Time: Tue Dec 16 13:58:53 1997
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Infiltrator Alert from IP List (fwd)
Bcc: sls

>---------- 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 “dialectic.”
>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 things:
>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 dynamics. 
>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. 

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail