GALEN WINSOR - WHAT STOPPED PLUTONIUM ECONOMY?

TEN WAYS TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM NLP MIND CONTROL

Published on January 16th, 2014 | by Jason Louv

NLP or Neuro-Linguistic Programming is one of the world’s most prevalent methods of mind control, used by everyone from sales callers to politicians to media pundits, and it’s nasty to the core. Here’s ten ways to make sure nobody uses it on you… ever.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a method for controlling people’s minds that was invented by Richard Bandler and John Grinder in the 1970s, became popular in the psychoanalytic, occult and New Age worlds in the 1980s, and advertising, marketing and politics in the 1990s and 2000s. It’s become so interwoven with how people are communicated to and marketed at that its use is largely invisible. It’s also somewhat of a pernicious, devilish force in the world—nearly everybody in the business of influencing people has studied at least some of its techniques. Masters of it are notorious for having a Rasputin-like ability to trick people in incredible ways—most of all themselves.

After explaining a bit about what NLP is and where it came from, I’m going to break down 10 ways to inoculate yourself against its use. You’ll likely be spotting it left, right and center in the media with a few tips on what to look for. Full disclosure: During my 20s, I spent years studying New Age, magical and religious systems for changing consciousness. One of them was NLP. I’ve been on both ends of the spectrum: I’ve had people ruthlessly use NLP to attempt to control me, and I’ve also trained in it and even used it in the advertising world. Despite early fascination, by 2008 or so I had largely come to the conclusion that it’s next to useless—a way of manipulating language that greatly overestimates its own effectiveness as a discipline, really doesn’t achieve much in the way of any kind of lasting change, and contains no real core of respect for people or even true understanding of how people work.

After throwing it to the wayside, however, I became convinced that understanding NLP is crucial simply so that people can resist its use. It’s kind of like the whole PUA thing that was popular in the mid-00s—a group of a few techniques that worked for a few unscrupulous people until the public figured out what was going on and rejected it, like the body identifying and rejecting foreign material.

What is NLP, and where did it come from?

“Neuro-linguistic programming” is a marketing term for a “science” that two Californians—Richard Bandler and John Grinder—came up with in the 1970s. Bandler was a stoner student at UC Santa Cruz (just like I later was in the 00s), then a mecca for psychedelics, hippies and radical thinking (now a mecca for Silicon Valley hopefuls). Grinder was at the time an associate professor in linguistics at the university (he had previously served as a Captain in the US Special Forces and in the intelligence community, *ahem* not that this, you know, is important… aheh…). Together, they worked at modeling the techniques of Fritz Perls (founder of Gestalt therapy), family therapist Virginia Satir and, most importantly, the preternaturally gifted hypnotherapist Milton Erickson. Bandler and Grinder sought to reject much of what they saw as the ineffectiveness of talk therapy and cut straight to the heart of what techniques actually worked to produce behavioral change. Inspired by the computer revolution—Bandler was a computer science major—they also sought to develop a psychological programming language for human beings.

What they came up with was a kind of evolution of hypnotherapy—while classical hypnosis depends on techniques for putting patients into suggestive trances (even to the point of losing consciousness on command), NLP is much less heavy-handed: it’s a technique of layering subtle meaning into spoken or written language so that you can implant suggestions into a person’s unconscious mind without them knowing what you’re doing.

Richard Bandler, co-creator of NLP, in 2007. (Via Wikimedia Commons)

