Time: Tue Dec 16 14:06:54 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA25711
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:06:12 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06568;
	Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:59:28 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd006437; Tue Dec 16 13:59:10 1997
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:58:54 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Infiltrator Alert from IP List (fwd)

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:29:46
>From: believer@telepath.com
>To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com
>Dear Listees:
>Some of you may be wondering why the IP List Administrator, Ken, has posted
>so many articles over the past few days about the RAND Corporation, Delphi
>Techniques, and PPBS.  There was a reason, and we are now ready to set some
>things before you so you know what has been happening with the list lately.
>On November 12, 1997, a man named Carl Reimann subscribed to the IP list.
>For almost a month, he posted no information but simply lurked observing
>our activities here.  Then on December 11, 1997, he began posting small
>comments about articles which appeared on the list.  Some of Mr. Reimann’s
>comments  were just enough “on the edge” to cause us to begin an
>investigation on exactly who he was and to determine why he was in our
>midst.  What we discovered was very disturbing, and for the protection of
>the list, Mr. Reimann has been unsubscibed.
>For those of you with an interest in “agents of change” (a topic that has
>many names and characteristics), we will provide a bit of background
>information here, and you will understand why Mr. Reimann was unsubscribed,
>and why it may be in your best interest to recognize these things when
>Reimann appears on other lists.  He has currently been sighted on some home
>schooling lists, as well as lists whose focus is purely political.  It will
>also be useful for you to recognize the characteristics of these “agents of
>change” who occasionally appear in our midst either to study our
>“right-wing fanaticism” or to attempt to influence thinking and behavior.
>Mr. Reimann is an internationally known liberal facilitator  with an agenda
>aimed at influencing and classifying what is known as “Intended Behavior.”
>In short, his life’s work is dedicated to social engineering by means of
>the use of dialectic, ... sometimes also called “total quality management”
>or “contiuous quality improvement” or "the Hegelian Dialectic"  --
>benign-sounding names for behavior modification as a result of manipulation
>of thought.
>Mr. Reimann moderates (facilitates) a list called HEPROC, the Higher
>Education Processes network. HEPROC is comprised of 2200 members in 40
>countries, and over a dozen forums covering specialized subjects, all
>dealing with behavior modification in the education or business setting,
>and the accompanying agenda of moving that behavior modification into the
>work place on a world-wide scale.
>Mr. Reimann is also a large supporter of the RAND Corporation and its
>objectives and agenda.  Note his post of 11/20/97:
>“In 1991, RAND (a policy research institute based in Santa Monica, CA)
>established a research program known as the Institute on Education and
>Training (IET).  The IET's purpose is to conduct research, analysis, and
>technical assistance that will help improve policy and practice in
>education and training in this country.  The IET's research agenda
>presently concentrates in these areas: assessment and accountability;
>alternative institutional reform concepts; preparation for work and
>economic effects; educational technology; the social context of education
>and training; and implications of fiscal trends for education....”
>This behavior modification in both education and business is brought about
>by the three steps of the dialectic process.  Most of you will instantly
>recognize these steps:  thesis, antithesis, and synthesis -- by which means
>a lie can become truth in the minds of those manipulated by the process,
>and thus their resultant behavior and decision-making will be influenced
>and altered by the "new thinking."
>The word “progressive” in progressive education, and the word “quality” in
>total quality management mean exactly the same thing -- they mean
>The dialectic method holds that the process of development should not be
>understood as simply a movement in a circle, but as an onward and upward,
>three-dimensional movement; as a transition from old quality to new
>quality, from lower to higher -- a sort of paradigm shift.  Structurally,
>this is the same as evolutionary, new age, humanistic, or Marxist thought.  
>Bloom’s “Taxonomy” is the book upon which all progressive education and
>process education is based.  The very first sentence of this book says,
>“Taxonomy is a classification of plants and animals.” But educators have
>come to think that this is a classificiation of children’s different
>learning styles.  HOWEVER, on page 15, Bloom states that it is a
>CLASSIFICATION OF INTENDED BEHAVIOR.  On page 32, Bloom writes, “All truth
>is relative and there are no hard and fast truths that exist for all time
>and all places.”
