### MindNet is no longer active.

#### Back to MindNet Index

    ================================================================
         MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 57b * [Part 2 of 2 parts]
    ================================================================
         V E R I C O M M / MindNet         "Quid veritas est?"
    ================================================================

    The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
    views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editors unless
    otherwise noted.

    The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
    the author/publisher.

    Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
    non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
    copy remain intact and unedited.

    Editor: Mike Coyle

    Assistant Editor: Rick Lawler

    Research: Darrell Bross

    ================================================================
    [Continued from part 1]

    Drawings and Doodles. All patients reported having filled or
    decorated many pages over periods of years from early childhood
    (again, only those whose training commenced in childhood) through
    adulthood with doodles that are strikingly similar across
    individuals They describe themselves as having produced the
    doodles in an almost obsessive manner, drawing them over and over
    for no apparent reason. Certain themes connect these doodles.
    Many of them obviously depict spinning, such as the drawings of
    spinning tornadoes (Figure 2a). Others only suggest spinning,
    such as spirals that may be round (Figure 2b), rectangular
    (Figure 2c), or triangular (Figure 2d), but they also depict
    movement or transmission outward from the center. Finally, other
    doodles depict movement or transmission from one linked unit to
    another, without spinning, as in the interconnected boxes or
    interconnected loops (Figure- 2e and f).

    Doodles Frequently Drawn by Patients With Histories of Spin
    Programming

    The doodling appears to be intended to reinforce by repetition
    and visualization the lessons learned through cognitive and
    imagery training. Doodles may be produced by alters trained as
    spinners, or they may be produced by others to be seen by the
    spinners, as reminders to the spinner to maintain their skills
    and alertness.

    Cognitive and Imagery Training. Programmers apparently combine
    pain transmission training, actual spinning, visual
    demonstrations, and doodles with detailed verbal instructions
    that contain a great deal of vivid visual imagery. This training
    takes place over a period of many years, with countless
    repetitions and variations, so that the overall effect is very
    potent. The thrust of all this training appears to be to convey
    several key ideas to the spinners and other alters, so that they
    accept these ideas without question as their actual reality.

    First, the spinners must learn to spin inside, just as they did
    while out in the body during actual spinning. Often, they learn
    to become a spinning object, such as a tornado or a spinning top.
    That is, their internal representation of self (or internal
    body), as viewed by both themselves and other alters, is a
    spinning object (at least while spinning or during rapidly
    accelerated spinning). Then, they must link the experience of
    internal spinning with the sending out of pain, emotions, and
    other feelings to other alters, so that two experiences are
    inseparable and indistinguishable. Finally, they must link the
    velocity of their spins with centrifugal force, so that the more
    rapidly they spin, the stronger and more irresistible is the
    force with which they send out the pain or other feelings.

    An additional set of ideas is important to impart to the spinners
    for spin programs to be effective. The first of these has to do
    with spinners feeling good (or not feeling bad) about spinning.
    In order to feel good about spinning, spinners must think
    themselves separate from other alters, and view the other alters
    as deserving the painful feelings that they receive as the result
    of the spinning. It is clear from patients' reports that
    programmers teach and reinforce these ideas. It is also useful
    for the spinners to derive feelings of competence and pride about
    their spinning. Therefore programmers apparently reward proper
    spinning with praise and other reinforcements. Next, spinners
    need to be convinced that they have only two choices once a spin
    program is activate: Either they must spin, or they will
    experience all the pain themselves; but, if they do spin, they
    will experience no pain at all. Programmers apparently teach
    these lessons too. Finally, it is advantageous to protect
    spinners from contact with otter alters or outsiders, who might
    impart information to them that could potentially allow them to
    think for themselves. Therefore, programmers apparently often set
    up a ring of guardians around the spinners or impose other
    security measures.

