RSS
Introduction
It seems that in the 1990s, training in multiculturalism could involve brainwashing or psychological abuse. How true is this of today’s anti-racism training?
Cornell in the 1990s
Almost thirty years ago a student at Cornell wrote to its president about what he saw as the brainwashing techniques used to spread the ideology of multiculturalism, or anti-racism as it might be called today, at the university, which he compared to those used by cults.[1]The letter formed the main part of an article entitled “Does Cornell Use Brainwashing?” which I downloaded in 2001 from http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/educati...g.html , unfortunately without recording the author’s name, if given, or the date of publication. The article does not seem to be accessible today. I would guess that the letter, if not the article, was written in 1994. It cannot have been earlier since it mentions the Waco incident, which occurred in 1993, nor can it have been much later since it refers to multiculturalism as something new. His letter reminds us how peculiar are the ideas that have been being pressed on us all this time, it throws light on the behaviour of anti-racists on social media such as Twitter, and shows how thrilling it can be for White people to believe that they have behaved abominably. We might also wonder how common today is the student’s independent-mindedness.
According to Jonathan Bloedow’s letter, he first encountered multiculturalism when he attended an event arranged by a Resident Assistant that had been advertised as for Whites only.[2]Resident Assistants at Cornell, apparently called house advisors or junior counsellors at other American colleges, were senior students employed by the university to live among younger ones as “the extension of the administration into residential life”. She had brought in two professors to lead a discussion about race, stereotypes, prejudice, power and privilege. When the professors’ ideas were challenged from the floor, the discussion became quite tense.
Afterwards, Bloedow and a friend continued the discussion with some students who agreed with the professors and tried to persuade the two to accept ideas that seemed to get more and more bizarre. Their argument relied on defining racism as prejudice plus power, on which basis they said that all White Americans were racist regardless of their actions or beliefs. When the anti-racists realised that they could not effectively counter their opponents’ objections, something strange happened. In frustration two of them told Bloedow and his friend that their problem was that they were thinking too much from here, pointing to their heads, instead of from here, pointing to their hearts. Bloedow wondered why both young women used the same words and gestures, which he had never heard or seen before, and surmised that they had been affected by a common source. He later spoke to other student multiculturalists, one of whom even followed him in to dinner and sat down with him to explain his new-found belief system.
Bloedow noticed several things in common in all the discussions of multiculturalism he had taken part in. Most striking was the peculiarity of the beliefs themselves and the simplistic nature of the explanations of complex social problems that were offered. Secondly were the formulaic phrases used. Not only did every student multiculturalist express the same ideas, they usually expressed them in the same trite words. Again Bloedow thought that this belief system must have a single source. Thirdly the multiculturalists’ ideas were new to them. They had only acquired them at Cornell. Fourthly, they were all very excited about their new beliefs. Like religious fanatics they displayed an almost frenzied devotion to them, which Bloedow found odd given the simplistic nature of the beliefs. Finally, they gave no sign of thought, seeming to have accepted the ideas without putting them through their any kind of critical evaluation. Something seemed to have snapped in them psychologically, letting the ideas in and changing the students permanently. In one case, when a couple with whom Bloedow had been good friends learned that he edited The Cornell American, which had presumably questioned multiculturalism, they were outraged and refused ever to speak to him again. When he greeted them in the street they ignored him, thinking him too evil to acknowledge. Bloedow became all the more interested in what was happening—and disturbed by it.
Suddenly everything fell into place for Bloedow when he remembered hearing of this phenomenon before. He had once attended a lecture given by someone from the Council on Mind Abuse about cults, brainwashing and mind-control, where the speaker had said that a key aim of brainwashing was to get people to stop using their minds and start thinking with their emotions—their hearts. He had explained how mind-controllers try to get people to see their minds and rational thought as their enemies.
Bloedow talked to a fellow student who had recorded his experience of multicultural training, which matched Bloedow’s own. The other student said that at the start of one session, trainees were told no fewer than four times not to think about what they were about to hear but to feel it. When the student had countered the claim that “Whites walk down the glistening sidewalk of life with everything handed to them on a silver platter” by saying that he knew White people who had lived in poverty, the other students had turned on him and screamed that he was an evil racist.
Now seriously concerned, Bloedow set out to discover all he could about brainwashing and mind control, learning among other things that mind controllers train people to respond to dissenters with harassment and abuse but to accept them warmly if they recant. When he read out parts of a book about brainwashing to his fellow student, the latter was shocked to see how accurately the book described what he had experienced. Bloedow’s scepticism gave way to the conclusion to which everything was pointing, which he found quite frightening.
