The "Ordinary-Folks" technique, attempts to convince the target audience that the celebrity and their ideas, are "…those of the common people." The device is used by advertisers and politicians alike.

Obviously, America's recent presidents have all been millionaires, who have gone to great lengths to present themselves as ordinary citizens. George Bush Jr. was reading to school children on 9-11. Bill Clinton partied with the rest of his peers, but "…didn’t inhale." George Bush Sr. hated cooked broccoli, and loved to go fishing. Ronald Reagan was often photographed as the outdoorsman, chopping wood. Jimmy Carter presented himself in the fashion of an humble Georgia peanut farmer.

The political candidates reliably deliver the phony promise to "clean out the barn" and set things straight in Washington. The political scene is filled with politicians who ignore any corruption issues, while appearing to challenge the economic and privilege disparity of the mythical "cultural elite," trying very hard to identify with the needs and desires of "ordinary American people." The baby-boomers of the fifties no longer find significance in whether the candidate inhaled or not.


George Bush Jr. never bothered to answer the drug questions; America didn’t care.

Again, the pertinent questions:

  • What is the intent, relative to the "hidden" person?

  • Disregarding the sales pitch, what are the presented messages/images worth when divorced from the presented personality?

  • Is there a trait or history methodically being left out?

  • What could he or she be trying to cover up with the ordinary-folks approach?

  • What are the facts, relative to the presentation?

The campaigning politician IS a propagandist; the world accepts that. The candidate always needs "numbers;" real or otherwise. The political candidate rents a hall, attracts radio and TV stations, fills a super-stadium, marches thousands of people in a parade.


He/she employs prejudicial colors, symbols, music, movements and Hollywood special effects. He/she induces great numbers to write letters, send E-mails, and contribute money or time to his/her cause. He/she appeals to the desire - common to most of us - to identify with and to "follow the crowd."

In modern politics, the propagandist (and disinformationist) needs to similarly affect the masses. He/she directs the "appeal" to ‘bonded’ groups with the common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, gender, vocation or social status [unemployed, for example]. In a similar fashion, the disinformationist campaigning for or against a given program, position or perception will appeal to their target audience as Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or Jews... as farmers or as school teachers; as housewives or as miners.


Truth is almost the last priority, versus "results."

Using all other propaganda devices, all the means of positive imagery are used to inspire the respective hopes, fears and hatreds, the desired prejudices, convictions and ideals common to a target group.


Thus emotions are employed to push and pull the members of a targeted group onto a prescribed Band Wagon – or to create a fear of "charging" that band wagon with an attack, given the apparent numbers or sheer power behind the particular bandwagon. Following 9-11, there was no hope of winning against ANY position, taken by the Bush administration. 9-11 manufactured the biggest bandwagon, since Pearl Harbor.

The basic message of the Band Wagon appeal is "everyone else is on board; therefore, so should you be." In the primordial quest for ‘safety in numbers,’ few want to be left behind, thus the technique is quite successful in all arenas. The gimmick is in taking a close look at the particular bandwagon, versus an emotional reflex to immediately climb onto the presented Band Wagon. The disinformationist’s mission is obviously to make the targeted audience think there is such a priority; "Opportunity only knocks once!"

The element of "consensus" often rules the bandwagon effect. In regard to the First Amendment, most reflexively agree that " can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater."


No one bothers to ask,

"What if it's on fire?"

A recent example is in the Afghan and Iraq campaigns. While the "Victory Bandwagon" approach worked, the illustration of the lies, in advance of - and after - the invasions left America in the lurch of "War Crimes." – NOBODY seemed to notice!


The Band Wagon approach was that successful.

  • "American" War Crimes?

  • What person could possibly think the unthinkable?

  • Who could conscience the thought, let alone explore the possibility that such could EVER possibly be factual?

Why, not even Hollywood could so dare!

Fear and uncertainty are powerful forces to nudge or push people onto a pandered bandwagon as a "solution" to their anxieties. During the Vietnam War years, the frequent citation of the "Red Menace" created acceptance and approval of the war, inducing many into enlisting. The war was factually about oil and Texas profiteering; few noticed.


The PSYOPS worked.

When the "Bandwagon" approach is noted, it would be prudent to ask the following questions:

  • What is the actual agenda/program?

  • What is the evidence, both for and against the program?

  • Is there a hidden agenda?

  • Regardless of who and how many are supporting the program, is it appropriate or prudent to also support it?

  • Does the "Bandwagon" program serve - or undermine - the individual and collective interests of the typical person?

How many times has America heard this speech:

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive."

More and more people are recognizing the speech from Adolf Hitler, in 1932 – the speech is that commonly used, in some format. Yet, its equivalent also served the "establishment" for ten years of the Viet Nam War. Surprisingly, the ‘establishment’ lost the war!

With rare exception, only a true disinformationist or generic propagandist handily stimulates fear, while immediately citing a recommended "solution." When the "Fear" device is being used, the disinformationist warns the members of the target audience that disaster will result if they do not follow a particular course of action. The intended "Fear" is accompanied by the convenient ‘solution;’ fear on one end, with ‘hope’ on the other.

By using/prostituting "fear," the disinformationist plays upon the emotions; especially on the target audience's deep-seated fears and emotional reflexes. The technique is typically used to redirect attention from the merits of a viable proposal; toward steps that claim to reduce ‘fear’ or ‘threat.’

A joke portrays the common reality:

"My buddy George is one smart SOB. He told me, during the 1964 campaign, that if I voted for Goldwater, the USA would be at war in Viet Nam inside of six months. Damn - he was right – I voted for Goldberg; and look what happened!"

As the 1964 election indicated, ‘truth’ is often an enemy of politics.


Lyndon Johnson was elected, but the war took off - anyway. The induced-fear technique can be highly effective when wielded by a clever demagogue. However, the technique is typically used in less dramatic ways.


Consider the following:

  • A television safety commercial portraying a terrible automobile accident (inducing fear), reminding the viewers to wear their seat-belts (the fear-reducing [hope] solution).

  • An information packet from an insurance company uses pictures of houses destroyed by floods (inducing fear), then inserts ‘convenient’ details about home-owners' insurance (the fear-reducing [hope] solution).

  • A letter from a pro-gun organization begins by describing disarmed citizens in a lawless America in which only criminals possess guns (inducing fear). The letter goes on to cite the Constitution; asking the readers to oppose a ban on semi-automatic weapons (the fear-reducing solution).

At least since the end of the World War II, psychologists and communication specialists of all types have conducted studies to learn more about the effectiveness of fear/hope inducements – as it pertains to herding the masses [directing a mass action].


Some valid criticisms have been made, but the general conclusions are worth considering as being valid. In general, the studies have concluded:

  • The more genuinely frightened a person is, from any communication, the more likely they are to take viable preventive action.

  • The "Fear" approach will not be successful, unless the threat is believed to be PERSONAL, factual, imminent and pertinent, with the target audience otherwise feeling powerless to change the threatening situation.

  • "Fear" is far more likely to succeed in producing a positive response, if the target audience is given specific and viable recommendations to reduce the threat - if the audience feels empowered by the information. The targeted audience needs a high degree of faith in the recommendations.

In general, there are six elements required for a successful fear appeal:

  1. An identified (perception control) and pertinent threat. (emotional control)

  2. A specific safety recommendation. ("hope" solution)

  3. The targeted audience must be made to feel a sense of OBLIGATION.

  4. The targeted audience perception (trust) that the safety recommendation will be effective.

  5. The targeted audience’s perception/faith that they are reliably (personally) capable of performing the recommended solution – with assured (faith) results. [As they are believed in.]

  6. There must be a tangible reward for the targeted audience having lived up to the actual or imposed OBLIGATION. Personal satisfaction may be enough.

When "fear" tactics do not include all six elements, they have a certain probability of failure.


During the intensity of the Cold War, the anti-nuclear movement, successfully aroused a high degree of public fear of a nuclear war. However, lacking specific, viable and "easy" action recommendations, the effort fizzled, as the populace perceived themselves as generally doomed, with no effective or workable solutions. They were frightened, but took little action.

In contrast, however, simple fall-out shelters did become popular, as people were instructed on their construction and believed that shelters would protect them. Installing a simple shelter was something that they could actually do.

During the 1964 campaign, Lyndon Johnson was probably successful in swaying voters with a television commercial, which portrayed a young girl being annihilated in a nuclear attack. The commercial linked (transferred) the threat of nuclear war to Barry Goldwater - Johnson's opponent. Johnson was presented to the voters as an effective, and viable way of avoiding the nuclear threat.

Pay attention to how that operated!