>He is not saying that there is no truth, but that everything is in flux and
>all truth changes all the time.  Therefore, as he states on page 38,
>“Although information and knowledge are important outcomes of education, no
>educator would regard this as primary.”  
>What then *is* the PRIMARY focus of education?  The new focus is the
>PROCESS -- the three steps of the dialectic or problem-solving model:
>Create a problem; Generate chaos; Offer solution -- thesis, anti-thesis,
>Once a person allows himself to participate in this process, he will
>eventualy and slowly change.  In fact, this slow change is built into the
>system through the following steps familiar to anyone with  knowledge of
>OBE, TQM, or Marxist philosophy.  The three steps are:
>1.  Traditional
>2.  Transitional
>3.  Transformational
>The name of the game is CONSENSUS -- where everybody leaves his values at
>the door.  Practical judgment is now defined as three phases or steps which
>1.  Identify a problem
>2.  Look for solutions
>3.  Formation of plan of action and then assess.
>It is by this process that people become more “dialectical” in their
>reasoning.  They can then be easily persuaded that a living (dialectic)
>Constitution is acceptable, as opposed to inalieanable (didactic) rights.
>This is why there is such a sense of urgency and rebellion to change our
>Constitution into a living (dialectic) document.  Didactic people will,
>after that change, be totally unacceptable.
>“Human Relations and Curriculum Change” states on page 56 that individual
>freedom leads to chaos, and sometimes force must be used as Hitler did, to
>see that democratic responsibility toward the group as a whole is
>maintained.  No individual must be allowed to rise on the basis of personal
>achievement.  Individuality is never praised.  But rather it is in
>conforming to and agreeing with the dialectic group that one is praised and
>In the book “Critical Thinking,” Richard Paul writes, “Dialectical thought
>is the master-principle of all rational experience and human emancipation
>(freedom from God).  It cultivates the mind and orients the person as
>technical training cannot.  It meets our need to bring harmony and order
>into our lives, to work out an amalgamation of ideas from various
>dimensions of experience, to achieve, in short, intellecutal, emotional,
>and moral integrity.  The proper doing of it is our only defense against
>THIS is the premise behind process (dialectic) education -- and that
>“education” is not confined to schools and universities.  It is ongoing in
>business, economics, and industry, in religion and philosophy and -- to the
>extent that we fail to recognize it and defend against it -- on THIS LIST.
>Mr. Reimann has been in our midst, attempting by means of his commentary,
>to draw us into conversation and/or disagreement to achieve one of two
>1. To study the phenomenon of what he considers “right-wing extremism” ...
>particularly remembering that our didactic outlook (Judeo-Christian) is one
>of the more difficult mind-sets to alter by means of dialectic manipulation
>because of our beliefs in absolute spiritual and/or political truth; or
>2.  To bring his dialectic techniques into the open list forum in an
>attempt to perform change upon our thinking, and consequently, to modify
>our behaviors.
>Either way, the List Staff did not feel that any of the listees needed to
>be guinea pigs for a socialist experiment in behavior modification; nor did
>we feel you should be subjected to dialectic manipulation -- especially if
>we had not devoted some time to explaining how it works so you can
>recognize it when you encounter it.
>The dialectic has many forms, but only one basic structure:
>1.  Problem identified		1.  Oppose
>2.  Potential solutions		2.  Ridicule
>3.  Solution/Evaluation		3.  Offer solution
>1.  Create crisis			1.  Thou shalt not...
>2.  Generate chaos/opposition		2.  Did God really say?
>3.  Offer solution			3.  You can be like God
>Synonyms for Dialectic:
>1.   Quality (Total Quality Management; Continuous Quality Improvement)
>2.   Progressive education
>3.   Process education
>4.   Global citizen
>5.   Living (changing) document
>6.   Higher order thinking skills
>7.   Critical thinking skills
>8.   Socratic process
>9.   Paradoxical revelation
>10. Adaptability
>11. Cooperative
>12. Give me the short version and I’ll decide for myself what it means.
>13. Whole language (create new meanings)
>Mr. Reimann and his colleagues also employ what is known as “Discrete
>Chaos” in their behavior modification and social engineering efforts. A
>post from Mr. Reimann’s list on this subject is attached at the end of this
>message, and should be required reading for those who want to understand
>the thinking of these “agents of change.”  
