Fornits

Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) => Topic started by: BuzzKill on January 06, 2006, 12:52:00 PM

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: BuzzKill on January 06, 2006, 12:52:00 PM

Quote:

Hegelian Dialect is a perfect example of what J. Budziszewski (What We Can't Not Know, pp. 187) termed the "black magic spells of imposture and unraveling." Hegel's form of dialectics is itself an impostor. It effectively unravels truth and norms and then replaces them with a 'new truth' which is yet another impostor.

Hegel's 'black magic' Dialectics is the unholy diesel that fires the engine of the weapon of mass destruction being wielded by traitorous Americans and their New Age internationalist cohorts against America's traditional worldview and cultural infrastructure. This weapon is called "group dynamics" or the "consensus process." It's a psycho political behavior and belief modification technique that was used by Vietnamese communists against American POWs and by Chinese communists against dissidents. All individuals have an inherent fear of being alienated from the group, and by psychologically manipulating this fear skillful change-agents (facilitators) can manipulate or herd the victim towards a preplanned conclusion which induces the victim to compromise his own position. This is the consensus process, and when we hear Liberals screaming for 'consensus," they're really demanding that they be allowed to 'facilitate' the abandonment of Conservative principles.


Full Artical:


Psychopolitics: Erasing Christianity through the 'Consensus Process"
TownHall.com ^ | Dec. 13, 2005 | Linda Kimball

Posted on 12/13/2005 1:22:47 PM PST by Lindykim

"Not too many years ago, Americans had never heard of sensitivity training, and if a facilitator of it had tried to convince them that they needed to be conditioned by it, he would have been told, very quickly and in no uncertain terms, to take a hike.  However, step by careful step, sensitivity training began to be stealthily inserted into our society.  Today, Americans simply submit to it without much thought, let alone any protest."  ("Psychopolitics: Joe Six-Pack and the Crocodile" Linda Kimball)  

Sensitivity training, hate-crime laws, political correctness, multiculturalism, and the group dynamics and/or 'facilitated consensus process'---all of these alien constructs are psycho political manifestations of evolutionary humanism, the malevolent system of warped morals and anti-human philosophy that is making war upon America's founding Christian-Judeo worldview.  

The definition of psycho politics is as follows:  "Psychopolitics is the art and science of asserting and maintaining physical and mental dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and the masses, thereby conquering enemy nations through "mental healing."  (Russian Manual on Psychopolitics, by Laventi Pavlovich Beria, head of the Soviet Secret Service Police and right hand man of Joseph Stalin)  

In 1947, Julian Huxley, head of UNESCO at that time, wrote a book titled, "UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy."  His book was a blueprint for a New World Order that called for one religion, one language, and one way of thinking.  He believed a global order could be brought about through the universal, albeit secretive, implementation of Hegel's Dialectic process.  

Huxley observed, "The task before UNESCO?is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose."  Huxley spoke of two opposing worldviews confronting each other from the West and the East.  In describing them he said, "You may categorize the two philosophies as?individualism versus collectivism or as the American versus the Russian?or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism.  Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis?  I believe?this can happen?through the inexorable dialectic of evolution."  

The concept of dialectics has been around for a long time.  Noah Webster (1828 edition) defined dialectics as: "That branch of logic which teaches the rules and modes of reasoning."  Simply stated, dialectics refers to 'position' versus 'opposition' or 'thesis' versus 'antithesis.'  By the traditional rules of conduct, if thesis is correct then it follows logically that antithesis is incorrect.  Georg Hegel, an Enlightenment shock trooper of evil, discarded the rules and turned the concept upside-down by equalizing thesis and antithesis, which resulted in moral relativity.   'New truth' is now found in something called 'synthesis.'  

Hegelian Dialect is a perfect example of what J. Budziszewski (What We Can't Not Know, pp. 187) termed the "black magic spells of imposture and unraveling."  Hegel's form of dialectics is itself an impostor. It effectively unravels truth and norms and then replaces them with a 'new truth' which is yet another impostor.  

Hegel's 'black magic' Dialectics is the unholy diesel that fires the engine of the weapon of mass destruction being wielded by traitorous Americans and their New Age internationalist cohorts against America's traditional worldview and cultural infrastructure.  This weapon is called "group dynamics" or the "consensus process."  It's a psycho political behavior and belief modification technique that was used by Vietnamese communists against American POWs and by Chinese communists against dissidents.  All individuals have an inherent fear of being alienated from the group, and by psychologically manipulating this fear skillful change-agents (facilitators) can manipulate or herd the victim towards a preplanned conclusion which induces the victim to compromise his own position.  This is the consensus process, and when we hear Liberals screaming for 'consensus," they're really demanding that they be allowed to 'facilitate' the abandonment of Conservative principles.  

There are three steps to the consensus process.  They are called, "Unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level and, freezing group life on the new level."  In order to speed up the unfreezing phase, communists resorted to physical torture.  In America, emotional pain precipitated through vicious psychological bullying (character assassination, labeling, spreading lies, etc) is the preferred method.  

There are four key elements necessary for a successful 'consensus process' operation.  They are:

(1)multicultural and/or diverse groups fueled by resentment and envy (necessary for causing social conflict)

(2)a social issue around which conflict can be created (example: Christmas, which is labeled 'exclusionary, insensitive, and hurtful' to diverse groups)

(3)the dialoguing to consensus process (psychological manipulation leading to abandonment of principles and positions)

(4) a predetermined outcome (example: Christmas parades successfully recast as 'Festival of Lights" or "Winter Holiday" parades that are inclusive of gay pride celebrants)  

The consensus process is yet another example of Budziszewski's "black magic spells of imposture and unraveling."  It's been so successful that Christianity has been banned from government on all levels, from schools, and increasingly from public areas.  Christians have lost their jobs, been jailed, and their children harassed and even suspended for daring to express their Christian beliefs in any way.  Anti-Christian bias has become so bad that John Gibson (Fox News anchor) observed, "It's no longer permissible to wish anyone Merry Christmas.  That's too exclusive, too insensitive.  What if they're not Christian?  What if they're an atheist?  A school in Maryland is now questioning Thanksgiving because, after all, to whom are we giving thanks if not to God, and we all know we can't have that in public?Yes, Virginia, there is a war on Christmas."  (Introduction, "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.)  

And now a word from New World Order facilitators:  

"We have battled in America since the century's turn to bring to nothing?all Christian influences and we are succeeding.  You must work until officials of city, county, and state will not think twice before they pounce upon religious groups as public enemies. (there must) be a?foaming hatred of religion?a belief that Christian practice is vicious, bad, insanity causing, publicly hated and intolerable."  (Russian Manual on Psychopolitics)  

"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology.  Its importance has been?increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda.  Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class.  The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated."  Bertrand Russell  

John Gibson asked a Eugene, Oregon city manager why he had banned Christmas trees.  His properly mind-conformed response, "Well, because they're Christian" (pp. 87). This manager and countless scores of other Americans testify to the enormous success thus far achieved by psycho political operatives.  Having been "unfrozen" from the level whereon America's traditional worldview resides and successfully 'moved' to the desired level and then 'frozen' there, they now serve their new masters desires by mindlessly destroying the source of both their liberties and their human worth---Christianity.  

"Oh but, Christianity has nothing to do with either the founding of our nation or with our rights and freedoms!" exclaim mind-conditioned scoffers and skeptics.  The truth has been 'hiding' in full view, but because their minds have been darkened by black magic spells and their eyes made sightless by black magic dust, the mind-conditioned can neither see nor hear the truth.  Right there in Huxley's words is the truth, for in speaking of his blueprint he inadvertently 'confessed' to it when he said of the two opposing philosophies, "You may categorize the two philosophies as?Christianity versus Marxism."  

Cain "Dialogues to Consensus" with Abel  

His blackened soul seething with diabolical envy, silver-tongued Cain manipulates Abel into trusting him.  "Come, my dearly beloved brother.  Let us take a nice long walk and speak of our need for equality, fairness, inclusion, and democracy.  We will 'dialogue to consensus.'  See this nice strong cudgel?  I'll carry it so as to ensure that no harm befalls us.  Trust me, Abel---I'm your loving brother!"  

Copyright Linda Kimball 2005

Sources:

"Legalizing Mind Control" by Berit Kjos

"A Chronological History: The New World Order" by DL Cuddy, PhD

"Reinventing the World" by Berit Kjos

"The Russian Manual on Psychopolitics" Laventi Pavlovich Beria

About the writer: Linda is a writer and author of numerous published articles and essays on culture, politics, and worldview.

*[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2006-01-06 10:00 ]

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Troll Control on January 06, 2006, 02:33:00 PM

This is a surprisingly idiotic article.  Right-wing Conservatism IS the American conformity factory.

It is a well-established fact that Liberals tend to be "intellectuals" and Christian Conservatives tend to be "dogmatists."  

