Anna Siedzik Mind Control Training Video

By Barbara Smith,

Blogger and Social Justice Activist,

The following Youtube video demonstrates the mind control strategies that Anna Siedzik and her followers use to change minds and values that she does not approve of and people she is unable to control. I share transcriptions of speaker , Dr. Joan DeGeorge from Wenham in blue italics and my reactions in bold purple .

Dinner Without Tears: Navigating Difficult Conversations with Loved Ones – YouTube

Who is this Talk For”

This talk is for people with some position of power, some position of privilege……

(3:39) Who is this talk for? I want to be clear that I am talking to people who have some position of power…. some position of privilege. It might be men, it might be people who are white, who are cisgendered, straight, who are financially comfortable… We have some power to educate people because we aren’t sort of emotionally stretched by having folks emotionally aggress against us.

Anna aggresses against all who do not agree with and obey her and that includes some of us not in the demographic that Anna considers vulnerable ( i.e. a white, heterosexual, educated male and upper class). Anna refuses to include “women” and “atheists” as classes worthy of protection because she and the Hamilton Wenham Human Rights Coalition (HWHR Coalition) are anti-women and pro faith.

(3:54) the speaker continues….

Some I know that many of us can acknowledge the privilege that we have but we don’t know what to do with it beyond owning it….this talk is for folks who want to do the work. Its not for folks who are in a vulnerable position. When folks are in a vulnerable position, they are allowed to do WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO IN RESPONSE TO AGGRESSIVE STATEMENTS OR ACTIONS.”

People in the so called “vulnerable positions”

are not fragile pieces of china. THEY ARE NOT “allowed” to do illegal acts or “whatever they need to do in response to aggressive statements or actions.” They are in a position to choose working with social justice groups such as the NAACP, choose supporting candidates (such as Elizabeth Warren) who will represent their values of social justice or run for office, themselves. Physical violence is never an acceptable response by anyone, including people in vulnerable positions-unless it is in self-defense against an act of physical violence.

Sharing truth and working for candidates that will fight to promote democracy and justice is the work that we can ALL do…. including people of color-but only if this is a path that they CHOOSE.

  1. peaceful protest is good
  2. violence other than self-defense is wrong and dangerous
  3. free speech and separation of church and state are critical in a democracy
  4. free speech that is offensive but not violent must be protected so that ALL free speech is protected
  5. Violence in the name of stopping free speech on campus or elsewhere is never OK.

In my opinion, “doing the work” is getting educated by reading, watching videos, attending workshops etc. that share accurate history. Doing “the work” should NOT include using the brain washing techniques offered in this presentation.

In addition, dividing society into those who are privileged and those who are not further creates division, hate and disunity that prevents effective social justice progress. This harms Democrats, democracy, free thinking and truth. We need to work together instead of dividing us into those who “do the work” that Anna Siedzik promotes and those of us who disobey her and do work that she does not approve of- such as protecting human rights for women and atheists.

The following video explains how HWHRCoalition cult mind control destroys free speech. Much of this cult training takes place on campuses such as Yale (where Anna Siedzik was indoctrinated).

(starting at 5:15) the speaker continues….

It may not be the effective thing to do…..

Calling someone out, usually doesn’t work. It might make us feel better but it makes no impact on that other person’s thoughts or behaviors. It also creates shame and shame backfires if our ultimate goal is to get people to move a little bit more progressively, or take action that’s maybe a little bit more societally beneficial and I’m going to talk a little bit more about shame and finally, not only does it not work and create shame, it also backfires. It also might make things worse than when we started that conversation, so not only have we not gotten that person closer to us , we might have gotten them more entrenched with the views that they started this conversation with so, I’m going to talk more about that on the next several slides.”

The speaker is assuming that she, Anna Siedzik and the Coalition are right and any other view is wrong.

They clearly do NOT want a conversation. They want to convert others to their cult/religion. They believe in their truth (as all religious zealots do) and that everyone else is wrong. … These and the following techniques are effective when proselytizing.

That’s what happened to me when I insisted that “women” and “atheists” should be included in human rights policy as protected classes. The Coalition promotes religious/cult zealotry under the guise of being a social justice group. They destroy activists such as myself who are independent thinkers.

(6:12) the speaker continues….