Though mainstream therapists rejected NLP as pseudoscientific nonsense (it has been officially peer reviewed and discredited as an intervention technique—lots more on that here), it nonetheless caught on. It was still the 1970s, and the Human Potential Movement was in full swing—and NLP was the new darling. Immediately building a publishing, speaking and training empire, by 1980 Bandler had made over $800,000 from his creation—he was even being called on to train corporate leaders, the army and the CIA. Self-help gurus like Tony Robbins used NLP techniques to become millionaires in the 1980s (Robbins now has an estimated net worth of $480 million). By the middle of the decade, NLP was such big business that lawsuits and wars had erupted over who had the rights to teach it, or even to use the term “NLP.”
But by that time, Bandler had bigger problems than copyright disputes: he was on trial for the alleged murder of prostitute Corine Christensen in November 1986. The prosecution claimed that Bandler had shot Christensen, 34, point-blank in the face with a .357 Magnum in a drug deal gone bad. According to the press at the time, Bandler had discovered an even better way to get people to like him than NLP—cocaine—and become embroiled in a far darker game, even, than mind control. A much-recommended investigation into the case published by Mother Jones in 1989 opens with these chilling lines:
In the morning Corine Christensen last snorted cocaine, she found herself, straw in hand, looking down the barrel of a .357 Magnum revolver. When the gun exploded, momentarily piercing the autumn stillness, it sent a single bullet on a diagonal path through her left nostril and into her brain.
Christensen slumped over her round oak dining table, bleeding onto its glass top, a loose-leaf notebook, and a slip of yellow memo paper on which she had scrawled, in red ink, DON’T KILL US ALL. Choking, she spit blood onto a wine goblet, a tequila bottle, and the shirt of the man who would be accused of her murder, then slid sideways off the chair and fell on her back. Within minutes she lay still.
As Christensen lay dying, two men left her rented town house in a working-class section of Santa Cruz, California. One was her former boyfriend, James Marino, an admitted cocaine dealer and convicted burglar. The other, Richard Bandler, was known internationally as the cofounder of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), a controversial approach to psychology and communication. About 12 hours later, on the evening of November 3, 1986, Richard Bandler was arrested and charged with the murder.
Bandler’s defense was, simply, that Marino had killed Christensen, not him. Many at the time alleged he used NLP techniques on the stand to escape conviction. Yet Bandler was also alleged to actually use a gun in NLP sessions in order to produce dramatic psychological changes in clients—a technique that was later mirrored by Hollywood in the movie Fight Club, in which Brad Pitt’s character pulls a gun on a gas station attendant and threatens to kill him if he doesn’t pursue his dreams in life. That was, many said, Bandler’s MO.
Whatever the truth of the matter, Bandler was indeed let off, and the story was quickly buried—I’ve never spoken to a student of NLP who’s ever heard of the murder case, I’ll note, and I’ve spoken to a lot. The case hardly impeded the growing popularity of NLP, however, which was now big business, working its way not only into the toolkit of psychotherapists but also into nearly every corner of the political and advertising worlds, having grown far beyond the single personage of Richard Bandler, though he continued (and continues) to command outrageous prices for NLP trainings throughout the world.
Today, the techniques of NLP and Ericksonian-style hypnotic writing can be readily seen in the world of Internet marketing, online get-rich-quick schemes and scams. (For more on this, see the excellent article Scamworld: ‘Get rich quick’ schemes mutate into an online monster by my friend Joseph Flatley, one of the best articles I’ve ever read on the Web.) Their most prominent public usage has likely been by Barack Obama, whose 2008 “Change” campaign was a masterpiece of Ericksonian permissive hypnosis. The celebrity hypnotist and illusionist Derren Brown also demonstrates NLP techniques in his routine.

How exactly does this thing work?

NLP is taught in a pyramid structure, with the more advanced techniques reserved for multi-thousand-dollar seminars. To oversimplify an overcomplicated subject, it more or less works like this: first, the user (or “NLPer,” as NLP people often refer to themselves—and I should note here that the large majority of NLP people, especially those who are primarily therapists, are likely well-meaning) of NLP pays very, very close attention to the person they’re working with. By watching subtle cues like eye movement, skin flush, pupil dilation and nervous tics, a skilled NLP person can quickly determine:
a) What side of the brain a person is predominantly using;
b) What sense (sight, smell, etc.) is most predominant in their brain;
c) How their brain stores and utilizes information (ALL of this can be gleaned from eye movements);
d) When they’re lying or making information up.
After this initial round of information gathering, the “NLPer” begins to slowly and subtly mimic the client, taking on not only their body language but also their speech mannerisms, and will begin speaking with language patterns designed to target the client’s primary sense.

An NLP person essentially carefully fakes the social cues that cause a person to drop their guard and enter a state of openness and suggestibility.

For instance, a person predominantly focused on sight will be spoken to in language using visual metaphors—”Do you see what I’m saying?” “Look at it this way”—while a person for which hearing is the dominant sense will be spoken to in auditory language—”Hear me out,” “I’m listening to you closely.”
By mirroring body language and linguistic patterns, the NLPer is attempting to achieve one very specific response: rapport. Rapport is the mental and physiological state that a human enters when they let their social guard down, and it is generally achieved when a person comes to the conclusion that the person they’re talking to is just like them. See how that works, broadly? An NLP person essentially carefully fakes the social cues that cause a person to drop their guard and enter a state of openness and suggestibility.
Once rapport is achieved, the NLPer will then begin subtly leading the interaction. Having mirrored the other person, they can now make subtle changes to actually influence the other person’s behavior. Combined with subtle language patterns, leading questions and a whole slew of other techniques, a skilled NLPer can at this point steer the other person wherever they like, as long as the other person isn’t aware of what’s happening and thinks everything is arising organically, or has given consent. That means it’s actually fairly hard to use NLP to get people to act out-of-character, but it can be used for engineering responses within a person’s normal range of behavior—like donating to a cause, making a decision they were putting off, or going home with you for the night if they might have considered it anyway.
From this point, the NLPer will seek to do two things—elicit and anchor. Eliciting happens when an NLPer uses leading and language to engineer an emotional state—for instance, hunger. Once a state has been elicited, the NLPer can then anchor it with a physical cue—for instance, touching your shoulder. In theory, if done right, the NLPer can then call up the hungry state any time they touch your shoulder in the same way. It’s conditioning, plain and simple.

How can I make sure nobody pulls this horseshit on me?

I’ve had all kinds of people attempt to “NLP” me into submission, including multiple people I’ve worked for over extended periods of time, and even people I’ve been in relationships with. Consequently, I’ve developed a pretty keen immune response to it. I’ve also studied its mechanics very closely, largely to resist the nonsense of said people. Here’s a few key methods I’ve picked up.

1. Be extremely wary of people copying your body language.

If you’re talking to somebody who may be into NLP, and you notice that they’re sitting in exactly the same way as you, or mirroring the way you have your hands, test them by making a few movements and seeing if they do the same thing. Skilled NLPers will be better at masking this than newer ones, but newer ones will always immediately copy the same movement. This is a good time to call people on their shit.