Using your own critical thought process, which one of these groups would be more likely to extirpate free will?

Pretty lame article from a suspected crack-pot.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Troll Control on January 06, 2006, 02:36:00 PM

From Linda Kimball's website:

"STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: To inform readers on the expanding socialism, globalism, and multi-culturalism, along with the consequences of false teachings of progressivism, the deference to special interests, exposing the Left and its communist roots, and the erosion of moral values and the impact on America's culture and freedoms."

I retract my earlier statement.  She is a confirmed crack-pot.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: BuzzKill on January 06, 2006, 03:00:00 PM

I don't take the premise of the article to be that Christianity (or any faith) is the answer to the problem of these programs*.

I think it is more about how Christianity is a barrier to the efforts of the facilitators in LGAT. The reason for this is b/c Christians are so "dogmatic, inflexible, intolerant and judgmental". Being so, makes it hard to convince them that their is no right or wrong, and that they should set aside their beliefs to becomes part of the greater group - those who are none of these awful things, and who are "growing" emotionally.

The larger picture is about the problem the Christian presents to those who want this New World Order established. Being as dogmatic, inflexible, intolerant and judgmental as they often are - they are a problem to the formation of one world government and religion.

The Christian has become the hated "them" and all others (except the Jew) the beloved "us" in the politics of the New World Order thinking that is overtaking Europe and much of academic America.
More and more the thinking goes that they must be gotten rid of. This is to be attempted with "education". For education, read thought reform.

Now, the reason I feel the premise is correct is my own experience with the program seminar junkies. It was my dogmatic, inflexible, intolerant and judgmental self I was determined to defend. It did indeed serve to insulate me from the thought change process on the BBS, and was the only reason I was opposed to what I was learning the seminars to be.

It also served to make me a bit of a problem in school - I tended to argue with my teachers. Some liked this and encouraged it and others hated my guts for it.

On the BBS, this tendency to question and debate these issues was not welcomed at all. This went a long way to prove to me what it was I was involved with, and to getting my son pulled.

All of it a result of my Christianity.

Now - before anyone jumps in to crucify me - I am well aware many of the most horrible programs are "faith based".  I have often explained how upsetting this is to me personally; and rest assured I have done what I can to protest this with more influential Christians.

*I do believe it could be - but this isn't saying I think it will be.

PS
Yeah this author is coming from a hard right perspective that is bound to grate against any leftist leanings. Still, try and get past this to what she is saying about thought reform and I think you may see she has a point. Or not. Worth thinking about and debating anyway.

*[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2006-01-06 12:06 ]

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: BuzzKill on January 06, 2006, 04:44:00 PM

About Pat R and his comment - Please believe me when I tell you much of Christendom is groaning and rolling their eyes, once again, over the man's comment. Most wish he would think more before he speaks. Most are beginning to wish he'd retire.
Sharron's poor health is a consequence of being a human being, aging - no more and no less. It is the Christian's duty to pray for the Peace of Jerusalem - not to gloat over the poor health of her prime minister.

I'm glad you found the article thought provoking. That's all I hoped for when I posted it.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: BuzzKill on January 06, 2006, 05:17:00 PM

I was going to also say - about the mega Churches -
Personally, I like a large church. The reason? I can attend when I want to, and not have to answer to a lot of others about where I was the week before. I can dress casually and not be embarrassed about it - as in these very large churches there are masses of folks also dressed casually. I have found the theology sound in the "mega" church I attend - and that is important to me. If they depart from sound teaching, I can cease attending and no one will miss me. This suites me. I like it that way.

Others prefer the closeness of a small congregation - but I find the church politics to depressing in these small churches. In a large church, these things are far less obvious to the average attendee. No doubt it still occurs - but not among men and women I have come to think of as friends - who turn vicious with one another over trivial issues. When and if it occurs in the large church - I don't have to know about it.

Also - I like the diversity. In the mega church there are All kinds of people. There are a lot more young people, and a lot more people of color. There is obvious wealth - but lots of folk wearing "blue collars". This is more like what the body of Christ is supposed to be, IMO, as opposed to the limited diversity found in the average small congregation. I feel these large churches are more like what Heaven will be  -  very diverse.

Also - I like the music. Yes, it does seem more commercialistic - but it is good music that gives honor to God - and I enjoy it.

Lots of folk are appalled by "rock" music in church - but I enjoy the energy as well as the message.

My experience with smaller congregations have not been positive. So far, I have very much enjoyed attending the local Mega church.


BTW - that hypocrisy you speak of - that is not what Christ would have in His church if men and women would live according to His teaching.
In other words - it is not the Savior's fault, that the saved are so in need of saving.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: AtomicAnt on January 07, 2006, 08:47:00 PM

The author of the article clearly knows nothing about Hegel, history, humanism, or politics. What a hack job! A complete mess that is so incoherent and twisted there is not a single logical construct in it worth refuting. The author is a quack. Either that, or the whole thing is satire. Your call.

Why is it that Conservative Christians like to point to 'liberals' and cry "anti-christian conspiracy." That is so ridiculous it is pathetic.

As a liberal, I assure you that I am not involved in any conspiracies and as for consensus building, that is nothing more than a three dollar term for 'coming to an agreement.' Is the author seriously saying the Christians and Conservatives are not consensus building within their own ranks?

When I get into political debates, I like to point out that my father is a conservative and I am a liberal for the same reasons.

 My father is conservative because he believes in smaller, less intrusive government and decentralized solutions. He believes that local people are closer to and have a better understanding of local issues. He thinks the governement should mind it's own business and stay out of our families and busnesses as much as possible. In other words, My father believes in individual freedom and choice. My father is not a religious man.
 
I am a liberal because I find conservatives do exactly the opposite of what they say. I find that conservatives want to force everyone to adhere to their narrow vision and morality. As a liberal, I believe people should be allowed to live pretty much as they please (even alternative lifestyles) without outside interference.

So, you see, my Father and I are both individualists. We believe that any government should favor individual freedom and choice.

I have problems with both liberal and conservative platforms. I see conservatives as being hypocrits. The espouse 'free market' when what they really mean is pro-big business and corporate welfare. They espouse traditional values when what they really mean is forced adherance to a narrow set of values. They claim they are for smaller government but the last three Republican presidents increased the size of government and only the last Deomocratic President (Clinton) actually reduced the size of government. They claim 'family values' and undermine the family economically at every turn.

On the other hand, Liberals grate on my nerves because of their nanny-state approach. Nothing is more grating to me than the very programs the author talked about, sensitivity training, hate crimes, etc. I am also against seat belt and helmet and gun laws because I value individual freedom over regulation. I also like my violent video games, foul language in lyrics, and sex scenes in movies. So I despise the nanny-state which seeks to protect me from myself.

The reason I am liberal is because I must allow for alternative lifestyles (freedom) and because I believe we are our brother's keeper. There are people in our society that are too young, too old, too ill, mentially ill, or just too stupid to care for themselves. I believe it is our (society's) responsibility to care of these people and the best way to do that is through government programs. I also believe we need the government to protect us from the way-too-powerful and amoral coroporations that control so much of our lives and steal our public resources.

My nine-year-old son asked his Mom what the difference was between a conservative and a liberal. I liked her answer. She said, "Conservatives care more about money than people, and Liberals care more about people than money."

My response was, "Conservatives steal my money and give it to people that are richer than I am. Liberals steal my money and give it to people who are poorer than I am." I stole that from somewhere and can't remember the source.

Since we are on Fornits, I would also like to point out that it is the conservative Republican Party that supports programs and the tough-love approach. Forcing people to adhere to their value system is morally okay in their outlook.

Finally, I choose the Democratic Party because they don't have one vision of what the world should look like. The Party is fragmented on many issues. Because of this, there is a willingness to throw away policies that fail and try something else. Republicans call this flip-flopping. I call it reassessing one's position based on new and current information.

Republicans, on the other hand, adhere to an idealist position and refuse to change even when science, history, logic, reason, and experience, demonstrate they are wrong. But at least you always know where they stand.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Antigen on January 07, 2006, 10:44:00 PM

AA, I think you're right about ppl who call themselves Conservatives. But that doesn't mean the Dempublicans are any better. Never mind what they say, watch what they do.

When Clinton was in office, he was just about the perfect Conservative. He got the economy headed in a better direction, which was painful as hell what with all the outsourcing resulting from all those well intended mandates for worker and consumer benefits and such. (sorry, nothing's purely good)

But on the social liberty side? We got "don't ask, don't tell" which is Jaberwokee for absolutely not a goddamned thing. On drug policy we got the first ever military General instead of a medical professional or schollar as head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. We got 100k more cops on the beat, making it more like impossible than difficult for the old guard to stave off the cultural invasion of the `80's era elite counterdrug taskforce mentality (and funding, don't forget all the buckets of hard cash plus expanded civil property forfeiture powers)

Then there was the clean indoor air act. Now there's freedom for ya! In Florida, you can neither allow smoking in the back room of the bar which you own nor choose a bar that allows smoking. It is verboten.