Why is shame in particular such a bad thing? You might be thinking that person should feel shame. They just said something awful and I agree with you that it might not be wrong for them to feel shameful but trying to induce that state is almost always going to backfire. We feel guilt when we feel bad about a behavior that we’ve done and that usually gets self-generated. But we tend to feel shame when someone has attacked us. Shame is about feeling bad about who we are and the human brain will go to great lengths to protect itself from that feeling of shame. People are biologically wired actually to avoid this feeling. You want to protect a sense that you’re a decent person, that you’re not a terrible person.

Speaker encourages audience to think about a time they felt shame and the reaction. She shares the example in of her husband forgetting to pick up their child and he didn’t feel guilty as much as she thought he should. Shaming shut down the husband and he repeated his behavior of forgetting to pick up the child from school.

The HWHRCoalition believes that only they determine what behavior ought to elicit shame.

I do not feel shame for being a pro-choice woman, not a cisgender whatever they want to call me. I do NOT have shame about wanting women and atheists included as protective classes in human rights policy. I agreed with the former Board of Select members who refused to approve a policy that excluded these classes. I shared my values on the HWHRC facebook page and was banned. Then I shared on the HW residents pages and was banned. I was vocal on the FB Uncensored page and was viciously attacked, not shamed….. attacked! I refused to support Jamie Belsito for state representative and any candidate who pledged to the Coalition because I want my candidates to be beholden to the voters, NOT Anna Siedzik. For this, I was called, crazy, racist, bigoted, a TERF, delusional, told that I needed help and sick.

Know-it-all cultist, Anna’s response to me on the HWHR FB page shown below was that women don’t need special protections and using that term might offend people who use the modern day lingo that they learned at Yale and other indoctrinating universities. I’M A PROUD (not ashamed) WOMAN WITH A VAGINA, a traditional binary female, especially now that women with birthing anatomy in the United States have lost the right to bodily autonomy. Biological Men and Trans men and women should also feel no shame for choosing a preferred identity and asking to be called whatever they request.

The Fight or Flight Mode

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is fight-or-flight.jpg

Time: 9:42….our brain responds to threatening information and challenges to our belief system in the same way that we would react to a predator . So our brains are pretty similar to the way they were in the stone age or stone age brains and because we are not facing down tigers and bears anymore, our brains take those comments or what we might perceive as an attack or things that are making us feel shamed and turns on that fight or flight mode…… when we make people feel shamed and when we challenge strong political beliefs actually MRI studies have found that when people have strong political beliefs that are challenged again that flight or fight system is turned on. ….That is something that we want to avoid when arguing or debating with people on political issues.

Speaker gives examples of crisis and threat and the focus of getting away from the threat. We want to avoid putting people in fight or flight mode when discussing political issues. We don’t want to flip them out of maintenance mode, where they actually might hear us and have an impact.

I agree on the science of flight and flight brain reactions.

Anna Siedzik and the Coalition are threatened by free speech- meaning people who she is unable to control. Her brain is threatened and she goes into attack mode, bullying and name-calling. Please read more on this below….

(10:54) the speaker continues…

If they feel shame, they feel shame. Why is it my problem? Well it is my problem. In May of 2020 , George Floyd was murdered and the Black Lives Movement (BLM) that had been around for quite some time became mainstream. White people started to embrace it, put signs out on their lawn, joined vigils, and by early June of 2020 , 54% of Republicans said that discrimination was a problem in our country. This is the highest number that it ever reached for that group. By the end of late June it was down to 40% and its decreased quite a bit since 2021, a year after the BLM protest became mainstream, only 17% of Americans said that they believed race relations were better than they were a year ago. And this was after a renewed energy to combat discrimination, hate in schools, government, law enforcement, health care, our own homes and yet after a year of all of that effort, only 17% of Americans felt like race relationships were better and as of today looking back over the last two years, police killings of civilians have not decreased. This to me is a really concerning statistic because it seems like the lowest hanging fruit and the sort of policy changes that could be made since George Floyd’s murder.

(12:33) the speaker continues

Since George Floyd’s murder…

many folks in the country regardless of political affiliation agreed that white privilege was a thing. So Democrats had a boost up from the previous year as did Republicans and Americans overall. But then a year later in 2021, we actually found that that number decreased and for Republicans it went down lower than it had since 2018. I would argue that all of those interventions we did may have been too heavy-handed or may have been shame inducing. In some instances which caused folks that may have been open to changing their views, changing their attitudes… we lost them a little bit along the way….

Above photo is from my front lawn during Biden/Harris campaign

I put signs out, but it was NOT due to shame…..

