23:41 *Good for you Steve.* Randall Waters with pivotal when I first came out of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. This is a great interview and I'm glad you put it on your Channel.
Former jdub here, and Jim Jones came to our town before heading to the killing field. I so wanted to go with the group, but didn't thankfully or I would have been one of the dead! Great interview and I will start to get his books.
This is really good. It raises questions even about myself and what was my part in the cult, even though I felt I was one of the victims on the bottom of the pyramid. However, what was it that drew me in? Was it the need for a 'controlled' environment, where I could feel safe? Is that not a desire to control others in itself? There is also always a 'pull', that I have heard about in other documentaries on cults, that you experience even years after getting out and you have to stop your emotional thought taking over your rational thinking. An example for me is not wanting to forgive after being badly wronged by someone, knowing that the JWs would not have tolerated the behaviour I was disagreeing with.
10:28 they discuss Steven Hassan's books Combatting Cult Mind Control. And his latest book Freedom of mind (that's the one I want people pay attention to ) He wrote Combatting as a story how he got out of the Moonies, and one chapter of what tactics are employed by cults (he later rearranged the order of the tactics and it became the BITE model). More details at 11:57, he mentions Lifton, Singer, Leon Festinger's groundbreaking work Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, When Prophecies Fail.
The special interests targeted the free internet in the U.S. in 2014 for the first time. They are now at it again and this time WINNING (final vote Dec. 14th, 2017). Massive protests pressured Obama in 2014 to do something about it. It was forbidden for the providers to slow down some content and to prefer other content by allowing that data traffic at normal or increased speed. Example: Netflix which provides services that require huge resources in broadband, could be required to pay an additional ransom. Else the internet providers can throttle their traffic down. Note that the intense traffic is only is generated if CONSUMERS - who already pay for having an internet connection - use the services of Netflix ! Reducing the speed for the content of some platforms makes their business model impossible, that is especially true for video or online gaming (a lot of date) - Now, Netflix can of course AFFORD to pay that ransom (it will eventually land at the bill of the consumers anyway) - but it is prohibitive for any future or current COMPETITION of Netflix. So Netflix might in the end gladly accept the ransom as additional cost of doing business - knowing that because of their sheer size and domincance on the market they have an advantage in coming up with the ransom while it makes the life of their potential competitiors harder. Consumers already pay for the data traffic on the internet which they CAUSE (whether it is by watching a video on youtube, on vimeo, Netflix, going on facebook, reading their email, viewing different websites, playing online games .....). So if many consumers start watching more videos in high quality (never mind on which platform) and that causes more traffic which requires the Internet providers to invest more in infrastructure - well then those consumers SHOULD PAY DIRECTLY for that increased traffic. Which is easy, the providers used to bill according to "consumed" data, they could do that again. For some time now the providers had the flatrate business model - the companies and not the consumers invented that !. But then came the video streaming services. And the bandwith performance the internet providers promise (to the consumers when they pay for having an internet connection) does not keep up with the new viewing habits and the new business models that emerged - like Netflix. Consumers are going to pay ANYWAY in the end. But with a FREE INTERNET where ALL BITS ARE CREATED EQUAL and all bits TRAVEL AT SAME SPEED the correlation between viewing habits and costs for the consumers will remain clear, the cost structure is honest (cause and correlation) and transparent. Prices can be compared internationally. And the market remains open for competition. If the consumers of data - and the consumers only - pay for the data traffic they generate WHEN THEY VIEW certain websites, videos etc. , then it does not matter WHICH platform hosts the videos and content that they consume. The special interests claim to be for "All bits are created equal" - in reality it is: " ...but SOME BITS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS". When the PROFIT ORIENTED companies DECIDE WHICH videos can be viewed without problems and which they can slow down (and which company or organisatiion they can thus undermine - UNLESS a ransom is paid) - you can be SURE that they will ABUSE that power in commerce - and in politics. Because of reduced competition, a few very large players will remain on the scene, they can dictate the prices and offer shoddy customer service and get away with it. Usualy the huge players always find a cozy arrangement with each other. Once the market has been "divided" up, the few