Not sure if this resource had been previously posted in the CEI forum, but, I found it quite interesting.

[www.philosophyforlife.org]

OMG yes!!! This is so spot-on. Reposting your link with a quote:

[www.philosophyforlife.org]

"This morning I did some research into Attack Therapy. It seems to have grown up out of the encounter session technique pioneered by evangelist religious organizations, and first used in therapy by quasi-religious groups like Alcoholics Anonymous.

At AA, members’ attachment to the group and its ethos was cemented with ‘sharing sessions’, where members would share their deepest, darkest stories and receive sympathy and acceptance in return.

Attack Therapy took this group dynamic and gave it a twist. Instead of receiving sympathy and approval, patients are ridiculed, humiliated and shamed. Their individual ego defences are broken down by the experience of intense public ridicule, and to overcome the stress of ostracism, they let go of their individual beliefs and embrace the beliefs and view-points of the group.

The Attack Therapy technique was made famous by a California drug rehabilitation centre called Synanon, set up by a former AA patient, Chuck Dederich, in the 1960s. The Synanon members, including drug offenders sent there by California courts, went through a weekly ritual called ‘The Game’, in which recalcitrant or rebellious members were humiliated and their inner foibles exposed to the Group. Synanon was eventually disbanded because of tax fraud, the violent beatings of people who’d left the group, death threats of anyone who criticized the group, and the suspected murder of members."


And all of those humiliating "sharing," episodes are used as "collateral," Keith Raniere style.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2018 05:21AM by kdag.

kdag,

Yes, and I go back to my corporate cudgel. Let's imagine "attack therapy", or let's call it "attack consulting" is being used in the context of corporations, say, with a management team.

The administrator would not only gain control of an individual, ala Raniere, but a firm, and, potentially, very large firms.

bakkagirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, and I go back to my corporate cudgel. Let's imagine "attack therapy", or let's call it "attack consulting" is being used in the context of corporations, say, with a management team.
>
> The administrator would not only gain control of an individual, ala Raniere, but a firm, and, potentially, very large firms.

Yes! It shows an extreme greed for inappropriate power. And then there's this:

"And yet groups like Landmark and The Work are still able to perform this sort of gung-ho extreme therapy, without even checking if any of their participants are borderline or vulnerable to psychosis. One account I read of Byron Katie’s The Work says that participants were actually encouraged to hand in their medication at the beginning of the weekend, and that some participants suffered psychotic reactions during the course of the weekend."

Okay, so here they're messing with people's doctor-prescribed, psychoactive medications. In other words, they are messing with people's bodies - their nervous systems.

Although most people desire to cooperate with their employers, the idea that ANY EMPLOYER or corporation would have the right to reach into the private lives of their employees, let alone their bodies, is an absolutely revolting concept. At least in my humble opinion.

* so in other words, these corporations are gaining WAY too much power, and they behave as if they think they actually OWN their employees.

Research Article
’Brainwashing’ and Managed Group Experiences: Converging ‘New’ Techniques?
By William F. Marina | June 15, 1975
Also published in Reason Papers

Have a look at thisw -- an article from 1975

[www.independent.org]

I started a separate thread with a collection of documents from the 1950s and 1960s describing methods of indoctrination and group control perfected by the Communists.

[forum.culteducation.com]

A lot of material was published on this in the 1950s and 1960s and readily available to any ambitious citizen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2018 12:03PM by corboy.

kdag,

I think we have to consider that LGAT has been modified for the corporation. Corporate officers, and individuals with ANY organizational power will not put up with being told to not to take their medications; with undue interruptions of sleep cycles, etc.

But, in my humble experience, most humans, however powerful, are quite vulnerable to the charismatic leader (in this case, the facilitator, the coach), and vulnerable to the opinion of others, and, particularly that of perceived peers.

At the end of the day, I am a big believer in reasonable personal boundaries. When I see individuals or groups being asked to drop these, I smell a rat.

bakkagirl

No, not exactly...corporations are massively regulated.

It is not so easy to turn them into fascist states...

I am saying that management teams can be infiltrated and influenced,...nothing more than that.

pssst, bakka, your mailbox is full again.

bakkagirl wrote:

"I think we have to consider that LGAT has been modified for the corporation."

I don't doubt that. They seem to be experts at formulating these things.