  1. Goldwater was identified (perception control) as the threat. (emotional control)

  2. The safety recommendation ("hope" solution) was not to vote for him.

  3. The concept of "Americanism" (obligation) was used.

  4. The target audience believed (trusted) in that solution.

  5. The target audience was given a personal, easy and workable solution – which they believed in. (faith)

  6. The election victory left the usual reward of political victory, and at least the illusion (tangible reward) of evading nuclear war.

History records that while the feared nuclear war might have been averted, the Viet Nam War pressed onward.


Thus, "clarity of probable results" ends up being the responsibility of the masses, given that they are usually an unwitting ‘means to an end!’ Often, in politics, the decision is simply the lesser of two evils – as perceived. In the case of the Viet Nam War, the scammed "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" hadn’t been identified as to its corruption; praise be to the mass media!

Under the illusion of averting nuclear war, the American voters unwittingly enabled a ten-year war; costing 58,000 American lives, plus casualties, plus cost, plus….. The election "Timing" was everything.

To better illustrate these principles, look to a reversed case. During the summer of 2003, the Liberian crisis left thousands murdered and starving – yet, America barely noticed.



  1. With little news coverage, Liberia was not effectively presented or identified (perception control) as an imminent or pertinent threat to Americans. (emotional control)

  2. A specific safety recommendation was not cited. ("hope" solution)

  3. The minimally targeted audience was not made to feel a sense of OBLIGATION.

  4. The minimally targeted audience perception (trust) didn’t see any safety recommendation that would be effective.

  5. The targeted audience did NOT have the perception/faith that they were (personally) responsible for, or capable of performing any particular recommended solution – with assured (faith) results.

  6. There was too little tangible reward for the targeted audience – if they lived up to any actual or imposed moral [distant] OBLIGATION. Personal satisfaction was not be enough.

Certainly, in this case, many American churches did get involved, but not to the extent needed to meet the Liberian crisis.

In current politics, "fear" continues as a political device – emotional control. The tactic is simple; agitate public fear of terror, illegal immigration, or crime; proposing that the candidate will successfully reduce the threat. The issue almost gets comical in the sense of "My terror-bandwagon is bigger than your terror-bandwagon."


Such emotionally persuasive "fear" messages should trigger the following questions:

  • Is the intent to prostitute an issue to get panic votes?

  • Are the issues complete and factual, as presented?

  • Is there an unreasonable exaggeration in the ‘fear’ or ‘threat’ issue?

  • How pertinent or even legitimate is the cited ‘fear’ or ‘threat?’

  • Will the proposed solution actually reduce the supposed threat?

  • When viewed dispassionately, what are the independent merits of the proposal?

Logic is utilized to draw a conclusion from one or more premises. A simple statement of fact (as opposed to a ‘conclusion’) should not be considered in the light of being either logical or illogical. The typical response to a ‘fact’ is to simply weigh the statement as true or false.

Most are familiar with the following argument:

  • Premise 1: A cat is an animal

  • Premise 2: A dog is an animal

Conclusion: A ‘cat’ and a ‘dog’ are one and the same creature.

Thus, good judgment and insight are required to wade through even a simple argument of logic. Imagine a celebrity getting asked the question, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes; or no!’ Hence the basis for the ‘logic’ of an argument needs to be effectively tested, in order to translate the basic terms; relative to the conclusion.


The inherent rule being,

‘Verify the facts, define the terms; and test your assumptions.’

That’s not to say that correct conclusions require a long list of observations. Some are more heavily weighted than others. If one were to insist, ‘Give me ONE good reason to believe that 9-11 was an inside-job!’ The easy answer is, ‘One, there was no legitimate investigation. OR; two ‘ Anyone who got in the way of 9-11 was creamed. AND; three, the official ‘bad-guys’ were protected to the max; the Saudis. TAKE YOUR PICK!’

Inside of three observations, the conclusion is nearly impossible to evade.


Add a fourth, for good measure:

‘NONE of the ‘official’ claims bear up under elementary scrutiny. The ‘official’ positions almost exclusively come up as nefarious lies.’

Obviously, a message or conclusion can be illogical without being propaganda or disinformation.


What was the intent of the message or conclusion? Is a particular flaw simply the human experience of a logical mistake?


The discovery of the intent is important, toward discovering whether or not a true disinformationist is involved. It must be discovered whether or not there is the element of intent, with a deliberate manipulation of information/logic in order to promote a desired result. Particularly with respect to 9-11, it is important to distinguish whether the leaders are being scrutinized, versus the nation.

Assuming that propaganda is the intent, there are certain ‘classic’ methods to be aware of -

Making major predictions on the basis of ‘limited’ or questionable - facts is a common mistake - or a methodical and deliberate logical fallacy. Often, passionate (emotional) assertions are injected, creating the illusion of factual information. The astute observer intuitively weighs the probability of the presentation as being fact, or fallacy.

With clever rhetoric and tone of voice, an absurd assertion takes on the character of being ‘persuasive.’ To use this tactic effectively, it becomes a matter of pushing one's case to the extreme limit. As a tactical decision, the effect can serve to force any opposition into a weaker ‘credibility’ position. To make a timely, passionate and persuasive assertion overpowers a responsible position of, ‘We don’t know; the facts haven’t been ascertained.’

In such a scenario, the immediate general assertion is up against the more responsible position. Timing and time, itself, is everything. A passionate ‘first-up’ position has a tremendous amount of psychological power. Any opposition is forced into a defensive light, finding a tough challenge to both establish the truth, while also illuminating any disinformationist position in a ‘false’ light. Once the public ‘invests’ in a liar, they will normally defend the liar, versus taking responsibility for their own gullibility.

An opportunistic assertion normally gains the advantage over a party challenged to disprove something which has not yet been absolutely proven or possibly not yet happened.

The 9-11 assertion was that America had been attacked by external terrorists; more was expected. Against the imagery of the 9-11 events, any opposing view was swimming up a high waterfall. The public ‘need-to-know’ was immediately satisfied by the al Qaeda references.

The assertions came with a style; in the case of 9-11, the ‘enemy’ was theoretically unknown. Yet, 'magically' Mohammed Atta’s passport was found on the streets of New York. Say, what anyone wants; but the ‘first-up’ position won.

Three years later, the events of 9-11-2001 continue to power the perceived ‘terror trend,’ despite the TOTAL lack of events since that day. In the style of the Nazi ‘Reichstag Fire,’ accusations are made, arrests are made, associations are made; but no factual attacks are witnessed. Even in the light of factual history, Bush maintains a continuous ‘National State of Emergency; (just in case).


In the success of the PSYOPS, no one has 'protested‘ after two years!

‘Extrapolation’ is what scientists label such predictions, with the advisory that extrapolation must be used with responsibility and caution. Imagine the driver who passes through a city, observing approximately four gas stations per mile. He exits the city, concluding that there must be plenty of gas all the way across the desert. NOT necessarily so!

Such logical sleights-of-hand are often prostituted as a basis for an effective ‘fear’ campaign. Think back to 9-11; despite an official denial of responsibility, a ‘poor-quality’ videotape portrayed a distant look-alike of Osama bin Laden confessing to the 9-11 strikes. When comparing side-by-side ‘known’ images of ‘Osama,’ the tape easily failed the test of reality. Yet, it was still successful ‘ and never officially questioned.

Consider a more contemporary example:

"If Congress doesn’t pass additional terrorism legislation, giving the FBI more ‘investigative’ powers, America will slide down a slippery slope which will ultimately result in more ‘terror.’" (The appeal doesn’t mention the ‘terror’ laws destroying the Constitution, and the creation of a totalitarian police state.)

When a message cites a particular action ‘ or inaction - as leading to either disaster or to utopia, it is prudent to ask the following questions:

  • What is the intent of the message; what’s in the ‘fine print?’

  • Is there enough valid data/information to support the predictions?

  • Does the scope of the conclusions apply to the cited environment?

  • Would a reasonable and objective person arrive at the same conclusion?

  • Are there other reliable/valid forecasts as to how things might turn out?

  • If there is a variety of conclusions which are viable, how does the particular position merit a higher level of probability?

Back to Contents





This example was offered by IPA, as occurring somewhere more than ten years ago. However, it serves as a major indicator of the personal application of the better-known propaganda techniques. The Newt Gingrich political action committee (GOPAC) mailed a pamphlet entitled Language, A Key Mechanism of Control to his associated Republicans, earning the ‘Doublespeak Award’ by the National Conference of Teachers of English in 1990.

The booklet contained two lists of selected words.


The interested parties were instructed to use one set of "positive, governing words," (sparkling generalities) when describing about themselves. A second set of negative words (name-calling words) were offered for use against their opponents.

The two lists can be generally described as being associated with the techniques of ‘sparkling generalities’ and ‘name-calling.’ In simple terms, the standard ‘We, against they.’