>We, the List Staff, hope that you now can be more guarded and aware about
>some of the techniques that occasionally show up on this list, against
>which we must stand together.
>A small archive of Mr. Reimann’s internet activity has been compiled, and
>if anyone is truly interested in reviewing or analysing his activities and
>objectives, that information will be forwarded to you upon request, or you
>can just dig it out of the net yourself. It’s all there.  Nothing is hidden
>or concealed.  Reimann and his associates believe in what they are doing
>and are proud of their efforts.  It is important that we are aware of these
>efforts and resist them, lest through ignorance we inadvertently succumb to
>Thank you for your time and attention.  God bless you!
>Jan, Co-Owner, Ignition-Point
>Michele, Co-Owner, Ignition-Point
>Ken, List Administrator, igntiion-Point
>"Discrete Chaos and Learning Orgs LO826"
>Replying to Tim Sullivan, and others who have asked about what I mean by
>"discrete chaos" and what is its relevance to Learning Organizations ?? 
>With the term Discrete chaos, I am referring to the sudden, and highly
>destabilizing, if not breakdown effects, of random variation in
>organizational systems. These phenomena, are I believe, behind much of the
>"fire-fighting" modes which swamp managers and organizations from time to
>time. Such situations further exacerbate a blaming mentality both with
>managers and with operational staff. Many of these situations are caused in
>our experience, by the flagrant use of the uniformity assumption to
>describe the dynamic behavior or organizations in systems planning and
>especially financial modelling activities. 
>The problem arises because conventional notions of capacity are too simple. 
>Readers of Senge's materials and the earlier Systems Dynamics works are
>familiar with the fact that much business culture does not even acknowledge
>dynamics as such. What I am saying is that using continuous systems
>modelling packages like iThink, Dynamo, Stella and many years ago, CSMP,
>one must also take care that in many instances that random variation in
>demand and supply, and in reliability of system components, are modelled
>and anticipated properly. If this is not done, then even though the
>beautiful systemic effects of various negative and positive feedback loops
>are modelled, much real world but discrete, dynamics are missed.
>Unfortunately, in the financial modelling circles near board-level
>decision-making all of this is assumed to be mere operational detail,
>neglecting to see that bottom-line profit and quality hinge on such
>The basic issue is a capacity question from introductory queuing theory.
>It is well known that under circumstances in which there is significant
>variation in the times between the arrivals of discrete items, that if the
>arrival rate is close to the service rate of the workstation, that huge
>congestion can occur. Careful study from our animations of this phenomena
>show that the behaviour is highly varied and unstable, virtually chaotic.
>[Very often the chaotic effects of a burst of congestion has a recovery
>time which is in the same order of magnitude of the burst frequency,
>guaranteeing a system breakdown.] Why is this observation important in
>People normally think of production and service activity in terms of Rates
>(items per hour, transactions per day, tonnage per year, etc.). Planning in
>corporate culture abounds with this thinking, and continuous systems
>modelling tends to reinforce it. People also assume that full resource
>utilization and maximum efficiency is the best policy as well (in addition
>to human response objections, this is also a blatantly incorrect assumption
>on purely technical grounds outside the scope of this discussion). Hence,
>planners will often create situations it is assumed that full resource
>capacity should be used, even in conditions of rampant variation such as
>the very bursty demand for goods and services.  Unwittingly, by this kind
>of planning they create the very conditions which cause congestion, often
>spreading congestion which lead to various kinds of system breakdown, hence
>the fire fighting. 
>We have been exploring software modelling and management consulting
>approaches to address such systemic failures in organizations. One
>apparently little known fact has emerged. That is, that one cannot speak of
>Capacity of a system in which there is significant variation in dynamics
>(very few do not), without specifying the degree of system reliability
>which one can tolerate at full capacity. Pushing the system to capacity
>creates the breakdown effects alluded to above. 
>We have seen over and over again, the detrimental effects of not
>acknowledging these discrete dynamics in organizations, especially when
>coupled to performance measurements which do not take the whole system into
>account. These effects are not just on human relations, and harmony in the
>workplace, there impact upon the bottom line can be terminal. 
>There are other aspects to discrete chaos which we have also investigated.
>In particular, a connectivity avalanche (or collapse) which occurs in the
>evolution of connections in random networks. 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail