a "MUST" read..."Down the Web Rabbit hole"

[Patrol2 Profile]

hey your handler spoke the other day saying hes underground they know whats coming
and that he told you and the rest to lay low
keep quiet
you know hush hush

you are
UNDER CONTROL OBEY YOUR MASTER KERRY
WHEN HE SAYS JUMP YOU SAY HOW HIGH
WHEN HE SAYS JUMP OFF A BRIDGE YOU DO IT
YOU FOLLOW ORDERS NOW BITCH

The question is open to you too. Let's see if you have any reading comprehension. Surprise and baffle me!!

Castortroy don't get trolled into her world.

[sockpuppet Profile]

http://www.rickross.com/reference/gener ... al431.html


What is a Cult?
A cult is a group of people who organize around a strong authority figure--
Why Do People Join Cults?
Again and again in my research I have encountered the same phrase: No one joins a cult, rather people are recruited.

People who become cult members do not know that their recruiters have a hidden agenda.

The unsuspecting person is a prime target for cult recruiters.

To blame the victims of successful cult recruiting strategies is an error.

Lifton's Eight Characteristics of Thought Reform
Robert Jay Lifton who is often viewed as the founding father of "thought reform" authored perhaps the most pivotal study on mind control. He studied the indoctrination techniques of Chinese Communists engaged in the conversion of American POWs and others during the Korean Conflict. Later, when the cult phenomenon arose in the United States, Lifton's findings were applied to cult indoctrination and recruiting practices. In his seminal book, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism", Chapter 22 "Ideological Totalism" , describes eight themes that distinguish thought reform--that also match many of the coercive persuasion methods often used by cults. Lifton states--"In any combination they may temporarily energize or exhilarate, which at the same time poses the greatest of human threats" (Lifton 1961).
· Milieu Control
The first technique many totalistic groups use is what Lifton would describe as "Milieu Control". This is when cult members attempt to bring a potential recruit onto group territory, a milieu or area they can control. Surrounded by people who enthusiastically share a common belief, the individual may become insecure in his beliefs--and is often too far from friends and family to talk with them and do a "reality check." Speaking or acting in ways that are in conflict with the group members who dominate this environment makes the visitor feel awkward and wrong--though he may be acting in an acceptable manner according to societal norms. It is often difficult for a person to remain confident for very long when a group of seemingly kind individuals surround him and use this soft-sell approach to indoctrination.
The group also rewards potential member's agreement with the group--active members praise and encourage feelings of acceptance whenever he/she complies with the group and/or responds favorably to group doctrine. It is within this rather tightly controlled environment that recruiters keep the potential recruit out of contact with family and friends--who might be familiar with the organization and thus could warn of its dangers. In such a controlled environment, one is more vulnerable to the urgings of hosts.
· Mystical Manipulation
The second theme Lifton introduces is called Mystical Manipulation. The group gives new recruits the impression that they are "God's elect"--such as some elite corps serving a heroic cause to save the world. Each member sincerely believes that the world is counting on him to fulfill his/her special responsibility. The members of the group share this profound sense of mission with the newcomer. They may claim that God has supernaturally/mystically guided the person to join their group in order to save humanity. The members frequently have a special ceremony of induction for the "chosen few". This type of induction makes the new recruit feel profoundly significant--thus the pull to join becomes almost irresistible. Despite the fact that the group members have used powerful practical tools such as milieu control, psychological pressure and possibly even lying about the nature of the group. They create the illusion that the recruit has chosen to join as an act of individual free will.
At this stage the recruit may think he/she is joining a fun social club where the group caters to their every need. After all, during the initial phases of recruitment the recruiters treat a newcomer like royalty--often giving the impression that this may be what the group is all about. But actually this is only done to gain initial commitment. Once the newcomer makes his/her commitment to the group, often even in writing--things change. Gradually, the warmth and affection, which was a principal motivating factor for joining fades--as the new member is now pushed into the same demanding submission that most cults expect. In some groups (e.g. the Unification Church ) this may include working 16 to 20 hours every day with little rest. There may also be a low protein diet, which makes members more malleable.
Eventually destructive group leaders will use extreme psychological pressure to force the new members to conform to the group's mind-set. This process is again part of "Mystical Manipulation" . In most cases the recruit will not know the actual expectations or agenda of the group and its often-grueling lifestyle. Of course they will be informed after "freely" making a commitment to join. Destructive cults promote the impression people join as a decision based upon individual free will. That impression is carefully ingrained in members and prevents complaints later that they were forced to into their hard life. But they most often fail to inform potential members what they are really committing themselves to--until it is too late. Thus--this manipulation of the group's recruitment process does not provide for truly informed consent.