He noted that all the students he came across who were possessed by the new belief system had been converted in one of three situations, the main one being the course “Racism in American Society”, taught by the chair of the Africana Studies Department and another professor. He learned that the university was thinking of making this course mandatory for all first-year students, something true of no other course.
It was later suggested to him by the former director of the Cult Awareness Network that Cornell resorted to mind-control techniques because it had only a short time in which to change students’ minds.[3]The former director of the Cult Awareness Network was Ron Loomis.
Jane Elliott in the 1990s
A famous “diversity trainer” active at the same time, who has won the National Mental Health Association Award for Excellence in Education, is Jane Elliott. She began her diversity training in 1968, appeared on the Johnny Carson show and has had several documentaries made about her. One from 1996 was recently shown online.[4]Blackpilled, March 5th 2023, “INSOMNIA STREAM: STUPID CUNT EDITION”, Video Link. Apparently she relied on psychological abuse rather than brainwashing, although psychological abuse can be an element of the brainwashing process.
When signing trainees in to a workshop, she either placed or did not place a large yellow collar round their necks. Those with collars waited in one room, the others in another.
In the uncollared room, where most trainees were Black, she explained that she had separated trainees by the colour of their eyes, putting a collar on those with blue eyes. She was going to attribute to the blue-eyed trainees every negative trait that had been attributed to Black people so that they would learn how it felt to be non-White, she said. She told the brown-eyes that the blue-eyed waiting room contained just three chairs for seventeen people and laughed. She had had the heating turned way up there. A blue-eyed person must have come in to ask if it could be turned down, because she said: “It’s hot in there? Well, then it’s probably smelly, isn’t it, because White people smell a lot, don’t they?” She wanted the blue-eyed trainees to be uncomfortable, she explained to the brown-eyed ones.
Still in the brown-eyed waiting room, she suggested that IQ tests were biased against Black people because they tested “something that they know virtually nothing about”. But IQ tests don’t test knowledge; they test the ability to see and extrapolate patterns. Jane Elliott preferred to describe a question of aptitude in problem solving, such as the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (which do not require knowledge) as a question of knowledge. She told the brown-eyes that they would be given a test that they would pass because the test itself gave them half the answers. This would resemble the way in which White people outperformed Blacks in IQ tests because White people are given the answers on a plate. Black trainees smiled, looking forward to outdoing the blue-eyes, who would presumably take a different test, which they would fail.
She seemed to think that the reason Black people did poorly in many ways was that White people expected little of them, a theory George W Bush alluded to when in 2009 he referred to “the soft bigotry of low expectations”, sometimes known as the theory of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Expect something of someone and they will do it. If only life were that simple! Teachers could raise whole classes of dull children to the top of the academic league just by predicting that they would get there. People with no ear for music would start singing in tune if only someone prophesied that they would.
Jane Elliott also suggested that another explanation of the fact that Whites exceeded Blacks was that they were in power and had set things up so that they would remain in power. They won every game because they had invented the game and set the rules. (Including sports like basketball and football?) What chance therefore did a Black person have? This was the Great Race Conspiracy Theory, which says that Whites connive to keep Blacks down. It is a classic conspiracy theory because no one has found any evidence of the conspiracy, which must therefore be going on in secret. Nor can the theory account for the abundant evidence of White people trying to help Black people in every possible way.
Jane Elliott saw “cultural bias” everywhere, sometimes where it was bound to exist, sometimes where it could not. “We use culturally biased text-books, we have culturally biased pictures on the wall”, she said, without explaining how a book or picture could fail to reflect a culture. According to her, our maps were also culturally biased, although what shape a continent might be on a culturally unbiased map she did not say.
But she made the purpose of the workshop clear to the brown-eyes: “For two and a half hours we are going to make these people look inferior and feel inferior”. Clearly this was a sadist who particularly hated White people.
In the workshop, where the blue-eyes sat on the floor while the others sat in chairs, she described White people as slow, unmotivated and lazy. How was this supposed to reflect reality? It must have been extraordinarily rare for a White person to describe a Black person in this way, yet Jane Elliott seemed to relish doing this to White people. The Black trainees loved it.