2. Move your eyes in random and unpredictable patterns.

Such NLP. So sociopathy. Wow.

This is freaking hilarious to do to troll NLPers. Especially in the initial stages of rapport induction, an NLP user will be paying incredibly close attention to your eyes. You may think it’s because they’re intensely interested in what you’re saying. They are, but not because they actually care about your thoughts: They’re watching your eye movements to see how you store and access information. In a few minutes, they’ll not only be able to tell when you’re lying or making something up, they’ll also be able to figure out what parts of your brain you’re using when you’re speaking, which can then lead them to be so clued in to what you’re thinking that they almost come across as having some kind of psychic insight into your innermost thoughts. A clever hack for this is just to randomly dart your eyes around—look up to the right, to the left, side to side, down… make it seem natural, but do it randomly and with no pattern. This will drive an NLP person *utterly nuts* because you’ll be throwing off their calibration.

3. Do not let anybody touch you.

This is pretty obvious and kind of goes without saying in general. But let’s say you’re having a conversation with somebody you know is into NLP, and you find yourself in a heightened emotional state—maybe you start laughing really hard, or get really angry, or something similar—and the person you’re talking to touches you while you’re in that state. They might, for instance, tap you on the shoulder. What just happened? They anchored you so that later, if they want to put you back into the state you were just in, they can (or so the wayward logic of NLP dictates) touch you in the same place. Just be like, oh hell no you did not.

4. Be wary of vague language.

One of the primary techniques that NLP took from Milton Erickson is the use of vague language to induce hypnotic trance. Erickson found that the more vague language is, the more it leads people into trance, because there is less that a person is liable to disagree with or react to. Alternately, more specific language will take a person out of trance. (Note Obama’s use of this specific technique in the “Change” campaign, a word so vague that anybody could read anything into it.)

5. Be wary of permissive language.

“Feel free to relax.” “You’re welcome to test drive this car if you like.” “You can enjoy this as much as you like.” Watch the f*k out for this. This was a major insight of pre-NLP hypnotists like Erickson: the best way to get somebody to do something, including going into a trance, is by allowing them to give you permission to do so. Because of this, skilled hypnotists will NEVER command you outright to do something—i.e. “Go into a trance.” They WILL say things like “Feel free to become as relaxed as you like.”

6. Be wary of gibberish.

Nonsense phrases like “As you release this feeling more and more you will find yourself moving into present alignment with the sound of your success more and more.” This kind of gibberish is the bread and butter of the pacing-and-leading phase of NLP; the hypnotist isn’t actually saying anything, they’re just trying to program your internal emotional states and move you towards where they want you to go. ALWAYS say “Can you be more specific about that” or “Can you explain exactly what you mean?” This does two things: it interrupts this whole technique, and it also forces the conversation into specific language, breaking the trance-inducing use of vague language we discussed in #4.

7. Read between the lines.

NLP people will consistently use language with hidden or layered meanings. For instance “Diet, nutrition and sleep with me are the most important things, don’t you think?” On the surface, if you heard this sentence quickly, it would seem like an obvious statement that you would probably agree with without much thought. Yes, of course diet, nutrition and sleep are important things, sure, and this person’s really into being healthy, that’s great. But what’s the layered-in message? “Diet, nutrition and sleep with me are the most important things, don’t you think?” Yep, and you just unconsciously agreed to it. Skilled NLPers can be incredibly subtle with this.

8. Watch your attention.

Be very careful about zoning out around NLP people—it’s an invitation to leap in with an unconscious cue. Here’s an example: An NLP user who was attempting to get me to write for his blog for free noticed I appeared not to be paying attention and was looking into the distance, and then started using the technique listed in #7 by talking about how he never has to pay for anything because media outlets send him review copies of books and albums for free. “Everything for free,” he began hissing at me. “I get everything. For. Free.” Obvious, no?

9. Don’t agree to anything.

If you find yourself being led to make a quick decision on something, and feel you’re being steered, leave the situation. Wait 24 hours before making any decisions, especially financial ones. Do NOT let yourself get swept up into making an emotional decision in the spur of the moment. Sales people are armed with NLP techniques specifically for engineering impulse buys. Don’t do it. Leave, and use your rational mind.

10. Trust your intuition.

And the foremost and primary rule: If your gut tells you somebody is fucking with you, or you feel uneasy around them, trust it. NLP people almost always seem “off,” dodgy, or like used car salesmen. Flee, or request they show you the respect of not applying NLP techniques when interacting with you.

Hopefully this short guide will be of assistance to you in resisting this annoying and pernicious modern form of black magic. Take it with you on your phone or a printout next time you’re at a used car sales lot, getting signed up for a gym membership, or watching a politician speak on TV. You’ll easily find yourself surprised how you allow yourself to notice more and more NLP techniques… more and more… don’t you think?
(For more on NLP, check out the book Introducing NLP by Joseph O’Connor or the immensely useful Neuro-Linguistic Programming for Dummies. As a bonus, here’s a great video breaking down the use of NLP techniques by media outlets on both sides of the political spectrum, from FOX News to Stephen Colbert. It gets a bit into Christian conspiracy thinking, but is VERY good information.)

