What will be assembled here is a library of articles for interested persons to read and ponder.

The quotations are small excerpts from cited documents.

To get the reader's attention, have a look at this:

Quote

The most important aspect of the brainwashing process is the interrogation.The other pressures are designed primarily to help the interrogator achievehis goals. The following states are created systematically within the individual . These may vary in order, but all are necessary to the brainwashing process:

1. A feeling of helplessness in attempting to deal with the impersonal machinery of control.

2. An initial reaction of "surprise."

3. A feeling of uncertainty about what is required of him.

4. A developing feeling of dependence upon the interrogator.

5. A sense of doubt and loss of objectivity.

6. Feelings of guilt.

7. A questioning attitude toward his own value-system.

8. A feeling of potential "breakdown," i.e.,that he might go crazy.

9. A need to defend his acquired principles.

10. A final sense of "belonging" (identification).

A feeling of helplessness in the face of the impersonal machinery of controlis carefully engendered within the prisoner. The individual who receives thepreliminary treatment described above not only begins to feel like an "animal"but also feels that nothing can be done about it. No one pays any personalattention to him.

His complaints fall on deaf ears.

Everything that happens to him occurs according to an impersonal; timeschedule that has nothing to do with his needs.

Any of you who have been routed through an LGAT -- does any of this match up with what you remember?

Okay. Where did that checklist come from?

Not from a description of an LGAT. It is from a document compiled in 1956 entitled A Report on Communist Brainwashing

[www.ncoic.com].

A large quantity of literature on this subject was published in the 1950s and 1960s after the Korean War, when American POWs returned and brought first hand descriptions of the powerful methods of indoctrination and group control used by their captors.

The difference is the brainwashing techniques were applied to persons who knew they were an indoctrinational setting

In LGATs one is not aware of being in an indoctrinational setting.

During the Cold War a lot of material was published describing Communist methods of group management and indoctrination.

Corboy just has to wonder if any persons studied up on this when creating large scale encounter groups of the 1960s and 1970s.

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

[www.independent.org]

1957 Communist methods of interrogation

“Abandonment of Direct Brutality”

Alternating approval and disapproval

Bulletin New York Academy Medicine. 1957 Sep; 33(9): 600–615.
PMCID: PMC1806200
PMID: 13460563

The Methods of Interrogation and Indoctrination Used by the Communist State Police*
Lawrence E. Hinkle and Harold G. Wolff
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Communist Interrogation Indoctriantion and Exploitation of Prisoners of War

[palmm.digital.flvc.org]

Brainwashisng by EH Schein 1960

[PDF]BRAINWASHING Edgar H. Schein - DSpace@MIT
[dspace.mit.edu]
by EH Schein - ?1960 - ?Cited by 15 - ?Related articles

Quote

The prisoner's social and emotional supports were undermined by his being
completely cut off from any communication with the outside (no incoming or outgoing
mail was permitted, and no non-Communist newspapers, etc. were available),
by the prohibition of any close emotional relationship with another prisoner
except in the context of reform, by the introduction of testimonials of various
sorts in the form of confessions by others whom the prisoner respected or simply
by surrounding the prisoner with cell mates who were enthusiastic about reforming
themselves and who condemned all the values to which he adhered.

The prisoner's image of himself and his sense of integrity or inviolability
were undermined primarily by the humiliation, revilement, and brutalization he
suffered at the hands of his cell mates in the process of "struggle." Most
prisoners were put into a cell containing several Chinese prisoners who were
further along in reforming themselves and who saw it as their primary duty to
"help" their most backward member to see the truth about himself in order that
the whole cell might advance. Each such cell had a leader who was in close contact
with the authorities for purposes of reporting on the cell's progress and
getting advice on how to handle the Western member. In this setting the cell
mates found ways of putting extreme pressure on their unreformed member, particularly
since he was often completely dependent upon them for help in feeding
himself, eliminating, etc.

.

and

Quote


Other facets of the environment undermined the prisoner s self-image. The
prisoner was identif'ied only by number; his every action during the day wans_
carefully prescribed -- when to eat, when to go to the toilet, when to wash, etc.
The time allotted to these activities was usually far too short to allow for
their satisfactory completion (e.g., two minutes for running out to the toilet,
18.
eliminating, and returning at a given time of day);

[www.ncoic.com]

A REPORT ON COMMUNIST BRAINWASHING

MEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable J. Edgar Hoover
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
SUBJECT : Brainwashing
The attached study on brainwashing was prepared by my staff in response to the increasing acute interest in the subject throughout the intelligence and security components of the Government. I feel you will find it well worth your personal attention. It represents the thinking of leading psy- chologists, psychiatrists and intelligence specialists, based in turn on interviews with many individuals who have had personal experience with Communist brainwashing, and on extensive research and testing. While individuals specialists hold divergent views on various aspects of this most complex subject, I believe the study reflects a synthesis of majority expert opinion. I will, of course, appreciate any comments on it that you or your staff may have.