The Gingrich's lists suggests a scientifically selected list of powerful terms, such as ‘courage,’ ‘commitment,’ 'vision,’ ‘lead,’ ‘learn,’ ‘empower, ‘ and ‘freedom."


Obviously, these terms are common to many groups, including politicians. Forums such a radio and television call-in programs regularly use words such as ‘liberal,’ 'ideological,’ ‘lie,’ ‘bureaucracy,’ ‘crisis,’ and ‘endanger’ to discredit certain personalities or ideas.

This is the list of the Gingrich "positive, governing words":

  • Active(ly)

  • Activist

  • Building

  • Candid(ly)

  • Care(ing)

  • Challenge

  • Change

  • Children

  • Choice/choose

  • Citizen

  • Commitment

  • Common sense

  • Compete

  • Conflict

  • Control

  • Courage

  • Crusade

  • Debate

  • Dream

  • Duty

  • Eliminate good-time in prison

  • Empower(ment)

  • Fair

  • Family

  • Freedom

  • Hard work

  • Help

  • Humane

  • Incentive

  • Initiative

  • Lead

  • Learn

  • Legacy

  • Liberty

  • Light

  • Listen

  • Mobilize

  • Moral

  • Movement

  • Opportunity

  • Passionate

  • Peace

  • Pioneer

  • Precious

  • Premise

  • Preserve

  • Principle(d)

  • Pristine

  • Pro-(issue) flag, children, environment

  • Prosperity

  • Protect

  • Proud/pride

  • Provide

  • Reform

  • Rights

  • Share

  • Strength

  • Success

  • Tough

  • Truth

  • Unique

  • Vision

  • We/us/our

  • Workfare



This is the list of negative words and phrases, to be directed at opponents:

  • "Compassion" is not enough

  • Anti-(issue) flag, family, child, jobs

  • Betray

  • Coercion

  • Collapse

  • Consequences

  • Corruption

  • Crisis

  • Decay

  • Deeper

  • Destroy

  • Destructive

  • Devour

  • Endanger

  • Failure

  • Greed

  • Hypocrisy

  • Ideological

  • Impose

  • Incompetent

  • Insecure

  • Liberal

  • Lie

  • Limit(s)

  • Pathetic

  • Permissive attitude

  • Self-serving

  • Sensationalists

  • Shallow

  • Sick

  • They/them

  • Threaten

  • Traitors

  • Unionized bureaucracy

  • Urgent

  • Waste

A common PSYOPS tactic is the personal attack. The observer is steered into the mistaken thought that ‘bad’ messengers always deliver ‘bad’ messages. When found, the intent of the attack is important, toward deciphering the central message. Very often the embedded message to the casual observer is ‘PLEASE - don’t look behind that curtain!’

Information normally stands by itself. Some information is documented, some is simply common sense. However, if a suspect source issues the information, the information automatically begs for independent corroboration.

The solution is to look for simple common sense approach. The statement - ‘If one looks to the imagery of the WTC South Tower strike‘ noting the fireball, then looks to the Pentagon videotape & imagery of the damage, it’s academic that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a plane carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.’ - then one can compare the images & form their own conclusions.


However, if the rebuttal is,

"All the witnesses said there was a plane, and there was black smoke typical of a jet fuel blaze, and the fire damage is well chronicled’’,

...the hearsay directs the attention of an astute observer to investigate further. In that investigation, the photographic imagery clearly shows the ‘thick black smoke’ coming from an adjacent construction equipment vehicle; not anything to do with burning jet fuel, from within the Pentagon.

In a different example, if an addicted street hooker ‘ with a long criminal record - turns in a license plate number involved in a drive-by shooting, the car & owners must be tracked down forensically ‘ the hooker just saved the police a lot of footwork.


If the forensics independently ‘make the crime,’ the character and/or motive of the informant is moot. Imagine the hooker facing a jury, the defense attorney can attack her character all day. Yet, in the end, the jury is faced with judging the remaining forensic evidence, not her motive or past. If she gave a wrong license plate- via a revenge motive, the remaining forensic evidence won’t hold up.

Similarly, ‘good’ messengers don’t always deliver ‘good’ messages. For all the alleged Saudi funding of al Qaeda by Saudi Arabia, the U.S. President refuses to allow the public to know the facts. Nor does that President take any action against the Saudi interests.


For all the legal and political power in the USA, the ‘protection’ goes without investigation or punishment.


Back to Contents


The world was told that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9-11. Yet, the security tape video has a time-date stamp of almost a day and a half later. Nothing which resembles a B-757 is in the tape. While the security videotape fireball is nothing less than impressive, the photographs of the scene make an astute observer’s hair stand on end.

The multiple aircraft pieces, on the Pentagon lawn, were from the front end of the aircraft, yet they show no impact, smoke or fire damage. What should be polished aluminum is painted bluish gray. Early photos show the smoke stained wall of the Pentagon, but a tree next to the building still has green leaves on it. The grass immediately in front of the Pentagon is still green.


The pictures show fire trucks being present, early on. But later photographs show all the fire in the world, with no fire trucks, or firemen, until the fire reaches a dramatic peak.


SOME of the close-in pictures of the scene leave the question,

‘Why do we have photographers, but no firemen?’

Many of the pictures don’t lend themselves to the possibility of a good telephoto lens, with a ‘lucky’ photographer in the area.


While ‘Plausible Assertion’ passionately indicates that a B-757 hit the Pentagon, the remaining forensics simply don’t support the assertions. Flight 93 in Pennsylvania is very similar. In particular, the only ‘fire’ associated with the Flight 93 Crash in Pennsylvania shows an obvious ordnance explosion. It too is missing the ‘fingerprint’ of the black column of smoke. Add the missing "normal" components of the engines, tail section, outer wing sections, etc.

The ‘Perception Control' (Plausible Assertion) essentially says,

‘Oh, but if you look at the scene the way we want you to.’

The key aspect of such efforts is contained in the fact that such efforts are oriented around facilitating the psychological mechanism of ‘denial.’ Americans, in particular are spoiled; we don’t like insecurity and we don’t like to think for ourselves. The ‘average’ of our lives is adequate for having trusted so far; why start thinking and questioning, now??

The emotional cowards of society appeal to each other and the ‘causists,’ ‘It’s not THAT badly broken; DON’T fix it!’


From 1963 onward, America hasn’t noticed that their lives are NOT getting better. The degrading of American life is methodically slow; the vast majority of Americans don’t notice ‘ they care still less.

Americans didn’t notice that under Reagan, the federal income tax was diminished, but the federal burden was transferred to the states. A tax was relieved at the federal level, but replaced at the state and local level. The net difference was a tax ‘increase‘ not a decrease. As programmed, America didn’t pay attention!

One small slice at a time, American Democracy and the traditional American way of life is being taken away.

Those who perpetrate deeds such as 9-11 are very keenly aware that the radical majority of Americans hate thinking and reasoning for themselves ‘ they were conditioned not to. America was conditioned to depend on the mass media, television, in particular ‘ for ‘truth.’

American society is not saintly; the greatest corruption on the planet thrives in Washington D.C. ‘ but it’s a ‘clever’ corruption. American history has left too many ‘clues’ as to what can be gotten away with. The fallacy of the John Kennedy murder was clearly illustrated, just by the ‘pristine bullet;’ Oswald was quite obviously a patsy. Yet there were no marches on Washington. As predicted, the ‘first-up’ technique ruled the nation’s perceptions.


A few years later, Bobby Kennedy was murdered. It was known soon enough that Bobby was not killed by Sirhan, yet there still were no marches on Washington. The assassination of Martin Luther King was no different.


"The system" knows the limits of human nature, particularly in the American society. Two years after the fact, few are protesting the obvious inside-job of 9-11... The ‘system’ works! The ‘system’ is keenly aware that ‘shock’ is followed by 'catatonia‘ a ‘shutting down’ process; not just a ‘freeze-in-place’ process.


The ‘system’ facilitates that process by making it easy, greasing the skids of ‘Perception Control!’

Money rules the world. It’s no secret that private corporations compete for government contracts, with huge associated profits. Yet, the world has increasingly seen private companies replacing government offices and functions.


Interestingly, the ‘government’ answers to an increasing number of ‘private’ groups, as though they are an official ‘government’ office. These groups are euphemistically called Non Government Organizations, or ‘NGOs.’ Few indicators are as powerful as the infamous ‘money trail’ Lacking media coverage, few Americans realize the huge sums of tax-dollars being pumped into Texas pockets; in the very same style of the Vietnam War.

In the brief life of the proposed ‘Office of Strategic Information’ (OSI) [‘Ministry of Propaganda,’], the office hired a private consulting firm to do its work. What the Federal Government is prohibited from doing, the individual states and ‘private’ firms can do, right?