No, I think the only way out is a real distribution of power. Not to the individual states and commonwealths, but to the individual. And how to do that? I think Peter McWilliams had some pretty sound thinking on that point.

Here's his whole book online.
Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do:
The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes
in Our Free Country
http://mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/ (http://mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/)

There are others, frankly I don't care for them. The only other one I was just dying to read was "What do do if your guru sues you", about how he wrote all those others while he was in a cult and how the shit hit the fan when he and his royalties escaped.

Interesting dude, interesting life, all too damned short, though. I really think he had the potential to become the next Mark Twain (or at least remind the world that American authors can be lovable and brilliant assholes)

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie-deliberate, contrived, and dishonest-but the myth-persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
--John F. Kennedy, U.S. President

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Antigen on January 07, 2006, 10:55:00 PM

On the premis of the article (Karen's).

I hear what you're saying and see what you're seeing, but I still think you're misatributing the source.

I learned some pretty solid ethics and values from the people who schooled me. My dad said he was an athiest, but what he taught me and what the decons and pastor and christian school teachers taught me meshed perfectly wherever they weren't quite identical. These folks had a lot going for them. They were adventurous young couples who left Holland, Michigan to start a church in Florida. No one knows why, but they did, maybe cause the pastor had made that big an impression on them and he was up for it. His kids were in grade school or maybe the oldest in highschool then.

They also happened to be Christians. But I haven't met many like them. Really, more of the Muslims and Budists I've met seem to have similar values and manners than Christians. And when I went back to that school a few years later to stop and say hi, things were a little less ... happy? Friendly? Comfortable? It was tense. The next time, maybe 6 years ago I went there for some old records, it was downright creepy! Same building, same dogma, same practices and rites, same name on the sign outside, even some of the same people (just one or two, who looked war weary, the rest were strangers)

To me, it looks like the Christian factor is a whole lot of coincidence. It just happens to be the predominant dogma in this place and time And by "this place", I don't mean the world or America, but Apalachia. I do love it here and for good reasons. Christians here don't take out hits on elected foreign presidents nor wish prime ministers dead. Instead, they vote out of office lunatics who want to teach religion as science and science as religion.

All good things come from Pittsburgh. Hell, Hippy's practically from Pittsburgh.  ::rainbow::

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
--Philosopher, Blaise Pascal

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: BuzzKill on January 08, 2006, 01:14:00 PM

I realize most will want to argue that there is no conspiracy against Christianity - but I was hoping what the author is saying about mass thought reform might strike a cord with some others.

Naturally the politics irritate - but I don't agree this makes the author a hack. She seems pretty well informed to me - even if she would disagree with the majority opinion.

As for the "conspiracy" against Christians - this isn't really want I was hoping to debate - but I find this plausible, and I have been seeing sings of this for decades now. I first noticed it in High School and have been watching the trend every since. This last presidentinal election went a long way to convincing me that there has been a great deal of success in portraying Christians as mindless, selfish, intolerant and hateful - a group of people that need to be Stopped. I feel this widely held belief that they need to be stopped, will gradually, in future days, evolve to: they must be gotten rid of. They are a plague and a hindrance to the progress and betterment of mankind. That, I think, is where we are headed.

I mentioned the past election. My personal experience with the result was to receive several emails, from long time friends (as well as a couple phone calls) expressing great anxit & extreme despair, that they found themselves living in a fascist country. A place were Christians were able to shang high the public will. A country headed down a path of selfish, hate mongering, woman hating, racist policies - and all this was due to  "Christian" influence.

Now, I of corse would argue they are wrong on all counts - but it would fall on deaf ears. They are convinced, with the deepest of faith, that this view of Christianity in America is correct on all counts. And so I simply tried to console them that if "we" could survive a decade of Bill, "they" can manage to get through a decade of Dubya.  The Nation will some how get threw this, and I feel confident they will soon enough find things turning their way again. I do in fact feel very sure they will triumph over the Christian.

Question: Why do so many think this way, and feel so strongly about it, when a few decades ago, very few had such thoughts and feeling about Christians? What has changed?

So, as to the premise of the article - Is there an effort taking place in the universities, and the major media groups, and among liberal churchmen, to denigrate and undermine Christianity? Are these groups hostile to the Christian faith? Is there an effort to capture the minds of the children before their parents can instill this Christian yoke of oppression?

I think so. I think it is very clearly so.
And so, the question then is, how and why?
The article deals with How.

I felt it worth while to post it here, b/c it also happens to be how the Programs are able to so quickly get the parents to surrender their personal beliefs and individuality, and embrace the group - the program - as their new self. Truly, many of them they are  Program Parents before they are anything else. Many of them abandon major tenants of their faith to become better program-parents. My hope in posting the article was to maybe reach a few of them; and maybe awaken them to their true condition. Maybe warn others what to watch for. I really didn't want another faith debate - but I realize the overall content makes it unavoidable.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: GregFL on January 09, 2006, 06:37:00 PM

how about people are interested in the truth, and the christian myths do not comport with reality?

And as far as a conspiracy against christmas...


what a crock!


Christians have been force feeding their myths to other people under the threat of death, since around 30 BC or so.  Not so much has changed.  But when we don't want our government to favor your religion over our collective beliefs (or lack thereof) you guys cry foul and claim this is a "christian nation". It is not.

Further, The christmas holiday is not even founded in christianity but in the winter solstice.  You guys stole it from the pagans in order to assimilate them, and now 2000 years later you want to whine that everyone doesn't exclusively recognize this time of the year as yours.  Just how ridiculous can we get?  


Christmas is the season we take a break and celebrate however we want, and when retail stores want to include everyone you guys want to whine that you are being discriminated against.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: AtomicAnt on January 10, 2006, 02:11:00 AM

Quote

Question: Why do so many think this way, and feel so strongly about it, when a few decades ago, very few had such thoughts and feeling about Christians? What has changed?

So, as to the premise of the article - Is there an effort taking place in the universities, and the major media groups, and among liberal churchmen, to denigrate and undermine Christianity? Are these groups hostile to the Christian faith? Is there an effort to capture the minds of the children before their parents can instill this Christian yoke of oppression?

I think so. I think it is very clearly so.
And so, the question then is, how and why?
The article deals with How.

I don't think so. I don't think it was different a few decades ago. In the 1960s and 1970s the country was far more liberal than it is now and as Antigen pointed out, Clinton was not really a liberal. I've made the statement to friends that Clinton was where the Republicans were in the 1970s and that the whole country has shifted profoundly right. The Reagan years were the Conservative backlash to the sexual revolution, or so I thought and hoped at the time. We never recovered and much of the gains in tolerance and freedom of the 1960s and 1970s has been lost.
 
I don't think Universities, media, and liberals are attempting to undermine Christianity at all, unless you are referring specifically to fundamentalist Christianity. This is a small group of people that believe the Bible literally. They are organized and have money and currently wield far more power than their numbers should in a democracy. People like me are worried not about the New World Order that will ban Christianity, but the theocracy that seems to be gaining strength in this country. These fundamentalists are intolerant. The reason Universities are against them is simple, the fundamentalists are opposed to any rational or scientific ideas that contradict their Biblical world view. Sorry, but the world is 4 billion years old, not 5000.

I once told my UU Minister that when I mentioned to my friends I was a UU they would say, "Oh yeah, the Church where you can believe anything you want." He countered, "No, it is the fundamentalists that believe anything they want, despite logic, reason, history, and science. As Unitarians, we have to justify what we believe in." Please visit http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html (http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html). Note the goal of world community. It seems I am the enemy.

I was raised in the 'Appalachia' that Antigen speaks of. Actually, I grew up about halfway between Pittsburgh and Erie. Christianity is big there in rural Western PA. I was an atheist beginning at age nine. The way I was treated probably explains why I am so against the mind control programs Fornits survivors speak out against. I know what oppression of expression feels like, trust me. You can imagine how well I was received as an atheist/anarchist teenager who refused to pray or pledge the flag. Yes, I was punished for these things - physically and harshly. So I don't buy the oppressed Christian stuff very easily.

The anti-Christian media is a myth. The media is not liberal. This is a myth. The media is quantitatively conservative. This has been measured and demonstrated time and again. I suggest you visit http://www.fair.org (http://www.fair.org). Conservative political views receive far more air time and words spoken than so-called liberals do.

Now for the article. I think the author a hack because she proposes that consensus building and Hegelian Dialect are designed to undermine Christianity. My contention is that consensus building and Hegelian Dialect are nothing more than tools to reach rational, logical conclusions about any given topic, and that fundamentalist Christianity which is based on myth simply cannot stand up to that test. A literal interpretation of the Bible is intellectually indefensible.
 