(signed)
Allen W. Dulles
Director

ENCLOSURE

OA 53-37

What follows are just a few excerpts from a lengthy document.

Quote

b. Elicitation for the purpose of brainwashing consists of questioning,argument,indoctrination,threats,cajolery,praise,hostility, and a variety of other pressures. The aim of this interrogation is to hasten the breakdown of the individual's value system and to encourage the substitution of a different value-system.


The procurement of protected information is secondary and is used as a device to increase pressure upon the individual.

The term "interrogation" in this paper will refer, in general, to this type. The "interrogator" is the individual who conducts this type of interrogation and who controls the administration of the other pressures. He is the protagonist against whom the victim develops his conflict, and upon whom the victim develops a state of dependency as he seeks some solution to his conflict.

Quote

4. Control of Communication.

This is one of the most effective methods forcreating a sense of helplessness and despair.

This measure might well beconsidered the cornerstone of the communist system of control.

It consistsof strict regulation of the mail,reading materials, broadcast materials, andsocial contact available to the individual. The need to communicate is sogreat that when the usual channels are blocked, the individual will resort toany open channel, almost regardless of the implications of using thatparticular channel. Many POWs in Korea, whose only act of "collaboration" wasto sign petitions and "peace appeals," defended their actions on the groundthat this was the only method of letting the outside world know they werestill alive. Many stated that their morale and fortitude would have been increased immeasurably had leaflets of encouragement been dropped to them. When the only contact with the outside world is via the interrogator, th eprisoner comes to develop extreme dependency on his interrogator and hence loses another prop to his morale.

Quote

7. Criticism and Self-Criticism. There are mechanisms of communist thought control. Self-criticism gains its effectiveness from the fact that although it is not a crime for a man to be wrong, it is a major crime to be stubborn and to refuse to learn. Many individuals feel intensely relieved in being able to share their sense of guilt. Those individuals however, who have adjusted to handling their guilt internally have difficulty adapting to criticism and self-criticism. In brainwashing ,after a sufficient sense of guilt has been created in the individual, sharing and self-criticism permit relief. The price paid for this relief, however, is loss of individuality and increased dependency.

RESTRICTION OF ACCESS TO TOILETING -- Corboy emphasis

Quote

9. Other methods of control, which when used in conjunction with the basicprocesses, hasten the deterioration of prisoners' sense of values andresistance are:

a. Requiring a case history or autobiography of the prisoner provides a mine of information for the interrogator in establishing and "documenting" accusations.

b. Friendliness of the interrogator , when least expected, upsets the prisoner's ability to maintain a critical attitude.

c. Petty demands, such as severely limiting the allotted time for use of toilet facilities or requiring the POW to kill hundreds of flies, are harassment methods.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2018 12:00PM by corboy.

Corboy wrote, "Any of you who have been routed through an LGAT -- does any of this match up with what you remember?"

Yes, corboy. I am sorry that I don't have time for a more elaborate answer right now. I will read more thoroughly and make a better response later. I think you are on the right track.

From corboy's post:" ...who saw it as their primary duty to "help" their most backward member to see the truth about himself..."

I have seen those very words used by someone who was talking about "hard cases" at Landmark.

I will probably make small comments, about specific items, as I go. I suspect that you put some real time and effort into this post, corboy, and I want to take time reading it.

I have never been involved in formal LGAT, or something I can easily identify as that, BUT, I have seen these techniques employed in organizations that purported to be about values that were EXACTLY opposite to what we are considering, here.

I will give your question deep reflection, and will respond in due course.

Oh, yep. These are just my applicable observations from the first link, (the one about communist brainwashing). How creepy. I hope that many people read this thread. Who in their right mind would sign up for a weekend of this, if they had any idea of what they were getting into? Of course, what they tell you is that they are "un-brainwashing" you, and setting you "free!"
BULLSH*T!

"1. Making the individual aware of control is the first stage in changing his behaviour. "

And in the first day of the Landmark forum, the forum leader establishes his absolute authority over the participants.

"2. Realization of his complete dependence upon the controlling system is a major factor in the controlling of his behavior. The controlled adult is forced to accept the fact that ... praise, and the only social contact ..."