· Cult of Confession
Destructive group recruiters also often use the "Cult of Confession" to gain control over new recruits. Through a potential member's personal confession--cults gain valuable information about someone's vulnerabilities and sense of shame. Thus the group gathers meaningful information later used to manipulate the newcomer. Cults use this knowledge, found through personal confessions, as proof that the newcomer's life before the cult was corrupt and repugnant--compared to the correct way of living as prescribed by the group. In this way, the group accesses valuable/critical levers, which can assist them in molding a new recruit to conform to their mindset and preferred personality type (as demonstrated by psychological evaluations of International Church of Christ members ). It also produces a "shaming milieu" that reinforces the group's "demand for purity"--as opposed to an old lifestyle filled with "sins". And again ultimately this will likely lower the confessing members sense of self-esteem--increasing their passivity and submission to the will of the group.
· Sacred Science
Cultists present their ideology as a virtual "Sacred Science" to newcomers. Cult recruiters relate their doctrine often with an air of scientific certainty--to convince the more critical thinkers amongst recruits of the validity and precision of their beliefs. People are more apt to accept an ideology that appears to be scientific. Chinese Communists in Lifton's Model (i.e. "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism") likewise presented Communism as the ultimate, scientifically provable, evolved attainment achieved by any truly "progressive" society. Those who disagreed were then labeled "unscientific" or somehow stubbornly ignorant of the seemingly scientific laws of meaningful social evolution. Or, in supposedly "bible" based groups--the organization's often unique and idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture is offered as not an interpretation, but the "truth", absolute and thus unquestioned revelation from God.
However, despite such claims, actual critical analysis proves repeatedly that such cult claims are typically not scientific, or often defensible exegetically. But most new recruits are not allowed the opportunity to scrutinize such claims to prove their validity through objective evidence. Also the group's members appear so sincere--newcomers tend to trust them and may feel embarrassed to ask questions or challenge their "truth". In fact--most cult recruiters themselves actually sincerely believe the group's doctrines and claims. Though they probably joined the cult through the same process of undue influence. The sheer emotional force of the group's recruitment efforts may not convince some, so a needed little extra push comes from the presentation of the group's doctrine as "scientific truth" or "biblical truth"--this is often the clincher.
· Loaded Language
"Loading the language" is another common theme in a cultic setting. A special jargon that gives the members a feeling of exclusiveness and that they possess some esoteric knowledge. This "loaded language" helps build solidarity amongst an elite group that speak the same cultic verbiage/lingo. It also gives the newcomer yet an extra incentive to become more involved with the group--in order to learn this language and understand what everyone is saying. Loaded Language is characterized by "thought terminating" buzz words and phrases that constrict thinking and typically replace any meaningful and independent critical analysis. This can become overwhelming and dominate the member's speech and conversation--while also binding the group together through their common language.
· Doctrine over Person
"Doctrine over Person" occurs when cultists insist that the newcomer completely surrender to their teachings--by placing the group's rules and needs and subordinate their own. The leaders typically teach that the group's stated purpose and goals are much more important than the members needs. Therefore the opinions and concerns of individual members such as personal plans--should always be abandoned in favor of service to the group and its ideas. Cultists teach that members should filter their experiences and even thoughts through the cult's mindset. That is--subject personal perceptions of reality to what the group's doctrine offers as its reality. People are taught to essentially interpret almost everything in a way that is consistent with and reinforces the claims of doctrine. The will of the group always takes predominance over the individual--coupled with a likely intolerance to any outside frame of reference.
Cognitive Dissonance
There are other explanations for the tactics of cults. Leon Festinger's findings regarding "Cognitive Dissonance theory" (Festinger 1964) explains how cults are able to gain the compliance of recruits. Festinger explains that in order to alter a human being it is necessary to affect at least one of three aspects of a person: behavior, thought, or emotions. Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman (authors of "Snapping" 1978,1997) pioneered the addition of another component--the control of information, which they say has a profound influence in behavior modification. Conway and Siegelman have diagnosed the results of such information control--"Information Disease".
Cults try to control recruits by controlling one or more of the above components. The more components they can control effectively--the more quickly and totally they can conquer the individual. Cults try to control recruits by controlling one or more of the above components. The more components they can control effectively--the more quickly and totally they can conquer the individual.
Examples of behavior control can be seen through a cult's attempts to monitor the daily activities of their members--shaping and molding their behavior through habits and rituals they have developed. Cults may decide how much a member sleeps and what kind of food is eaten. By steering a newcomer along this prescribed path of daily activities, habits and rituals the leaders begin to reduce dissonance within the new recruit. In this way they can further affect their thoughts and emotions. As Festinger himself said, "If you change a person's behavior, his thoughts and feelings will change to minimize the dissonance" (Festinger 1964).
By indoctrinating people with cult dogma and attitudes through a process of "Thought Reform" as described by Lifton--cultists are ultimately able to control the thoughts of new recruits. The cult provides its people with a new "Loaded Language" to match their worldview. A cult's philosophy typically provides simplistic and/or almost magical answers to all of life's mysteries. And thus, cultists do not really "teach" their doctrines, rather they program the minds of individuals to accept such doctrines without question. During that programming process, cult recruiters subject new recruits to their dogma repetitively and often hypnotically (e.g. trance induction, meditation techniques)--so that the doctrine eventually overwhelms the person. Once the cult thus inculcates the mind with its ideas--the newcomer avoids personal dissonance by trying to remold his/her behaviors and emotions to match this new way of thinking.