    Transmission Routes. When patients first began to describe pain
    contests, it was thought that the purpose of these ordeals was to
    establish transmission routes for the spinning of pain. Soon it
    became clear that, instead, they were designed to create multiple
    within multiple systems which would be trained to become spinning
    mechanisms. This conclusion left open the question of how
    transmission routes are established. Additional inquiry of
    patients about this question has not provided conclusive answers,
    but the one hypothesis that "feels right" to most of them is that
    pain is sent along the lines of lineage, that is, the connections
    between alters who split off of earlier alters, who split off of
    yet earlier alters, etc., going all the way back to the core or
    near-core personalities. If this is true, then either spinners
    learn how locate and to send pain to near-core alters, or they
    themselves are near-core alters who were selected for spin
    training because of their position in the internal genealogy. The
    second alternative appears to be the more likely one.

    Self-Regulating Spin Systems. One would think that it would be
    very difficult for a programmer to control a multiple within a
    multiple system. More than the desired number of alters may be
    created during the initial abuse, leaving the programmer with a
    problem of disposition. Alters may be created who are never
    discovered by the programmer, and are in positions potentially to
    resist or disrupt the programmer's plans. The number of alters
    and complexity of their interrelationships would make it
    difficult for a programmer to keep track of the behavior of both
    individual alters and interactions among them. Programmers
    apparently respond to all of these problems by imposing rigid
    structure and strict discipline. They control alters' personality
    traits and other attributes, where and with whom they live in the
    internal world, who may communicate with whom, who watches whom,
    and who punishes whom.

    The outcome of programmers' control efforts appears to be a
    complex, self-regulating systems of alters, each of whom is
    assigned specific roles and duties, which is governed by a
    carefully designed scheme of checks and balances. Certain
    functions are essential for spinning to take place, and there
    seems to be some uniformity across patients in terms of which
    functions are carried out by which alters, and how the alters are
    allowed or forced to interact.

    The first step in creating a spin system appears to be to split
    up  the group of alters comprising the system, keeping them only
    dimly aware, if aware at all, of the existence of the others.
    They appear to be placed in specific locations in the internal
    world, determined by the roles they occupy. Those who occupy the
    same or corresponding role are often similar to one another in
    other ways, such as all being children of a given age, all being
    of the same gender, or all being animal alters. They may also
    have similar skills or other attributes such as having been
    taught a performing art, having been trained in psychic
    abilities, or belonging to a specific cult figure who "loves"
    them. As additional spin systems are created, alters from other
    spin systems who occupy the same roles are placed in the same
    locations. These role-based groups may then be taught to be
    suspicious of or hate the other role-based groups, thereby
    keeping them from "comparing notes," cooperating together, or
    organizing any kind of resistance.

    The key functions that need to be accomplished for spinning to
    work effectively are as follows: Of course, there should be an
    alter who spins. There should also be an alter who locates,
    obtains, and moves the dissociated memory components so that they
    can be spun by the spinner. There should be a controller or
    coordinator of the overall process. There should be informers who
    report to programmers about whether other alters are performing
    their duties, including other informers. There should be
    punishers who discipline misbehaving alters, including other
    punishers, and one who can punish even the spinner (who is
    otherwise impervious to pain). There should be a "key" or access
    alter who makes it possible for programmers to enter the system,
    obtain information, and make adjustments. And all these functions
    should be designed to interact in such a way that the system can
    regulate itself and operate independently.

    The roles and lines of communication and influence within such a
    system can be depicted graphically in some cases, with lines
    representing the communication pathways and points of
    intersection representing the alters who occupy the essential
    roles. The result is a three dimensional geometric figure
    resembling a crystal.

    Utility of Spin programming

    Spin programming has some obvious uses to programmers for
    designing and building personality systems. The power of the
    spinners or alters who control them, and the threat of pain that
    they convey, establish them internally as authorities who must be
    obeyed The networks (apparently of descent) along which spinners
    send pain and other experiences represent natural divisions
    within the overall system that programmers may program separately
    and use for specific purposes, such as spying/informing,
    enforcing internal discipline, sexual behaviors, ceremonial
    behaviors, etc. Spin programming can contribute both to unifying
    a system and to separating groups from one another. There are
    doubtless many other ways in which spin programming can
    facilitate system building.

    Harassment and disruption of therapy are easy to achieve with
    spin programming. For example, only one brief programming session
    is capable of setting up a spinner to react each time she or he
    notices the therapist engaging in a predictable behavior by
    setting in motion a furious spin of the emotions contained in
    dozens of dissociated traumatic experiences of childhood
    rejection and abandonment. The patient is then likely to perceive
    the therapist as behaving in an abandoning and rejecting manner,
    and as a result the therapy may be dominated by endless
    sidetracking from other issues in order to deal with the more
    subjectively pressing issue (to the patient) of the fear and hurt
    that the patient feels the therapist is causing. And the spinning
    may continue for days, weeks, or months. Numerous variations of
    this kind of approach are possible, providing many opportunities
    for keeping therapy ineffective for years.

    Importance of Spin Programming

    Spin programming must be of immense importance, judging from the
    sheer amount of time and energy that programmers appear to have
    devoted to creating and maintaining these programs throughout
    their victims' lives. Another indication of the central
    importance of this kind of programming is the wariness shown by
    many patients when the subject is initially broached. It is
    obviously "classified material." These factors, plus the obvious
    power of spin programming as both a system-building and
    harassment/disruption technique, indicate that this kind of
    programming is a fundamental mind control method used on victims
    of ritual abuse. Therefore, it must be addressed in psychotherapy
    with victims of ritualistic abuse. In fact, spin programming is
    apparently so fundamental a technique that our patients may not
    be unable to heal unless it is addressed in therapy.

    Strengths of Spin Programming

    Spin-based programs present a number of strengths from the point
    of view of programmers. They have been difficult to detect,
    because therapists have been unaware of globally targeted spin
    programs as a separate type of programming strategy. The
    reactions created by spin programs, if not identified as such,
    are likely to be mislabeled as borderline traits or "transference
    issues," providing little or no benefit to the patient.
    Containment strategies (utilizing hypnosis or visualization) that
    may work well at stopping or preventing flashbacks of
    specifically targeted programs are often useless with spin
    programs, because of both the sheer volume of memories that are
    activated by a spin program and the force of the spin. Working
    with the affected alters is difficult because of the lengthy,
    intensive attitude training against communicating with outsiders
    that they have received; due to the fact that they are guarded to
    prevent contact; because they fear that they will experience pain
    if they do not spin it out, combined with the immediacy of pain
    relief if they do; and due to the power, or perceived power, of
    the spin.

    In general, when therapists attempt to deal with a spin program,
    they are likely to feel as if they are grappling with a
    complicated, powerful machine. In fact, that is essentially what
    they are doing. Spin programs "feel" quite different from
    specifically targeted programs. Many more alters are involved in
    spin programs, they are much more highly trained and more
    automatic and smoothly coordinated in their functioning, and the
    operations of the programs are much better safeguarded against
    attempts to tamper with or undermine them. As such, they present
    a formidable challenge to therapists and patients.

    Weaknesses of Spin Programming

    In spite of the power and complexity of spin programs, they are
    nevertheless amenable to therapeutic intervention. with patience,
    commitment, and compassion, an astute therapist working closely
    with a creative, motivated patient can gradually make a dent in
    this kind of programming and eventually overcome it by exploiting
    its inherent weaknesses.

    The first weakness is the fact that all programmed alters,
    including spinners, guards, controllers, and all those who are
    part of the spin mechanism, are personalities who were "cut from
    the same cloth" as the rest of the system and are therefore
    capable of both reason and emotion. Alters comprising the spin
    mechanism can actively observe incoming information and react to
    it by commencing the spin, making decisions about when to block
    outside contact or punish those who fail to cooperate with the
    program; therefore, they can reason. Spinners often take pride in
    being good at spinning, and they are proficient at spinning
    painful emotions in order to avoid them; therefore, they are
    capable of feeling emotion. If a therapist or an internal helper
    can establish communication with these alters, the way is open
    for them to correct their present, limited cognitive grasp of
    their situations and options by learning new facts, and to want
    to change what they do by becoming aware of their feelings about
    it. They are also capable of positive emotions, and they are
    likely to be deprived of and hungry for them. Therefore, they are
    likely, once contacted, to respond favorably to care and concern.

    The second weakness is the fact that much of the training that
    makes up spin programming is conditioned as opposed to
    unconditioned, that is, based on paired associate or cognitive
    learning. Therefore, cognitive changes such as consciousness of
    how the conditioning was done can facilitate breaking the
    connections rapidly. The connections and beliefs that can be
    broken in this way include the link between external spinning and
    internal spinning; the link between internal spinning and the
    sending out of pain and other feelings; the link between velocity
    of internal spinning, centrifugal force, and the irresistibility
    of the pain and other feelings being spun out; the illusion that
    the spinners are separate from the rest of the system; the pride
    .of being good at spinning; and the belief that they have only a
    limited number of options. The third weakness is the fact that
    spin programming is built on an accumulation of individual
    dissociated experiences that can be abreacted, one after the
    other, until the foundation of the spin mechanism has been
    completely undermined. Three groups of dissociated memories may
    be addressed: the original training experiences of the spinners
    and others involved in spinning; the traumatic experiences from
    which pain or affective components are collected and fed into the
    spin mechanism; and the programs instructing the spinners what to
    spin and under what conditions to begin spinning.

    The fourth, and greatest, weakness of spin programming is also
    its greatest strength: the complexity of the system of alters and
    the checks and balances that control them. An astute therapist
    can eventually gain access to individuals who occupy the
    different roles, either directly or indirectly, and then educate
    them about their betrayal by their programmers, about the
    compassion they could be feeling toward the suffering of other
    alters in their system (instead of the hate or mistrust they have
    been taught to feel), about their ultimate unity with the others
    (instead of the separation that has been forced on them), and
    about how to join forces to resist.

    Summary

    This paper has described spin programming, a type of abuse that
    until recently was unknown to psychotherapists, but has obviously
    been in use by ritual abusers for many years -- at least four
    decades, and probably much longer. It is possible that most or
    perhaps all patients with histories of ritual abuse have been
    subjected to spin programming. Patients who were born into cults
    that practice ritual abuse (as opposed to having been recruited
    later in life) are probably more likely to have experienced spin
    programming, and their spin programming is likely to be both more
    intensive and more sophisticated.

    Spin programming presents some formidable obstacles for
    psychotherapy. It is apparent that, in the past, lack of
    awareness and understanding of spin programming by the
    therapeutic community has contributed to many problems in
    therapy, and that complete healing has probably been impossible
    without facing and dealing effectively with this type of mind
    control technique.

    It is hoped that this paper will provide a valuable service by
    making information available to therapists that may contribute to
    significant breakthroughs for their patients and ultimately allow
    for their complete healing, while also providing testable
    hypotheses to researchers interested in ritual abuse.

    References

    Braun, B.G. (1988a). The BASK (behavior affect,
    sensation,knowledge) model of dissociation. Dissociation, 1,
    4-23.

    Braun, B.G. (1988b). The BASK model of dissociation: Clinical
    applications. Dissociation, 1, 16-23.

    Coons, P.M., & Grier, F. (1990). Factitious disorder (Munchausen
    type) involving allegations of ritual satanic abuse: A case
    report. Dissociation, 3, 177-178.

    Ganaway, G.K. (1989). Historical truth versus narrative truth:
    Clarifying the role of exogenous trauma in the etiology of
    multiple personality disorder and its variants. Dissociation, 2,
    205-220.

    Hassan, A. (1990). Combating cult mind control. Rochester, VT:
    Park Street Press.

    Hill, S., & Goodwin, J. (1989). Satanism: Similarities between
    patient accounts and pre-Inquisition historical sources.
    Dissociation, 2, 39-44.

    Kluft, R.P. (1989). Editorial: Reflections on allegations of
    ritual abuse. Dissociation, 2, 191-193.

    Los Angeles County Commission for Women. (1989, September).
    Report of the ritual abuse task force: Ritual abuse, definition,
    glossary, the use of mind control. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

    Mayer, R.S. (1991). Satan's children: Case studios in multiple
    personality. NY: G.P. Putnam s& Sons.

