jim.shamlin.com

Obedience in General

(EN: This book is somewhat controversial - not merely because of its topic, but because of its origin. It is presented as a synthesis of various Soviet documents on the practice of brainwashing, but may in fact be a fabrication to provoke outrage and opposition to the communist party and due to its suspicious origin is considered that it may be a hoax or a work of science fiction. I've read it, and preserved notes, as it seems interesting and plausible, in spite of its dubious validity and origin.)

Obedience derives from the application of force. Throughout history civilizations have been built by military leaders who use force to eliminate (kill) those who refuse to obey them and strike fear into the survivors to make them obedient, with the implied threat that they will suffer the same fate if they are not.

It is suggested that force has no place in the civilized world, but brute force is the very means by which civilization is created and sustained. The only difference between civilization and barbarism is the way in which force is used. Barbaric societies use brutality indiscriminately, civilized ones use it in a calculated manner for a specific outcome.

Human beings wish to avoid brutality. Those who consider themselves to be potential victims dislike it for obvious reasons, but even those who want to control others seem reluctant to use brutality, preferring instead to use more subtle methods to communicate a threat by subtle and indirect means. Ideally, a pacified people become so obedient that force need not be mentioned at all, and they comply willingly with demands without considering the reason the submit to authority.

The author suggests that one must be relentless, consistent, and merciless in the application of violence in order to gain and maintain obedience. (EN: This is not so, as it was discovered that intermittent and irregular reward or punishment is more effective in gaining compliance, at least in animals.)

They mention the use of force by police: a protestor's refusal to obey is less vociferous after he has been struck. And if he is thoroughly beaten, he forgets his reason for objection and acts out of primitive fear to avoid suffering greater pain or injury. The principle is also proven in torture, in which pain is administered incrementally, to the point that a subject is broken - once broken, it is seldom necessary to increase pain to gain obedience (and in fact, one may be less brutal in giving his obedience a "booster shot" after he is broken).

There is mention of hypnotism as an alternate means of controlling behavior, which the author considers to be untrue. Hypnotism is effective "only when a person has been beaten, punished, and mercilessly hammered." Western science suggests 20% of people are susceptible to hypnotism, but the authors suggest it is 100% if sufficient brutality is used first to break the spirit. Hypnotic command is a useful tool in getting subjects to follow specific and detailed instructions, once they have already been rendered compliant by accessing their fear of physical harm.

It's briefly mentioned that outright physical abuse that causes physical damage and trauma have been replaced by more subtle methods - for what good is a physically disabled subordinate? Electric shocks, drugs, sleep deprivation, starvation, and lesser physical ordeals are used to soften resistance without risk of permanent damage to the body. Likewise, hypnotism can be effected more subtly than using a pendulum to induce a trance - simple rhythmic repetition can be useful to ingrain ideas into the mind in a weakened state.

It is noted that religions often use this very tactic to gain adherence. Trainees are subjected to physical ordeals that involve starvation and sleep deprivation, sometimes even physical pain, followed by rhythmic chants or songs that have a hypnotic effect on those whose physical resistance has been overcome by deprivation. The same is seen in the initiation rituals of primitive tribes. One can see the pattern of physical abuse followed by indoctrination used in many cultures throughout history.

A return to the value of insanity: if you pronounce a person to be insane, then he will doubt himself and "the public ar large will come to believe utterly anything" about a psychiatric patient. Anything done to such a person is seen as treatment, pain inflicted in order to heal - what might be considered brutal is then perceived as therapeutic. A compliance operative can make use of the psychiatric profession to practice indoctrination or utilize pseudo-psychology (self improvement).

To be obeyed, one must be believed: the obedient person must believe in their controller's ability and willingness to inflict punishments, as well as their controller's ability to observe their actions to detect their transgressions. It is the certainty that one is being observed and punishment will be swiftly delivered that keeps people obedient. In effect, they must be kept in a constant state of fear.

There is a brief mention of propaganda. If the victim can be convinced that his natural impulses are wrong and his controller means to help him, the victim becomes an easier target. If the public can be convinced that the controller is helping the victim, there will be no protest or interference but instead great public support.

The ultimate goal is unthinking and absolute obedience - a subject that is self-monitoring and self-correcting without a need on the controller to constantly watch and correct. When the desired behavior becomes habitual, effort is no longer necessary to maintain obedience - the subject feels that being obedient is a virtue. He is not being compelled to obey against his will, because his will is to be obedient. He sees disobedience as being contrary to his own interests and potentially harmful to himself. He will even seek to recruit others and serve as a monitor and assistant, as he genuinely believes in the implanted ideology.