You will note that among Christian countries, only the USA has a debate between evolution and creationism. Other Christian Countries and indeed mainstream Christians in the USA believe the Bible to be allegory and there is no conflict or debate here. In Europe, there is no big public battle between evolution and creationism.

As an atheist/anarchist, I rejected the concepts of 'Legitimate Authority' and even Cartesian Duality long ago. Like Exit Plan, I state that no person or group of people have a 'legitimate right' to tell another person or group what to do - period. That said, I am a human animal and humans are social animals. It also seems that human societies tend to be hierarchical. So, I live in the real world and pick my battles carefully. But my will is my own and I (like you) think because of my world view, I would be a very difficult subject for a program to brainwash for any length of time. I hold my truths to be as absolute as you hold yours. I doubt anyone could change them.

I think my views are why I despise these teen programs. I cringe at parents who want their kids to 'respect rules and authority.' To me, a teen with ODD is a saint. ADHD is nothing more than society narrowing what it considers acceptable behavior of what are really normal boys (84% of ADHD diagnosis are boys), and reflect an anti-boy bias in elementary schools. Young boys are not wired to sit still at desks for hours on end.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Antigen on January 10, 2006, 04:48:00 AM

Quote

On 2006-01-08 10:14:00, BuzzKill wrote:

Question: Why do so many think this way, and feel so strongly about it, when a few decades ago, very few had such thoughts and feeling about Christians? What has changed?

Well, compare Dubya to Jimmuh. There's your aswer.

All of these comforting and reasonable things were taught by the ministers in their pulpits -- by teachers in Sunday schools and by parents at home. The children were victims. They were assaulted in the cradle -- in their mother's arms. Then, the schoolmaster carried on the war against their natural sense, and all the books they read were filled with the same impossible truths. The poor children were helpless. The atmosphere they breathed was filled with lies -- lies that mingled with their blood.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Antigen on January 10, 2006, 05:14:00 AM

Quote

On 2006-01-08 10:14:00, BuzzKill wrote:



I felt it worth while to post it here, b/c it also happens to be how the Programs are able to so quickly get the parents to surrender their personal beliefs and individuality, and embrace the group - the program - as their new self. Truly, many of them they are  Program Parents before they are anything else. Many of them abandon major tenants of their faith to become better program-parents. My hope in posting the article was to maybe reach a few of them; and maybe awaken them to their true condition. Maybe warn others what to watch for. I really didn't want another faith debate - but I realize the overall content makes it unavoidable."

Karen, did you skip my post or did I not explain it well enough. What saved me from the brainwashing was a combination of what I learned from that old tough neck athiest who raised me and the very devout Christians who taught me.

Seriously, the one without the other would not have done it for me. Dad told me about the old tyme Bible thumpers who used to come through, leaving a trail of pregnant teenagers behind them. He usally was refering to Art Barker, Seed founder, president and ultimate cult leader. But he also gave four square, sincere support and praise to those among those very devout Christian teachers and ministers who won his respect.

It's not the Chrstianity. Ghandi was a great spiritual and political leader. Christians in this day and place would do well to take good council from him, even though he wasn't a Christian. He took council from our very own American son, Thoreau. He said "My profession is to be always on the alert to find God in nature, to know his lurking-places, to attend all the oratorios, the operas, in nature ... The love of Nature and the fullest perception of the revelation which she is to man is not compatible with the belief in the peculiar revelation of the Bible."

If there's a conspiracy to destroy Christianity, it's coming from within Christianity. They're your dogs, you call em off.

for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence.

--Thomas Jefferson

_________________
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: BuzzKill on January 10, 2006, 01:14:00 PM

Hi Ginger - I think I understood what you were saying.
I was just trying to explain my thinking when posting the article. I suspect it is I not explaining myself very well.

As for calling off the dogs - I don't think the dogs are interested in obedience to any master but their own ambition.
And not just "our" dogs - but the whole dam pack.


///Well, compare Dubya to Jimmuh. There's your aswer.///

I don't think that's it. I think it is considerably more complicated than the difference in the two men. I honestly do believe it is the result of decades of thought reform in academia, and the media, that has made the "fundamentalist" or "Evangelical" something to be despised.

Perhaps I see it differently simply because I have been on the receiving end of numerous rants from those who feel they are doing me a favor; attempting to free me from this evil influence. I was amazed at the reaction of people after that last election; and I can't help but think there is a lot more behind it than just the man who won. The anxiety and outrage didn't seem to be so much that Bush won, as that the horrid "Fundies" had.

I base my POV on more than this - but this is what I personally experienced.

I think you are correct Atomic Ant, that it is quite alright to be "Christian", as long as you aren't a Christian who believes the Bible.

I read an account not long ago, of a professor who wrote an email to a college about his discriminating against students who professed any "Fundi" leanings. He explained how he didn't think such a one as that deserved to have a degree. He wanted to make sure they were never in a position to teach. And he felt perfectly comfortable explaining this. It wasn't some secrete personal bias. It was unwritten policy of his department. These students were not to be allowed to succeed.
The feeling against the "Fundies" in the universities is blatant and extreme.

I am arguing that this is something new. This was not always the case. The change has occurred in my own life time. I think there is a reason why, and I think the article touches on How. I also feel it is How the Programs change the thinking of the parents - how they get them to so readily abandon their personal beliefs and accept the programming. Thats why I posted the artical.

With regard to Hegelian Dialect - frankly, I know next to nothing about it, so I can't very well argue with your POV. I suspect there are those who would tho.

With regard to media bias - of corse there is media bias - and it swings both ways.

I think with the media, what has changed is a willingness to depict Christianity and Christians as ignorant, mindless buffoons, whose POV is not worth considering. They are marginalized and dismissed in a way un-heard of a few decades ago.

I agree with you about the schooling tho. I tend to agree with Ginger's POV on Public schooling.

As for defiance - yes it can be a very valuable trait when one is faced with an injustice - but to defy authority 'just because' - that is just mindless destruction of one own prosperity.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: AtomicAnt on January 10, 2006, 11:23:00 PM

Buzzkill,
I find it interesting that we come from opposite ends of a subject and we both feel that there is a movement to discriminate against those of our respective groups.
 
 You state that:
 

  I think with the media, what has changed is a willingness to depict Christianity and Christians as ignorant, mindless buffoons, whose POV is not worth considering. They are marginalized and dismissed in a way un-heard of a few decades ago.

I feel that since the election of Bush in 2000, that Liberals have been marginalized to the point where the word liberal itself has become an indictment or at least an insult.

I find it difficult to accept that fundamentalists are being discriminated against when, it seems to me, they have more political power than ever. Could it be that this recent rise to political power and influence has made the fundamentalist outlook a lightning rod for criticism? It's likely.

I have never seen this country so divided between so-called conservatives and so-called liberals. I think the media has fed this feud by airing inflammatory programs (on both sides) that instead of engaging in rational debate or editorializing, they engage in bashing the other side and often outright lie to do it.

I don't think there is a conspiracy of the sort that Linda Kimbell is out to demonstrate.

That does not mean there is nothing to be alarmed about. It is not a conspirancy, but it is systemic. There are tactics being used by groups that promote agendas that are far more effective than easily spotted propaganda. The potential to sway the larger populace's opinion to one view is certainly there. If that is the point you are extracting from the article, then, yes, I can see that.
 
I can see the danger of mind-control techniques being used on a massive scale to sway entire populations because it is done every day. Obviously, Communist tactics in the Soviet Union and China show this. So does the Nazi's 'big lie' campaign. What is worse, however, is when it is hidden and insidious. Our government does this constantly, I believe. So do the schools.
 
As a teen, I questioned my father on this. He was a high school math teacher and adminstrator for 40 years. He actually agreed with me that the role of the schools is not so much to teach children as it is to assimilate them into the larger society. The schools serve the purpose of developing a similar world view among all members of the society; a sort of 'homogeneity factory', if you will. I find this alarming. He thinks it is useful for society.

Any of us who fall outside the 'accepted norm' will be marginalized.

Also, one of the best tactics used by the establishment is to portray the enemy as 'crazy' or as you said, 'buffoons.' It is not just Christians. Look at the philosphy of anarchy. There were serious communist and anarchist political movements in the USA at the turn of the century that the establishment has successfully portrayed in history as being nothing more than violent, mindless thugs, temporarily making noise on the peripheral of society. They ignore the very valid philosophical advances and political ideas that evolved from these groups.

As an alternative to the media, acadamia, liberal, conspiracy I suggest you read Jaque Ellul's book, The Technological Society. It is a difficult read, but worth the effort.
 