Emotional control is another means by which cults change people. Cults manipulate emotions in order to gain a recruit's compliance. Their goal is to convince people that within the group everything is joyful--while in the outside world there is most often negativity, "spiritual blindness", or even misery and despair. Groups may try to create a high-spirited atmosphere--especially during the initial recruiting period. This reinforces the contrived perception that there is a certain euphoria in living within the group--while again suggesting an impersonal coldness in the outside world. Cults often attempt to turn people against their loved ones by claiming that the only authentic kind of "love" is essentially the property of the group. They often use unreasonable guilt, shame and fear to maintain the loyalty of members through their public confessions and by indoctrinating members with seemingly phobic/unreasonable fears about leaving. Individuals will try to change their thoughts, behaviors and emotions to match a program the cult has managed to instill through their process of indoctrination.
Cults try to regulate the flow of information to their members--especially during the early stages of the indoctrination process. Within many communal cults, or retreats designed for induction--an individual may have little or no access to newspapers, television, or radio. They are instead bombarded by a barrage of group propaganda--such as publications and recordings made by leader(s). Through such isolation from normal society, cults are able to cocoon a person and avoid critical information about their group and immediate access to advice from friends or family. Generally, this blocks out accurate feedback about the cult and its practices.
As the cult recruiters bombard the potential member with favorable information about their group--it is difficult for any newcomer to develop an informed, objective opinion. When a person does not hear "both sides of the story"--it is difficult to make a meaningful judgment. Cults often shield new members from their higher level teachings (e.g., Scientology ) because this might scare off potential recruits--by seeming too bizarre in the early stages of indoctrination. Instead, cultists are incrementally fed information as they demonstrate loyalty, devotion and become more pliable through their increased suggestibility (Walsh and Bor 1997). That suggestibility is often the end result of the "Thought Reform" process. With such limited access to objective information about the group and its history, it is difficult for a person to sort through their difficulties, reason rationally and leave such a controlling, yet often seemingly warm environment.
Conformity
Dr. Solomon Asch conducted now famous experiments in which he studied social conformity (Asch 1956). The results of these experiments can help us to understand how healthy and intelligent people often become involved with cult groups. In once such experiment he instructed confident, assertive sounding people in his class to give wrong answers, which then led other students to doubt their own judgments. Cults often use these same tactics. When a cult speaker is teaching the doctrine of the group--some newcomers may doubt the ideas of the group. However, when the vast majority of cultists surrounding someone enthusiastically agree with the speaker--eventually many people will feel overwhelmed and submit to the group's way of thinking. Asch clearly demonstrated this through his practical experiments. That is--how anyone could be vulnerable to the power of conformity within certain social situations despite their level of previous confidence and self-esteem.
Obedience
Stanley Milgram also conducted experiments that are helpful in understanding cult dynamics. Again--helping us to understand how normal people often exhibit seemingly bizarre behavior in cults. Milgram's famous shock experiments demonstrated that people would likely obey another person in a position of authority --even to the point of hurting someone in a bizarre and punitive exercise of power.
In brief--Milgram enrolled students unwittingly in an experiment regarding their reactions to influence. He put some in the role of enforcers--administering ever-increasing levels of electric shock to other students who were seemingly their victims. The shocks were administered on the basis of whether answers were given successfully to questions within a prescribed period of time. Failure to respond properly and promptly required a punishing electric shock--increased incrementally. The supposed "victims" of this experiment were actually feigning their reactions and merely playing a role--there was no actual electric shock. However, those students who acted as enforcers--administered the electric shock believing their subject was receiving ever increasing voltage and subsequent pain. They were willing to perform as instructed--seemingly content that their responsibility was obviated by submitting to legitimate authority.
Obviously cult leaders are viewed by their followers as legitimate, if not divine or divinely ordained figures of authority. Cult members convinced of this authority and controlled by such leaders (who are often psychologically unstable themselves) will do increasingly bizarre things. It seems that cult followers will do almost anything to advance the goals and interests of such leaders--fulfilling the philosophy that "the ends justify the means". An imminent pioneer in cult education Rabbi Maurice Davis once commented that the doctrine of "the ends justify the means" is not only a questionable doctrine itself, but could be a "proscription for tragedy". Specifically he pointed out that within groups where dictatorial leaders "determine what is just and good and the members cannot disagree" almost any behavior might be rationalized. At the behest of such leaders many cultists have committed crimes against others or against themselves that such individuals would not normally commit independently.
The crimes of Hitler's followers during the Nazi era is one such example--and there are many others historically e.g. Stalin's purges, Mao's "Cultural Revolution". In recent years the violence of Aum the Waco Davidians and the suicides of the Solar Temple and Heaven's Gate offer further proof of the seemingly irrational behavior promulgated by destructive cult leaders.
Millions of unsuspecting people have been victimized by the coercive persuasion techniques employed by many cults and their resulting undue influence. Our best defense is facing the reality that many destructive cults work hard every day to recruit new members using such techniques. We must recognize that the techniques of persuasion and influence they use have proven to be very successful. A healthy dose of informed caution is needed, so that when we come in contact with such groups seeking our involvement--we are better prepared.
The type of people who join cults are typically no different than the vast majority of society. Some have been experiencing a time of stressful transition or a temporary crisis. We are all more susceptible to persuasion techniques during such times. It is important to be sensitive to those vulnerable periods especially when being approached by a new group or organization. True, many of us have heard about cults, we have read about them or have seen sensational stories on television, but more often than not we feel that somehow we are immune to them. Many continue to believe in the myth that only troubled people with serious problems become their victims. But the truth is--healthy "normal", but often naïve people become involved unwittingly every day. We must become more sophisticated concerning our response to destructive cults, our own susceptibility and share that information with others we care about.

