.

I think my main point was to show that there is something extremely ironic in that the “I and ME” was originally a theory of consciousness developed by William James who at the time was carrying on an all but dead tradition in hypnosis and dissociation, and who also believed that schizophrenia, literally a split  mind, can be created by the therapist. Actually I think all the tools suggest that that was the intention, extreme polarizations of personality traits. I mean, what was all that screaming at the floor yelling ‘fuck you’ about as if there is someone else in your head. This was not a healthy thing for staff to emphasize, they were teaching us to manifest psychotic symptoms.  And the propheets, no sleep, exhausting exercises, heavy emotional stimulation, the whole thing was to hypnotize you and dissociate you to  produce a state of mind where you are most suggestible to others influences, ....I’m pretty sure.
Title: deleted September 8, 2011
Post by: Judge Joe Brown on February 05, 2011, 07:29:48 PM
deleted September 8, 2011
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Awake on February 05, 2011, 09:13:52 PM
Nicely stated Gatekeeper,  somewhat related to what I was about to post. One comment I would add though is that, despite all the external pressures, you were supposed to be 100%accountable for your feelings. When people made others ‘snap’ staff jumped on it like salivating dogs to ENCOURAGE the catharsis, ‘That’s right, what are you feeling right now! Don’t hold back! What are the feelings!’. And by that time you couldn’t do anything but agree with them and express your rage. And then it was ‘yeah, just stop holding back on your feelings and let everyone in’ like it was something they didn’t instigate.
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Awake on February 05, 2011, 09:19:08 PM
I normally don’t like to post information that I myself would find hard to believe if I had not experienced something relatable, but I found this paper on dissociation and trauma that hits on the specific subject of the use of dissociation for carrying out mind control. This is the part I am focusing on below. Some of it might be extreme but I think certain principles translate to how programs maintain control.

Dissociation, A Normal Response To Trauma

Mary Laura English

Initially written for a Special Research & Technical Writing Project, Spring Quarter, 2002,
Currently being revised for publication

Dissociation, a Normal Response to Trauma

Stress from Life’s Experiences Affects People Nearly 400,000 New York residents took an emotional battering from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to the World Trade Center twin towers. As a result of the attacks, more than a half million people have sought mental health treatment.1 The above New Yorkers were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This disorder uses a natural human ability called dissociation. In this paper we will address dissociation and how it comes into play in our everyday life, as well as in times of extreme stress.

What is Dissociation?

When the word dissociation is brought up, most people think of the Three Faces of Eve movie. Contrary to Hollywood’s portrayals, dissociation is a normal human capability used by everyone. Most of us understand association—where there is a connecting or joining together of things. Dissociation is when what should be together is separated. For example, association is when a person’s sight, sounds, smells, feelings, thoughts, meaning, memory, actions, and sense of identity are together. Dissociation happens when one or more of these elements is missing.2  Dissociation helps us cope with a wide range of situations—from the common and ordinary to traumatic events….

Dissociation Is On A Continuum

The uses of dissociation can be seen on a continuum.5 Figure 1 illustrates this continuum. From left to right the usage of dissociation unfolds from our responding to everyday common experiences, to our reacting to emergency crises, to our handling of trauma-related survival situations.

Figure 1 Dissociation Continuum
-Acute Stress Disorder
-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
-Dissociative Identify Disorder
-Structured Mind Control   ….

Structured Mind Control

Everyone is vulnerable to mind control. This is clear from the huge amount of money spent on commercial advertising form of mental suggestion or subtle mind control. Also, by the use of mind control methods people are “converted” daily into religious cults, like the Moonies.

Although cults use similar techniques, like sleep deprivation, structured mind control is more sinister. Victims who have been through structured mind control are not aware of having been programmed on cue to perform an “assignment” given to them.

Structured mind control takes advantage of the fine-tuned dissociation in DID victims. More complex programming is used. Therapists are increasingly recognizing these cases across this Nation and refer to them as either crossover abuse or marionette syndrome.38 In mind control conditioning, programmers structure a victim’s life to perform a suggested behavior when triggered by a cue or signal.