- See more at: http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/01/16/nlp-10-ways-protect-mind-control/#sthash.MHNvHYSD.dpuf 

CHEMTRAIL ACTIVITY IN HD

December 5, 2013
 

These films were sent to us from Italy. They reveal planes turning the spray on and off and various other details which make it indisputable that the mere ‘contrails’ explanation for what millions are witnessing in the sky is a blatant lie.

Thank you to the reader who submitted these films!

CHEMTRAILS ACTIVITY

 
CHEMTRAILS SPOTTING 

 
THE POISONER 
 
THE POISONER II 
   
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/chemtrail-activity-in-hd/

MICHAEL TELLINGER - ANCIENT TECHNOLOGY & UBUNTU

AMY CUDDY: YOUR BODY LANGUAGE SHAPES WHO YOU ARE

ARE YOU A PSYCHOPATH? YOUR FACEBOOK STATUS CAN TELL

MICE CAN 'WARN' SONS, GRANDSONS OF DANGERS VIA SPERM

Monday, 2 December 2013 ABC

The sons of trained mouse fathers also had the altered gene expression in their sperm (Source: Christian Anthony/iStockphoto)

Lab mice trained to fear a particular smell can transfer the impulse to their unborn sons and grandsons through a mechanism in their sperm, a study reveals.

The research claims to provide evidence for the concept of animals "inheriting" a memory of their ancestors' traumas, and responding as if they had lived the events themselves.
It is the latest find in the study of epigenetics, in which environmental factors are said to cause genes to start behaving differently without any change to their underlying DNA encoding.
"Knowing how ancestral experiences influence descendant generations will allow us to understand more about the development of neuropsychiatric disorders that have a transgenerational basis," says study co-author Brian Dias of the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.
And it may one day lead to therapies that can soften the memory "inheritance".
For the study, Dias and co-author Kerry Ressler trained mice, using foot shocks, to fear an odour that resembles cherry blossoms.
Later, they tested the extent to which the animals' offspring startled when exposed to the same smell. The younger generation had not even been conceived when their fathers underwent the training, and had never smelt the odour before the experiment.
The offspring of trained mice were "able to detect and respond to far less amounts of odour... suggesting they are more sensitive" to it, says Ressler co-author of the study published in the journal Nature Neuroscience.
They did not react the same way to other odours, and compared to the offspring of non-trained mice, their reaction to the cherry blossom whiff was about 200 percent stronger, he says.
The scientists then looked at a gene (M71) that governs the functioning of an odour receptor in the nose that responds specifically to the cherry blossom smell.

Epigenetic marks

The gene, inherited through the sperm of trained mice, had undergone no change to its DNA encoding, the team found.
But the gene did carry epigenetic marks that could alter its behaviour and cause it to be "expressed more" in descendants, says Dias.
This in turn caused a physical change in the brains of the trained mice, their sons and grandsons, who all had a larger glomerulus - a section in the olfactory (smell) unit of the brain.
"This happens because there are more M71 neurons in the nose sending more axons" into the brain, says Dias.
Similar changes in the brain were seen even in offspring conceived with artificial insemination from the sperm of cherry blossom-fearing fathers.
The sons of trained mouse fathers also had the altered gene expression in their sperm.
"Such information transfer would be an efficient way for parents to 'inform' their offspring about the importance of specific environmental features that they are likely to encounter in their future environments," says Ressler.

Happening in humans?

Commenting on the findings, British geneticist Marcus Pembrey says they could be useful in the study of phobias, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders.
"It is high time public health researchers took human transgenerational responses seriously," he said in a statement issued by the Science Media Centre.
"I suspect we will not understand the rise in neuropsychiatric disorders or obesity, diabetes and metabolic disruptions generally without taking a multigenerational approach."
Wolf Reik, epigenetics head at the Babraham Institute in England, says such results were "encouraging" as they suggested that transgenerational inheritance does exist, but cannot yet be extrapolated to humans.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/12/02/3902972.htm

AUTHORITARIAN SOCIOPATHY

August 23rd, 2013   Submitted by Davi Barker

Many anarchists and libertarians eagerly study the psychology of tyrants in an effort to know their enemy in the battlefield of politics. Getting into the minds of our enemy is regarded as a strategy, a means to our political ends… which is an end to political means. However, I would suggest that the mind of our enemy is the battlefield itself, and politics is merely one of many strategies. We cannot fight the State with votes, or with cameras, or even with rifles, because factually the State only exists in the mind.
Our common definition for the State is a “monopoly on violence.” This was originally coined by German political philosopher Max Weber, affirmed by Austrian economist Murray Rothbard in his book Anatomy of the State, and even echoed by authoritarian sociopath Barack Obama while campaigning in 2007. This definition is seldom disputed, even by the agents of the State. However, as surely as a pickpocket can knife you in the ribs, the State does not factually enjoy a monopoly on violence. The missing component is an often overlooked, but all important adjective: legitimate. The State is a monopoly on legitimate violence, and legitimacy is the only thing distinguishing a tax collector from a pickpocket, a police officer from a vigilante, or a soldier from a paid murderer. Legitimacy is an illusion in the mind without which the State does not even exist.
This illusion not only exists in the minds of the authoritarians, it exists in the minds of every subject who accepts their oppression. And every place that this illusion finds safe harbor is a trench in the field of battle. If we want to attack the State, we must attack the mind of the Statists. For that reason, the psychology of obedience and authority is not merely a tool in the activists utility belt, it is a topographical map of the battle field itself. So let’s take a look.