In a nutshell, Ellul puts forth the the idea that humankind has adopted a pattern of seeking out the best technique to do any given thing; build a bridge, educate children, advertise, fix a troubled teen, perform surgery, everything. He further states that this seeking out of better and better techniques has taken on an autonomy that no one individual or group can control or stop. It has a life of its own. The pursuit of technique leaves behind moral values and traditions. It squashes religion. The only judgement concerns the effectiveness of the technique. If it works, it will be used. The technique has become more important than the end it is supposed to achieve. Where it will lead humanity is anyone's guess. Whether it is good, evil, or indifferent depends on how the individual sees it.

Where you see a purposeful, planned and controlled, conspiracy, I see an effective (perhaps insidious), systemic application of technique by people who are not aware they doing it.
[ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-01-10 20:25 ]

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: AtomicAnt on January 11, 2006, 12:56:00 AM

I have been thinking this whole thing through and let me try this:
 
1. As an atheist, I view human beings as animals. I disavow Cartesian duality and believe that our thoughts, feelings, etc are manifestations of chemical/electrical processes in our brains.
 
2. I believe some aspects of our personality are hard wired and some are obtained from the environment and through experience. We gather facts (observations) and gain experience from our interaction with the environment.

3. The human mind works by seeing patterns and remembering them. We see things in terms of cause and effect. This is not because the world exists this way, although it might. It is because, biologically, we must see it this way. My Dad asks, "Was math discovered or invented?" I respond, "Invented." To me, math is a filter that we use to order our world. In fact, science depends on the assumption that the world exists in a state of order and that humans can understand at least part of this order. But is the order 'out there' in the world or only in our minds?

4. People develop a world view, a filter, a cosmology, if you will. This is done as the individual accumulates data and experience. All the data and experience must fit the individual's cosmology. If it does not, then it must either be rejected or the cosmology must be re-aligned. For example, in my cosmology, there is no room for UFOs, Santa Claus, spirits, ghosts, souls, or Gods. They don't fit in my hard boiled scientific and logical view of the world. I reject them. All of the pieces must fit the puzzle, so to speak.

5. Those aspects of each individual's cosmology that the majority of a population holds in common are what we call 'common sense.' For example that the earth is a sphere and orbits the sun.

6. Free will is important to me, but does not necessarily exist. As we grow and live our lives our cosmology naturally grows and matures with us. We don't really choose this cosmology, but the processes are complex enough to make it appear that we do. I think it is a basic human right to 'own' our own cosmology and guide it as we will (free choice). If there are those who can persuades to see things differently without coercion, then well, okay. Persuade me with rational argument. Forced change (coercive persuasion) is harmful to this process.

7. When a person is faced with an experience that presents data that does not fit their cosmology, but cannot be dismissed (like if I were to actually see a ghost). The resulting process of realigning their entire cosmology to fit this new data is destabilizing. It is traumatic.

8. This is what the unfreezing/freezing process of coercive persuasion attempts to do, except that CP has a stated cosmology as its end. It is not a perfected science. It is good at destabilizing and forcing a subject to accept the stated cosmology only so long as the subject is isolated from data and experience that don't fit the cosmology (these cannot even be discussed). CP fails when the subject departs the milieu, is confronted with, and forced to integrate this opposing data/experience with the CP cosmology. Some subjects can do this. Fornits posters call them brainwashed programmees. Others are once again destabilized as the their cosmology must adjust. These people have been harmed. Symptoms of the destabilized cosmology can last a long time.

9. There is no one right cosmology. This is called multi-culturalism. This concept must be rejected by religious people who feel their cosmology is the one true cosmology.

10. A religious person's cosmology has at its core, the principles of the religion. My own core values are based on science, which is really another form of faith, but in my opinion science works better. It is better simply because it covers all the data in an organized way and is flexible enough to be able to change with new experience and data. Religion has a problem when it encounters data and patterns that don't fit the religion's absolute foundations. Thus the conflict between evolution and creationism. As one with a scientific outlook, I am quick to adopt evolution because it explains, not only the origin of life, but is the basis for all modern microbiology and medicine. These sciences seem to work well for me.

11. Of course Science can only explain how, never why, something works.

12. A religious cosmology is better at explaining the why than the how. The how is often delivered in the form of allegory; God said, "Let there be light." and there was light. Those who take the Bible literally, have problems accepting new data/experience. They refuse to alter or adjust their cosmology. I think this is what Buzzkill means when saying Religious people are harder to brainwash. They would rather become martyrs than change.

13. Now for the article. The Kimbell article rejects Hegel because his methods do not allow for absolute values. Religion depends on absolute values (Thou shall not kill). Something is either always right or always wrong. A Hegelian is more willing to accept moral relativity because they feel truth can only be arrived at through rational process, not by faith or authority. An example of moral relativity:

You borrow your neighbor's axe. He comes to your door and asks for it back. He says he needs it to kill his wife. What do you do? Do you withhold the axe and become a thief? Do you return it and become an accessory to murder? Maybe you lie to the guy and say you don't have it (thief and liar).

 
The point is that you must make an exception to the absolute moral principle. This is in defiance of what fundamentalist religion teaches. If something is wrong (like abortion) it is always wrong (Thou shalt not kill.). To take a stand of moral relativity is to abandon Christian principles in the cosmology of Kimbell.

To me consensus building is not necessarily forcing everyone to believe the same thing. It is a process by which one gains buy-in and cooperation on a policy or course of action. You don't have to agree with the policy or course of action but you agree to abide by it and further it for the sake of the team. This may mean that you must compromise your absolute position. Thus, Kimbell points out this is antithetical to Christian principles. An atheist like me says there is no conspiracy here, it is just called, 'getting along well with others.'

I am very aware that this consensus building is very close to the 'peer pressure' in a program. Kimbell points this out by saying, "All individuals have an inherent fear of being alienated from the group..." The difference between peer pressure in this larger sense and peer pressure in a program is the group consequences part of the program. Programs don't just rely on the individual's fear of alienation, they take it a step further and punish the whole group, so the group will place more pressure on the individual. In true consensus building, the individual's participation is supposed be entirely voluntary. A person can elect to be different or to join a different group. Where I think Kimbell is wrong is that I believe Christians have no problem choosing the different group because they are a different group. They may feel alienated, but they also feel righteous.

Does any of this make any sense? It is in the small hours of the morning and I suspect I am babbling incoherently.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: BuzzKill on January 11, 2006, 11:27:00 AM

//Does any of this make any sense? It is in the small hours of the morning and I suspect I am babbling incoherently. //

You made perfect sense. Its an excellent post.

//Where you see a purposeful, planned and controlled, conspiracy, I see an effective (perhaps insidious), systemic application of technique by people who are not aware they doing it. //

I would say I see more of an effective (perhaps insidious), systemic application of technique by people who are well aware they doing it. This doesn't make it a conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy, it is at levels much higher than the universities or the New York Times. In fact, if there is a conspiracy - I would argue "our" president is in on it, and "we" would not approve of the agenda.

///I can see the danger of mind-control techniques being used on a massive scale to sway entire populations because it is done every day. Obviously, Communist tactics in the Soviet Union and China show this. So does the Nazi's 'big lie' campaign. What is worse, however, is when it is hidden and insidious. Our government does this constantly, I believe. So do the schools.///

I agree.

//I find it difficult to accept that fundamentalists are being discriminated against when, it seems to me, they have more political power than ever. Could it be that this recent rise to political power and influence has made the fundamentalist outlook a lightning rod for criticism? It's likely. //

Yeah, I am sure your right. Still, its worth noteing that not so long ago there was nothing at all controversial about Christian ideas being a deciding factor in elections. They were the norm.

If they have political power, it is just barely enough to nudge a fellow over the edge. If the issue of Abortion is ever somehow settled, it will completely remove that edge. Kerry would be president today if he hadn't defended Partial Birth Abortion. Lots of people who generaly think of themselves as Liberal couldn't stomach that.

Seems most people do still believe there is such a thing as wrong.

Your right in that the argument, the struggle for the mind of the masses, is in the differing views of absolute right and wrong; as opposed to situational ethics. This was one of my constantly harped on points when I was still on the BBS.

About the axe - you keep the axe and call the police. The life of the wife is of primary concern. Tell the guy you can have your axe back when you return to sanity - I suggest you calm down. I recently had a similar situation with my cousin and her husband. He got a rest in Our Lady of Peace and is better now.

*[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2006-01-11 08:40 ]

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 02:03:00 AM

The axe thing was an example my professor used in a philosophy class in college. The intention was to show that when confronted with absolute morality, there is a need to make exceptions. In other words, don't steal, unless you are taking a weapon from someone. The problem is that the exceptions become too numerous to be a part of a valid doctrine.

The same class covered the concept of justice in an interesting way. Traditionally justice is suppsed to be this:

1. A subject chooses to commit a wrong.
1. A subject is caught doing wrong.
2. The subject is punished with a punishment that is suited to the crime committed.
3. After 'paying their debt to society', the subject regains their place in society.