I also wear a BLM face mask and shirt and it is not due to shame. I attend vigils simply to provide a show of support because I am an ally in social justice activism. Nobody is forcing me to do this. I also have always been aware of white privilege because you would have to be blind and ignorant to not see the impact of slavery, hate, KKK, lynching, etc. so obviously, I have the privilege of not being a victim of that because I am white.

Many white people do not share my view. They resent being told that they have “white privilege” and especially do NOT want their children to be taught that being white means you are a bad person. Shaming children with indoctrination is not the answer. The following solutions are simple to name, but difficult to implement-

  1. Schools and other settings with children and authority figures (i.e. Boy Scouts, Sunday School teachers) must condemn all bullying and provide evidence based treatment on how to respond effectively to situations that threaten one’s safety and self-worth.
  2. Schools and other educational settings should provide a combination of age-appropriate, accurate American history and respectful honoring of a variety of cultures, including marginalized groups (yes, including LGBTQ folks and atheists) . Truth in education does not require flying flags, pledging to the Coalition, reciting proclamations, teaching pronoun lingo nor students having to prove that they are engaged in “anti-racists” work in order to prove that they are not racists.
  3. Involvement in electing Democrats or other governmental leaders who will promote social justice, free speech, voting rights, laws that address past discrimination and financial solutions such as free community college, historically Black Colleges and Trade schools so that historically marginalized groups are provided an even playing field….. and yes, financial reparations for slavery and discrimination should be discussed.

Support for BLM falls while trust in law enforcement rises

(13:25) the speaker continues….

Another statistic from the last 2 years, since June 2020 when we had that 54% of Republicans agreeing that white privilege might be a thing, trust in law enforcement and trust in BLM was about equivalent but now there’s a 19 point gap between trust in law enforcement and trust in BLM. Im not saying an increase in law enforcement trust is necessarily a bad thing but it doesn’t seem great that people have dramatically reduced their trust in BLM. And we’ve seen the introduction of bans on teaching about race and slavery in school, the increase of book banning, on human rights topics, banning of trans athletes at the high school level, an increase in the number of violent attacks against Asian Americans and Jewish Americans in this country so we can do better. than we are doing now.

Of course, all of these issues are complex and have multiple societal influences as to why things aren’t so great. There’s a lot of evidence that some things have gotten worse and I’m willing to bet that we have lost some folks who may have been open to hearing about change, especially on social issues because of heavy-handed tactics. 2021 was evaluated as the worst year in recent history for LGBTQ state legislative attacks, 164 % increase in first quarter of 2021for Asian-American attacks in 16 of America’s largest cities and the speaker continues citing statistics on how bad hate has grown……her conclusion is that shaming has backfired.

Duh…. nobody responds well to shaming, whether we are speaking about Trump supporters or anyone who does not obey the HWHRCoalition agenda.

I was called a term, I only learned about when I did not attend the Hamilton Wenham Pride event. TERF stands for Trans-phobic radical Feminist. NOBODY needs to prove that they are NOT a bigot by attending an event. If I chose not to have a BLM sign on my lawn, that does NOT make me a racist. If I do not support the candidates who pledge to the Coalition, that does not make me anti-human rights and if I do NOT want Anna Siedzik to have unfettered control over Hamilton government officials, school policies and development that does not make me anti-LGBTQ nor a classist.

This is how all voices of dissent in Hamilton and Wenham were and continue to be treated- with hate from the faith-based, political lobby posing as a human rights organization. Naturally, parents want to understand why the Hamilton Wenham schools have sunk in academic ratings and they should not be attacked for asking. Parents who do not want precious school time spent teaching children who cannot yet read, to learn that they are not boys and girls but rather optional genders- should not be automatically called “bigots” . However, every child needs to have their chosen identity respected, chosen pronoun used and protection from bullying….. and INDEPENDENT THINKERS, such as myself – WHO REFUSE TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO ANNA SIEDZIK AND HER FOLLOWERS NEED AND DESERVE PROTECTION, TOO….

Here’s a very simple fact….

Since Donald Trump has been in power, hate, racism, sexism and homophobia and all other forms of ignorance and deplorable thinking have increased due to both his influence and opportunities to express these feelings and act on violence in the Trumpian world with no repercussions.

so what if you come to debate with all those wonderful facts that you have?