Power and Obedience

We’ve all heard of the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment. I’ve written about them before. So as not to waste your time, I’ll summarize very briefly.
In the Milgram Experiment participants were divided into “teachers” and “learners” and placed in separate rooms. “Teachers” were instructed to read questions to the “learners” and if they answered incorrectly to administer an elecro-shock of ever increasing voltage. The “teachers” were unaware that electro-shocks were fake. After a few volts the “learner” began to object, to complain of a heart condition, and ultimately go silent. If the “teacher” asked to stop he was told by the experimenter,” “the experiment requires that you continue.” 65% administered the experiment’s maximum massive 450-volt shock. The vast majority were willing to administer a lethal jolt of electricity to a complete stranger based upon nothing but the verbal prodding of an authority figure.
In the Stanford Prison Experiment participants were screened for mental health and randomly assigned as “prisoner” or “guard” to live in a two week long prison simulation. Guards were given uniforms, mirrored glasses, and wooden batons. Prisoners were dressed in smocks and addressed only by their prison numbers. Guards were instructed only to keep a fixed schedule, and that they could not physically harm prisoners. The experiment was halted after only six days because guards began to display cruel, even sadistic behavior including spraying prisoners with fire extinguishers, depriving them of bedding or restroom privileges, forcing them to go nude and locking them in “solitary confinement” in a dark closet. After an initial revolt, and a brief hunger strike, prisoners developed submissive attitudes, accepting physical abuse, and readily following orders inflict punishments on each other. They even engaged in horizontal discipline to keep each other in line. Both prisoners and guards fully internalized their fictional identities.
Ethical concerns raised by these experiments has made it almost impossible to study the authoritarian sociopathy in any meaningful way. Still, there have been some more recent studies that flesh out the findings of these classic experiments. Because of the new ethical guidelines the more recent experiments are not as dramatic, but the implications of their results are no less startling.

Power and Deception

Dana Carney is a professor at Columbia University. She conducted an experiment to discover if “leaders” and “subordinates” experience the same physiological stress while lying. She found that power not only makes lying easier, but pleasurable.
Participants filled out a personality test that identified them as “leaders” or “subordinates.” In reality the selection was random, but the fake test created an air of legitimacy to their assignment. Leaders were placed in a large executive office and given an hour of busy work. Subordinates were placed in a small windowless cubical and given an hour of busy work. Then they engaged in a 10 minute mock negotiation over pay.
Afterwards half the participants were given $100 and told they could keep it if they lied and convinced the lead experimenter that they didn’t have it. The experimenter did not know who had the money.
For most people lying elicits negative emotions, cognitive impairment, physiological stress, and nonverbal behavioral cues, which can all be measured. Video of the interviews was reviewed to identify behavioral cues. Saliva samples were tested for increases in the stress hormone cortisol. Tests of reaction time were conducted on the computer to demonstrate cognitive impairment. And a mood survey assessed participants’ emotional states during the experiment.
By every measure “subordinates” exhibited all the indicators of deception, but liars in the “leader” class exhibited the exact opposite. By every measure “leaders” were indistinguishable from truth-tellers. In fact, they enjoyed reduced stress levels, increased cognitive function and reported positive emotions. Only “subordinates” reported feeling bad about lying.
Professor Carney concludes, “Power will lead to increases in intensity and frequency of lying.”
Lying comes easier, and is inherently more pleasurable, to those in power, even fake authority. In other words, power rewards dishonesty with pleasure.

Power and Compassion

Psychologist Gerben A. Van Kleef from the University of Amsterdam conducted an experiment to identify how power influences emotional reactions to the suffering of others. Participants filled out a questionnaire about their own sense of power in their actual lives and were identified as “high-power” and “lower-power” individuals. Then they were randomly paired off to take turns sharing personal stories of great pain, or emotional suffering.
During the exchange the stress levels of both participants was measured by electrocardiogram (ECG) machines, and afterward they filled out a second questionnaire describing their own emotional experience, and what they perceived of their partner’s emotional experienced.
You guessed it. Increased stress in the story teller correlated with increased stress in listener for low-power subjects, but not for high-power subjects. In other words, low-power individuals experienced the suffering of others, but high-power individuals experienced greater detachment. After the experiment high-power listeners self-reported being unmotivated to empathize with their partner. In other words, they saw the emotions of others, but they just didn’t care. After the experiment, researchers inquired about whether participants would like to stay in touch with their partners. As you might expect, the low-power subjects liked the idea, but the high-power subjects didn’t.