players that made it, avoid getting into price fights with each other. At some point (size / market dominance) they usually find a highly profitable equilibrium of peaceful co-existance. Like the drug cartels do - if they are reasonable. All at the back of the consumers of course. And that is not even the worst possible abuse. It can be also used to HINDER FREE SPEECH and FREEDOM OF PRESS. What is free speech worth, if some powerful players can be sure that you cannot spread your message - when it is hard to hear your DISSENTING OPINIONS ? What is it worth that you can have videos on your own website - when the government or powerful special interests can pressure/bribe the big internet providers to slow certain websites and videos down so that the potential viewers have a really bad experience when they access that content. That alone can prevent getting a BROAD base of viewers. And normally they do not even need to interfere - lack of finacial resources (to pay the ransom) usually will make sure that some opinions are not getting to much attention. Dissenting voices can be allowed to exist - as long as they remain fringe and do not reach the big audiences with the same ease as the mainstream media. And if the contest is about financial resources, the established and mainstream ( = obedient to the status quo) outlets will always win. Right now youtube hosts a lot of vidoes of independent media, NGOs etc. They are a competition for the established media outlets and "News" outlets of course - and they become more and more important. TH-cam/google CAN BE easily corrupted. Thousands of small citizens outlets cannot. There is safety in numbers. There are other currently less well established video platforms that can host vidoes (potential alternative to youtube/google). And people can have their own servers (or cooperate to have a server farm) where they host videos - to be independent from youtube, vimeo, etc. - in case youtube becomes more pro censorship for instance. But once the TECHNICAL MEANS to DIFFERENITATE (which videos and websites are streamed at which speed) are established and such practices are LEGAL - it is only a matter of time until that will be used to hinder dissent. Not to crush it - that is not even necessary if dissenting and inconvient voices can be drowned out - also with economic means and by making it unpleasant and inconvenient to watch them. (Death by a thousand cuts). The FREE MEDIA in the Western "democracies" was never THAT free * - it is just that we didn't know what was "censored", not talked about, swept under the rug. They feel the competition of the independent media on the web. The traditional media and the ruling economic and political class are about to LOSE the CONTROL OVER the NARRATIVE (politics, war, the economy!!) They have gotten that memo with events like Brexit, and espcially the last U.S. presidential race - thus the hysteria about fake news and alleged Russian intervention (spending 100,000 USD or 3000 ads on Facebook is NOTHING in a media campaign - and those ads were often anti Trump - likely they were just cllick baits - anti Clinton, anti Trump whatever gets clicks). It is immensly important for the powerful to continue to have INFORMATION CONTROL (and they of course would like to control public opinion). No one can have MIND CONTROL at that scope - not that they would not like it. The free internet undermines that. So once they have the legal frameset to counteract the free flow of information, that will be used to "contain" the citizens and the NGOs - as it was possible in the good old days before the web.
* There is a limited number of newspapers and TV outlets (especially after the deregulation under Reagan in the 1980s). The small number of deciders and the financial interests make them easy to control / bribe. All mainstream media belong to very rich, usually politically well connected persons / shareholders / investors. These traditional media outlets have for instance a commercial interest in ongoing war and excessive military spending. Military conflict increases views and ratings (especially for TV, see the Iraq war in the 90s). The rich media owners might have huge investment in industries profiting from military and surveillance industry. Also the Military Industrial Complex gives them enough lucrative advertisements to shut the media up (same with the Pharma industry, Big Finance, Big Ag, Fossil fuel industry ....). The New York Times used to have a lot of advertisements from Scientology. The media outlets have a huge interest in excessive campaign spending - they get a lot of those budgets. So do not expect honest and unbiased information on fracking, GMO / Glyphosate, Global Warming, poverty and the shrinking middle class, Wallstreet regulation, a REASONABLE cohesive healthcare insurance debate, presidential races that are not treated like horse races, money in politics and political campaigns etc. from them - the traditional outlets have no interest in unbiased reporting. The powers that be OF COURSE have harnessed the power of the media to further THEIR interersts - it has been like that for decades. (FDR had fireside chats, talks on radio, to communicate his unorthodox ideas directly to the public w/o needing the help of the more conservative leaning media, then press and