She told those with collars that they would be treated “the way they have treated other people for a lifetime”. Even assuming that she meant White people in general rather than her White trainees in particular, how many White Americans had ever actually mistreated a Black person? The scenario was a product of Jane Elliott’s imagination, drawing on largely mythical but culture-wide dramatic categories.[5]Dramatic categories are mental devices for perceiving events, which can make it easier to believe in myths than facts. “Certain unverbalized assumptions about what must be the case can often defeat what actually is the case,” wrote the philosopher John Searle when discussing the student uprisings at Berkeley in the 1960s. He gave as an example of a dramatic category: “oppressed minority wins struggle for justice against reactionary authorities”. This contrasted with “oppressed minority engages in pointless battle with authorities for something they are prepared to give anyhow”, which was not a dramatic category and so no one could see events in those terms. See John Searle, 1972, The Campus War, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 73-77. The unverbalised dramatic category that Jane Elliott drew on and promulgated was basically that Whites were horrible to Blacks.
If Jane Elliott had really wanted the White trainees to know what it was like to be Black, she could have asked some Black trainees to stand up and tell them, in which case how many would have said that they were commonly abused? She was pushing the idea that Black people habitually suffered at the hands of Whites without a shred of evidence that it was true. The main purpose of the workshop seemed to be to gratify her love of insulting and humiliating White people.
She did at one point invite Black trainees to speak, not about being Black but specifically about their “stress”. One said that he had been unable to rent a house because, he was told, it was occupied, and he had later seen a White couple going into it: not a very persuasive example of persecution. A woman said that she was one of only two Black teachers at her school: hardly a major problem, one would have thought, let alone a case of mistreatment. The impression was reinforced that Jane Elliott’s idea of Black suffering inflicted by Whites was a fantasy.
This stubborn attachment of many White people to the idea of Black suffering recalls the time that in the Jim Crow era a journalist interviewed a Black man who had been refused admission to a hotel. “What did you do?” asked the journalist breathlessly, perhaps hoping to hear that the Black man had had to sleep on the street. “Went to another hotel”, he said.
Anti-racism training today
It would be interesting to know how the anti-racism training courses employees must undergo today compare to the brainwashing or psycho-torture sessions held in the 1990s. It would seem from the websites of companies offering such training that they might differ in three main ways.
First, whereas in the 1990s “multicultural” or “diversity” training aimed to get it across to White people that their society was riddled with racism, today this is taken for granted. For example, a prospectus from Equality and Diversity UK states that its course aims to “support delegates to understand the role of White privilege in racism” and help them “learn more about racism both the covert/overt [sic], including Subtle Acts of Exclusion”.[6]Equality and Diversity UK, no date (downloaded March 2023), “Anti Racism Training Course”, https://www.equalityanddiversity.co.uk/anti-racism-t...g.html . The existence of “racism”, “White privilege” and these “subtle acts” is presupposed rather than asserted. The course also aims to “support delegates to understand … White fragility and White saviourism”, thereby presupposing the existence of these things too. For anyone who might wonder what they are, the course will “give delegates the language … to tackle uncomfortable conversations”, as though without such jargon one would be unable to talk about race or whatever is supposed to be meant by “racism”. Yet it seems that some courses still find it necessary to inform trainees that all Whites are racist, as seen in the following picture.
Secondly, today’s courses do not seem to advocate feeling rather than thinking but seem to be presented as almost academically respectable. Anti-racism now appears so confident of itself that it can pose as the product of rational thought and observation. Today’s courses also present themselves as caring. With White people’s interests at heart, they want to help them and support them in their efforts to overcome various afflictions of which they might have been unaware.
Thirdly, today’s courses modestly refrain from assuming that they will turn every White trainee into an anti-racist. Rather, they stress the concept of “allyship”, whereby those who do not become anti-racists will at least become their allies so that whatever anti-racists do, they will be behind them. Thus should it turn out that the thrust of anti-racism is to attack White people, their society and their culture, its new allies will also attack White people, their society and their culture.
Perhaps readers who have attended anti-racism training recently will tell us about it in the comments section below.
Notes
[1] The letter formed the main part of an article entitled “Does Cornell Use Brainwashing?” which I downloaded in 2001 from http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/education/Does_Cornell_Use_Brainwashing.html , unfortunately without recording the author’s name, if given, or the date of publication. The article does not seem to be accessible today. I would guess that the letter, if not the article, was written in 1994. It cannot have been earlier since it mentions the Waco incident, which occurred in 1993, nor can it have been much later since it refers to multiculturalism as something new.
[2] Resident Assistants at Cornell, apparently called house advisors or junior counsellors at other American colleges, were senior students employed by the university to live among younger ones as “the extension of the administration into residential life”.
[3] The former director of the Cult Awareness Network was Ron Loomis.
[4] Blackpilled, March 5th 2023, “INSOMNIA STREAM: STUPID CUNT EDITION”, Video Link.