[G3n3sis Profile]

With regard to this article on IARPA and DARPA, I should bring your attention to a recently established group, which is linked with DARPA. It is called BARDA: Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

[sockpuppet Profile]

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brain ... ing11.html

Two Basic Types of Aggression

There are two basic types of aggression: overt-aggression and covert-aggression. When you're determined to have something and you're open, direct and obvious in your manner of fighting, your behavior is best labeled overtly aggressive. When you're out to "win," dominate or control, but are subtle, underhanded or deceptive enough to hide your true intentions, your behavior is most appropriately labeled covertly aggressive. Now, avoiding any overt display of aggression while simultaneously intimidating others into giving you what you want is a powerfully manipulative maneuver. That's why covert-aggression is most often the vehicle for interpersonal manipulation.
Acts of Covert-Aggression vs. Covert-Aggressive Personalities

Most of us have engaged in some sort of covertly aggressive behavior from time to time. Periodically trying to manipulate a person or a situation doesn't make someone a covert-aggressive personality. Personality can be defined by the way a person habitually perceives, relates to and interacts with others and the world at large.

The tactics of deceit, manipulation and control are a steady diet for covert-aggressive personality. It's the way they prefer to deal with others and to get the things they want in life.
The Process of Victimization

For a long time, I wondered why manipulation victims have a hard time seeing what really goes on in manipulative interactions. At first, I was tempted to fault them. But I've learned that they get hoodwinked for some very good reasons:

1. A manipulator's aggression is not obvious. Our gut may tell us that they're fighting for something, struggling to overcome us, gain power, or have their way, and we find ourselves unconsciously on the defensive. But because we can't point to clear, objective evidence they're aggressing against us, we can't readily validate our feelings.

2. The tactics manipulators use can make it seem like they're hurting, caring, defending, ..., almost anything but fighting. These tactics are hard to recognize as merely clever ploys. They always make just enough sense to make a person doubt their gut hunch that they're being taken advantage of or abused. Besides, the tactics not only make it hard for you to consciously and objectively tell that a manipulator is fighting, but they also simultaneously keep you or consciously on the defensive. These features make them highly effective psychological weapons to which anyone can be vulnerable. It's hard to think clearly when someone has you emotionally on the run.