If the OSI had survived, America would probably have eventually heard,

‘The ‘government’ didn’t lie, the contracting company mis-spoke.’

The ‘consulting firm’ would have operated as a ‘cut-out.’

Legalities aside, ‘private’ firms regularly do an end-run on government functions. In theory, the CIA can’t legally spy on U.S. citizens. No problem; private companies, ‘snitches’ or foreign intelligence services take care of that. The so-called ‘
Patriot Act’ mandated intelligence sharing with allied countries.

‘No problem,’ you say?


With rare exception, America’s phone bills are ‘processed’ in Israel! Anyone with a smattering of computer education knows what can be done with that data, beyond financial billing. Such manipulations don’t make naiveté affordable. Israel is quite expert at the application of the infamous PROMIS software.

One of the least known of the end-run ‘private’ companies is the ‘Military Professional Resources, Inc’ or, MPRI. This is a company which hires former/retired military professionals to serve as mercenary forces, without a uniform or weapons (supposedly.) It is unusual to NOT see this group in action, wherever U.S. military actions take place. The MPRI is owned by the scandal-ridden L-3 Communications; Linda Daschle being their lobbyist (another long story).

The Iraq war illuminated full-fledged mercenaries on U.S. payrolls being used in Iraq. "Security Contractor" became a euphemism for "unlawful combatant." Yes, our "unlawful combatants" were pandered as ‘legitimate;’ the Taliban "unlawful combatants" were illegally imprisoned in the ‘Gitmo’ prison camp.

All in plain sight!

Similarly, the ‘support’ company, Dyncorp, shows up. All these groups and companies are not only a surrogate for U.S. interests (legitimate or otherwise), but they are paid extremely well, when the final analysis is in. Normally, ‘layering’ is involved. For example, ‘Brown & Root’ (Now ‘Kellog, Brown & Root’) may have a cost-plus contract ‘ a mere 3% ‘plus-factor.’ However that 12-dollar piece of plywood just got bounced to 50-dollars, when a ‘specific’ contractor did the supplying.


The money was raked off from the middle.

Yet, what does America, or anyone, know, or even actively suspect? The presentation, or lack thereof, serves as ‘Perception Control.’ The one thing which is certain, is that the American mind, in particular, is intellectually and emotionally ‘lazy.’ Americans orient their life around freedom from stress, not work. ‘Perception Control’ takes care of the stress.


Americans prefer NOT to know; the stress is too much.


To regress
The OSI was created shortly after Sept. 11 to build public support abroad for the U.S. war on terrorism. Almost immediately, the New York Times reported the Defense Department as paying the ‘Rendon Group,’ (Washington-based international consulting firm), $100,000 per month to help the OSI with a broad campaign that would include "black" propaganda, or disinformation.


That left a ‘pop-up’ government office as receiving the benefit of estranged DoD tax money. With more than a TRILLION dollars unaccounted for, as of 2002; what’s a few bucks more??

In defense of the OSI, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas J. Feith, was quoted as telling reporters that the Pentagon would never lie to the public. However, the journalists remembered that the Hill and Knowlton company produced the phony Kuwaiti ‘incubator’ story, of the 1991 Gulf War fame. Hill and Knowlton is one of the world's largest public relations firms.


The end-run excuse (PSYOPS) was that they produced it for Kuwaiti interests. ‘Technically,’ it wasn’t their fault if the ‘Kuwaiti’ material was used by others, for dishonest purposes. In any event, the previous government association with a ‘private’ willingness to manufacture ‘truth’ for profit was enough.


The cop-out usually sounds like,

‘‘…this topic falls into the realm that the company has no wish to confirm, deny or comment on."

[Feith later became a major figure in the abu Ghraib torture scandal and the Pentagon AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) spying scandal.]

In the ‘incubator story,’ the supposed anonymous 15-year-old star witness was, in fact, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family; her father was the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. ‘Nayirah’ described, for Congress, having seen Iraqi soldiers remove 312 babies from their incubators, leaving them to die on the hospital floor. The intended emotional response was apparently effective.


The U.S. Senate approved support of the war against Iraq by a narrow, five-vote margin. It’s impossible to know for sure whether or not the U.S. commercially manufactured story about the murdered babies make the critical difference.


In the Senate, the ‘war’ margin was five votes!

Perception Control = Emotional Control = Mind Control

‘Privatization,’ at it’s finest. The OSI died; the lies would have to be otherwise told, and they were!

The following list of PSYOPS tactics comes out of the Army’s FM 33-1 ‘Psychological Operations’ manual; Appendix I. Many of the Strategies and Techniques are familiar to anyone who has followed recent political debate, particularly in the various online forums.


Each branch of the U.S. military has a comparable document, but the principles are generally the same:

  • Accomplishment

  • Additional info needed

  • Animosity

  • Appeal to authority

  • Assertion

  • Authority

  • Bandwagon

  • Card stacking

  • Card stacking to increase prestige

  • Celebrity testimonial

  • Change of pace

  • Characteristics of simplification

  • Civilians as plain folks

  • Common bond

  • Concise

  • Conclusion based on favorable facts

  • Dangers of name calling

  • Demonization

  • Direct name calling

  • Disapproval

  • Ego

  • Enemy leader testimonial

  • Ethnic difference

  • Evident over time

  • Exploitable vulnerabilities

  • False testimonial

  • Fear of change

  • Fellow warrior testimonial

  • Hide info

  • Homey words

  • Humanizing leaders

  • Ignorance of threat

  • Illustration

  • Inanimate object

  • Incredible truth

  • Indirect name calling

  • Individual powerlessness

  • Insinuation devices

  • Insinuation

  • Lacks naturalness

  • Leading question

  • Least of evils

  • Lost opportunity

  • Lying

  • Malicious rumor

  • Name calling h07; Native dialect

  • Non-personal testimonial

  • Official sanction

  • Only favorable facts

  • Opposing leader testimonial

  • Other side

  • Oversimplification

  • People vs. Bureaucracy

  • Photo

  • Pinpointing enemy

  • Plain folks

  • Planned spontaneous error

  • Plausible testimonial

  • Political difference

  • Pure motives


  • Rationalization

  • Repetition

  • Ridicule

  • Ruling elite difference

  • Scarcity

  • Selective omission

  • Self-centered

  • Self-evident

  • Shift of scene

  • Simplification

  • Slogan

  • Social difference

  • Social disproval

  • Sources of testimonials

  • Special favor

  • Stalling

  • Stereotyping

  • Take action

  • Terror photo

  • Terror

  • Testimonial

  • Think for others

  • Transfer

  • Types of name calling

  • Types of plain folk

  • Unequal taxes

  • Vagueness

  • Vernacular

  • Virtue words

  • Vocal

  • Warriors as plain folks

There is no shortage of material written on the subject of ‘PSYOPS.’ An internet search of ‘psyops techniques,’ 'information warfare,’ ‘iw,’ ‘cyberwar,’ ‘psyops+civil’ ‘psyops+urban’...

The topic is somewhere between a fascinating and a frightening science. However, the material presented here demonstrates, in brief, how the science of PSYOPS affects every American; directly or indirectly. PSYOPS is a weapon; almost a secret weapon. Its use on Americans, in the fashion of a ‘munition,’ - is nothing less than treasonous.

In the Iraqi campaign, the gang in the ‘Information Warfare’ elements of the military were given an opportunity to prove that their ‘stuff’ worked.

They failed!

As is the entire Iraq War assured to fail. As the Vietnam War failed. As the Mogadishu campaign failed.

‘Wait just a damned minute!’ you plead, "For all this dynamite ‘science,’ why didn’t the Iraq War go as planned?"

Because the element of Iraqi CULTURE was not factored! Arabs are not possessed of the behavioral dynamics of ‘Western’ beliefs, thoughts, values, attitudes or emotions. To a certain extent, it may be said that punishing an Arab is on par with beating a masochist.


However unpopular such a statement may be, results strongly tend to verify its premise.

"Why, then, does PSYOPS obviously work in America?"

Because, conversely, the American culture WAS the framework of the PSYOPS. The PSYOPS was written from a known ‘Western Culture’ standard. In particular, American beliefs, logic, values thoughts, attitudes and emotions. The mistake in Iraq (among other failures) was in presuming a universal set of probable decisions, based on an incorrect set of theoretical dynamics in logic and emotions; WRONG!

As any computer programmer will tell you, ‘Garbage-in; garbage-out.’ The most fabulous Mac program won’t work in a PC; that analogy is close to the reality.

In short, the ‘system’ tried to open an Iraqi lock with an American key; the effort was doomed from the beginning.

Over time, it’s assured that the obvious lessons will be learned and the identified mistakes will be corrected.


Back to Contents


The Transcendence of Brainwashing
Just when America least needs another round of psycho-babble, out pops the "psycho-technology" of "Coercive Persuasion." Okay, what is it?