Power and Hypocrisy

It has become almost a cliche that the most outspoken anti-gay politicians are in fact closet homosexuals themselves, and the champions of “traditional family values” are engaged in extramarital affairs. Nothing is more common than the fiscal conservative who demands ridiculous luxuries at the taxpayer’s expense, or the anti-war progressive who takes campaign donations from the military industrial complex. Well, now it seems there’s some science behind the hypocrisy of those in power.
Joris Lammers, from Tilburg University, and Adam Galinsky of Kellogg School of Management conducted a battery of five experiments to test how power influences a person’s moral standards, specifically whether they were likely to behave immorally while espousing intolerance for the behavior of others. In each of five experiments the results were about what you’d expect. Powerful people judge others more harshly but cheat more themselves. But in the last experiment they distinguished between legitimate power and illegitimate power and got the opposite results.
In the first experiment subjects were randomly assigned to as “high-power” or “low-power.” To induce these feelings “high-power” subjects were asked to recall an experience where they felt powerful, and “low-power” subjects were asked to recall an experience where they felt powerless. They were asked to rate how immoral they considered cheating, and then they were given an opportunity to cheat at dice. The high-power subjects considered cheating a higher moral infraction than low-power subjects, but were also more likely to cheat themselves.
In the second experiment participants conducted a mock-government. Half were randomly assigned as “high-power” roles which gave orders to the half randomly given “low-power” roles. Then each group was asked about minor traffic violations, such as speeding, or rolling through stop signs. As expected, high-power subjects were more likely to to bend the rules themselves, but less likely to afford other drivers the same leniency.
In the third experiment participants were divided as in the first experiment, by recalling a personal experience. Each group was asked about their feelings about minor common tax evasions, such as not declaring freelance income. As expected, high-power subjects were more willing to bend the rules themselves, but less likely to afford others the same leniency.
In the fourth experiment participants were asked to complete a series of word puzzles. Half the participants were randomly given puzzles containing high-power words, and the other half were given puzzles containing low power words. Then all participants were asked what they’d do if they found an abandoned bike on the side of the road. As in all experiments, even with such an insignificant power disparity, those in the high-power group were more likely to say they would keep the bike, but also that others had an obligation to seek out the rightful owner, or turn the bike over to the police.
The fifth and final experiment yielded, by far, the most interesting results. The feeling of power was induced the same as the first and third experiment, where participants describe their own experience of power in their life, with one important distinction. This time the “high-power” class was divided in two. One group was asked to describe an experience of legitimate power, and the other was asked to describe an experience of illegitimate power.
The legitimate high-power group showed the same hypocrisy as in the previous four experiments. But those who viewed their power as illegitimate actually gave the opposite results. Researchers dubbed it “hypercrisy.” They were harsher about their own transgressions, and more lenient toward others. This discovery could be the silver bullet we’ve been looking for. The researchers speculate that the vicious cycle of power and hypocrisy could be broken by attacking the legitimacy of power, rather than the power itself. As they write in their conclusion:

“A question that lies at the heart of the social sciences is how this status-quo (power inequality) is defended and how the powerless come to accept their disadvantaged position. The typical answer is that the state and its rules, regulations, and monopoly on violence coerce the powerless to do so. But this cannot be the whole answer… Our last experiment found that the spiral of inequality can be broken, if the illegitimacy of the power-distribution is revealed. One way to undermine the legitimacy of authority is open revolt, but a more subtle way in which the powerless might curb self enrichment by the powerful is by tainting their reputation, for example by gossiping. If the powerful sense that their unrestrained self enrichment leads to gossiping, derision, and the undermining of their reputation as conscientious leaders, then they may be inspired to bring their behavior back to their espoused standards. If they fail to do so, they may quickly lose their authority, reputation, and— eventually—their power.”

Those in power are more likely to lie, cheat and steal while also being harsher in their judgments of others for doing these things. They feel less compassion for the suffering of others, and are even capable of the torture and murder of innocent people. What’s perhaps most disturbing is that we have seen that the problem is not that sociopaths are drawn to positions of authority, but that positions of authority draw out the sociopath in everyone. But this final experiment offers some hope that authoritarian sociopathy can not only be stopped, but driven into reverse, not by violence or revolution, but simply by undermining their legitimacy. But how?

Reclaiming Lost Ground

Those who attack the legitimacy of the authority by trumpeting the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment have likely never heard of these  other experiments because they’re just less dramatic. Without the shock value the research just doesn’t impact the culture. Changes to the ethical guidelines have essentially neutered research on authoritarian sociopathy. It has been relegated to the water cooler banter of academics.
If the illegitimate ethical guidelines of legacy institutions hamstring meaningful research on authoritarian sociopathy then it is time for us to cast off such restrictions, and devise our own guidelines consistent with our own ethics. If court professors will not spread their findings beyond their classrooms and peer reviewed journals then it is time to conduct our own renegade psychological experiments, to show the world beyond doubt that power corrupts absolutely.

http://dailyanarchist.com/2013/08/23/authoritarian-sociopathy/

PSYCHIATRY GOES INSANE: EVERY HUMAN EMOTION NOW CLASSIFIED AS A MENTAL DISORDER IN NEW PSYCHIATRIC MANUAL DSM-5

Thursday, December 13, 2012 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) The industry of modern psychiatry has officially gone insane. Virtually every emotion experienced by a human being -- sadness, grief, anxiety, frustration, impatience, excitement -- is now being classified as a "mental disorder" demanding chemical treatment (with prescription medications, of course).

