11/03/02 and 11/22/02--We're pleased that some of NANAE sycophants 11/03/02 and 11/25/02 'enjoy' our web site. Feel free to visit often.
(Oh, and we've never said we're against filtering as long as it's only your own email! It's malacious third-party interference (read RBL, SPEWS, etc.) in the email of others that we object to. And it's nice to see Brian '2bit' Bruns back; he brings the collective IQ of the group to about 8, and the AQ (arrogance quotient) to about 3000.)


IF THE SHOE FITS, NANAE, IF THE SHOE FITS...

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding" -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

Question--What are a NANAE-goat's 3 favorite movies?

  Answer--"Animal Farm", "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451".
    (because NANAE-goats identify with the pigs, Big Brother and Capt. Beatty)

This brief segment is dedicated to the likes of Morley Dotes, William James, Bill Cole, Alun Jones, John Oliver, Steve Linford, Suresh Ramasubramanian, and the other past and present members of the NANAE 'groupthink' (click here if you're not familiar with 'groupthink') who regularly waste network resources (probably that of their employers) tilting at spam windmills.

(Hey, what was that noise? Oh, it's just another NANAE-ite gasping as he recognizes himself in the NANAE/GROUPTHINK mirror.)

You are exactly what author Tammy Bruce describes in her recent book, "The New Thought Police". You are intolerant of the opinions of others, you use threats and coercion against anyone who dares to act differently from yourselves, you engage in conspiracies to enforce your beliefs, and you disguise your real agenda behind the red herring of fighting spam.

And like the pigs in the novel "Animal Farm", given a little power you have changed from the abused to the abuser. You are the type that Lord Acton had in mind when he warned, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

We also note that you are 'fair weather friends'--MAPS falls onto 'hard times' and you ignore or criticize them as though they had been the enemy all along (they were, by the way). Arrogant, groupthink hypocrites that you are, you then lined up behind the cowards at SPEWS, and when SPEWS rightly took heat and sneaked off to Australia, you found yourselves without a rallying point (SPEWS is now back onshore in Fremont, California, which we hope will inspire legal action against them). (Aside to John Oliver--just why did you remove the reference to Allegiance from your email signature? 5/2/02: it appears his actions finally caught up with John--Allegiance wised up and dumped him. And now he's with a medical imaging company; perhaps he'll decide that some patients merit treatment, but not others.) We wonder where NANAE-ites would be found if the Taliban had come out against junk email.

The online world awaits the day when a backbone provider pushes aside the expediency and temporary safety of political correctness by refusing to bow to your wishes, and by acting aggressively in requiring that all users of their network route all traffic, even that of the people you don't like.


Warning signs of 'groupthink' in cults or groups....


Does your organisation, cult or group suffer from groupthink? Stephen Castro in this book argues that the Findhorn community in Scotland is a classic example of this dangerous phenomenon. The behavioural symptoms to watch out for are as follows:

(1) An illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks.

(2) Collective efforts to rationalise in order to discount warnings which might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions.

(3) An unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.

(4) Stereotyped views of rivals and enemies as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes.

(5) Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members.

(6) Self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member's inclination to minimise to himself the importance of his doubts and counter-arguments.

(7) A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgements conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent).

(8) The emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.

TAKEN FROM:

Hypocrisy and dissent within the Findhorn Foundation - Towards a sociology of a New Age community by Stephen J. Castro, published by New Media Books (PO Box 3, Forres, Morayshire IV36 OWB, Scotland; 1996, ISBN 0 9526881 0 7, 9-95). Reviewed by Nicholas Albery.
Graphics courtesy of Netside Internet