radio). Noam Chomsky (one of the authors of Manufacturing Consent published in 1988) lectured already in the 70s about the "free" press and their sorry role in maintaining the status quo in the interest of the ruling class (the "elites"). The standard of reporting in traditional media has gotten worse, news are now used to make money (before the 1980s they were not meant to make a profit, the networks made the money elsewhere. By providing news TV and radio provided a public benefit - necessary to justify their broadcasting licence). Now the news have become for-profit "infotainment". So it is all "breaking news", human interest reporting, and wall to wall coverage (of issues that may be somewhat newsworthy but do not deserve to take up all the time). A free internet means that people can escape the mainstream media - which once quite effectively controlled what the MAJORITY of citizens would hear - and what not. And since the media outlets are easy to control by the high and mighty (access journalism, revolving door, advertisements, campaign ads), the ruling class effectively controls what the citizens are "allowed" to hear. That control is not absolute - and that is not necessary. Also the exceptions are used as proof to glorify the allegedly free press and the concept of democracy. It works well enough without OPEN CENSORSHIP. It is (usually) not necessary to intimidate journalists. When journalists and media persons want to be hired by the big companies and especially when they want to advance to the really well paid posts they KNOW THAT IT WOULD NOT DO to touch certain topics. And the people that CONTINUE to be successful in that environment are the right kind of people who HOLD the right kind of beliefs, no coercion needed - if they are not like that, they are eventually kicked out. (see Chris Hedges New York Times, Phil Donahue who was also critical about the Iraq war in 2002 and lost his successful show - or as examples of the opposite Rachel Maddow and which topics she touches - and which not, also Chris Hayes). Usually brute force is not necessary, a lot of money will do the trick without all the unpleasant - and revealing - hassle.
23:41 *Good for you Steve.*
Randall Waters with pivotal when I first came out of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. This is a great interview and I'm glad you put it on your Channel.
I was raised a JW and I can tell u that steve hassan book, combating cult control mind help me very much
Former jdub here, and Jim Jones came to our town before heading to the killing field. I so wanted to go with the group, but didn't thankfully or I would have been one of the dead! Great interview and I will start to get his books.
This is really good. It raises questions even about myself and what was my part in the cult, even though I felt I was one of the victims on the bottom of the pyramid. However, what was it that drew me in? Was it the need for a 'controlled' environment, where I could feel safe? Is that not a desire to control others in itself? There is also always a 'pull', that I have heard about in other documentaries on cults, that you experience even years after getting out and you have to stop your emotional thought taking over your rational thinking. An example for me is not wanting to forgive after being badly wronged by someone, knowing that the JWs would not have tolerated the behaviour I was disagreeing with.
What a great interview! You guys are the best!
thee videos are awesome, but there are so many of them all at the same time, quite overwhelming
I can’t agree more your saying real love is stronger than conditional love.
10:28 they discuss Steven Hassan's books Combatting Cult Mind Control. And his latest book Freedom of mind (that's the one I want people pay attention to )
He wrote Combatting as a story how he got out of the Moonies, and one chapter of what tactics are employed by cults (he later rearranged the order of the tactics and it became the BITE model). More details at 11:57, he mentions Lifton, Singer, Leon Festinger's groundbreaking work Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, When Prophecies Fail.
20:00 Love is stronger than mind control - cults offer "love" or the love of god - but it is a CONDITIONAL love
The special interests targeted the free internet in the U.S. in 2014 for the first time. They are now at it again and this time WINNING (final vote Dec. 14th, 2017). Massive protests pressured Obama in 2014 to do something about it. It was forbidden for the providers to slow down some content and to prefer other content by allowing that data traffic at normal or increased speed.
Example: Netflix which provides services that require huge resources in broadband, could be required to pay an additional ransom. Else the internet providers can throttle their traffic down. Note that the intense traffic is only is generated if CONSUMERS - who already pay for having an internet connection - use the services of Netflix !
Reducing the speed for the content of some platforms makes their business model impossible, that is especially true for video or online gaming (a lot of date) - Now, Netflix can of course AFFORD to pay that ransom (it will eventually land at the bill of the consumers anyway) - but it is prohibitive for any future or current COMPETITION of Netflix.