In the 1960s and 1970s, mainstream psychology developed the idea that environment counted for more than biology (the old nature vs. nurture debate). They decided that criminals weren't born, society made them. This takes the blame off the perpetrator and places it on his upbringing and environment. The criminal needs help, not punishment and should be rehabilitated. In other words, any criminal is by definition mentally ill in some way.

The problem, of course, is that this stand denies the perpetrator of free will and undermines the traditional concept of justice.

At the same time, it allows the rehabilitors to take the moral high ground and use whatever methods to reform and rehabilitate that they see fit. The state controls the doctrine. Dangerous stuff there. The stuff of programs is born. Coercive Persuasion becomes a 'legitimate' tool used by the State to reform people into right thinking.

Attacking moral relativity is easy. If everthing is relative then you lose the 'common sense'  I mentioned in an earlier post. You end up with everything being arbitrary. There can be no concept of justice here. Good and evil are only ideas and which is which only depends on which side of the fence you are standing. The rule of law is undermined. You have, in essence, anarchy.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: AtomicAnt on January 12, 2006, 02:09:00 AM

I forgot to sign in. Sorry.
 
To clarify, when you begin to make judgements and exceptions, like in the story of the axe, you enter the world of moral relativity. It is a paradox of sorts.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: BuzzKill on January 12, 2006, 11:19:00 AM

Well 'bout the axe - I would argue retaining the axe isn't stealing. It is extending the loan, until such time as the owner is in a better frame of mind.

I would argue that there are absolutes. Stealing is always wrong. Even wanting to steal is wrong. Removing a weapon from a man bent on murder is not stealing.

If you want a shifty argument for moral relativity - lying is a better example. It is wrong to Lie. But is it Always wrong to Lie? Any one with any since knows it is occasionally a far the better thing to do than tell the truth.

My personal thoughts on this are that it is a grave sin to lie in a malicious manner about another. It is also wrong to lie to achieve personal gain over others or to avoid ones personal responsibility for a wrong done.

Providing an opinion that is not actually true to spare another's feeling is not wrong - it is considerate. Lying about another person's whereabouts at their request is a little more shady - but I don't view it as a sin b/c it isn't hurting anyone.

I do feel most lies are best avoided. It is so easy to fall into the habit of lying about things for which the truth is as good or better an explanation. For example, my mom has a habit of making up these excuses for why she can't go here, or do this, with her friends, when the truth would be better. I have asked her, why don't you just tell her you'd rather take advantage of the weather to work in your yard? What's wrong with that - and its the truth. My daughter once lost a job making up this elaborate and easily seen through excuse for her absence; when the truth was a simple, easy to understand, an acceptable reason.

As for the problem of rehabilitation and excessesive force in its attempt - I'd argue it is always wrong. If rehabilitation can be achieved with education and maybe some therapy, that's great. If it takes clockwork orange type efforts - then it is wrong and will do more harm than good - just as we see in the worst of the programs. Best not to attempt it, in such a case.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Anonymous on February 04, 2006, 02:56:00 PM

One arena at a time dear sister...

LGAT skullduggery is just one new iteration of THOUGHT REFORM technique...  The problem is that predatory minded individuals tend to sample all the MLM and "pyramid" scams that they can gain access to and publish their "flavour" of the same in relatively short order...like cockroaches, the programs tend to multiply(?).
And they tend to infest every level of a society that they infiltrate...  

Understand that these people have  far beyond simple child molesting mentalities...what are "whips and chains"[Legal Release Forms and SECRECY AGREEMENTS*] for(?)...to reduce adult men and women to the helpless level of children so they can be -molested- psychologically(Mind Raped, Intellectual debilitation through regressionist techniques), economically(defrauded of large sums of money), socially(forced to sell the cult to recruit others and only want to associate with...

Properly "enlightened" individuals)...
[Deceived, "enlightened", Newspeak, Doublethink?]

We are discussing INFLUENCE here which a byproduct of COMMUNICATION...  Most of these offenders are highly skilled and educated technicians in verbal/emotional assault techniques...

As a woman, you should a wealth of knowledge on the "battered woman syndrome" studies(?)...
There is a direct correlation between how these "reptiles" operate and abusive spouses(I don't single out -men- because anyone can google
"Men in Pain" and see women practicing this same set of techniques on men...even down to the "honeymoon" or "making-up" period in the hiatus phase of the abuse cycle)...  

["You've come a long way baby...to get where you are...Toooddaayyy"...(?). The hidden benefits of
equality?  Hmmmmm...]

Same difference.  Make you uncomfortable, attack your beliefs, belittle you, tell you what your problems really are(aside from being abused by this bozo/bozette and herded into regression to childishness?)...use the "group" of isolated and conformism-oriented individuals against you by masturbating their emotions to accept or reject you as your responses "merit"(?)...groupthink?

"Consensus" "building"...read systemic deception and inculcation(?)...  Shades of that nasty old "Inquisition"(?)...Latinate or otherwise?
How CALIFORNIA(!)...which is where most of this garbage eminates from(?)...  La La Land...just over which rainbow(?)...hmmm, interesting...
It does not seem to really clash as "belief" system with the Kabbalalalala? Bahai? Subud? ad.
nausem(?)...

Hmmmmm, first a splitting up of "babblers" and then over many centuries...a harmonizing of exploitive, subtle, hierarchal, gnostic cults, theosophies, philosophies, corporations,
incorporated cults, cultic corps, "enightened"
government officials(local, state, federal) and entire agencies structured to reward and promote only these individuals who can "lead" others in this fashion...sounds like it has been happening for the last 30-50 years in this country...hmmm?

Positively brilliant(!)...rape peoples minds, insult them to their face, intimidate them, shame them pubilcly...the ones you can't break down or sue into silence...there are tried and true "direct" ways of handling that...  Yes, we can always spot those individuals who are in favor of such things(?)...  Exploitive, oppurtunistic, etc. etc. etc...seems that I remember something I read[2Tim, 2:3-23][2Peter,2 et. all]...

Isn't it funny that some things never change(!)
;->
Right down to the methodology[2Cor,11:20]...

Seems to be Babylonian in orgin[Fake Jews from the 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom who followed Solomon's example...into exile in Babylon...and returned to infiltrate the Judean priesthood in the interum between the Old Testament and the New...like pawns being positioned(?)...

Jesus refered to such as: "The synagogue of Satan"--Outwardly practicing Mosaic values  but, holding to Babylonian, Caballah, and Greek Philosophies...as subtle and reptillian in manner and aspect as "humanistically" possible?

"How to oppress, subvert, and murder others for fun and profit"(?)...don't read the skrits but, it's probably a fair guess]

Wow(!)...that there bible thingy is extrordinary!
Neatly illustrates that this problem is cyclical and every so often these "cockroaches" have to be "smoked" out...anybody got a "match"(?)...

;->

Beyond all the possibilities that we can create for ourselves and our lives(?)...and it does mean something that you don't think it means anything...anyone worked out the brain-unwashing techniques yet???  Or is it back to Lifespring for all you "consensus" zombies(?)...think about it...if you still can(?)...

BevoBBQforfree

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Anonymous on February 04, 2006, 05:24:00 PM

Quote

On 2006-01-06 12:00:00, BuzzKill


I think it is more about how Christianity is a barrier to the efforts of the facilitators in LGAT. The reason for this is b/c Christians are so "dogmatic, inflexible, intolerant and judgmental". Being so, makes it hard to convince them that their is no right or wrong, and that they should set aside their beliefs to becomes part of the greater group - those who are none of these awful things, and who are "growing" emotionally.

[admin note: it's /quote, not end quote]

------------------------------------------
Any mature, carefully considered belief is a "...barrier..." to exploitation...damned inconvenient to totalists, totalitarians, and consensus zombies...no right, no wrong, no accountabity, no limits, if you can't win a particular "game", rewrite the rules into complete irrelevance(?)...  

It is a more flexible position to have no fixed beliefs, mores, values, etc...beyond what is convenient and on a sliding-scale of oppurtunism(?)...keep all your "options" wide open...
Charles Manson said something to that effect(?).

It truly sets you up to compete in a very efficient manner...6 million jews processed through what(?)...18 concentration camps...with
high volume crematories and all the amenities?
Outstanding(!)...better to slaughter such in the womb now(?)...you can grind up the "evidence", declare it sub(un?)human and flush it into the sewer systems--No messy "showers", ashes or explainations needed...who cares if figures for women dying in "coat-hanger" procedures were inflated from tens to thousands of such...that the Centers for Disease Control were intimidated out of tracking deaths from malpractice in abortion procedures...ahh how conveneint can you
get...billions of dollars on the line and just little bits of flesh to dispose of...what's the big deal(?)...