Yes. Though there is no dependency for physical needs, they would have you ostracized, humiliated, ridiculed by the forum leader, if you didn't accept what they were preaching.

"3. The awareness of control and recognition of dependence result in causing internal conflict and breakdown of previous patterns of behaviour. ...it is almost invariably severe for the adult undergoing brainwashing. Only an individual who holds his values lightly can change them easily."

They were always trying to cause "breakdowns."

"4. Discovery that there is an acceptable solution to his problem is the first stage of reducing the individual's conflict. It is characteristically reported by victims of brainwashing that this discovery led to an overwhelming feeling of relief..."

It seemed to me that the "acceptable solution" was to think and act like other Landmark people.

"5. Reintegration of values and identification with the controlling system is the final stage in changing the behaviour of the controlled individual...His new value-system, his manner of perceiving, organizing, and giving meaning to events, is virtually independent of his former value system."

"Giving meaning to." That's rich, in the context of Landmark. I saw my former friends "change" their values. Actually, to me, it looked more as if they had lost their values altogether, but maybe that's just me.

"a. Elicitation, which is designed to get the individual to surrender protected information, is a form of interrogation...
...The procurement of protected information is secondary and is used as a device to increase pressure upon the individual."

I think this is pretty much what they do in the "sharing." Not all of the sharing is at the front of the room. Much sharing is done when people are given the exercises to do in dyads.

No physical torture that I am aware of, however, "Another wrinkle in communication control is the informer system. "

Oh yes!!! They snitch on you IF you disagree with anything. Even the mildest criticism is reported to the center manager, seminar leaders, etc. The first person to snitch on me was my recruiter.

"5. Induction of Fatigue. This is a well-known device for breaking will power and critical powers of judgment. Deprivation of sleep results in more intense psychological debilitation than does any other method of engendering fatigue."

This has been noted in regards to Landmark over and over again.

"6. Control of Food,Water and Tobacco. The controlled individual is made intensely aware of his dependence upon his interrogator for the quality and quantity of his food and tobacco. "

This they covered, in a roundabout way, by the inadequacy of their breaks.

"c. Petty demands, such as severely limiting the allotted time for use of toilet facilities or requiring the POW to kill hundreds of flies, are harassment methods."

Well, we all know that est was notorious for that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2018 02:01PM by kdag.

corboy,

A first, impressionistic, response.

Was hit by the word, "interrogation".

Coming out of legal services, this is a familiar term; one designs 'interrogatories, one conducts depositions, one reviews responses to 'interrogatories'.

That said, I cannot think of one deposition that began with, "I cannot believe you said THAT [did THAT]!!!"

So, let's say I have been called into bosses' offices in consulting firms that shall go nameless, and that is how it starts.

Mind you, these are fairly flat organizations, and people speak to each other in a sort of egalitarian way, whether they are functional equals, or not.

So, I can recall sitting 'there' thinking, "OMG, said what? said it where? said what, and where, and to whom?" Your mind reals, you are instantly on the defensive.

And, then the 'story' will be trotted out, and it is invariably some trivial thing..."you quoted a source we don't agree with", "you expressed this/that opinion"..."you praised X scholar"..."you suggested X might be possible", "you alluded to X resource"...

More often than even this crap, the accusation would pertain to nonsense, revealed by an "associate", whose name could not be disclosed.

Point is that it is the manner and phrasing of the accusation, rather than the accusation, itself. "I cannot believe, YOU...", "What were you thinking when YOU...?"

Also, I would say that once this 'culture' is installed, it is the END of all trust in the organization. I have worked in firms in which employees have their I-phones on 'record' for every internal conversation, or, check the ceiling tiles in their offices for bugs.

Me, I just think there is no business advantage in creating this kind of environment, so WHY do 'they' do this?

I go back to the thought that some people take a real 'duper's delight' in manipulating others, and it is this contingent that is most likely to be touting qualities like, "authenticity" and "integrity".

After you get 'the game'...you have to devise the counter-response.

I was partial to: "Bite me!" or, "Show me your dossier, mine commandant!"

///

Can't think of more to say on this...other than that, I SUSPECT that the more ridiculous the 'charge/accusation', the more effective it is in gaslighting the subject.

"You left privileged company property in a communal lunchroom"...(this would be me pealing a company, or client logo sticker off a binder, and discarding it in a trash can.)

"You were seen communicating with a competitor." This would be me having a conversation with a professional peer at a public event.