3. All of us have weaknesses and insecurities that a clever manipulator might exploit. Sometimes, we're aware of these weaknesses and how someone might use them to take advantage of us. For example, I hear parents say things like: "Yeah, I know I have a big guilt button." – But at the time their manipulative child is busily pushing that button, they can easily forget what's really going on. Besides, sometimes we're unaware of our biggest vulnerabilities. Manipulators often know us better than we know ourselves. They know what buttons to push, when and how hard. Our lack of self-knowledge sets us up to be exploited.

4. What our gut tells us a manipulator is like, challenges everything we've been taught to believe about human nature. We've been inundated with a psychology that has us seeing everybody, at least to some degree, as afraid, insecure or "hung-up." So, while our gut tells us we're dealing with a ruthless conniver, our head tells us they must be really frightened or wounded "underneath." What's more, most of us generally hate to think of ourselves as callous and insensitive people. We hesitate to make harsh or seemingly negative judgments about others. We want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't really harbor the malevolent intentions we suspect. We're more apt to doubt and blame ourselves for daring to believe what our gut tells us about our manipulator's character.

Recognizing Aggressive Agendas

Accepting how fundamental it is for people to fight for the things they want and becoming more aware of the subtle, underhanded ways people can and do fight in their daily endeavors and relationships can be very consciousness expanding. Learning to recognize an aggressive move when somebody makes one and learning how to handle oneself in any of life's many battles, has turned out to be the most empowering experience for the manipulation victims with whom I've worked. It's how they eventually freed themselves from their manipulator's dominance and control and gained a much needed boost to their own sense of self esteem. Recognizing the inherent aggression in manipulative behavior and becoming more aware of the slick, surreptitious ways that manipulative people prefer to aggress against us is extremely important. Not recognizing and accurately labeling their subtly aggressive moves causes most people to misinterpret the behavior of manipulators and, therefore, fail to respond to them in an appropriate fashion. Recognizing when and how manipulators are fighting with covertly aggressive tactics is essential.
Defense Mechanisms and Offensive Tactics

Almost everyone is familiar with the term defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are the "automatic" (i.e. unconscious) mental behaviors all of us employ to protect or defend ourselves from the "threat" of some emotional pain. More specifically, ego defense mechanisms are mental behaviors we use to "defend" our self-images from "invitations" to feel ashamed or guilty about something. There are many different kinds of ego defenses and the more traditional (psychodynamic) theories of personality have always tended to distinguish the various personality types, at least in part, by the types of ego defenses they prefer to use. One of the problems with psychodynamic approaches to understanding human behavior is that they tend to depict people as most always afraid of something and defending or protecting themselves in some way; even when they're in the act of aggressing. Covert-aggressive personalities (indeed all aggressive personalities) use a variety of mental behaviors and interpersonal maneuvers to help ensure they get what they want. Some of these behaviors have been traditionally thought of as defense mechanisms.

While, from a certain perspective we might say someone engaging in these behaviors is defending their ego from any sense of shame or guilt, it's important to realize that at the time the aggressor is exhibiting these behaviors, he is not primarily defending (i.e. attempting to prevent some internally painful event from occurring), but rather fighting to maintain position, gain power and to remove any obstacles (both internal and external) in the way of getting what he wants. Seeing the aggressor as on the defensive in any sense is a set-up for victimization. Recognizing that they're primarily on the offensive, mentally prepares a person for the decisive action they need to take in order to avoid being run over. Therefore, I think it's best to conceptualize many of the mental behaviors (no matter how "automatic" or "unconscious" they may appear) we often think of as defense mechanisms, as offensive power tactics, because aggressive personalities employ them primarily to manipulate, control and achieve dominance over others. Rather than trying to prevent something emotionally painful or dreadful from happening, anyone using these tactics is primarily trying to ensure that something they want to happen does indeed happen. Using the vignettes presented in the previous chapters for illustration, let's take a look at the principal tactics covert-aggressive personalities use to ensure they get their way and maintain a position of power over their victims:

Denial – This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well as to others) about their aggressive intentions. This "Who... Me?" tactic is a way of "playing innocent," and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior. It's also the way the aggressor gives him/herself permission to keep right on doing what they want to do. This denial is not the same kind of denial that a person who has just lost a loved one and can't quite bear to accept the pain and reality of the loss engages in. That type of denial really is mostly a "defense" against unbearable hurt and anxiety. Rather, this type of denial is not primarily a "defense" but a maneuver the aggressor uses to get others to back off, back down or maybe even feel guilty themselves for insinuating he's doing something wrong.