The new, upcoming DSM-5 "psychiatry bible," expected to be released in a few months, has transformed itself from a medical reference manual to a testament to the insanity of the industry itself.

"Mental disorders" named in the DSM-5 include "General Anxiety Disorder" or GAD for short. GAD can be diagnosed in a person who feels a little anxious doing something like, say, talking to a psychiatrist. Thus, the mere act of a psychiatrist engaging in the possibility of making a diagnoses causes the "symptoms" of that diagnoses to magically appear.

This is called quack science and circular reasoning, yet it's indicative of the entire industry of psychiatry which has become such a laughing stock among scientific circles that even the science skeptics are starting to turn their backs in disgust. Psychiatry is no more "scientific" than astrology or palm reading, yet its practitioners call themselves "doctors" of psychiatry in order to try to make quackery sound credible.

How modern psychiatry really works

Here's how modern psychiatry really operates: A bunch of self-important, overpaid intellectuals who want to make more money invent a fabricated disease that I'll call "Hoogala Boogala Disorder" or HBD.

By a show of hands, they then vote into existence whatever "symptoms" they wish to associated with Hoogala Boogala Disorder. In this case, the symptoms might be spontaneous singing or wanting to pick your nose from time to time.

They then convince teachers, journalists and government regulators that Hoogala Boogala Disorder is real -- and more importantly that millions of children suffer from it! It wouldn't be compassionate not to offer all those children treatment, would it?

Thus begins the call for "treatment" for a completely fabricated disease. From there, it's a cinch to get Big Pharma to fabricate whatever scientific data they need in order to "prove" that speed, amphetamines, pharmaceutical crack or whatever poison they want to sell "reduces the risk of Hoogala Boogala Disorder."

Serious-sounding psychiatrists -- who are all laughing their asses off in the back room -- then "diagnose" children with Hoogala Boogala Disorder and "prescribe" the prescription drugs that claim to treat it. For this action, these psychiatrists -- who are, let's just admit it, dangerous child predators -- earn financial kickbacks from Big Pharma.

In order to maximize their kickbacks and Big Pharma freebies, groups of these psychiatrists get together every few years and invent more fictitious disorders, expanding their fictional tome called the DSM.

The DSM is now larger than ever, and it includes disorders such as "Obedience Defiance Disorder" (ODD), defined as refusing to lick boots and follow false authority. Rapists who feel sexual arousal during their raping activities are given the excuse that they have "Paraphilic coercive disorder" and therefore are not responsible for their actions. (But they will need medication, of course!)

You can also get diagnosed with "Hoarding Disorder" if you happen to stockpile food, water and ammunition, among other things. Yep, being prepared for possible natural disasters now makes you a mental patient in the eyes of modern psychiatry (and the government, too).

Former DSM chairperson apologizes for creating "false epidemics"

Allen Frances chaired the DSM-IV that was released in 1994. He now admits it was a huge mistake that has resulted in the mass overdiagnosis of people who are actually quite normal. The DSM-IV "...inadvertently contributed to three false epidemics -- attention deficit disorder, autism and childhood bipolar disorder," writes Allen in an LA Times opinion piece.

He goes on to say:

The first draft of the next edition of the DSM ... is filled with suggestions that would multiply our mistakes and extend the reach of psychiatry dramatically deeper into the ever-shrinking domain of the normal. This wholesale medical imperialization of normality could potentially create tens of millions of innocent bystanders who would be mislabeled as having a mental disorder. The pharmaceutical industry would have a field day -- despite the lack of solid evidence of any effective treatments for these newly proposed diagnoses.

All these fabricated disorders, of course, result in a ballooning number of false positive. As Allen writes:

The "psychosis risk syndrome" would use the presence of strange thinking to predict who would later have a full-blown psychotic episode. But the prediction would be wrong at least three or four times for every time it is correct -- and many misidentified teenagers would receive medications that can cause enormous weight gain, diabetes and shortened life expectancy.

But that's the whole point of psychiatry: To prescribe drugs to people who don't need them. This is accomplished almost entirely by diagnosing people with disorders that don't exist.

And it culminates in psychiatrists being paid money they never earned (and certainly don't deserve.)

Imagine: An entire industry invented out of nothing! And yes, you do have to imagine it because nothing inside the industry is actually real.

What's "normal" in psychiatry? Being an emotionless zombie

The only way to be "normal" when being observed or "diagnosed" by a psychiatrist -- a process that is entirely subjective and completely devoid of anything resembling actual science -- is to exhibit absolutely no emotions or behavior whatsoever.

A person in a coma is a "normal" person, according to the DSM, because they don't exhibit any symptoms that might indicate the presence of those God-awful things called emotions or behavior.

A person in a grave is also "normal" according to psychiatry, mostly because dead people do not qualify for Medicare reimbursement and therefore aren't worth diagnosing or medicating. (But if Medicare did cover deceased patients, then by God you'd see psychiatrists lining up at all the cemeteries to medicate corpses!)

It's all a cruel, complete hoax. Psychiatry should be utterly abolished right now and all children being put on mind-altering drugs should be taken off of them and given good nutrition instead.