[5] Dramatic categories are mental devices for perceiving events, which can make it easier to believe in myths than facts. “Certain unverbalized assumptions about what must be the case can often defeat what actually is the case,” wrote the philosopher John Searle when discussing the student uprisings at Berkeley in the 1960s. He gave as an example of a dramatic category: “oppressed minority wins struggle for justice against reactionary authorities”. This contrasted with “oppressed minority engages in pointless battle with authorities for something they are prepared to give anyhow”, which was not a dramatic category and so no one could see events in those terms. See John Searle, 1972, The Campus War, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 73-77. The unverbalised dramatic category that Jane Elliott drew on and promulgated was basically that Whites were horrible to Blacks.
[6] Equality and Diversity UK, no date (downloaded March 2023), “Anti Racism Training Course”, https://www.equalityanddiversity.co.uk/anti-racism-training.html .
[7] Source: VICE TV, https://presearch.com/images?q=fat%20black%20anti-racism%20trainer%20says%20all%20white%20people%20are%20racist#view .
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
What I’d like to know is why some whites are more susceptible to this brain washing than others. I could say “people,” but since whites are the focus here, I’ll stick with whites.
If I were put into a situation where they tried to coerce me into attending any of these “diversity” brain washing courses, corporate, collegiate, government. I’d tell them to fuck off and walk away, they wouldn’t even get me in the door. Should I find myself in one of these situations under false pretenses, I’d sit and laugh, or mock them with sarcasm mercilessly, until either I become bored, or they toss me out.
I’ve never cared about a college, job, friendship, social circle, woman, family, government anything to put up with it. I’m a psychological impenetrable fortress.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t succumb under some Manchurian candidate type of real physical or psychological torture. Don’t know.
But as soon as some ditz with a PHD said to me; ok now “feel this don’t think.” I’d start laughing and walk out!
It’s pretty much layman’s knowledge that women are herd animals, and “empty vessels”,
waiting for their belief systems to be ingrained into them by some authority; father, husband, teacher, mentor, social circle, government. And are much more conformist than men on the whole.
Why some men, but not others so easily susceptible? Manson / Jim Jones, mostly had women conned, but some men too.
Speaking of “brainwashing techniques”, I’m reading a book by the Dutch psychologist Mattias Desmet, called “The Psychology of Totalitarianism” (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2022). It provides a needed frame of reference I think to the drive for overregulation coming from those who fearfully crave relief (“equity”, bike lanes, “safe spaces”, face masks, vax passports, etc.) from the uncertainties that are part and parcel of the human condition in complex modern society. The author makes the point that these pseudo-moralistic modern Crusades are unwittingly marching our already fragmented society lockstep into a new kind of tyranny, masquerading as a socially engineerable utopia, “following the science” all the way. Political/economic context is rather lacking, unfortunately, just as you’d expect in a work authored by an academic psychologist (mustn’t offend the sources of the grant money!). The author is too respectful of the received narrative of the past century so of history (and must insert the obligatory indignant Adolph H condemnation to get published), but it’s a thought-provoking book, as much perhaps for what is left inferred as for what it says. Among those contributing blurbs are Eric Clapton and RFK Jr.
It’s really striking that some react so angrily to even the mildest criticism of the latest Sacred Scripture, viciously attacking it as, let’s say, Trumpian deplorableness, or one of the other –isms or –phobias or “denials” they’ve been so carefully conditioned to abhor. This brings to mind what Voltaire is supposed to have warned: those who can convince you to believe absurdities can also convince you to commit atrocities.
If you ask the multicultural disciples what benefit their movement brings, they are unable to come up with one sane reason. It is interesting to note that multiculturalism is promoted only in white (well originally white) countries. They are against multiculturalism in their countries.
The white dude was kicked out from Africa with the slogan “Africa is for blacks” but Europe is for everybody hungry. They execute white Christians for carrying bible in public, because they pray to different Allah. That does not prevent them from flooding Paris to cultural destruction. They want China for Chinese but keep creating Chinatown in every corner of this planet.
Is not destruction of Yugoslavia a good enough reason against multicultural society? Who will be next? Are Palestinian happier than homogeneous Japanese?
Thank you for this important post.
Yes, the ideology of Multi-Culturalism as presented along with it’s integral anti-race campaign known euphamistically as ‘anti-racism’, and it’s adherants, have all the earmarks of being a gigantic cult.
It’s not ‘just’ in the universities that people are being ‘brainwashed’ into believing Multi-Culturalism, however, but the whole of the United States, and other Anglosphere countries besides, via the corporate mass media.