But, I do admit this God/Christ/Spirit -guy- is very inconvenient, specific, and knows what he wants...a real stickler for details about loving your enemies, the duties of civil government and the true seperation of powers...  Yes, I prefer him and his way to the ecclectic, convoluted, contrarian, conveniences that I have sampled in the many uber-humanistic philosophies, ideals, ideologies, ontologies, cosmologies that I have been exposed to over the decades...

Oh yeah and make that Christians are hard to EXPLOIT...not convince...If you can understand and adhere to biblical values...it's a snap to convince Christians to go along with you...if you can't or are too close-minded, dogmatic, secular to even attempt it...how intelligent are you anyway?  It's just 66 books in all...took me
all of a few weeks to go through the first time.
If you are so superior to the material...should
be a couple of days maybe(?)...it that long?
Hegel, Marx, Lenin...Ayn Rand, Bhodi Dharma,
Hasan Sabah...  Now those are very deep and challenging reading(Mostly due to their contempt for readers but, one can muddle through if one is determined?)...

Why is it Atheists that are so dogmatic and inflexible(?)...not to mention close-minded to anything contrary to their convenient interpertation of the world.  I much prefer the old Agostics because they at least affirmed that THEY KNEW NOTHING...all these SECRET KNOWLEDGEs that you have to swear to cut your tounge out for and throw on the desert sand and such...ever to conceal, never to reveal...and all that jazz?
So much wasted time for so little gain. The Red Cross of Constantine not whithstanding...

FYI, those LGAT facilitators get paid on a basis of HOW MANY PEOPLE attend the seminar--not on any basis of even assesing if they HELP anyone at all...it is forbidden to even ask them the question, much less take any statistics...and especially not to get them evaluated by a talented psychiatric professional...who might make an uncomplimentry diagnosis(?)...

The people need only continue in the program and he/she/it...has accomplished his/her/its objective and is paid on a commission basis...how do I know this(?)...

I am studying to lead LGAT sessions...go figure?

Oh, and your dogma is pretty entrenched as well You do tend to repeat it as slavishly as any Catholic, Mormon, or Jehovah's Witness I have ever listened to...very well developed and reasonable...nice formulation!  You should put in Seminar form(!)...

Keep thinking those convenient thoughts...it could score you a job in that 1 world religo-political thingy(?)...but, remember this...after
all the "inconvenient" people are "gone"...it will be your turn as "meat" but, I think you are aware of that as a distinct possibility...and you don't have what it takes(IMHO) to handle being tortured/crucified, etc...  

As that seems to be the price of playing "god" but, not to worry...it has already been taken care of by someone who Loved even you...
[And he got it right the first time.]

Just once I would like to meet an Atheist who would allow him/herself to be tortured to death for the sake of their "beliefs"...no takers to date but, I take your presence here as a miracle.

[And that you were not aborted with those other 40 million individuals over the last 30 years]

[Abortion is a more efficient method of eliminating human beings than convential and nuclear war since antiquity!]

No,I don't see you as a random accident in this universe...even if your world view/cosmology tells you that you are...and just an animal...
Would you really want me to swallow that stuff that you don't mean anything, are nothing, and
are completely optional to the universe...in the LGAT terms I am familiar with(?)...

I prefer to think that you are a product of LOVE and were created out of such...given a universe to exist in and a planet to live on...against all odds...allows me to value you more than you value me or yourself...again, go figure? Why does God want you to spend eternity with Him(?).
Or me for that matter(?)...

God Loves The Poor Bloody Atheists...more than they love themselves...

[A Truly Supernatural Accomplishment].

Live well and be free...and may you learn the blessings of becoming inconvenient...forever.

IJNIP.
Amen.

BEVOBBQforfree

P.S. God Bless you.[ This Message was edited by: Eudora on 2006-02-04 19:01 ]

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Antigen on February 04, 2006, 10:24:00 PM

Quote

Prescott S. Bush as Treasurer of Planned Parenthood First National Fundrasing Drive?1947

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/th ... uments.php (http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/thefamily/extras_documents.php)

Wake the rest of the way up or go back to sleep, please!

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
Why I Live at the PO (http://art-bin.com/art/or_weltypostoff.html)[ This Message was edited by: Eudora on 2006-02-04 19:26 ]

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Antigen on February 04, 2006, 11:31:00 PM

Quote

On 2006-02-04 14:24:00, Anonymous wrote:

Just once I would like to meet an Atheist who would allow him/herself to be tortured to death for the sake of their "beliefs"...no takers to date but, I take your presence here as a miracle

For beliefs? You think Jesus suffered and died for beliefs? No, I don't think so. I think 'he', as in the character in the Christian Bible, died for speaking the truth in a political era when that was intolerable act; would have (and did) disrupt the orderly system that kept the decision makers fat and happy.

But he wasn't the only one. Legend from many contemporary cultures has it that there were a good many ppl in that day delivering essentially the same message. If you compare the gospels to other writings of the time, they even mix details from different legends into the Jesus story. Actually, I think there are always an adequate number or such people balking at the status quo. Just so happens that, in that day and age, the time was ripe for people to adopt that message and the Holy Roman Catholic Church won the war that ensued and so they got to write the history.

In these similar days? May just as easily be Osama or the Dahli Lhamma or someone we don't even know to watch. Just depends on who wins the war and who gets to write the history.

Athiest means non theistic. As an athiest, I don't believe in an invisible friend who's willing and able to annull the laws of the universe in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy. (Bierce, paraphrased)

I believe in the laws of the universe. If there were a god, it was he who made those laws and who gave us all a sense of reason. Presumably, he meant for us to use it.

Wicked men obey from fear, good men from love.
--Aristotle

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Anonymous on February 05, 2006, 10:18:00 AM

Quote

Why is it Atheists that are so dogmatic and inflexible(?)...not to mention close-minded to anything contrary to their convenient interpertation of the world.

Of course, atheists say the same thing about christians. I guess it depends on which side of the fence one sits.

I don't think faith is really a matter of choice. We either believe or we don't. At an early age, I came to the realization that all religions were just 'made up.' I have never been able to convince myself (or have someone else convince me) otherwise. I did not choose my interpretation of the world because it was 'convenient.' It was actually rather traumatic. It is a simple matter of faith. You either have it or you don't.

I would not make the generalization that atheists are any more or less inflexible than any other group. I, for one, don't give a rat's ass what other people believe as long as they are not trying to force me to believe the same thing or live by their arbitrary set of restrictions.

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Anonymous on February 05, 2006, 10:34:00 AM

From what I can see, we all were born in the same way, we all die in the same way. So maybe -- just maybe -- we are all the same thing; start in the same 'place' and end in the same 'place'. Since I believe this, religion to me is irrelevant. I am agnostic, if I have to choose a label, and I do hope that after I die, I will still remain 'me', but honestly, I hold no reservations about that nor expect it. It's life's greatest surprise! Wouldn't it be boring otherwise?

I think a lot of religious activies, is more about order, organization and power (money) as much as a byproduct of civilization. I think every person on earth, has their own sense of spirituality, or whatever term one chooses to use to describe this. I don't condemn religion as a whole, or praise it, I don't paint with such a wide brush. I do notice faith and hope seem to really help the human psyche deal with the negatives in life. In my opinion, religion is more of a good force, than a negative one on this planet, at this time.

I figure, when I die, either I'll be ecstaticly happy about still remaining 'me' or not know any difference anyways... I have no memories of before I was born, so I figure death will be the same. Or will it... ?  ::burger::

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Deborah on February 05, 2006, 02:52:00 PM

?Fuck Yes? Philosophy- Fuck yeh, I?ll give you your axe back, but only after I call your wife and give her a 30 minute head start. By the way, you don?t seem to be thinking very clearly. What?s eattin ya? What has your wife done that would cause you to risk your freedom and liberty by committing murder? How will killing her make your life better/easier? Can you arrive at any other possible solutions, like the very obvious, leave?

This kind of rational engagement doesn?t happen often because we?re all so divided and separated, no real vested interest in the distressed neighbor- or even family member. Because we haven?t been treated this way, we don?t know how to extend the same thoughtful courtesy to others. Current solution? Call the police or psychiatrists or escort service. Put the ?problem? out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Let the ?expert professionals? deal with it. The public has been brainwashed/conditioned to believe that they are incapable of ?helping? in any meaningful way- basically stripped of their inherent abilities- and to defer to the authorities.

Gotta stick up for consensus, which is a great way to reach agreement in a group.  If anyone is coerced, then you DO NOT HAVE consensus. It?s possible that someone who lacks critical thinking skills may feel coerced, but that is their problem. My experience in groups with a common project or decision to make, has been very positive. Goes like this.