So Netflix might in the end gladly accept the ransom as additional cost of doing business - knowing that because of their sheer size and domincance on the market they have an advantage in coming up with the ransom while it makes the life of their potential competitiors harder.
Consumers already pay for the data traffic on the internet which they CAUSE (whether it is by watching a video on youtube, on vimeo, Netflix, going on facebook, reading their email, viewing different websites, playing online games .....). So if many consumers start watching more videos in high quality (never mind on which platform) and that causes more traffic which requires the Internet providers to invest more in infrastructure - well then those consumers SHOULD PAY DIRECTLY for that increased traffic.
Which is easy, the providers used to bill according to "consumed" data, they could do that again. For some time now the providers had the flatrate business model - the companies and not the consumers invented that !. But then came the video streaming services. And the bandwith performance the internet providers promise (to the consumers when they pay for having an internet connection) does not keep up with the new viewing habits and the new business models that emerged - like Netflix.
Consumers are going to pay ANYWAY in the end. But with a FREE INTERNET where ALL BITS ARE CREATED EQUAL and all bits TRAVEL AT SAME SPEED the correlation between viewing habits and costs for the consumers will remain clear, the cost structure is honest (cause and correlation) and transparent. Prices can be compared internationally. And the market remains open for competition. If the consumers of data - and the consumers only - pay for the data traffic they generate WHEN THEY VIEW certain websites, videos etc. , then it does not matter WHICH platform hosts the videos and content that they consume.
The special interests claim to be for "All bits are created equal" - in reality it is: " ...but SOME BITS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS". When the PROFIT ORIENTED companies DECIDE WHICH videos can be viewed without problems and which they can slow down (and which company or organisatiion they can thus undermine - UNLESS a ransom is paid) - you can be SURE that they will ABUSE that power in commerce - and in politics.
Because of reduced competition, a few very large players will remain on the scene, they can dictate the prices and offer shoddy customer service and get away with it. Usualy the huge players always find a cozy arrangement with each other. Once the market has been "divided" up, the few players that made it, avoid getting into price fights with each other. At some point (size / market dominance) they usually find a highly profitable equilibrium of peaceful co-existance. Like the drug cartels do - if they are reasonable.
All at the back of the consumers of course.
And that is not even the worst possible abuse. It can be also used to HINDER FREE SPEECH and FREEDOM OF PRESS. What is free speech worth, if some powerful players can be sure that you cannot spread your message - when it is hard to hear your DISSENTING OPINIONS ?
What is it worth that you can have videos on your own website - when the government or powerful special interests can pressure/bribe the big internet providers to slow certain websites and videos down so that the potential viewers have a really bad experience when they access that content. That alone can prevent getting a BROAD base of viewers.
And normally they do not even need to interfere - lack of finacial resources (to pay the ransom) usually will make sure that some opinions are not getting to much attention. Dissenting voices can be allowed to exist - as long as they remain fringe and do not reach the big audiences with the same ease as the mainstream media. And if the contest is about financial resources, the established and mainstream ( = obedient to the status quo) outlets will always win.
Right now youtube hosts a lot of vidoes of independent media, NGOs etc. They are a competition for the established media outlets and "News" outlets of course - and they become more and more important.
TH-cam/google CAN BE easily corrupted. Thousands of small citizens outlets cannot. There is safety in numbers.
There are other currently less well established video platforms that can host vidoes (potential alternative to youtube/google). And people can have their own servers (or cooperate to have a server farm) where they host videos - to be independent from youtube, vimeo, etc. - in case youtube becomes more pro censorship for instance.
But once the TECHNICAL MEANS to DIFFERENITATE (which videos and websites are streamed at which speed) are established and such practices are LEGAL - it is only a matter of time until that will be used to hinder dissent. Not to crush it - that is not even necessary if dissenting and inconvient voices can be drowned out - also with economic means and by making it unpleasant and inconvenient to watch them. (Death by a thousand cuts).