Coercive Persuasion is the methodical – often subtle or even clandestine - application of psychological manipulation. Coercive Persuasion coerces its targeted audience into "perceiving," "learning" and "adopting" a prescribed set of thoughts, beliefs, values, attitudes and/or behaviors.

From movies such as "The Manchurian Candidate," the 1950's imagery of "brainwashing" and "thought reform" leave people in the dust of the scientific psychological manipulation of individuals – or entire populations. The term "brainwashing" is most often thought of in terms such as "imprisonment," "physical abuse," "gun to the head," or the hypnosis experiments of the "Manchurian Candidate."

The "Manchurian Candidates" are real, but usually found exclusively as patsies on the order of Sirhan and McVeigh.

Coercive Persuasion is a factual science. In example, America – as a whole – never seriously questioned the horror which Jack Kennedy’s "pristine bullet" represented – to every last American. Similarly, America somehow didn’t care that the Bobby Kennedy autopsy demonstrated that Sirhan Sirhan didn’t hit Bobby with a single round.


No one wanted to be the voice to ask,

"Well, who did shoot him – and WHY did they shoot him?"

Not even the Kennedy family asked the compelling questions! The horror of 58,000 dead kids from the Vietnam War didn’t bring any meaningful investigation into the phony "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution." The glaring holes in the official accounts of 9-11 have gone almost unnoticed. All that didn’t happen by virtue of the elements of chance or coincidence!

The highly controlled mass media delivered the propaganda; enabling the anticipated preponderance of weak minds to drift with the political winds. That predictability being another of Hitler's unmentionable legacies. Coercive Persuasion did the rest.

Coercive Persuasion operates by undermining the individual’s defense mechanisms, their perceptions, their values and their attitudes. As the Communist Chinese termed the process – "re-education." America was subjected to the non-captive version, "Politically Correct." Coercive Persuasion alters the otherwise expected personal conduct and the person’s ability to reason - without resorting to physical force.


In the current time frame, "coercive persuasion" cleverly and covertly overcomes an individual's decision-making by impacting the individual’s judgment. The victim gradually loses the ability to make independent decisions or to insist on the information necessary to make an informed and intelligent decision.


Coercive Persuasion leaves the victim with the attitude,

"I know what the facts probably are. But what can I do about ‘things’ without getting myself hurt?"

When that attitude can be identified; the ‘system’ has worked!

The common concept of "brainwashing" is traditionally associated more with techniques of ‘national’ political indoctrination, as opposed to everyday society, corporate or government agency "culture" or methods of teaching in a public school system.


However, today, one cannot help wondering as to what extent "brainwashing" might be found amidst a supposedly benevolent format of their immediate "culture" - including general education. Whether in a government agency, corporate environment or public education system, it is wise for workers, students, teachers and the general public, to be aware of the "modern" psychological processes, generally called "brainwashing."

In the modern world of psychiatry and psychology, "brainwashing" is more commonly referred to as "coercive persuasion," "coercive psychological systems," or "coercive influence." For all intents and purposes, "Coercive Persuasion" may be regarded as the micro-management of Psychological Operations, or "PSYOPS."

Coercive psychological techniques are mental, emotional and behavioral "change" methods which employ known psychological dynamics in a coercive way to induce the adoption of a "preferred" ideology or set of thoughts, beliefs, ideas, attitudes, or behaviors. The core methodology is the avoidance of any physical motivation (punishment).


[For clarity, physical punishment can also be deprivation of movement or other physical needs.]


The coercive strategy is to systematically select, sequence and coordinate the effective mechanisms of coercive influence. For convenience, the term "Coercive Persuasion" will be utilized, given its popularity – where found.

As with most political "systems," it is important to distinguish the element of "intent." To mandate school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and sing patriotic songs might meet the test of "Coercive Persuasion." However, the intent is to foster nationalism – hardly something to apologize for. Still, there will be those who will debate the ‘patriot’ issue in the light of denying children the right of free will.

Thus, it is necessary to visit the "Reasonable Person Test," to judge according to the end-result.


To the person who insists on having power over others in a world of cold logic, against the perpetual "human" needs, it may come down to the frustrated assertion,

"Well, that’s just the way it is!"

Often, it may be necessary to forcibly establish a ‘sacred’ benchmark. Icy logic may argue for zero age limits when it comes to cigarettes, alcohol, street drugs or sex for children. Thus, it may come back to the human mandate to cite the cut-in-stone ‘benchmark’ of civilized standards, in ‘human’ terms of "That’s beyond the boundaries of a civilized society!"


While that might seem academic, nigh unto ‘stupid’ to most, such issues as "NAMBLA" attest to the "reach" of debate and logic, as a self-serving version of "Coercive Persuasion" attempts to hijack the basic values of the American society. Thus, it is necessary to be keenly aware of the probable end effect of such permissive efforts, amidst a naïve and gullible norm of "Live and let live."

Coercive Persuasion is increasingly found in the corporate culture. The impact results in an Orwellian work force, conditioned to sacrifice personal income, benefits and free will; substituting ‘corporate’ needs, over personal needs. The impact being a cleverly veiled corporate Communism. DON’T forget that concept!

When Coercive Persuasion is found, commonly, one sees the beginning event as something which will reliably produce anxiety and stress; often in scenarios which effect such results continuously, over extended periods of time. The initiating step could be a simple – but serious - challenge for one to clarify his/her intellectual/political position. Often, the challenge will be issued with a caution – perhaps a trained/practiced tone of voice.

The techniques can be applied in isolated/personal arenas, or publicly in a sophisticated "propaganda" methodology, relying on the mass media – or the Internet!

Regardless of the arena, the techniques such as repetitive or extended verbal, audio, visual, or tactile fixation drills are used. In military "Boot Camp," for example, excessive exact repetition of routine activities (training or work), sleep restriction and/or nutritional restriction is often found. Add the features of physical/mental/emotional punishment and/or ever present threat of punishment.

Social isolation – where possible - is a supporting tactic; including ‘divide and conquer’ methods. Or; in such events as a corporate takeover, it could be "conquer and divide," as an initiating event.

In the true "cult" realm, contact with family and friends is typically blocked in some fashion, along with persons who have no previous exposure to - or independently do not share - the prescribed attitudes. Dependence on the controlling entity is effected by a variety of means, from simple ‘acceptance-and-approval,’ to professional or financial dependence.


In ‘open’ systems such as the corporate environment, verbal cautions may be found as subtle social blockades, such as a comment to the effect of,

"It might be better if you didn’t bring your personal/family life to work with you."

Certainly, the effect of documented "evaluations" have a major impact, as well. Such evaluations typically have a cumulative effect, almost rendering human beings as an expendable component, very similar to a defective chip in a computer.

Even on the Internet, it is possible - in such arenas as discussion forums - to isolate and verbally batter a given personality into leaving the forum, or submitting to the text-version of Coercive Persuasion. In unrestricted Internet discussion forums, dedicated disinformation agents are often discovered. While their identity is only revealed in their messages and style, their mission is two-fold; to batter the free will of other contributors; and to manufacture / inject the ‘preferred’ illusion (disinformation) of ‘consensus’ to the researcher/journalist and the casual reader – or "lurker" as they are termed.

The controlling entity can be expected to do their best to prohibit, discourage or divert any non-conforming information and non-supporting beliefs, attitudes and/or opinions within the ‘in-house’ communication. Typically there are rigid – or implied - ‘rules’ imposed, as to permissible topics to discuss; both within the ‘group’ and with ‘outsiders.’


Whenever possible, ALL communication is highly controlled – in some fashion. Often, an "in-house" jargon is discovered. Typically, the meaning of some of the terms/phrases is obscure, by accident or design. For example, the application of the term "proactive." Something is active or inactive; what does "proactive" imply?


Someone is an active supporter or an opponent. Thus, the use of the term "proactive" often has a ‘twilight zone’ inference, versus a clear statement. These terms or concepts often carry an aura of mystery, which has the mental-emotional effect of creating an illusion that someone is somehow ‘special’ or powerful,’ as they seem to be "…in the know."

Often the Coercive Persuasion tactic is to pressure the target to re-evaluate the most central values of his or her previous experience in a probing, questioning or outright negative light.


Often, methods are discovered which are designed to destabilize and defeat the subject's basic consciousness, reality awareness, major world viewpoints; as well as their emotional control and mental/emotional defense mechanisms. The targeted subject is mandated or coerced to review and reinterpret his or her life's history and adopt an entirely new perspective. Christians are familiar with such a process in the concept of "original sin."


The argument is essentially,

"We’re all sinners, therefore we owe the redemptive product of our [automatic] shame to God [as the particular local church cares to establish that ‘debt.’]"