    Neswald, D.W., Gould, C., & Graham-Costain, V. (1991,
    September/October). Common "programs" observed in survivors of
    satanic ritual abuse. California Therapist, pp. 47-50.

    Noll, R. (1989). Satanism, UFO abductions, historians, and
    clinicians: Those who do not remember the past... (Letter to the
    Editor). Dissociation, 2, 251-253.

    Van Bensehoten, S.C. (1990). Multiple personality disorder and
    satanic ritual abuse: The issue of credibility. Dissociation, 3,
    22-30.

    Revised April 20, 1995

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Appendix A.
    -----------

    John D. Lovern, Ph.D.
    Clinical Psychologist PSY5064
    2141-B West
    Orangewood Avenue
    Orange, California 92668-1941

    Telephone: (714) 978-3152
    Fax: (714) 978-0895

    June 14, 1995

    Dear requester:

    Thank-you for requesting my article on "spin programming." At
    the time that I wrote the article, I was thinking and perceiving
    things quite differently from how I am now. In the space of a
    letter, I can't tell you all the theories I've been considering
    or all the conclusions I've reached (for the time being), but I
    want you to know that I no longer consider the paper to be
    accurate.

    For a critique of the original paper (I've sent to you a revised
    version), please take a look at Richard Kluft's rejection letter
    for the journal _Dissociation_, which I've enclosed.

    My own criticism of the paper stems from a few years of
    experience, including being burned a few times after believing
    patients' accounts that turned out to be false, thinking through
    a number of issues that I hadn't at the time resolved as well I
    have now, and general seasoning. Right now, I attribute much less
    power to programming than I once did, and I don't see victims of
    ritual abuse as robots or computers who  are powerless against
    cults' efforts to force them to do cult bidding. Two areas of
    thinking have led me away from the point of view I held when I
    wrote the paper: an anthropological view of ritual abuse, and a
    better understanding of hypnosis and deep trance phenomena.

    I began to view the "cult loyal alters" in personality systems of
    ritually abused DID patients less as pawns of a cult and more as
    members of a separate culture. From this point of view, many
    instances of so-called programs being triggered or of patients
    being abducted can be seen in a completely different and less
    spooky light. For example, when someone makes a hand signal at a
    person driving on the highway, the so-called perpetrators didn't
    necessarily just trigger a pull-over-and-go-to-a-ceremony
    program, they may have just signalled hello to someone they know
    inside and asked them come out and talk or do something
    together. According to this anthropological view, therapists can
    do a lot of harm by trying to rescue patients from cults or doing
    lots of memory work to "deprogram" their patients. They may
    actually be threatening or making enemies among the inside
    members of the other culture, who may then try to fight back in a
    number of ways, some of which could bring abuse (internal or
    external in origin) on the mainstream culture member alters (the
    ones who are most likely to have initiated therapy and expressed
    a desire to be rescued from the cult--which may consist of an
    internal or an external group of perpetrators). An escalating
    polarization can result that does little more than cause the
    patient to be hurt badly, both as the result of increased abuse
    and as the result of painful memory work and being left with less
    adequate dissociative defenses.

    The other thinking I've done that makes me view my paper in a
    different light has to do with hypnosis and deep trance
    phenomena. My reading of Eugene Bliss's most recent book, and a
    re-reading of much by Milton Erickson have suggested that many of
    the phenomena therapists see in ritually abused DID patients may
    be the same kinds of phenomena that one commonly sees in
    excellent hypnotic subjects. These influences have led me to ask
    questions such as: How much of what patients like these describe
    to me as real experiences was an objectively real external
    experience, and how much was a mixture of real, fantasy,
    hallucination, etc.? What role do spontaneous self-hypnosis,
    implied suggestion that took place during trauma or trance, and
    post-hypnotic trance phenomena play in flashbacks, programming,
    and reports of ritual abuse? How many reports are the result of
    internal alters being perceived convincingly as external
    people? And I'm continuing to ask more questions.