In 1961 Dr Robert J Lifton published an outstanding work on the subject of mind control entitled Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China, which as the title suggest, was in large part the results of a study conducted on returning US Korean War POW’s and the Chinese mind control techniques they had experienced while in North Korean captivity.
‘Thought Reform’ is simply a modern term for brainwashing.
Happily, it was found that a person’s mind cleared up once they separated from the source of the propaganda. So, turn off the TV and radio.
This is a free on line link to the book:
https://archive.org/details/ThoughtReformAndThePsychologyOfTotalism/mode/1up
However, if a person doesn’t have time for that, the Wiki link below has a pretty good outline of it’s contents which only takes a few minutes to read, and which I’d highly recommend.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism
In the book, Lifton outlines his self-explanatory “Eight Criteria for Thought Reform”:
Milieu Control: This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
Mystical Manipulation: The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows a reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.
Demand for Purity: The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
Confession: Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members’ “sins,” “attitudes,” and “faults” are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
Sacred Science: The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
Loading the Language: The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members’ thought processes to conform to the group’s way of thinking.
Doctrine over person: Members’ personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
Dispensing of existence: The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious, and must be converted to the group’s ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.
I recommend this interesting video where they discuss an American professor who grew up in the Soviet Union explain how the USA is now similar. Everyone is afraid the speak the truth. Stupid things happen but few speak out.
The original brainwashing, for most people in the US, occurs thanks to that novel, the bible and the well off con artists that keep pushing it. The christian religion relies on absolute nonsense, transmitted solemnly, by some guy in a dress to young minds that receive it because they are young and ignorant.
A 3 in 1 god, virgin birth, multiplying fish, resurrection, etc, are ludicrous but the faithful eat that up. So, next the gov’ts education system steps in to mold those minds to worship the statist faith. You must vote for a ‘leader’ because you’re too stupid to run your own life. You must put on a costume and kill people you don’t know in some far away place because your secular god said so. You must give the political class about half your earnings to protect you from the other mafia while that same class of useless eaters lives in mansions and grow rich because you believe in bullshit.
What’s happening now is to be expected as the entire fraudulent system slowly implodes due to internal inconsistencies purposely created to luxuriously support the very people causing all the world’s problems and they do it purposely to rub your nose in the fact that voters and gov’t supporters are stupid beyond belief.
Very interesting essay and comments. Thanks to all.
Best regards,
Kali.
The original brainwashing, for most people in the US, occurs thanks to that novel, the bible and the well off con artists that keep pushing it.
I’m out of TROLL buttons boomer!
What I stated is absolutely true. Various nations in the world have different religions and their populations are all brainwashed into believing their local version of some fiction that includes submission to some god character. The various gov’ts then use the malleability of those deluded people to institute their sectarian religion of gov’t worship. With their ‘give unto Caesar’ admonition, christians set up their adherents to become the brain dead every gov’t then exploits.
You haven’t the intellect to even attempt to deny the truth, so you end up being the actual troll with an attack not on what I said, but on me personally. Can you muster a reply to the content I stated or is all you’ve got is some feeble attempt at libel to which I’m immune?
It is odd. My own theory is that it depends on a mix of intelligence and strength of identity. Probably also emotional susceptibility. So if you have seemingly intelligent Whites who lack a strong identity as White (or some ethnicity of White) and are overly empathetic, probably easier to manipulate. Similarly – may be have a good White identity, but not that intelligent and again very empathetic.
The other theory is just initial go-along to get along, or rank opportunism, that eventually rubs off on them. Speak in a Southern accent long enough, and you will start speaking that way naturally to some extent. Particularly true where, just as living in the South would immerse you in southern accents, living in this craphole of wokeness is bound to rub off on you if you are not hypervigilant.
And some dudes just want to get laid.
Multiculturalism is essentially a cornerstone of Marxism and Communism. “Proletarians of the world, unite!” They did, and now look at proletarian multicultural Russia: the population dumbed down and reduced to the common denominator of snitching and anonymous reporting to the secret police, everyone hating each other, everyone trying to cheat each other, racial tensions in every “autonomous republic,” prisons choked with juveniles, widespread tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis and alcoholism. Multiculturalism is the first stage in the demise of thriving, majority-white civilizations. Once you allow in Asian elements and their suspicious foreign gods and political ideologies, such as Judaism and Islam, it’s over, Rover. The Romans realized that only too late. The next generation of Europe will have to deal with bloody civil wars.
Went to a “diversity summit” or some such nonsense (needed the education hours and the co-worker I went with was cute, so cut me some slack).
Had a topic on how studies show “diversity” is better for the bottom line, with some citation. Looked at the citation and it was not a study, but an opinion piece in the Times or WSJ or some such rubbish.
Ok Bubs, here a new approach.
Never before had humans to deal with such levels of increasingly intrusive mass electronical propaganda.
Actually, it is the opposite of that. Multiculturalism promotes the atomization of society – hyphenated citizens if you will. The lie of “diversity is our strength” is a key component of this. People are encouraged to ignore the big picture and concentrate on petty differences between different groups, which allows the manipulators to operate out in the open as “just another interest group”. Marxism and communism identified the common enemy of all – “capitalism”, and moved to create a utopia where everyone was “equal”, providing you followed the rules. The closest multiculturalism comes to that is “White Supremicist” which, unlike “capitalism” is imaginary, and even Whites following the narrative are “outsiders”.
It is safe to say: The sting of the scorpion of conscience has been replaced by the itch of greed in Russians.©
There’s no doubt this racism brainwashing is state propaganda. Its purpose is to make racial discrimination your problem instead of the government’s problem. That’s why the brainwashers fixate on racism, a subjective attitude, instead of racial discrimination, a term of art that defines binding US responsibilities to blacks, to whites, to everybody. Because in terms of government performance of state duties, the US government is down in the third-tier toilet, swirling round the sewer pipe.
The funny part is, the straight Fs the US government gets mostly result from treating everybody like shit. The US government keeps say 98% of your rights out of your reach. The US keeps maybe 98.9% of black people’s rights out of reach. Makes a difference on the margin, but the treaty body rightly sees the big issue: the US government fucks everybody over, some worse than others. They don’t meet rock-bottom minimal standards for any of us.
You can read the blow-by-blow here.
https://uhri.ohchr.org/en/document/133396dd-9f5b-43ae-8926-28144f817762
In terms of all the most comprehensive measures of your rights, the US government is dogshit. Pigshit. Ripe stinking roundworm-infested racoon shit. The exhaustively-documented facts are up on the web, big as life, and everybody knows it but the miserable US subject population.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-and-mechanisms/human-rights-indicators
To keep your mind off this, they hector you about your sad little feckless opinions. Fred Hampton got it right: black and brown and white, our common enemy is this police state. That of course is why the government ambushed Fred in his bed and he woke up dead like a fucking Doctor Seuss book about the Stasi.
Thanks for the video.
I’d not mentioned in my upthread post about Robert J Lifton’s 1961 book on Chinese Communist brainwashing techniques that it was the Soviets who had taught them those methods.
The comments in your vid about the scientists having to suppress their own personal observations to go along with political ideology fits in perfectly with the ‘Sacred Science’ and ‘Doctrine over Person’ portion of Lifton’s ‘Eight criteria for thought reform.’ ‘Thought reform’, again, being simply a modern term for brainwashing.
I’ve seen some documentaries about Manson and Jim Jones. People from abusive homes, who are emotionally or mentality damaged, are more susceptible, because one of the brainwashing techniques used is “love bombing.” So people who didn’t feel loved, or valued as kids, now have these people telling them how “they value them,” and appreciate or “get them.”
So the abused person now feels like they finally “belong” somewhere, or fit in. Then once the victim is hooked, the predator starts putting the screws to the victim, and starts using the victim for their nefarious purposes. This makes sense, but I think there’s still more to it. Not every abused kid is going to be susceptible to cults or brainwashing.
True brainwashing requires additional tactics.
We see one of those in mass media where the subject is hypnotized by movement–left to right, right to left, up to down, down to up, flashing screens, meaningless graphics or graphics that go by too quickly to read. Another variation is incomplete sentences that let the subject fill in the missing words.
Advertising uses all of these techniques.
Sound is also used to brainwashing–variations on drums or other rhythm to shut down the subject’s critical faculties.
Different people are more susceptible to these techniques than others.
The “Build back better” slogan was an example of the verbal brainwashing approach.
Build what?
Build back to what?
Better than what?
If you try to fill in the blanks you are being tricked into accepting whatever narrative follows.
There are times when I appreciate affirmative action. At least three times I was turned down for a position in favor of an ignorant POC. I was thereby inoculated against any notion of racial equality or White guilt.
-Discard
You have a point about monotheistic religions being used to encourage authoritarianism. Divine right of kings and brainwashing cults and inquisitions and so on.