USA and Canadian governments have funded a number of mind control programs.39 One set of documents at the Center for National Security Studies in Washington DC uncovered 80 institutions, 144 colleges or universities, 15 research facilities or private companies, 12 hospitals or clinics, and three penal institutions in the USA and Canada involved in the mind control experiments. After eight years of litigation, 75 USA mindcontrol victims’ cases were settled out of court.40

This programming originated with Nazi German scientists during World War II. The German scientists experimented on human subjects to see how much abuse they could absorb and to use the better-trained victims for specific war assignments. Dissociation was perfect for espionage cases, in case the victim on assignment was arrested. These scientists were brought to the USA and South America during the World War II. Some of the programming went under the name of Monarch (butterfly) or MKULTRA.41 …

Every human being has basic needs: physical (hunger, warmth, and sex), safety and security, love and belonging, self-esteem, and selfactualization. A cult will deny or manipulate these fundamental needs at the critical stages of a child’s development. A cult will use torture, terror, extreme pain, sexual arousal, drugs, electroshock, sleep/food/water deprivation, temperature extremes, loud noises, or strobing lights. These perpetrators will use any technique within the cult settings to induce a deep trance to produce dissociation. In addition, threats, trickery, and deceit are used to build helplessness and hopelessness—to isolate the victim to the control of the perpetrators.50

The above methods also are used to break the will of prisoners of war. Only children of ritual abuse are not trained soldiers but children. The tormentors are not a recognized enemy, but the child’s parents. There is no escape or end to the child’s “war.” Ex-POWs know that they were tortured and brain washed. But with dissociation, victims of ritual abuse are not aware.51

…. The best way to keep a group’s abuse secret is by maintaining dissociation in their members. Coercion is what maintains dissociation. Therefore, cult programming needs to be repeated, or the victim’s mind will attempt to dismantle the programming and break free of it. To keep programming from breaking down, lessons, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and responses are paired up with cues or signals—just like the use of cues in hypnosis….
…. the purpose of these cues or signals is to trigger discomfort, bring up intrusive memory or programming, avoidance, and/or extreme fear in the victim….

The Making of a Perpetrator

Before coming down too hard on programmers52—those who plan and/or carry out the abuse/cult training—let’s look at how a perpetrator is made.

Ritual abuse programming begins with a very young child. The perpetrator’s goal is control over his/her victim’s mind. With the child exposed (usually nude) and vulnerable, the perpetrator becomes the allpowerful.

A programmer will use planned strategies to create and maintain dissociation. Putting the young victim in a double bind is one technique. An example would be the programmer ordering the victim to kill a puppy or his/her mother would be killed. The choice to kill the puppy to save his/her mother is then used against the child, as the young child is told that he/she is a bad person—a murderer. Placing the victim in a lifethreatening test with rules that suddenly change at the whim of the torturer is another technique. Changing the rules of the game is frustrating to anyone. To a child whose safety is at stake, it brings submission, a broken will.

To survive the child will deny him/herself and go along with the perpetrator. Intuitively the child will comply with the torturer in order to anticipate and control the abuse the only way that seems possible. Satisfying the perpetrator becomes the only thing that matters, for only when the perpetrator is pleased and finally satiated will the torture end.53 And in the process the very young child assumes the identity of his/her torturer and becomes a perpetrator.54 …” - ( -
Title: deleted September 8, 2011
Post by: Judge Joe Brown on February 07, 2011, 03:57:23 AM
deleted September 8, 2011
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Froderik on February 07, 2011, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: "The gatekeeper"
Quote from: "Awake"
Nicely stated Gatekeeper,  somewhat related to what I was about to post. One comment I would add though is that, despite all the external pressures, you were supposed to be 100%accountable for your feelings. When people made others ‘snap’ staff jumped on it like salivating dogs to ENCOURAGE the catharsis, ‘That’s right, what are you feeling right now! Don’t hold back! What are the feelings!’. And by that time you couldn’t do anything but agree with them and express your rage. And then it was ‘yeah, just stop holding back on your feelings and let everyone in’ like it was something they didn’t instigate.