I could go on for days, but you get the idea...I hope.

bakkagirl

From what bakkagirl wrote:

"That said, I cannot think of one deposition that began with, "I cannot believe you said THAT [did THAT]!!!" "

I have also been approached that way, and they were typically way off base. These were some of my thoughts about this:

1. That phrasing, right off the top, is bewildering and puts me out-of-balance. I had no idea of what they were talking about. I suspected that that was the whole point. The accusations were wild and based on nothing, or on faulty interpretations of very little. You have to consider that these people want to be in control of EVERY conversation. This probably does that for them, a good deal of the time.

2. Once they had done that, they DID start asking rapid-fire questions. They really never believed their initial accusation, but thought that they could extract an explanation that i did NOT owe them. They hoped to get me on the defensive, and covering my @ss because my explanation would not be as bad as whatever i was just accused of. I have no legal education, but I was wondering if that was a common tactic.

Remember corboy's original post here. They try to get you to divulge information that you normally wouldn't. I think this is just one of their tactics. I have learned to take a minute to decide if I am going to answer their question AT ALL. I have to ask myself, "Do I really owe this person this information?"

kdag wrote:

Quote


They try to get you to divulge information that you normally wouldn't. I think this is just one of their tactics.

I have learned to take a minute to decide if I am going to answer their question AT ALL. I have to ask myself, "Do I really owe this person this information?"

Here is some advice from "A REPORT ON COMMUNIST BRAINWASHING" referenced above on how to cope with the interrogation tactics.

Quote

Writing Personal Accounts and Self-Criticism.

Experience has indicated that one of the most effective ways of combatting these pressures is to enter into the spirit with an overabundance of enthusiasm.

Endless written accounts of inconsequential material have virtually "smothered" some eager interrogators.

In the same spirit, sober, detailed self-criticisms of the most minute "sins"has sometimes brought good results.

So here is some food for thought. Corboy is only half joking.

If you are in a line of work where you are likely to encounter demands for intimate self disclosure/self criticism, have an action plan.

One guy who grew up Irish Catholic prior to Vatican II wrote how when he was a child and required to go to confession, he
was too ashamed to tell the priest in the confessional what his real sins
were (masturbation). To preserve his privacy and go through the motions, he confessed to stealing cookies.

So, here we are, talking about LGATs. Or required courses or seminars on "professional development" or coaching being inflicted on you by management.

This is a situation where you are not under arrest, you not under oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Your taxes are not being audited.

So, if you are forced to endure some 'professional development' shit where you're required to 'confess', you have the right to preserve your privacy.

So, maybe overwhelm them with a load of fake "sins". Here are a few.

* Confess y
ou are such a people pleaser that you replace the toilet/loo paper roll before it runs out.

* You don't just pick up after your dog, you pick up other people's dog poo also - you are just too nice a person.

* When in line at Starbucks, you never order the latte or cappuchino you really want. Instead, you always order plain coffee because you are ashamed to hold up the line by ordering anything fancier.

Overwhelm the LGAT/Coaching snoopers by confessing 'sins' such as these.

You are mindfucking them right back because:

* You appear to be obedient but you are actually disobeying by not revealing your vulnerablity. worse yet, you remain in control of the situation.

* You're occupying their attention but giving them nothing they can use against you

* All these 'sins' describe what a self sacrificing good citizen you are and make you look like an exemplary employee



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2018 10:38AM by corboy.

corboy wrote (only half jokingly):

So here is some food for thought. Corboy is only half joking.

If you are in a line of work where you are likely to encounter demands for intimate self disclosure/self criticism, have an action plan.

etc, etc., etc.,

Folks, I am hard-pressed to think of a line of work that legitimately requires "intimate self disclosure/self criticism".

If I make a long stretch, I would say that -- maybe -- therapists engaged in a practicum would be called upon to examine how their own experience may be influencing their engagement with a client. I could see this, possibly, also coming up in coach training.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would any public 'confession' be required.

I would say that excluding the above circumstances, any attempt by an employer to elicit or coerce intimate self-disclosure, self-criticism has crossed the line, is in breach of the labor code of most countries, is ACTIONABLE.

All of this needs to be REMOVED from organizational environments, PERIOD.

bakkagirl

From bakkagirl:

"I would say that excluding the above circumstances, any attempt by an employer to elicit or coerce intimate self-disclosure, self-criticism has crossed the line, is in breach of the labor code of most countries, is ACTIONABLE.

All of this needs to be REMOVED from organizational environments, PERIOD."

Agreed.

As I do, I am looking for motive here. Would the possible motive be "collateral," to keep people in line? It seems to me that maybe, after people have shared this stuff, they would later regret doing so. It might feel to them as if it is hanging over their heads. Now the company "has something" on them. If they later discover other unethical practices by the company, many would be reluctant to report these, for fear of retaliation.