However, transcendental religions also encourage the opposite — by offering the possibility that one’s ultimate loyalty belongs to a moral rather than secular entity. Because of this, nearly all reform and protest movements up to the mid-20th Century had a religious foundation. And it’s also why modern (or maybe pre-modern now) Reason developed the idea that an individual had the fundamental right to challenge governance that threatened or conflicted with their moral and ethical values.
The mere fact that religion is eminently corruptible isn’t a problem with religion, it’s a problem with people. Just like guns aren’t inherently bad in and of themselves, but it’s certainly a shame how many people use them to coerce and threaten.
That’s the theory. Try practicing it when it’s in opposition to State policy. The State allows for only minor exceptions like giving in on very small amount of religious exemptions. On all major things, the State doesn’t care about morality and neither do most christians or religious people in general since they make up the ranks of the costumed killers the US sends around the world to murder people.
I keep wondering when the International Criminal Court (ICC) will issue arrest warrants for all US service personnel that served in any foreign theater of operations that produced mass casualties from Vietnam forward. The US grunts, mostly christians or at least religious, had no business being in any of the countries the US has decimated over decades. They should be tried, most found guilty and executed as a lesson to the remaining costumed thugs that there’s a price to pay for taking orders without engaging their faculties for discriminating right from wrong. Christians and most religions don’t know the first thing about morality.
Wars will never cease until babies come into the world with larger cerebrums and smaller adrenal glands.
H. L. Mencken
It is the asinine belief in gov’t, that shouldn’t even exist, that then provides the occasional conflict between State and religion and State always wins, if not immediately, over a generation or two to get what it wants by stupefying the population with lousy education and making them dependents via bread and circus. No religion is a match for a State that rarely dies. The bulk of the US population, largely religious, are now mostly amoral drones that thank the costumed murderers for their ‘service’. They lack morals as well as intellect.
Wrong! Religion makes people stupid. They believe in ridiculous nonsense drilled into their skulls from childhood on and very few have the intelligence or curiosity to actually question the bullshit they’ve been fed. Religion produces sheep to be sheared by the State and used by the State controllers as an expendable resource for their nefarious purposes. Without all the fairy tales solemnly delivered to open mouthed morons by some preacher, the people might actually have a backbone to tell the State to pound sand through clear thinking.
Religion is the opium of the masses.
Karl Marx
I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind – that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
H. L. Mencken
Read Mark Twain’s ‘The War Prayer’ and then tell me about the morality of the nation.
https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/19-american-empire/mark-twain-the-war-prayer-ca-1904-5/
Throne and altar were twins–two vultures from the same egg.
To attack the king was treason; to dispute the priest, blasphemy.
The sword and cross were allies.
Together they attacked the rights of men; they defended each other.
The king owned the bodies of men, the priests the souls.
One lived on taxes collected by force, the other on alms collected by fear.
Both robbers, both beggars.
The king made laws, the priest made creeds.
With bowed backs the people carried the burdens of one, with open-mouthed wonder received the dogmas of the other.
The king said rags and hovels for you, robes and palaces for me.
The priest said God made you ignorant and immoral; He made me holy and wise; you are the sheep, I am the shepherd; your fleeces belong to me.
You must not reason, you must not contradict, you must believe.
Robert G. Ingersoll
But isn’t morality nearly always communicated to the young via myths? Fairy tales and fables are pretty much a universal thing. Of course you’d like to think that children eventually get that lions don’t talk and almost certainly won’t reward you for messing around with their painful paw, but still it was probably many people’s introduction to altruism. And I doubt it rotted many brains. Disney, on the other hand…
How do you square religious belief with the US military? Its murderous rampage through many nations has killed 20 Million in the current century alone?
I’d like to see you do it without all the pious bullshit.
“This makes sense, but I think there’s still more to it. Not every abused kid is going to be susceptible to cults or brainwashing.”
Yes, it depends on the level of abuse, whether the abused blames himself for the abuse he suffered, or whether he blames the abuser.
For people who blame themselves, they’re going to have very low self-esteem, low trust, and avoidance. If someone tried to love-bomb them, I don’t think it would compute. They would be suspicious of such a person. That’s why abused people who blame themselves often end up with abusers again. They go with what they “know”, what they are familiar with.
For people who blame their abuser, who clearly see their abuser and are angry about how they’ve been treated, I could maybe see this person getting involved in a cult. They would think I’ve been okay all along, and now someone is finally seeing/getting me.
But if, by some stroke of luck/therapy/whatever, they are able to feel some compassion for their abuser (realizing they were probably abused too), then I doubt these people would be so easily indoctrinated.
So many variables.