In the story of James the minister, James' denial of his ruthless ambition is massive. He denied he was hurting and neglecting his family. He especially denied he was aggressively pursuing any personal agenda. On the contrary, he cast himself as the humble servant to a honorable cause. He managed to convince several people (and maybe even himself) of the nobility and purity of his intentions. But underneath it all, James knew he was being dishonest: This fact is borne out in his reaction to the threat of not getting a seat on the Elders' Council if his marital problems worsened. When James learned he might not get what he was so aggressively pursuing after all, he had an interesting "conversion" experience. All of a sudden, he decided he could put aside the Lord's bidding for a weekend and he might really need to devote more time to his marriage and family. James' eyes weren't opened by the pastor's words. He always kept his awareness high about what might hinder or advance his cause. He knew if he didn't tend to his marriage he might lose what he really wanted. So, he chose (at least temporarily) to alter course.

In the story of Joe and Mary, Mary confronted Joe several times about what she felt was insensitivity and ruthlessness on his part in his treatment of Lisa. Joe denied his aggressiveness. He also successfully convinced Mary that what she felt in her gut was his aggressiveness was really conscientiousness, loyalty, and passionate fatherly concern. Joe wanted a daughter who got all A's. Mary stood in the way. Joe's denial was the tactic he used to remove Mary as an obstacle to what he wanted.

Selective Inattention – This tactic is similar to and sometimes mistaken for denial It's when the aggressor "plays dumb," or acts oblivious. When engaging in this tactic, the aggressor actively ignores the warnings, pleas or wishes of others, and in general, refuses to pay attention to everything and anything that might distract them from pursuing their own agenda. Often, the aggressor knows full well what you want from him when he starts to exhibit this "I don't want to hear it!" behavior. By using this tactic, the aggressor actively resists submitting himself to the tasks of paying attention to or refraining from the behavior you want him to change. In the story of Jenny and Amanda, Jenny tried to tell Amanda she was losing privileges because she was behaving irresponsibly. But Amanda wouldn't listen. Her teachers tried to tell her what she needed to do to improve her grade: but she didn't listen to them either. Actively listening to and heeding the suggestions of someone else are, among other things, acts of submission. And, as you may remember from the story, Amanda is not a girl who submits easily. Determined to let nothing stand in her way and convinced she could eventually "win" most of her power struggles with authority figures through manipulation, Amanda closed her ears. She didn't see any need to listen. From her point of view, she would only have lost some power and control if she submitted herself to the guidance and direction offered by those whom she views as less powerful, clever and capable as herself.

Rationalization – A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective tactic, especially when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. It's a powerful tactic because it not only serves to remove any internal resistance the aggressor might have about doing what he wants to do (quieting any qualms of conscience he might have) but also to keep others off his back. If the aggressor can convince you he's justified in whatever he's doing, then he's freer to pursue his goals without interference.

In the story of little Lisa, Mary felt uneasy about the relentlessness with which Joe pursued his quest to make his daughter an obedient, all-A student once again. And, she was aware of Lisa's expressed desire to pursue counseling as a means of addressing and perhaps solving some of her problems. Although Mary felt uneasy about Joe's forcefulness and sensed the impact on her daughter, she allowed herself to become persuaded by his rationalizations that any concerned parent ought to know his daughter better than some relatively dispassionate outsider and that he was only doing his duty by doing as much as he possibly could to "help" his "little girl." When a manipulator really wants to make headway with their rationalizations they'll be sure their excuses are combined with other effective tactics. For example, when Joe was "selling" Mary on the justification for shoving his agenda down everyone's throat he was also sending out subtle invitations for her to feel ashamed (shaming her for not being as "concerned" a parent as he was) as well as making her feel guilty (guilt-tripping her) for not being as conscientious as he was pretending to be.

Diversion – A moving target is hard to hit. When we try to pin a manipulator down or try to keep a discussion focused on a single issue or behavior we don't like, he's expert at knowing how to change the subject, dodge the issue or in some way throw us a curve. Manipulators use distraction and diversion techniques to keep the focus off their behavior, move us off-track, and keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas.

Rather than respond directly to the issue being addressed, Amanda diverted attention to her teacher's and classmates' treatment of her. Jenny allowed Amanda to steer her off track. She never got a straight answer to the question.