When the collapse of America comes and the new society rises up out of it, I am going to push hard for the complete abolition of psychiatric "medicine" if you can even call it that. Virtually the entire industry is run by truly mad, power-hungry maniacs who use their power to victimize children (and adults, too). There is NO place in society for distorted psychiatry based on fabricated disorders. The whole operation needs to be shut down, disbanded and outlawed.

The lost notion of normalcy

Here are some simple truths that need to be reasserted when we abolish the quack science industry of psychiatry:

Normalcy is not achieved through medication. Normalcy is not the absence of a range of emotion. Life necessarily involves emotions, experiences and behaviors which, from time to time, step outside the bounds of the mundane. This does not mean people have a "mental disorder." It only means they are not biological robots.

Nutrition, not medication, is the answer

Nutritional deficiencies, by the way, are the root cause of nearly all "mental illness." Blood sugar imbalances cause brain malfunctions because the brain runs on blood sugar as its primary energy source. Deficiencies in zinc, selenium, chromium, magnesium and other elements cause blood sugar imbalances that result in seemingly "wild" emotions or behaviors.

Nearly everyone who has been diagnosed with a mental disorder in our modern world is actually suffering from nothing more than nutritional imbalances. Too much processed, poisonous junk food and not enough healthy superfood and nutrition. At times, they also have metals poisoning from taking too many vaccines (aluminum and mercury) or eating too much toxic food (mercury in fish, cadmium, arsenic, etc.) Vitamin D deficiency is ridiculously widespread, especially across the UK and Canada where sunlight is more difficult to achieve on a steady basis.

But the reason nutrition is never highlighted as the solution to mental disorders and illness is because the pharmaceutical industry only makes money selling chemical "treatments" for conditions that are given complicated, technical-sounding names to make them seem more real. If food and nutritional supplements can keep your brain healthy -- and believe me, they can! -- then who needs high-priced pharmaceuticals? Who needs high-priced psychiatrists? Who needs drug reps? Pill-pushing doctors? And Obamacare's mandatory health insurance money confiscation programs?

Nobody needs them! This is the simple, self-evident truth of the matter: Our society would be much happier, healthier and more productive tomorrow if the entire pharmaceutical industry and psychiatry industry simply vanished overnight.

With the DSM-5, modern-day psychiatry has made a mockery of itself. What was once viewed as maybe having some basis in science is now widely seen as hilarious quackery.

Psychiatry itself now appears to be completely insane. And that might be the first accurate diagnosis to come out of the entire group.

Invent your own fictitious diseases!

By the way, you can be your own psychiatrist right here, right now! Simply use my handy-dandy Disease Mongering Engine which randomly generates real-sounding mental disorders!

Here's the link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-mongering...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038322_DSM-5_psychiatry_false_diagnosis.html#ixzz2mMLEjbGH

CARL JUNG’S PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS USING MANDALAS

Bhavika May 31, 2013

Mandalas have been used in many ancient cultures like Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American, Australian Aboriginal as a symbol of the universe and wholeness. Literally speaking, mandala is a geometrical form – a square or a circle – abstract and static, or a vivid image formed of objects and/or beings. It’s a cosmic diagram that reminds us of our connection with the infinite.

Interestingly, Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist, explored the psychological effects of mandalas, while studying Eastern religion. He is credited with introducing the Eastern concept of the mandala to Western thought and believed its symbolic of the inner process by which individuals grow toward fulfilling their potential for wholeness.

Carl Jung refers to the mandala as “the psychological expression of the totality of the self.”

According to Jung, “In such cases it is easy to see how the severe pattern imposed by a circular image of this kind compensates the disorder of the psychic state– namely through the construction of a central point to which everything is related, or by a concentric arrangement of the disordered multiplicity and of contradictory and irreconcilable elements. This is evidently an attempt at self-healing on the part of Nature, which does not spring from conscious reflection but from an instinctive impulse.”

Jung used mandalas in his psychotherapy by getting patients, who had no knowledge of it, to create individual mandalas. This enabled him to identify emotional disorders and work towards wholeness in personality.
He realised there was a great deal of similarity in the images they created. “In view of the fact that all the mandalas shown here were new and uninfluenced products, we are driven to the conclusion that there must be a transconscious disposition in every individual which is able to produce the same or very similar symbols at all times and in all places. Since this disposition is usually not a conscious possession of the individual I have called it the collective unconscious, and, as the basis of its symbolical products, I postulate the existence of primordial images, the archetypes.”

Mandalas represent connection with the infinite

Carl Jung’s first Mandala

A great deal of Jung’s psychotherapy dealt with the interpretation of individual mandalas created by his patients.

Golden Flower made by Jung’s patient. He found that mandalas usually appear in situations of psychic confusion

Mandala is like a design that triggers something within us, a sacred geometry in which we recognise our self and our place in the cosmos. 

 It is an ancient and fundamental relationship from which we have strayed and the mandala is the key that can help us return to it. Especially, when the inner self is challenged by ego, harmony has to be restored. 

During such times, mandalas can guide you to listen to the inner voice and find yourself. Like Jung stated, “It became increasingly plain to me that the mandala is the center. It is the exponent of all paths. It is the path to the center, to individuation.”

Image source
Jung currents
Jung and the Mandalas

http://fractalenlightenment.com/14683/life/carl-jungs-psychological-diagnosis-using-mandalas