    Finally, the fact that my paper has been available to the public
    after being mentioned in Oksana's _Safe Passage to Healing_ and
    being in put on the World Wide Web has led a number of people to
    contact me and try to talk about ritual abuse. Unfortunately,
    many of those who have contacted me are members of the "lunatic
    fringe"--that is, conspiracy theorists with paranoid leanings who
    are really too delusional to have any business trying to help
    ritual abuse victims.

    Anyway, I won't go further. But please do regard the paper more
    as a historical document than as an up-to-date scientific study.
    I hope that both the paper and this letter are useful to you.

    Sincerely,

    [original signed]

    John Lovern, Ph.D.

    encs.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Appendix B.
    -----------

    Richard P. Kluft, M.D., F.A.P.A.
    Director, Dissociative Disorders Program
    The Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital
    111 North Forty-Ninth Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19139

    215 471-2484 / 215 664-1883

    June 25, 1993

    John Lovern, Ph.D.
    265 South Anita drive, Suite 116
    Orange, California 92668-3310

    Dear Dr. Lovern:

    I am writing in connection with your submission of "Spin
    Programming: A Newly Discovered Technique of Systematic Mind
    Control" to _DISSOCIATION_. In all candor, our reviewers were
    deeply divided in their responses to this manuscript. Those who
    deeply believe in the reality of ritual abuse advocated
    acceptance; those who did not advocated rejection. The crucial
    issue to me is that all agreed that the paper does not contain
    material that allows the reader to assess to adequately. It is
    uncertain whether these patients have any connection with one
    another.It is unclear as to whether the patients have memories of
    spin experiences, because spinning, dizzying, and
    vertigo-inducing sensations are not uncommon from a variety of
    experiences. It is unclear whether the symptoms and images are
    specific to spin programming or have some more general
    significance. Also, the literal acceptance of some patient
    materials without a review of relevant literature to validate the
    acceptance of such an approach to not "up to snuff." I think the
    main problem is that this account has not risen to the level at
    which it will constitute credible data to your scientific and
    clinical peers. Consequently, its publication in a scientific
    journal is not indicated at this time.

    Very truly yours,

    [original signed]

    Richard P. Kluft, M.D.
    Editor-in Chief _DISSOCIATION_

    [END]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    MindNet Journal Archive Filename: [mn157b.txt]
    ================================================================

    To receive the MindNet Journal via email:

    Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: .

    To unsubscribe:

    Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: .

    Back issues of the MindNet Journal are available at our
    FTP Archive site:

     [/pub/users/vericomm/mindnet/]

    MindNet Journal Publication Index: [mnindex.txt]

    Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet
    Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy
    weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions,
    bioelectromagnetics, hypnosis, and other related topics
    will be accepted with the author's statement of permission
    to publish. The editor reserves the right to accept or
    reject for publication. The publisher disclaims all
    responsibility to return unsolicited matter. Send articles
    for submission to:

    , or VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303, or VERICOMM,
    POB 32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.

    VERICOMM / MindNet and its agents disclaim any and all
    responsibility or liability for any and all claims and/or
    guarantees, express or implied, and delivery of products,
    merchandise, and/or services offered for sale by
    advertisers and/or authors within the MindNet Journal.

    The MindNet mailing list is owned and maintained by Mike Coyle,
    , VERICOMM / MindNet, POB 32314 Oakland, CA
    94604-2314 USA.

    The MindNet Journal is published by VERICOMM / MindNet in
    cooperation with the Freedom Of Thought Foundation, POB 35072,
    Tucson, AZ 85740-5072 USA.

    ================================================================

    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    ||||  ||||  |      |       |  |      |      |   |   |   |   ||||
    |||||  ||  ||  |||||  |||  |  |  |||||  ||  |  | |  |  | |  ||||
    ||||||    |||  ,,,,|      ||  |  |||||  ||  |  |||  |  |||  ||||
    |||||||  ||||      |  |||  |  |      |      |  |||  |  |||  sm||
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||  VERICOMM / MindNet : MindNet@c2.org  |||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||