(15:19) the speaker continues

I love this idea, this is my wheelhouse, Facts are no longer unbiased data points we assume if we have all of this evidence, people will hear it and it will click. But that’s assuming that facts are these standalone, beacons that aren’t influenced by a ton of other weighty things. In fact, facts are now badges of identity. They identify you as a member of a group. They’re not so much related to what scientists say or what the newspaper says but its about belonging. If you believe a certain fact that allows you loyalty to a group, that’s no small thing. Identities signify belonging and acceptance and acceptance in a community. You don’t necessarily have to explain yourself when you are in a community. You are accepted as a member, it gives you a sense of who you are. And so when someone is trying to correct a fact that you have shared or that you believe in , its not just a matter of one plus one equals two, its a matter of you saying “I don’t think your identity is correct”. Of course, there are many identities that we would say yeah, that’s incorrect. But you can imagine that the threat level that goes up when someone hears that that is much higher than someone correcting a math mistake. I’d love for you to think of an identity that is important to you, a progressive, feminist, environmentalist, a caring son, any of those things and if someone told you that identity was wrong and that you should change it , even if you could come around to believing that’s the case, its going to be very difficult, its not going to happen in one conversation. In most cases, its probably going to make you very angry. So when we challenge facts, we think we’re dealing with the hard evidence in front of us but in fact, we are challenging the other person’s identity.

Sorry, Anna and Coalition, Facts are Facts…. They are real and Kelly Ann Conway’s claims that some facts are “fake news” are wrong….

For example….

People who believe that Covid is fake are not telling truth and therefore, rejecting facts and evidence.

People who say that homosexuality is chosen rather than a biological preference are ignoring scientific facts probably because they are ignorant and hateful.

Racists who claim that slaves were one big happy family as depicted in Gone With the Wind are denying facts and logic probably because they are racist, ignorant and lack intelligence.

The science around the environment, water shortages, loss of green space, global warming, effect of traffic and density on a community are all well documented by research. these facts do not change, when Anna Siedzik lies in order to further her agenda of unfettered development and making money in the process.

People who insist that flying Christian flags on governmental property is not an attack against all other religious beliefs, atheists and Democracy are ignorant of the Constitution. Its also a fact that atheism is not a religion.

Facts are NOT about identity… Facts are based on research, evidence and experiments that can be repeated over and over with the same scientific results- Lysol does not cure Covid. It’s a fact and the identity of people who refuse facts is irrelevant. Identities do not change facts.

All groups are susceptible to tribalism

(17:47) the speaker continues

Group membership is so critical to your sense of self. Now, there’s a lot of evidence that progressive , left leaning folks are more trusting of science…. but we are not immune to wanting to belong to a tribe. The speaker gives examples related to left leaning folks ignoring logic and facts such as ….

  1. people might believe that GMOs are bad even when the evidence is contrary. The evidence that GMOs are safe are robust
  2. Nuclear energy is safe and clean and 70% of scientists support nuclear energy.
  3. Bill Clinton’s sexual assault history was forgiven by many left leaning folks

These examples highlight

(22:00) the speaker continues

the same kind of feelings that someone whose identity is threatened by these dinner table conversations might be feeling. So remember what that feeling is right now if one of these things challenged you or is going against one of your beliefs. This is the same kind of discomfort that makes people get ready to argue back and not really listen to what’s happening“.

I was enjoying the social justice tribe at the beginning of 2020…..

During the pandemic people were stuck at home looking for community and alternatives to the daily social interactions we were suddenly deprived of. The HWHR Coalition , Hamilton and Wenham TOWN HUMAN RIGHTS commissions and the creation of the North Shore NAACP created an avenue to express our horror of videotaped police brutality. I enjoyed the “tribe” until discovering that I was not allowed to dissent. I also realized that like a religion- followers were expected to believe every word without critical analysis.

However, I am a social justice activist even if I call myself a “women” instead of a “cisgendered female”. People who do not choose to do “the anti-racist work” are not automatically racists (As Anna Siedzik claims) and I don’t need a tribe telling me what to believe. That’s why I am an atheist, I think for myself….. We are a vulnerable minority as demonstrated by the recent attack against author Rushdie Salmon.

(22:41) the speaker continues

Emotions can often override logic

We see these news stories come up recently but this is euro spider…. she explains that is venomous and can spread quickly, to evoke emotions. They however are not dangerous. Just because we know facts about something does not override a pre-existing emotional reaction that we have.

Emotion and our political affiliation actually have some overlap. Social scientists have known for a long time how to turn liberals into conservatives in the lab. All you have to do is scare them.. the speaker gives examples of after 9/11, making public more conservative. Conservatives examined with a MRI actually have larger amygdalas. These structures are responsible for the expression and processing of fear. Its hard to say why and its complex….