Fear and its associated subservience are the desired end-result.

The 'elect' will receive any carrots, the rest will exclusively suffer the stick - with associated induced guilt.

The effect of such tactics is often effective by coercing or inducing a sense of powerlessness, by subjecting the person to intense and frequent messages, events or actions which serve to undermine the person's self-confidence and personal judgment.

For example, making a casual statement that one feels that management is not in tune with the workers needs could lead to the statement, "You know, your remark about management, the other day still bothers the hell out of me!" In current corporate America, such a response would send shudders up anyone’s spine; questioning what the end-effect of the distortion of a casual remark might be.


One could instantly imagine what the remark would deliver on their next evaluation.

These tactics become more effective if they can coerce or induce a strong aversive emotional reactions in the target, using non-physical trauma or punishment such as intense humiliation, ridicule, character assassination, loss of privilege, professional social isolation, social status change, intense shame, guilt and anxiety. (Caution is advised in discriminating between relatively simple personal ‘power trips,’ versus methodical institutional efforts.)

Often, the tactic of intimidation of the target is witnessed, with the force of group-sanctioned non-religious psychological threats. This would include character/personality judgments.

When the opportunity presents itself, whether by invasive tactics on the part of the perpetrator, or somehow "permitted" by the individual, such tactics are a function of ‘psychological force.’ They can be applied to such an effective degree that the individual's capacity to make informed or factually free choices becomes inhibited – if not nearly destroyed.


When such tactics are effective, the victims are often found to be unable to make their normal, wise or balanced decisions, which they otherwise would most likely - or normally - make. Given enough strategy or ‘force,’ most individuals can be unknowingly manipulated by such coordinated and sequenced processes.

Any form of controlling thoughts, beliefs, attitudes or values - whether it is a minor cult, or a totalitarian regime, involves some form of "persuasion."

One may care to use the term "brain washing" or "psychological conditioning," regardless, the indoctrination or initiation technique is most commonly designed to ‘amend’ moral attitudes, versus purely intellectual convictions.

These "persuasion" techniques typically involve:


The methodology goes toward threatening and confusing the individual, wearing them down through surprise or unpredictable treatment. Such treatment or manipulation is assured to produces some level of fear, anxiety and dread; possibly guilt. In any event, the person will be confused as to what to expect, as well as what they are to think and how they are expected to act.


Physical and/or mental stress, shock, or desensitization conditioning is often used to break down both intellectual and emotional resistance. If the intent is truly nefarious, the individual’s spiritual value system will be altered or destroyed. In most cases, physical abuse is a last resort – if not absolutely prohibited (given the potential for accountability).


A common Coercive Persuasion tactic is to manufacture a state of anxiety, sometimes referred to as the "3 Ds" - debility, dependence, and dread. The tactic creates a sense of "isolation," or helplessness. The individual is in some form ‘distanced’ from his/her normal safety mechanisms – including ‘environment.’


A common "captive audience" method is the technique of sensory or stimulation deprivation; either an incremental decrease of the sensory stimulation, or a form of solitary confinement – in the extreme. In a corporate or social environment, the core ‘devices’ are usually the same – in some format - applied over time, in lesser magnitude.


For example, in the corporate arena, an unexpected and extended out of town job assignment could be a programmed form of isolation.

Back to Contents



As practiced, the Coercive Persuasion program strategy is often to identify the "leaders" of a given group and somehow remove them from the group. That may involve breaking up the ‘group.’ Being a "leader" could be as simple as being a popular or respected personality.

The typical application of Coercive Persuasion is to introduce clandestine "facilitators," or outright informers, whose assigned job is to create a destabilized atmosphere, leading to a general aura of mistrust or suspicion. Commonly, a "whisper campaign" is found. The goal is to breach any existing expectations or trust; or prevent even reasonable expectations or trust – including any level of intimacy - from developing among the captive audience.


Any pre-existing intimacy or trust is often corroded by overt or subtle means.

Another tactic or technique is to subject a selected/targeted individual to a form of sensory or stimulation deprivation. In a corporate or government arena, that could start with something as simple as a caution against making or taking personal phone calls, using the ‘company’ computer for personal E-mails, or internet surfing. The tactic goes on to decrease any ‘favorite’ sensory stimulation, which might be available.


That could be a demand for compliance with the prescribed coffee break time limitations. The thrust of such an effort is to destroy any pre-existing morale and "esprit de corps," essentially turning workers into captives, rendering them vulnerable to threats - and bribes.

The intent is to "reset" the individual’s perspective on the past, versus the present and future. "Perspective Control" can be effected by abruptly or subtly forcing a person to choose between cooperating with a newly prescribed ‘value set,’ or losing their position and associated income, their tenure, seniority or any possibility of position advancement or a type of meritorious pay increase.


Often the tactic is to confuse the target, wearing them down by unpredictable treatment, sometimes cycling between a harsh and seemingly unfair and/or arbitrary treatment; at other times courteous and friendly, fair-minded, and even conciliatory treatment. Such manipulation produces confusion as to the ‘norms,’ accompanied by confusion, fear, anxiety, dread, and guilt.


The individual is left wondering as to the "correct" thought and social practices. Any penchant toward "paranoia" is often excited.

During any "isolation," whether physical mental or emotional, from familiar sources of physical, mental, emotional or spiritual support, the tactics often operate by imposing a sense of self-doubt; stripping the individual of their normal & reliable defenses, such as reserve (‘wait and see’ or ‘choice of participation’), upon their identity, dignity or their sense of physical, mental, emotional or spiritual privacy.

Often "confessions" are elicited, so as to establish an emotional ‘lever.’ The harsh reality is that there is only a small percentage of any population, which is largely free of major guilt. Thus a ‘lever’ is typically not difficult to establish.


Factual victims of abuse and violence are often perversely manipulated with the question,

"What did you do to deserve that?"

Such a question is often found in the more damning fashion of "What do YOU think you did to deserve that?" This style of the question cleverly forces ownership upon the individual being ‘levered.’

Conversely, the enthusiastic and otherwise "willing" participants are, in some fashion, rewarded for their acceptance of the prescribed/new beliefs, values or attitudes. In the corporate or government environment, one is often labeled a "team player" – a major indicator, by itself. The reward can be as simple as relief from the associated pressures in whatever environment that the effort is found.


A relatively permanent "conditioning" is often effected by repetitious ‘messages,’ cautions, assertions, accusations, lectures and/or instruction. In America, "Diversity Training," is a common example, today – voluntary, assigned or forced. The conditioning process will follow a specific ‘value system,’ a rigid line of thinking, reasoning, analyzing and behaving.


Often, a prescribed manner of looking at one’s self may be included. Where found, it may routinely be heard, "I once was like…." If the individual goes along with the "party" line, they are made to be ‘safe’ and possibly rewarded. Non-compliance will almost assuredly lead to the individual being punished, in some fashion. Any ‘reward’ may be simply limited to a diminished punishment magnitude.

A further associated tactic is obvious political conditioning. This consists of daily repetitious lecturing and instruction along a particular line of social thinking and behaving. Often, those who are considered "informed," "motivated," "bright," more "advanced" or "evolved" in their thinking, attitudes and behavior become "facilitators," assigned to indoctrinate others.


Often the tactic is to send the facilitators on a mission, convinced that they are "special," and that their clients are somehow less "informed," "motivated," "bright" or less "advanced" or less "evolved."


Back to Contents




In general, there are eight techniques, which are discovered.


These are usually found to overlap, so as to produce the "coercive persuasion." Not all of the techniques are required for the Coercive Persuasion methodology to be effective. As with physical inertia, early psychological results dictate diminished psychological force.


Some of these tactics are more effective in closed-system cults, such as the Jonestown variety.

  1. Mental-emotional confusion (shock effect) is used to "soften" the individual (or group) with confusion accompanied by fear. This can be achieved overtly, via the daily news. 9-11 is a classic; a whole country softened up within a few hours.

    In a cult environment, the Coercive Persuasion is sometimes achieved with selective presentation of information, hypnosis – of some type - or other suggestion tactics or ‘shock’ techniques such as work load and/or sleep reduction and/or excessive repetition of ‘controlling’ messages. Prolonged staring at a written message, symbol, object or "mental exercise partner" operates as a message fixation technique.

    The 9-11 newscasts demonstrated the successful effect of repetitive audio, visual or verbal fixation – on the global population! Al Qaeda – al Qaeda – al Qaeda! [And, it worked!]

    The technique of mental-emotional confusion (with associated fear) serves to break or intrude upon the target's normal priority or concentration. The hidden message is, "Surprise! Your assumptions and beliefs are all wrong! Don’t trust yourself; trust us!" The ‘normal’ priority or concentration is breached in order to diminish the individual's faith in their personal ability to think through or to verify the information being given.