Another example of a diversion tactic can be found in the story of Don and Al. Al changed the subject when Don asked him if he had any plans to replace him. He focused on whether he was unhappy or not with Don's sales performance – as if that's what Don had asked him about in the first place. He never gave Don a straight answer to a straight question (manipulators are notorious for this). He told him what he thought would make Don feel less anxious and would steer him away from pursuing the matter any further. Al left feeling like he'd gotten an answer but all he really got was the "runaround."

Early in the current school year, I found it necessary to address my son's irresponsibility about doing his homework by making a rule that he bring his books home every night. One time I asked: "Did you bring your books home today?" His response was: "Guess what, Dad. Instead of tomorrow, we're not going to have our test – until Friday." My question was simple and direct. His answer was deliberately evasive and diversionary. He knew that if he answered the question directly and honestly, he would have received a consequence for failing to bring his books home. By using diversion (and also offering a rationalization) he was already fighting with me to avoid that consequence. Whenever someone is not responding directly to an issue, you can safely assume that for some reason, they're trying to give you the slip.

Lying – It's often hard to tell when a person is lying at the time he's doing it. Fortunately, there are times when the truth will out because circumstances don't bear out somebody's story. But there are also times when you don't know you've been deceived until it's too late. One way to minimize the chances that someone will put one over on you is to remember that because aggressive personalities of all types will generally stop at nothing to get what they want, you can expect them to lie and cheat. Another thing to remember is that manipulators – covert-aggressive personalities that they are – are prone to lie in subtle, covert ways. Courts are well aware of the many ways that people lie, as they require that court oaths charge that testifiers tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Manipulators often lie by withholding a significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the truth. They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This is an especially slick way of lying' omission. Keep this in mind when dealing with a suspected wolf in sheep's clothing. Always seek and obtain specific, confirmable information.

Covert Intimidation – Aggressors frequently threaten their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position. Covert-aggressives intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats. Guilt-tripping and shaming are two of the covert-aggressive's favourite weapons. Both are special intimidation tactics.

Guilt-tripping – One thing that aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon. Aggressive personalities of all types use guilt-tripping so frequently and effectively as a manipulative tactic, that I believe it illustrates how fundamentally different in character they are compared to other (especially neurotic) personalities. All a manipulator has to do is suggest to the conscientious person that they don't care enough, are too selfish, etc., and that person immediately starts to feel bad. On the contrary, a conscientious person might try until they're blue in the face to get a manipulator (or any other aggressive personality) to feel badly about a hurtful behavior, acknowledge responsibility, or admit wrongdoing, to absolutely no avail.

Shaming – This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.

When Joe loudly proclaimed any "good" parent would do just as he was doing to help Lisa, he subtly implied Mary would be a "bad" parent if she didn't attempt to do the same. He "invited" her to feel ashamed of herself. The tactic was effective. Mary eventually felt ashamed for taking a position that made it appear she didn't care enough about her own daughter. Even more doubtful of her worth as a person and a parent, Mary deferred to Joe, thus enabling him to rein a position of dominance over her. Covert-aggressives are expert at using shaming tactics in the most subtle ways. Sometimes it can just be in the glances they give or the tone of voice they use. Using rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm and other techniques, they can invite you to feel ashamed of yourself for even daring to challenge them. Joe tried to shame Mary when I considered accepting the educational assessment performed by Lisa's school. He said something like: "I'm not sure what kind of doctor you are or just what kind of credentials you have, but I'm sure you'd agree that a youngster's grades wouldn't slip as much as Lisa's for no reason. You couldn't be entirely certain she didn't have a learning disability unless you did some testing, could you?' With those words, he "invited" Mary to feel ashamed of herself for not at least considering doing just as he asked. If Mary didn't have a suspicion about what he was up to, she might have accepted this invitation without a second thought.

Playing the Victim Role – This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and less hostile personalities usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress.

In the story of Amanda and Jenny, Amanda was good at playing the victim role too. She had her mother believing that she (Amanda) was the victim of extremely unfair treatment and the target of unwarranted hostility. I remember Jenny telling me: "Sometimes I think Amanda's wrong when she says her teacher hates her and I hate her. But what if that's what she really believes? Can I afford to be so firm with her if she believes in her heart that I hate her?" I remember telling Jenny: "Whether Amanda has come to believe her own distortions is almost irrelevant. She manipulates you because you believe that she believes it and allow that supposed belief to serve as an excuse for her undisciplined aggression."

Vilifying the Victim – This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive.

Returning again to the story of Jenny and Amanda, when Amanda accuses her mother of "hating" her and "always saying mean things" to her, she not only invites Jenny to feel the "bully," but simultaneously succeeds in "bullying" Jenny into backing off. More than any other, the tactic of vilifying the victim is a powerful means of putting someone unconsciously on the defensive while simultaneously masking the aggressive intent and behavior of the person using the tactic.