But it makes sense that people who feel a lot of perceived threat around them it would make sense that they would turn to political conservatism because it reduces fear, anxiety, uncertainty. A lot of conservative viewpoints have a black and white framework. There’s not a lot of ambiguity, there’s not a lot of push to change so if you are perceiving threat more often than your neighbor then you are going to seek out a group that explains how the world is supposed to work, give you order and then might justify any anxieties that you have about inequality.

I‘m not saying that lets folks off the hook for believing certain things, but it does help us come to the table, come to the conversation with another tool in our toolbox to realize that this might be fear driven or a response to a perceived threat than it is about anger or a personality flaw..

If you’re curious, in the reverse there is a way to get conservatives to act more liberally on social issues , haven’t figured out a way related to economic issues, but on liberal issues and that’s to ask them to imagine that they are superman.

I agree, emotions can override logic, especially amongst people with brains that are prone to believe in the unseen, the unscientific and pure speculation because they have faith….

Such people who are attracted to religion, cults, identity groups such as the Coalition (even though it is a political lobby). This is dangerous because the same types of people are susceptible to believing that every word spoken by their savior, Anna Siedzik is true. They don’t even get upset when posed with the conflict of interest issues around affordable housing. Anna uses her elected office on the School Board to further an agenda that has nothing to do with schools but results in earning money. She believes that as the holy leader she can turn Hamilton into the next Newburyport regardless of what the residents want.

Imagine that you are Superman!!!

(27:37) the speaker continues

folks in the lab were asked to imagine that they were invincible….They filled out measure on social issues as much more liberal than they did the week prior. So if you are going to have dinner with folks maybe ask them to do a little exercise… imagining that they are their favorite super hero. What would they do with it. That might put them in a little better state of mind to hear some liberal ideas.

This is very insulting to the adults that the Coalition cult wants to mind control.

This might work with a child or gullible minds, the minds that believe in faith rather than evidence. But what right do Anna Siedzik and the Coalition followers have to assume that they can use party tricks to control the minds of their loved ones? This is sick…..

The Backfire Effect

(28:41) the speaker continues

What it says is that when we’re arguing with somebody and that argument gets sort of virulent enough it actually makes the person move a little further extreme in their argument than they had originally come to the conversation with. So for example, if somebody is not so keen on masks , not so keen on vaccines, not so sure this covid is really all that dangerous, and they get into a debate with you, instead of coming closer to your point of view that vaccines are safe and masks are safe and that the virus is real, they might actually become less convinced of. This is because when we argue with somebody we’re letting them practice all their counter arguments, so when you say masks and vaccines are safe and protect people – they aren’t listening to you. They are going through their rolodex of counterarguments and pulling them out and practicing making that argument and making it stronger and getting better at it. That doesn’t mean that they have any chance of convincing you, but they are self-convincing, working on their own argument style or their own belief style and making themselves more entrenched.

Consider just skipping arguments and brain washing techniques and look for concrete strategies that increase safety.

This might include not allowing people without masks or vaccinations into your home and avoid going into their personal space. Support fact based local Health Boards in using data to make decisions that impact schools. Advocate increased funding for the town to implement safety measures.

(30:20) the speaker continues

After they cooled off, ask them what they remembered about the points that you made….

You might be surprised…. when we argue with somebody, we don’t remember all the brilliant, thoughtful points that they made. We remember the one or two stupid thinks that they said because we feel better when we filter out all their good points and only remember when they made some lousy ones. This is true of political debates as well as regular interpersonal arguments. We forget the most logical claims and only remember lack of evidence that they had .

Another reason that debating can backfire is that people don’t hear your good points, they only remember your not so great ones. Saying nothing is not a great option because that person is going to go out into the world and insult someone else, make someone else do the work. We have the emotional bandwidth to do this because we have some power or privilege.

Arguing is not only exhausting and often ineffective…

it can be DANGEROUS if violent people are involved. Saying nothing is a very valid option to keep peace within the family, workplace or community. Adults who are members of a vulnerable or marginalized community- say people of color for example, are not children and may be perfectly capable of taking on the argument since they have firsthand experience in racism. Its a choice. I have worked with many people of color who had no interest in politics and that was ok. I also worked with people very involved in fighting for GLBTQ rights and we sometimes spoke about our social justice work. I shared an office with 3 Trump supporters and believe me, I learned how to keep my mouth shut in order to emotionally survive and get my work done. Doing the anti-justice work is dependent on choice and setting. Choosing not to does not make anyone a racist. Good friends live in Brookline next door to a huge Trump supporter with a huge Trump sign. I offered to give them a Biden/Harris sign and they chose not to create conflict with their neighbor. I was saddened by this but that was their choice.