    This often achieved through the use of constant audio-video barrage of selected information – or ‘system’ of information. Another approach is to apply time-compressed projects; with failure assured.


  2. Application or threat of powerful non-physical punishments. Commonly, one witnesses the manipulation techniques of humiliation, loss of status or privilege, professional or social isolation, abrupt professional or social status changes, the induction of doubt, fear, anxiety, guilt and/or shame. Whether used or threatened – directly or by implication – these techniques can create intense negative emotional reactions.

    The events of 9-11 left America in the Reichstag dilemma of "…patriot; yea or nay?"

    Often, the tactic of ‘bad-scene; good-scene’ is observed. In such a case, rewards are held out for submissiveness and compliance. In "closed systems," such as government agencies or corporate environments, the worker is often ‘conditioned,’ so to be as pleased with a letter of commendation as he/she would be with a sizeable check.


    Often enough, individuals are actually subjected to the harsh application of these tactics, becoming emissaries of the message, "Don’t go there!" In the style of Orwell’s loving "Big Brother" the ‘punishment-reward system’ has a much greater power to affect perception, thought, emotion and behavior than a uniquely threat-only system. The "Winston Smiths" are recycled as converts; even zealots.

    This technique is usually discovered with a manipulating ‘leverage’ being maximized through alternating harshness and leniency. In special cases, lavish rewards may be used. In most instances the threat-reward system is limited to acceptance-approval, acknowledgment, admiration and/or other ‘low overhead’ means. The associated tactics are often to be found in calculated feasts or famines, as needed to achieve the ‘conversion.’


  3. Social or professional isolation. Various means are employed to limit or stop an individual’s contact with colleagues, peers, family, friends or associates. That isolation serves as a punishment for those who do not share the "approved" thoughts, beliefs, attitudes or ideology. In the ‘reward cycle,’ financial devices, social and professional status and other ‘levers’ are utilized to create a dependence on the "new group."

    Through the manipulation of rewards, professional or social group pressure, and other non-physical punishments, the manipulations effect considerable control over a person's time, effort, focus, professional or social environment, and the individual’s sources of professional, social and even family support.


    The manipulations serve to put psychological (mental-emotional) distance between the ‘before-and-after’ behavior, which reflects the thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, values, routines, and personal life organization. The manipulations often result in symbolic and/or actual betrayal of self and others, renunciation of self and/or others, the personal attack or repudiation of past associations, or previous values; casual or sacred.

    In the cult environment, an individual who is continually exposed to Coercive Persuasion in training programs, lectures, events or experiences, is manipulated to gradually distance himself from his past - particularly past values. The individual often begins the ‘distancing’ process by not calling or writing family, colleagues, peers and old friends. In an extreme, work, school, family activities or other important previous activities may be abandoned or shifted to a much lower priority; such that the paradigm shift somehow occupies all of their time.


  4. Major paradigm shift. This tactic induces a reprogramming of an individual’s values – their controlling belief system; it is the most effective means for coercing "change." This tactic – in some fashion – produces ‘confessions.’ In turn, the product is guilt and/or shame. The confessions may be open, or strictly within the confines of the individual’s thoughts.

    Often, ‘discovery’ methods are utilized, with frequent and intense efforts made to force the targeted individual to negatively reevaluate their most central pre-existing life and experience of "self" and/or prior conduct. The effort is scientifically designed to create self-doubt, thereby destabilizing, degrading, or diminishing the target's self-image, his/her view of the world, their emotional control, their perceptions, awareness and their interpretation of reality; as well as their mental-emotional defense mechanisms.


    These psychological assaults are designed to force the targeted individual to reinterpret their ‘previous life’ and to adopt the prescribed "new" value system. Such is a part of the "re-education" system.

    Disregarding the actual facts of an individual’s previous history, the targeted individual is incrementally convinced that his/her past experiences, thoughts, beliefs, family life and social or professional life were "bad." At a minimum, the individual is intended to believe that these life elements were at least considerably worse than they actually were. For those familiar, the process essentially reconstructs or resets "Maslow’s Pyramid;" with the ‘need’ of survival being threatened, whether overtly, by implication or just via fear and/or suspicion.

    Once the targeted individual is manipulated into believing that "survival" is now at stake; they are convinced that in order to "survive," he/she must commit to the specified paradigm shift, swearing fealty or acknowledging dependence upon the manipulating entity, trusting in their "superior knowledge," or the espoused mission.


    The element of "self-trust" is eradicated. The target is conditioned to believe that through such a "commitment" (to others) they may - only then - achieve the remainder of "Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs;" safety, love, family and fulfillment. The elements of "trust" and "sufficiency" is "out-sourced." They must, in some fashion, convince the ‘handlers’ that they have totally and finally surrendered; and that they "…love Big Brother."

    In the corporate environment, the ‘shift’ might be the simple conviction that times have changed, however subtly or radically. The ‘shift’ is usually accompanied by the conviction that "..there’s no going back."

    In the cult environment, this technique usually mandates detailed self-disclosed personal history. Once a confession is made – even a false confession – the bell can’t be ‘un-rung.’


  5. Intense and frequent efforts to undermine self-confidence and judgment; creation of a sense of helplessness and/or powerlessness. Any criticism or complaints will usually result in the controlling entity demonstrating to the targeted individual, that he or she is possessed of a major flaw, as opposed to any flaw within the group or the particular propaganda/ideology being pandered.


    The targeted individual is passionately induced to believe that the ‘system’ knows what’s best and should always be assumed to be correct; the targeted individual is "guilt-tripped" into believing that they are wrong. The targeted individual is pressured into abandoning previous convictions, in favor of assuming that only the ‘system’ can be the true authority for judgments and decisions.


    The underlying assumption – often quite false – is that the ‘system’ can be trusted.


  6. Manipulation of information and language. Any input which results in a mental-emotional conflict, any upsetting, or non-supporting information is blocked, denied, censored, reinterpreted or its access is prohibited whenever possible; particularly as it relates to group communication and indoctrination. Any controversial issues are typically poisoned via direct deception or the clever blockage of pertinent facts, the mixing of truth and lies. A confidence game strategy also may be utilized to manipulate any adverse information or inhibit the discovery of any presented falsehoods.

    There will often be rules concerning permissible topics for discussion with ‘outsiders.’ Typically, communication is strictly controlled. In cult scenarios, a "group language" is often found. Those "into" the group are identified by their speech patterns. Those who remember the "valley-speak" of California ["for sure; for sure"] can readily recognize this trait.

    To reinforce the preferred belief system, commonly used words are often substituted or redefined; possibly, new words are created; "proactive" is one such case. The ‘approved language’ is often loaded, creating a value-perspective in the ‘we-against-they’ scenario; often dividing the world into "the good, informed, aware and wonderful US," versus "the ignorant, bad, evil, and unenlightened THEM."

    There may be limitations on verbiage. For example, a ‘reward’ may be expressed in a meeting as, "I would like to acknowledge Susan for…" That as opposed to, "I would like to applaud / congratulate Susan for…" The difference being scientifically calibrated, so as NOT to create an expectation of more than just a verbal reward, versus furnishing ‘fuel’ for a desired raise/promotion.

    Similarly, assumptions (convenient misunderstandings) may be manufactured, via clever verbiage. To say that a person or ‘management’ has a "goal," is not the same as saying that management has a "commitment." Yet, a workforce may predictably NOT identify the subtle difference in terms. Under a false assumption, the workforce may self-manufacture a positive attitude toward a specific individual or management.


    Later, that same assumption, may be choked down the throats of the workforce, as a self-inflicted wound; when the assumed ‘commitment’ isn’t fulfilled. Such "accountings" are typically expressed in a perverse – and controlling - message to the effect of "You’re stupid; nobody ever said that. You didn’t listen. Your assumptions don’t translate into company policy!" In the end, the recipient of such treatment will advise all their associates that "…silence is golden."

    Information is often controlled in such a way as to offer "no choice" selections of intellectual positions, benefits, etc. Any presented alternatives put before the targeted individual to choose from are actually void of any valid options, which would be contrary to the positions, intentions or goals of the ‘system. In the case of 9-11, Bush ran the classic no-choice position of "…for us; or against us."


    Such is similar to the Henry Ford choice of car color; "You can choose any color you want; so long as the choice is black." In the case of 9-11, it was a matter of choosing anything anyone wanted, so long as it closely complied with the ‘system’ line. "War" was the obvious mandate from D.C.; War Crimes and profiteering became the bitter reality.