Facilitator (neutral) states the issue/project: No anonymous posts at Fornits.
For some period of time everyone in the group presents their best arguments for and against, which the scribe notes on a pad or chalkboard.
Facilitator sums up the points made in discussion and asks for consensus.
If consensus isn?t reached- more discussion. Those who are still opposed (blocking), particularly, have the opportunity to express their concerns again- it sometimes happens that the one person blocking is actually the clearest thinker in the group.
Most groups have agreements about what will happen if consensus isn?t reached. Depending on the size of the group, it could be Consensus minus one, two, three, etc- some percentage of the total number of participants.
But, the ultimate goal is that there is enough discussion/debate that everyone can eventually get on the same page, without being coerced. Very similar to what happens less formally in SOME family decision making. As some parents have learned, there is less resentment about a group decision if all have participated in the decision making process. Can it be abused. Yeh, as anything can. A parent could actually control the decision while presenting the illusion that consensus is being employed. I think this process is alien and scarey to most Christians because they are accustomed to someone else making the decisions, rules, and laws. All they have to do for a free pass to heaven, is abide by them. As parents, they then rise to authoritarian dictator over thier children.

Back to the process. The one (or several), still ?blocking? is asked if they are willing to step aside and let the group move forward with what the overwhelming majority have consensed on. This can be difficult if the one blocking is set on the group adopting their thinking. It sometimes happens that the group must take a certain course, even if it is not the best, most efficient course, and learn from their mistakes.  The rational blocker realizes that just as an individual needs to learn from mistakes, so do groups of people, and will step aside allowing the group to move forward with the agenda.  

Consensus is more egalitarian than voting- which doesn?t allow for everyone in the group to be heard. It eliminates the possibility of one person or group making decisions for the majority. It?s roots are in Native and Quaker cultures, which I can imagine might be frightening to the control freaks of Christianity- although I originally learned consensus from a christian, a lovely woman. Time consuming, yes, but worth it. Also, no one is forced to participate or to adopt another?s view. If the issue before the group is not of interest one way or another, then you choose not to participate and in so doing are agreeing to support the decision that comes out of the consensus process. It?s as you were saying AA, convince me through respectful debate that your thinking is better, but don?t force/coerce me. There are no ?consequences? or punishments associated with consensus. Psychological bullying, character assassination, labeling, spreading lies are not part of genuine consensus.

I really resent that the industry co-opts and bastardizes, sometimes really useful techniques and processes. I have heard of no examples of genuine consensus in programs. The program my son attended went so far as to refer to their rules as ?agreements?. No one there participated in the creation of the ?agreements? or agreed to abide by  them. Mindfuck #1. They are rules, so call them what they are. They aren?t negotiable- so don?t imply they are. Participants aren?t allowed to question the rules and are punished for doing so or violating the ?agreements?. They aren?t given the rationale (if it exists) for the rules- because to do so would expose their agenda.  There is no Consensus in programs- it is the antithesis of their objective to suppress and subdue their subjects. The use of terms like ?agreements? and ?consensus? softens the rigidity and absolute control of the program/ seminar- on the surface. Works the very same way in our 'judeo-christian' culture. I can't decide to have an abortion, euthenize myself, or smoke pot- amongst other insane laws. Where is my right to self-determination? This is not freedom.

The author states:
 ?There are four key elements necessary for a successful 'consensus process' operation. They are:
(1)multicultural and/or diverse groups fueled by resentment and envy (necessary for causing social conflict)
(2)a social issue around which conflict can be created (example: Christmas, which is labeled 'exclusionary, insensitive, and hurtful' to diverse groups)
(3)the dialoguing to consensus process (psychological manipulation leading to abandonment of principles and positions)
(4) a predetermined outcome (example: Christmas parades successfully recast as 'Festival of Lights" or "Winter Holiday" parades that are inclusive of gay pride celebrants)?

That is so not true Consensus, but clearly describes the status quo, which could use some ?unfreezing?. Precisely the way the Bush administration uses it. They have no idea what true consensus and/or their goal is not to achieve consensus. True consensus is a threat to authoritarian/facist power and control, so what do they do? Co-opt the term, misuse/ misrepresent it to confuse the public, just as the author does, and just as programs do. Oldest trick in the book.  I think this piece also serves to distract from the Bush et al, ?One World Order? plan.

And if we take this hot button issue of Xmas?. Consensus would never be arrived at, clearly. The compromise might be- practice your religion in your home, don?t force it on the public. Putting up lights and nativity scenes (Ten Commandments, draping nude statues, etc) is a form of advertising your religion/belifs and shouldn?t be done in public places. The majority (not consensus) in this country seems to be holding this view. I can imagine it?s a scarey time for Christians. Oh well, what goes around, comes around, as they say. Let the thawing commence.

And good lord, what could possibly be wrong with ?sensitivity training?? Remember the blue/brown eye class experiment to demonstrate the hurtful effects of prejudice? Totally useful!! Many would love to put program people through a similar ?training?.

And what could possibly be wrong with two ?opposites? being reconciled, the antithesis being resolved in a higher synthesis? Nothing, unless of course, your agenda is to maintain ultimate authority and control.

As to this: I think it is more about how Christianity is a barrier to the efforts of the facilitators in LGAT.
I think of church as an LGAT. Who knows for certain, but it?s my understanding that the jesus person, if he existed, did not want all the formal structure of religion. No infrastructure, no dogma. The message was simple and universal and to be taught one-on-one, modeled. He led a radical grassroots movement that met in nature with an agenda of teaching peace, love, and forgiveness. It didn?t go over well then and it doesn?t go over well now. And guess what, his ?movement? got co-opted, bastardized, misused, and misrepresented. Seems to be a recurring pattern, when things start to thaw.



[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-02-05 12:08 ]

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: Deborah on February 05, 2006, 11:38:00 PM

***ADHD is nothing more than society narrowing what it considers acceptable behavior of what are really normal boys (84% of ADHD diagnosis are boys), and reflect an anti-boy bias in elementary schools. Young boys are not wired to sit still at desks for hours on end.


AA, You might enjoy this article
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... it/?page=1 (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/01/26/schoolboys_bias_suit/?page=1)

Schoolboy's bias suit
Argues system is favoring girls
By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff  |  January 26, 2006

Title: sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers
Post by: BuzzKill on February 07, 2006, 12:36:00 PM

Hi Deb.
 
Your comment about "church" & LGAT - I would agree that in many cases you are right. I've attended a few that seemed to have a lot in common with LGAT. They are not all like that tho. Anyway, I would argue 'the church' is actually made of those believers who do believe in Christian doctrine and who try to live accordingly. They may or may not be part of a particular group, that meets in a particular building.
 
As for Christianity being a barrier to LGAT - I base that largely on my own experience. With out ever having attended, I can tell you I created a good deal of friction, arguing against much that was being parroted by those who did attend. It is the belief in absolutes, and an inflexibility on some points, that make it hard to accept the traing that takes place in the seminars.
 
Not saying that Christians don't very often abandon their beliefs to embrace the lessons they are exposed to in LGAT. Many do. Often, IMO, because they lack an understanding of why they believe what they do in the first place - and b/c they lack an understanding of what is happening to them in the seminars.
 
But, It seems to me, the eastern religions and their relatives, are far more flexible, and able to incorporate the philosophies entrenched in LGAT. If one is of a more eastern mind set to begin with - they will have less to abandon, and so less to resist - making them more susceptible to the training.
 
Thats my theory anyway.
 
I'd need to re-read the article, but as I recall she seems to be saying that Christians are more resistant to the re-training taking place in society at large - making them targets for societal retaliation.
 
I've mostly been arguing that a shift in societal thinking has taken place, and is resulting in very negative feelings toward Christians; and that this is something new in western society.

The masses are being re-taught what to think about Christians and Christian thought. It is having an effect. Much the same effect as LGAT.
 
Personally, I am not frightened about it - or even upset over it. I am just interested in the hows and whys and feel it is worth exploring.

Also - it *might* serve to wake a few sleeping Christians up to what is happening to them in the damdable seminars.
 
Ginger:
 
 On 2006-02-04 14:24:00, Anonymous wrote:

Just once I would like to meet an Atheist who would allow him/herself to be tortured to death for the sake of their "beliefs"...no takers to date but, I take your presence here as a miracle

you write:
For beliefs? You think Jesus suffered and died for beliefs? No, I don't think so. I think 'he', as in the character in the Christian Bible, died for speaking the truth in a political era when that was intolerable act; would have (and did) disrupt the orderly system that kept the decision makers fat and happy. ///
 
Maybe they are talking about the martyrs - and not Christ Himself?
 
Anyway - from a Christian's perspective - Jesus didn't die for what He believed - He died to pay the price of sin for all man kind.
 
Those who took part in the trial, condemnation and crucifixion, may have done so b/c of what He taught and believed - but He died for the sake of man kind.

Caiaphas (the presiding High Prist) explained it (tho he didn't realize what he was saying) when he said - better one man to die, than the whole nation perish.
 
But many martyrs have died, b/c of believing this, and not being willing to say otherwise.
That inflexibility the Christian is so noted for.