Stanton Peele on coercion

TACTIC 1

Increase suggestibility and "soften up" the individual through specific hypnotic or other suggestibility-increasing techniques such as: Extended audio, visual, verbal, or tactile fixation drills, Excessive exact repetition of routine activities, Sleep restriction and/or Nutritional restriction.

TACTIC 2

Establish control over the person's social environment, time and sources of social support by a system of often-excessive rewards and punishments. Social isolation is promoted. Contact with family and friends is abridged, as is contact with persons who do not share group-approved attitudes. Economic and other dependence on the group is fostered.

TACTIC 3

Prohibit disconfirming information and non supporting opinions in group communication. Rules exist about permissible topics to discuss with outsiders. Communication is highly controlled. An "in-group" language is usually constructed.

TACTIC 4

Make the person re-evaluate the most central aspects of his or her experience of self and prior conduct in negative ways. Efforts are designed to destabilize and undermine the subject's basic consciousness, reality awareness, world view, emotional control and defense mechanisms. The subject is guided to reinterpret his or her life's history and adopt a new version of causality.

TACTIC 5

Create a sense of powerlessness by subjecting the person to intense and frequent actions and situations which undermine the person's confidence in himself and his judgment.

TACTIC 6

Create strong aversive emotional arousals in the subject by use of nonphysical punishments such as intense humiliation, loss of privilege, social isolation, social status changes, intense guilt, anxiety, manipulation and other techniques.

TACTIC 7

Intimidate the person with the force of group-sanctioned secular psychological threats. For example, it may be suggested or implied that failure to adopt the approved attitude, belief or consequent behavior will lead to severe punishment or dire consequences such as physical or mental illness, the reappearance of a prior physical illness, drug dependence, economic collapse, social failure, divorce, disintegration, failure to find a mate, etc.

These tactics of psychological force are applied to such a severe degree that the individual's capacity to make informed or free choices becomes inhibited. The victims become unable to make the normal, wise or balanced decisions which they most likely or normally would have made, had they not been unknowingly manipulated by these coordinated technical processes. The cumulative effect of these processes can be an even more effective form of undue influence than pain, torture, drugs or the use of physical force and physical and legal threats.

How does Coercive Psychological Persuasion Differ from Other Kinds of Influence? Coercive psychological systems are distinguished from benign social learning or peaceful persuasion by the specific conditions under which they are conducted. These conditions include the type and number of coercive psychological tactics used, the severity of environmental and interpersonal manipulation, and the amount of psychological force employed to suppress particular unwanted behaviors and to train desired behaviors.

Coercive force is traditionally visualized in physical terms. In this form it is easily definable, clear-cut and unambiguous. Coercive psychological force unfortunately has not been so easy to see and define. The law has been ahead of the physical sciences in that it has allowed that coercion need not involve physical force. It has recognized that an individual can be threatened and coerced psychologically by what he or she perceives to be dangerous, not necessarily by that which is dangerous.

Law has recognized that even the threatened action need not be physical. Threats of economic loss, social ostracism and ridicule, among other things, are all recognized by law, in varying contexts, as coercive psychological forces.

Why are Coercive Psychological Systems Harmful? Coercive psychological systems violate our most fundamental concepts of basic human rights. They violate rights of individuals that are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and affirmed by many declarations of principle worldwide.

By confusing, intimidating and silencing their victims, those who profit from these systems evade exposure and prosecution for actions recognized as harmful and which are illegal in most countries such as: fraud, false imprisonment, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct and other tortuous acts.

http://www.factnet.org - Margaret Thaler Singer, Ph.D

http://www.factnet.org - F.A.C.T.net

Source: http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/coercive_mind_control_tactics.htm

I don't think anyone who is intelligent and goes to AA, will argue that what is written in the BB can be interpreted as religious "in nature". AA is religious by the definition the courts have established so far. We have not heard from the supreme court yet. I would bet they would come down on the side of the lower courts.
Does this help the people who are being forced to go to AA, not really. Because the judges ignore the rulings.
Here is a point I find to be critical to many members of AA, including myself. AA members know god is mentioned and prayers are recited and we don't care. I personally know many in AA that don't care for a GOD (as described in the BB) and don't speak of it.
The god written about in the bible (used in the BB) is not the god most people in AA are talking about. I believe most in AA are at least agnostic. We don't care for the god Bill spoke of. Bill near his end didn't care for this god either.
We would be lying to ourselves and others to say, AA is a religious cult or organization. It is not and if you went and mingled with the population, you would notice rather quickly that I am right.
Could I argue this in front of the courts and win, no, probably not. Especially when people are being forced against their will to go to AA.

Hi danny. Your writing is like a fingerprint. Now get lost.

LisaMarie

Thu, 07/26/2012 - 22:19

Permalink
I don't think anyone who is

I don't think anyone who is intelligent and goes to AA, will argue that what is written in the BB can be interpreted as religious "in nature". AA is religious by the definition the courts have established so far. We have not heard from the supreme court yet. I would bet they would come down on the side of the lower courts.
Does this help the people who are being forced to go to AA, not really. Because judges are ignoring the rulings.
Here is a point I find to be critical to many members of AA including myself. AA members know god is mentioned, prayers are recited and spirituality is meshed in with god. I personally know many in AA that personally don't care for a GOD (as described in the BB) and don't speak of it.
The god written about in the bible (used in the BB) is not the god most people in AA are talking about. I believe most in AA are at least agnostic. We don't care for the god Bill spoke of. Bill near his end didn't care for this god either.
We would be lying to ourselves and others to say, AA is a religious cult or organization. It is not and if you went and mingled with the population, you would notice rather quickly that I am right.
Would or could I argue this, to the courts of are land and win, no, probably not. Especially when people are being forced against their will to go to AA.

Shorter posts might be the answer. Less chance of you making a mistake that would embarrass an 8 year old. And what is with the female names? Identity problems, Danny? Just can't stand it in the closet any more?

Oh, and Danny - watch out for the Romanian proxy servers. They are not exactly legit. You may find them downloading stuff that you don't want on your computer. Would be a shame to get arrested for something you didn't do. Keep trying Danny - you've got absolutely no chance simply because you are too stupid. It used to be fun - getting a bit boring spotting you now, it's so easy.

Well, I can see the same people get around to harassing each and every poster here, that doesn't agree with them. I was already warned by a few members here that you would call me Danny, especially if my grammar wasn't to your liking.
I can only say, thank you. From what I heard Danny is a great guy. I can see he has your attention.
Sorry I am not a great writer nor do I care to be. I get by just fine and most people in my life don't care either. So if you are going to have the bar set at bad grammar = Danny, well then here we go.