Playing the Servant Role – Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It's a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else's behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others. In the story of James (the minister) and Sean, James appeared to many to be the tireless servant. He attended more activities than he needed to attend and did so eagerly. But if devoted service to those who needed him was his aim, how does one explain the degree to which James habitually neglected his family? As an aggressive personality, James submits himself to no one. The only master he serves is his own ambition. Not only was playing the servant role an effective tactic for James, but also it's the cornerstone upon which corrupt ministerial empires of all types are built. A good example comes to mind in the recent true story of a well-known tele-evangelist who locked himself up in a room in a purported display of "obedience" and "service" to God. He even portrayed himself' a willing sacrificial lamb who was prepared to be "taken by God" if he didn't do the Almighty's bidding and raise eight million dollars. He claimed he was a humble servant, merely heeding the Lord's will. He was really fighting to save his substantial material empire.

Another recent scandal involving a tele-evangelist resulted in his church's governance body censuring him for one year. But he told his congregation he couldn't stop his ministry because he had to be faithful to the Lord's will (God supposedly talked to him and told him not to quit). This minister was clearly being defiant of his church's established authority. Yet, he presented himself as a person being humbly submissive to the "highest" authority. One hallmark characteristic of covert-aggressive personalities is loudly professing subservience while fighting for dominance.

Seduction – Covert-aggressive personalities are adept at charming, praising, flattering or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and surrender their trust and loyalty. Covert-aggressives are also particularly aware that people who are to some extent emotionally needy and dependent (and that includes most people who aren't character-disordered) want approval, reassurance, and a sense of being valued and needed more than anything. Appearing to be attentive to these needs can be a manipulator's ticket to incredible power over others. Shady "gurus" like Jim Jones and David Koresh seemed to have refined this tactic to an art. In the story of Al and Don, Al is the consummate seducer. He melts any resistance you might have to giving him your loyalty and confidence. He does this by giving you what he knows you need most. He knows you want to feel valued and important. So, he often tells you that you are. You don't find out how unimportant you really are to him until you turn out to be in his way.

Projecting the blame (blaming others) – Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding scapegoats, they're expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.

Minimization – This tactic is a unique kind of denial coupled with rationalization. When using this maneuver, the aggressor is attempting to assert that his abusive behavior isn't really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may be claiming. It's the aggressor's attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain.

I've presented the principal tactics that covert-aggressives use to manipulate and control others. They are not always easy to recognize. Although all aggressive personalities tend to use these tactics, covert-aggressives generally use them slickly, subtly and adeptly. Anyone dealing with a covertly aggressive person will need to heighten gut-level sensitivity to the use of these tactics if they're to avoid being taken in by them.

[sockpuppet Profile]

Castortroy don't get trolled into her world.

Castrotroy, are you going to let him tell you what to do?

[Patrol2 Profile]

http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general431.html

Sorta weak on the presentation side. Here, back at you!!

Narcissism

The term narcissism refers to the personality trait of egotism, which includes the set of character traits concerned with self-image ego. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others.

[sockpuppet Profile]

You're projecting again.

[sockpuppet Profile]

Castortroy, you're a smart kid. You even have a degree in psychology. Do you remember the conversations we used to have when AV got started? What were they about, do you remember?

[Patrol2 Profile]

We already did.... They are the fucking s****s.

Really? How do you consider yourselves that important? Extreme excitement to learn your understanding of this. So, my understanding is...you can't figure out the Alien thing yet, you can't figure out the THEM/THEY machine yet. Sooooo... you make yourselves important now? Ahh....delusion of grandeur of Me, Myself, and Irene again!! Really, show me one beneficial outcome of this reasoning? Tell you what, even if you think about it...It means you're a slave if you even answer YES to any of the questions above. You've always been a slave. Just don't want to see the light. Might think twice, why they made the decisions for you. YOU CAN'T... It means you sit there in silence behind a computer screen.... Arm Chair Quarterbacking, spewing bullshit at a screen. You're just simple opinionated worker bees with no clue about what's coming. To busy, wondering if you're going to have enough to retire on. I'm I going to get fired next week, etc. Can't blame you either. But, don't put bullshit in, where none is present.

Bump!

[Castortroy Profile]

Castortroy don't get trolled into her world.

Castrotroy, are you going to let him tell you what to do?

It's a matter of respect. Something you and your little friend have absolutely no concept of.

I am through with this.