    Such techniques serve to prevent personal initiative, independent thought or analysis, the discovery of deception, or open questioning of authority or rebellion. The ‘system’ strives to maintain a closed system of logic, as well as an uninformed and trusting mind-state in the targeted individual. From the legacy of George Orwell's "1984," without the knowledge of, or the permission to express or use certain thoughts, attitudes or words – versus the substituted verbiage - people are effectively denied access to any undesired conflicting thoughts, attitudes, feelings and actions, which those particular words represent.


    It’s academic that since words represent thoughts and feelings, with those thoughts capable of motivating actions; if words can be controlled – thoughts, feelings and action can be controlled.


  7. Application or presence of psychological threat. Any such ‘closed system’ typically presents the conviction that anyone who fails to adopt the approved thought process, attitude, belief, or prescribed behavior are either directly threatened, or they are led to the certainty that severe punishment or dire consequences – of some sort - will eventually meet them. In many cases, methodologies are designed to produce such high stress levels as to induce physical or mental illness, drug dependence (including prescribed psychoactive drugs), economic collapse, professional or social failure and divorce are a few examples of these threats.

    These techniques of Coercive Persuasion combine the most effective and traditional psychological and sociological coercive methodologies of influence and deception techniques with the most powerful techniques of ‘behavior modification,’ and other psychological technologies such as hypnosis or Neuro-Linguistic Programming.


    The resulting synthesis is often found to be wrapped in a slick soft-sell veneer, of the Madison Avenue PR variety.


  8. Structure and control. The element of "compartmentalization" is a common trait of institutionalized Coercive Persuasion. While such structure has a certain production-control benefit, the barriers created also effect tremendous influence over the subject population. Such environments are typically identifiable by having some form of "Human Resources" department, with a powerful supervisory hierarchy.


    For example, the corporate policy may prohibit a departmental – or branch – transfer, without a ‘compartment’ supervisor’s approval/recommendation. The effect of such structure and control is to implant a general sense of powerlessness in the individual. In a time of crisis, the affected individual doesn’t have the ability to reach out to a friend, as the friend will be informed, "That’s not your department."

The psycho-technology is usually found to be sufficiently effective as to ensure the "conversion" and "retention" of a significant percentage of any population exposed to the methodology.


Strong character and bright minds are often successful in resisting the "conversion;" Coercive Persuasion is not a "magic bullet," nor is it yet infallible. However, in time, the technology may become as ‘developed’ as such inventions as the Laser. Already, cell phone technology can pinpoint a powered cell phone (not even being used) down to approximately ten feet in most major cities. Supposedly this technology is an "emergency services" feature.


One can only imagine ….

Human nature leaves such important variables as one’s lessons from individual life experiences, cultural norms, and pre-existing psychological disposition. These variables can be expected to react with the personal malleability and the degree of severity of the application; as well as the duration of the methodology application.


That is to say that a person with an existing weakness will bend according to the size and form of the mental/emotional hammer used on him/her, and the length of time the beating endures. The individual dynamics of such ‘psycho-assault’ variables will determine the eventual outcome of the Coercive Persuasion. In the negative application, the ultimate effectiveness and degree of ‘injury’ will advertise the value of the individual measure, or the collective success of the applied "Coercive Persuasion" elements.

Can anyone imagine the ‘destructive testing’ of the human mind, in a civilized society? The effort is quite real, as evidenced by such highly protected extremes as the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, (Gitmo) or the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Worse, such well-known "Nazi" War Crimes receive no significant outrage from the American public, nor the supposedly free-press! One may be assured that such silence is a function of "science," not accident!


Back to Contents




The Coercive Persuasion techniques are typically selected and applied in a scientific manner – of some sort. Again, the core effort is to create the maximum emotional effect. The application of the methods is typically intended to deliver maximum stress, stopping short of inducing psychosis – but not always!

In the ideal application, the intended subtle Coercive Persuasion style is intended to compel the targeted individual to submit or "adapt," via a series of scientifically sequenced steps. The individual steps are typically designed to be so minor that the targeted individual doesn’t perceive any overt threat, or notice any personal changes.


The intention is the ultimate product of a "new" person. In theory, Hollywood could capitalize on an old movie theme, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," producing a movie entitled "Invasion of the Mind Snatchers."

In the ideal application of Coercive Persuasion, the victim is faced with the strategy of a brilliant chess player – always several moves ahead. Regardless of individual decisions, one or more of the techniques are strategically "played," so as to subtly induce submission. Consciously or subconsciously, the individual encountering the ‘treatment’ experiences severe stresses; as such Coercive Persuasion programs induce cumulative pressure.


The targeted individual is often forced into a corner, where they can only reduce the pressures by submitting to the effect, via "acceptance" of the system or "adopting," the prescribed thoughts, beliefs, values and attitudes. Thereafter, the result is the desired change in the individual’s attitudes, reactions and behaviors.

Efficiency dictates that Coercive Persuasion is typically applied in group settings. With rare exception, the victims of Coercive Persuasion are unaware that their own "friends and allies" are being used to cleverly apply or facilitate the Coercive Persuasion techniques. The obvious strategy is to ensure that the intended victims don’t put up their normal ego defense mechanisms, as they would otherwise do in known adversarial or confrontational situations.


In the ideal case, when Coercive Persuasion is used, the targeted subject may never discover the hidden agenda - or that he/she has become a victim of the ‘system.’

During the application of the stresses and rewards, as well as any punishment techniques, the cumulative effect on the person is extensive. The stresses are not intended to produce a rational, stable and self-sustaining reorganization of thoughts, beliefs, values or attitudes.


The intention is that of a coerced compliance and/or submission.


The next desired result is the ‘personal’ rationalization, in the particular situation, of a cause-and-effect for the coerced conduct. The targeted individual is desired to personally ‘invest’ in the process by personally justifying the ‘change.’


The underlying submission message is,

"You don’t have to think; just listen – and obey!"

In most instances, the "changeover" is regularly tested to ensure that the ‘program’ has been genuinely effective.

Often the victim is ‘handed’ the elements of guilt or shame to assist the desired rationalization. A method of general reinforcement is required to maintain the prescribed or resulting thoughts, beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors. Equally important is the maintenance required to sustain the personal rationalization, so as to ensure the long-term continuity of the influence over the person's behavior.

Once the desired behavior is effected, it is natural that those associates (friends/family) who are independent of the "influence" environment will notice significant changes, and inquire as to what happened. When questioned by close associates or family, the victims of Coercive Persuasion may aggressively insist the changes were a form of ‘personal growth,’ "for their own good."


They will typically insist that the changes, however subtle or radical, were "freely chosen" by themselves.


Further inquiry may reveal that the affected victim is oblivious of the specifics, which led to the changes. Given the common application of artificial ‘guilt’ or ‘shame,’ the individual’s denial mechanisms can be expected to accompany any associated confusion. These two particular "beliefs" ("for my own good;" "my choice") are typically found to be a "standard feature" found within the victim of a Coercive Persuasion program.

A mainstay mechanism of such programs relies on the statistical significance of the person from the proverbial "dysfunctional family." Most people come from such families. The matter is not statistics (averages), but rather goes to the effective emotional ‘programming’ which, by default, typically accompanies such an individual. Specifically, such individuals are typically far more attentive to the wants/needs of others than themselves.


Thus, informing a person that their personal ‘norms’ are harmful to others, will reliably trigger an automatic conformity reaction – in most individuals. Conversely, informing the ‘group’ that a person is being selfish and unreasonably stubborn in their ways (not being a ‘team player’) will trigger a powerful ‘group’ resentment and reaction to that individual.

The associated ‘conversion’ operates so as to maintain the new "values" - and to minimize any legal liability. In the process of the victim’s beliefs being openly expressed, he/she typically is convinced that the choice was totally voluntarily and freely made – to "change." In the process of the ‘conversion,’ the victim is constantly asked if the decision is theirs.


To survive, the victim will always say ‘yes.’ In the long term, the verbalized assumption of responsibility ("I did it!") serves as reinforcement by virtue of "keeping agreements." Comparably, such statements leave the ‘controlling entity’ free of legal accountability. In fear of embarrassment, the victim will self-motivate (re-invest), in order to preserve their ‘new’ espoused image, even if serious doubts should develop.


Within a "group," the reinforcement devices are that much easier and effective.

Compared to the stereotyped "brainwashing" [re-education] of the Korean War vintage, Coercive Persuasion is easier to effect, more powerful and more readily applied. However, due to the preferred large group applications, those affected by Coercive Persuasion are radically less monitored – as individuals – with the additional risk of the natural bewilderment resulting in their going beyond their personal limits of maximum stress, with a resulting alcohol or drug dependency resulting, if not a true psychosis.

The harsh reality of Coercive Persuasion is that the coercive force is maximized through cumulative application and synergy.


Over an extended period of time, Coercive Persuasion can potentially produce more destructive influence than physical abuse, imprisonment, physical threats or legal threats.

Back to Contents