Yes, I remember that well.  There is another aspect I find troubling about CEDU.  What lengths did children go through to program themselves, for the sole purpose of avoiding pain?  This concept may be uncharted waters on fornits.  I don't know.  This wasn't meant as a negative towards anyone.  Children knew when they were going to get "blown away" in raps.  They had to build themselves up mentally so they didn't look vulnerable in from staffer's POV.  Ultimately, this resulted in  a sense of paranoia.  This has affected many survivors today.

This is a very interesting got me thinking about to what extent that environment may have affected me when it comes to dealing with conflict (of any kind) nowadays. I suppose that would have to be evaluated somehow in order to come to any conclusion there. I can tell you that I experience anxiety whenever I anticipate (and I'm VERY intuitive about these intra-personal things) conflict. This may be a 'normal' reaction in those situations, but i don't have a litmus test for this...I don't know how much of that is residual program-instilled fear...but I get really anxious if I anticipate a conflict.. and if someone starts escalating the situation by raising their voice or whatever, I get increasingly agitated to the point of wanting to get out of the situation.
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: dragonfly on February 07, 2011, 06:58:16 PM
Title: Re: the DISSOCIATION issue
Post by: Awake on February 22, 2011, 02:12:55 AM
I recognize a lot of what is said in the last few posts. The anxiety related to confrontation, the acts of self preservation taken in the face of those threats that are self destructive or destructive to others, the social distortion from ‘working’ or ‘gaming’ the program in a way that insinuates you are ‘fake’ or ‘out of touch with yourself’ and challenge you to continually express a more ‘genuine’ belief in the program philosophy, which becomes the interpersonal game.

I remember that much of the time people were more willing to attack themselves than defend themselves against others if you were anticipating being ‘blown away’ in raps.  Alot of direct attacks took place under the presupposition that someone’s behaviors, attitudes, and emotions made it an ‘unsafe’ environment for the rest of the group to ‘open up’ and ‘work’ on themselves. If their was nothing to confront each other about, we would have to talk about our issues, I don’t know, I still can’t tell how much of any of that was really genuine or if the game of acting ‘genuine’ just got so out of control no one could guage interpersonal reality anymore.

I seem to remember it all beginning with arriving in the clutches of other students who were enforcing the (mostly trivial) rules with that attitude of ‘just do it, this is how you get by here, trust me just play along and you’ll be better off.’ And so I did, and I learned how to stay ‘under the radar’ by learning to ‘genuinely’ be in line with the program. Next thing I knew it was me guiding the new student through in the same way ‘trust me just play along, I’ll help you get by’.  Somewhere around here I think I lost my bearings on reality and started gaming myself, and distrusting my instincts.

…I had already heard several relatable stories before this thread, I just haven’t heard it equated with dissociation. One aspect of this that I don’t want to ignore is that evidence suggests many programs intended to create a dissociative effect.  Eruptions of ptsd symptoms are commonly associated with stimuli that were present during the dissociated event called triggers. Confrontation can be one of those triggers. Though I know little else about Gatekeeper other than he attended Cedu, I am sure the mere mention of a particular song or two (correct me if I am wrong) will have him recalling some very particular, maybe very private memories of the cedu experience.  It could possibly even re- cathect a personality that was adopted as a defensive response to the situation. And is it possible that that was the point? (What’s your little kid’s name Gatekeeper? Don’t answer that.) During the propheets they would play the same songs over and over for hours.  These songs were pretty much the only music we were allowed to hear the whole time at cedu. And it is pretty much impossible to hear any of that music without recollecting that place. I think it is quite purposely to install reactive triggers that work just like ptsd.  

…. One last thing I would note about Cedu ‘brainwashing’ so to speak, is that it began by infecting you with the notion that you had already been brainwashed. You were a fake or a ‘lie’ and you didn’t even know it, and if you didn’t believe it you would at least act like it. You were literally considered to be ‘in your shit’ if you imbibed any of your previous interests and attitudes.  There was another thread on fornits something like ‘why you can’t fake it’. That is true, you couldn’t fake it.