First off, a bit of preamble.
Some month or two ago, a person who rarely comments posted a link to an article about (something government related I think) and I sort of “poo poo’d” their point. I’d also found ANOTHER article at the site they pointed too that talked about the “Alice In Wonderland” technique used by the C.I.A. which I found very interesting.
I was going to thank the person, and forgot. I’d planned to do it in a short article about my musing that maybe what we were seeing, culturally, was an analog of the AiWT (Alice in Wonderland Technique). Deliberate confusion of norms to make people more compliant and disrupt awareness and opposition. But I was slothful and did not get around to it.
Now, despite spending about an hour dredging through past comments, I can’t find the comment or the link to properly credit the person. If you are that person, please point me in the right direction…
OK, the mea culpa out of the way:
The AiWT basically has a couple of people spout nonsense at you until you (trying to make sense of it) collapse your ego inward and become more compliant.
What prompted this posting, now? Well, I ran into a video where another person came to the same “conclusion” that what we see happening now, culturally, sure looks like the application of the AiWT on a culture wide basis. Is it really a question what gender someone is? (Look in pants, inny, or outy?) Is it really rational for folks on The Left to shout about the “white privilege” and “racism” of BLACK conservatives? (They have done that…).
Just go down the list of the Crap being shoved at folks. It sure LOOKS like it is intended to disorient and confuse, to bust up rational thought and make people more malleable. After all, who wants to be called a RSMWPXB (Racist Sexist Misogynist White Privileged Xenophobic Bigot yada yada cis boom bah…)
from “KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation” (CIA torture guide) dated July 1963:
The aim of the Alice in Wonderland or confusion technique is to confound the expectations and conditioned reactions of the interrogatee. He is accustomed to a world that makes some sense, at least to him: a world of continuity and logic, a predictable world. He clings to this world to reinforce his identity and powers of resistance.
The confusion technique is designed not only to obliterate the familiar but to replace it with the weird. Although this method can be employed by a single interrogator, it is better adapted to use by two or three. When the subject enters the room, the first interrogator asks a doubletalk question — one which seems straightforward but is essentially nonsensical. Whether the interrogatee tries to answer or not, the second interrogator follows up (interrupting any attempted response) with a wholly unrelated and equally illogical query. Sometimes two or more questions are asked simultaneously. Pitch, tone, and volume of the interrogators’ voices are unrelated to the import of the questions. No pattern of questions and answers is permitted to develop, nor do the questions themselves relate logically to each other. In this strange atmosphere the subject finds that the pattern of speech and thought which he has learned to consider normal have been replaced by an eerie meaninglessness. The interrogatee may start laughing or refuse to take the situation seriously. But as the process continues, day after day if necessary, the subject begins to try to make sense of the situation, which becomes mentally intolerable. Now he is likely to make significant admissions, or even to pour out his story, just to stop the flow of babble which assails him. This technique may be especially effective with the orderly, obstinate type.
This video explores how it works (they guy is a psychologist) and explores how it might be presently in use culturally…
It seems to fit all the known facts…
FWIW, I suspect that my tendency to accept that others can be nutty and that is OK, while simultaneously “keeping a tidy mind” while also having a “internal only moral compass” (i.e. I don’t look others for my sense of self worth, my centeredness, nor my evaluation of what is “normal”. It’s all internal.) may be in some way protective against the onslaught of P.C. Nonsense and Identitarian Nitwittery.
I really just don’t care if that person nattering at me is nutty and spouting nonsense. I’ll just retreat to my inward thought space and contemplate something of interest.
Perhaps the fact that I worked on a psych ward for a year or so helped to teach me not to anchor my reality in “others” a bit too ;-) I’m very comfortable thinking “That person is nuttier than a fruitcake, don’t let their thoughts in… and certainly don’t try to make sense of it.”