The FREE MEDIA in the Western "democracies" was never THAT free * - it is just that we didn't know what was "censored", not talked about, swept under the rug. They feel the competition of the independent media on the web. The traditional media and the ruling economic and political class are about to LOSE the CONTROL OVER the NARRATIVE (politics, war, the economy!!) They have gotten that memo with events like Brexit, and espcially the last U.S. presidential race - thus the hysteria about fake news and alleged Russian intervention (spending 100,000 USD or 3000 ads on Facebook is NOTHING in a media campaign - and those ads were often anti Trump - likely they were just cllick baits - anti Clinton, anti Trump whatever gets clicks).
It is immensly important for the powerful to continue to have INFORMATION CONTROL (and they of course would like to control public opinion). No one can have MIND CONTROL at that scope - not that they would not like it.
The free internet undermines that. So once they have the legal frameset to counteract the free flow of information, that will be used to "contain" the citizens and the NGOs - as it was possible in the good old days before the web.
* There is a limited number of newspapers and TV outlets (especially after the deregulation under Reagan in the 1980s). The small number of deciders and the financial interests make them easy to control / bribe. All mainstream media belong to very rich, usually politically well connected persons / shareholders / investors. These traditional media outlets have for instance a commercial interest in ongoing war and excessive military spending. Military conflict increases views and ratings (especially for TV, see the Iraq war in the 90s).
The rich media owners might have huge investment in industries profiting from military and surveillance industry. Also the Military Industrial Complex gives them enough lucrative advertisements to shut the media up (same with the Pharma industry, Big Finance, Big Ag, Fossil fuel industry ....).
The New York Times used to have a lot of advertisements from Scientology.
The media outlets have a huge interest in excessive campaign spending - they get a lot of those budgets.
So do not expect honest and unbiased information on fracking, GMO / Glyphosate, Global Warming, poverty and the shrinking middle class, Wallstreet regulation, a REASONABLE cohesive healthcare insurance debate, presidential races that are not treated like horse races, money in politics and political campaigns etc. from them - the traditional outlets have no interest in unbiased reporting.
The powers that be OF COURSE have harnessed the power of the media to further THEIR interersts - it has been like that for decades. (FDR had fireside chats, talks on radio, to communicate his unorthodox ideas directly to the public w/o needing the help of the more conservative leaning media, then press and radio).
Noam Chomsky (one of the authors of Manufacturing Consent published in 1988) lectured already in the 70s about the "free" press and their sorry role in maintaining the status quo in the interest of the ruling class (the "elites").
The standard of reporting in traditional media has gotten worse, news are now used to make money (before the 1980s they were not meant to make a profit, the networks made the money elsewhere. By providing news TV and radio provided a public benefit - necessary to justify their broadcasting licence). Now the news have become for-profit "infotainment". So it is all "breaking news", human interest reporting, and wall to wall coverage (of issues that may be somewhat newsworthy but do not deserve to take up all the time).
A free internet means that people can escape the mainstream media - which once quite effectively controlled what the MAJORITY of citizens would hear - and what not. And since the media outlets are easy to control by the high and mighty (access journalism, revolving door, advertisements, campaign ads), the ruling class effectively controls what the citizens are "allowed" to hear.
That control is not absolute - and that is not necessary. Also the exceptions are used as proof to glorify the allegedly free press and the concept of democracy. It works well enough without OPEN CENSORSHIP.
It is (usually) not necessary to intimidate journalists. When journalists and media persons want to be hired by the big companies and especially when they want to advance to the really well paid posts they KNOW THAT IT WOULD NOT DO to touch certain topics. And the people that CONTINUE to be successful in that environment are the right kind of people who HOLD the right kind of beliefs, no coercion needed - if they are not like that, they are eventually kicked out. (see Chris Hedges New York Times, Phil Donahue who was also critical about the Iraq war in 2002 and lost his successful show - or as examples of the opposite Rachel Maddow and which topics she touches - and which not, also Chris Hayes).
Usually brute force is not necessary, a lot of money will do the trick without all the unpleasant - and revealing - hassle.
JWs destroy all their old literature….hmmmmm 🤔
16:00 Zimbardo prison experiment
Steve you're full of it.
This comment didn't age well.