Saw this the other day:
“Conformity is achieved with:
– an education system that indoctrinates us to think alike;
– a mass media that ensures we fear alike;
– an advertising industry that gets us to like the same things;
– a social media that makes it easy to shame and ridicule all those who step too far out of line.”
“It’s pretty much layman’s knowledge that women are herd animals, and “empty vessels”, waiting for their belief systems to be ingrained into them by some authority; father, husband, teacher, mentor, social circle, government. And are much more conformist than men on the whole.”
As Jordan Peterson says, women are more agreeable than men. He said that if you want good, loyal, obedient employees, select for people who are agreeable AND conscientious.
Women gravitate to people (helping professions); men gravitate to things (engineering/computer science). Women have traditionally been people pleasers, putting their needs aside in order to help others, empathize with them, so it’s understandable they would be “empty vessels”. They are very critical of themselves whenever they step over the colored lines. Empty vessels are easily led.
“It is this pathological denial of their own needs and their willingness to self-sacrifice that makes them the ultimate prey.”
Of course, not all women are like that. You sound like you don’t care if people think you are NICE or not. This is what women need to stop doing – trying to make people think they’re “nice”.
The US definitely holds the top spot, no argument there. But the USSR was no slouch, without any religion.
Atheists (and people who are functionally if not nominally atheists for all the influence religion plays in their lives) also have moral values — I do, and I’m so far along the agnostic scale that I may as well be an atheist. Upbringing, society, personal commitment (and whatever amount of natural compassion healthy people are born with) instills an aversion to killing among most people. Yet they go to war too.
Looking at the trajectory of the 20th Century onward, I see consistently dwindling religiosity and a drastic increase in the carnage. Some call it causation, but I’m not one of them. I just think the progress of technology will always produce a bigger body count, all else being equal.
How do people square killing with their morals? Take your pick. Becoming convinced one way or another that it’s kill or be killed is probably the biggie. The justification of self-defense can be extended a long way. Being desensitized — by military training or society in general. An aggressive commitment to “humanitarian intervention.” I’m sure there’s more.
Government is the most vicious criminal, thieving organization on the planet. Those that cozy up to gov’t, religion or no religion, are going to become members of that criminal organization and do unspeakable things that the gov’ts laws encourage them to do that are specifically prohibit non gov’t people from doing. The dichotomy between what gov’t does that every brain dead patriot and nationalist cheers and what that same imbecile would frown upon should his neighbor do it just shows how propagandized the bulk of the populations is. Gov’t is allowed to murder people, put them in cages for possessing a weed or other natural substance, fine them for made up offenses that can’t identify an injured party, etc and the average normie thinks this is just grand.
Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.
In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.
Robert Higgs
I went to a catholic grammar school where I received a very good basic education by nuns. Mid way through, I knew all the religious instruction was bunk and refused to attend mass which drove my mother crazy. I had enough of kneeling in front of statues, twiddling rosary beads and pretending to pray to a god I knew didn’t exist.
Religion causes people to become followers. They never reach intellectual maturity to be a whole sovereign person and is why they are ready to receive all manner of bullshit from the religious con artists and become trained seals for political parties rooting for one scumbag over the other. It’s why sports teams exist where grown men move balls of various sizes and shapes around to be paid multi million dollar salaries that their enthusiastic followers pay for via the increased price for every product advertised during the game and I also have to pay the ball handler knuckle dragger premium when I’ve never watched or attended a single team sports event. People go to war at the command of the political class because they have no backbone to tell that class to pound sand. It’s why we are presently living through the end of the fraud of fiat paper currency to further enslavement by a CBDC, only because hundreds or million of people won’t tell that tiny minority in gov’t no. If the people decided to just refuse orders and not cooperate in their own enslavement, the entire gov’t would dissipate like a bad smell.
The reason people become trained killers for the bankers and political class is because they have been thoroughly propagandized, first by religion to believe in the nonsense some ‘authority’ lied to them about and then transference of that respect for faux authority is commandeered by gov’t. During the entire time their brains are marinated in a group think they can’t even perceive.
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
General Smedley Butler (USMC, Ret.)
Women gravitate to people (helping professions); men gravitate to things (engineering/computer science). Women have traditionally been people pleasers, putting their needs aside in order to help others, empathize with them, so it’s understandable they would be “empty vessels”. They are very critical of themselves whenever they step over the colored lines. Empty vessels are easily led.
I’m familiar with the works of Peterson and would not at all disagree his – your assessment could be a contributing factor as to why women would be more easily susceptible to brainwashing or cults.