(32:18) the speaker continues

So the first thing you are going to do is be prepared, so before going over to visit someone who may say something agitating, if you suspect comments will come up that are agitating…. come up with a game plan. Have a goal !

If your possible goal is ” I want them to agree with me and say that I’m right.” then you have already lost. This is true for any type of argument. Speaker gives story of her 4 year old….. this is true for all of us. A lot of times our actions mirror that type of expectation that we want to be told that we are right.

Another possible goal is to make the person feel bad about themselves. But there’s 2 negative drawbacks to that. They may decide to not talk to us about their viewpoint. This limits our ability to maybe get some good material in there that could help them change their minds. They will also tur to the sources that confirm their viewpoint. like fox news…

Its best to set small achievable goals: Then they can remember it the next day. You can even talk about this…. A great can be to have that “next conversation” . Then you might have a chance to have some impact .

I agree, be prepared and goals are good.

But it is not my job, nor your job to beat a dead horse until they agree with you even if you have a 2nd or 3rd conversation. These strategies seem appropriate for a debate team, but just like with any religion the HWHRCoalition is not open to seeing any side other than their own. They are NOT open to having their minds changed. Zealots are NEVER open to seeing logic. Its the same with any cult and any cult leader who tells the followers that they need to proselytize- to change minds of everyone else.

Speaker gives examples of small, achievable goals to convince others to not eat meat.

(35:27) Try convincing person of a smaller goal such as not eating meat on Mondays. Avoid too much intensity. Try consider non-dairy milk options…. may be convincing.

People should never be told what to eat….

This is really simple. I do not feel required to eat what is being served. I only eat what I feel is safe, healthy and to my taste and its nobody else’s business what I choose to eat. I will provide facts about how I lowered my cholesterol by eating a vegan diet if other people are interested. However, I have no obligation nor need to prove that my diet is better than that of others….

Mental Health Model

(35:44) the speaker continues

It’s a stages of change model . Anytime that we have a belief or a behavior that might not be so great for us, we don’t change overnight. Its actually, a long 6 step process that’s not always directional, that takes us from not thinking about making a change at all to fully inhabiting that change. Examples are- stopping smoking, or being ready to seek out mental health treatment, but it can also be true for changing a deeply rooted belief.

Having a sense of where the person you are debating is – is on this scale can help influence what types of tactics to use. For example, pre-contemplation stage when people aren’t considering a change at all. They are totally into denial that their behavior can be problematic at all . You might approach that person very differently than talking to someone who is more in the preparation stage -someone willing to make small changes. But not bigger ones. They might also be very vulnerable to setbacks or very criticism. and that might make them pull back a little bit. So thinking about where the other person is can kind of help direct what to do.

Anna Siedzik and the Coalition have decided that I am wrong for believing that women and atheists are worthy of human rights protection

They claimed over and over again that women are just a gender and have no need of special protection that a man does not deserve. I was told that atheists should just sit quietly during town meetings when prayers occur or that its no big deal that my son had to hide his atheism in order to belong to a boy scout troop. I had to be silent about this injustice because boy scouts was good for my son. The Coalition, the radical Woke, Anna Siedzik and her followers treat their opinions as facts. Then if you disagree you are labeled a racist, anti-human rights, bigot, TERF etc. I must have overwhelmed them with my independent thinking because none of the speakers tactics worked on me!!!! Atheists tend not to be so gullible.

(37:18) the speaker continues

Praise small changes. We have a tendency to punish them for even making little bits of progress. Speaker gives story of husband making small progress. in area of laundry… One day, hubby started a load! She should have praised him even though he doesn’t usually do it. She expected her dental hygienist to praise her for flossing with little sticks which is better than nothing. But the hygienist instead directed her on the importance of using floss. The speaker wasn’t praised and she stopped flossing.

Imagine if someone said, “I know i think covid is real. I will get one of the vaccinations. But I’m not going to get two, that’s too much mrna in my body or whatever. ” You can say “that’s ridiculous” or you can remember your goal and say “I’m so glad that you’ve accepted that covid is real and I’m so glad that you are making some progress.

If I treated my husband like a five year old by praising him for doing a little laundry (unless joking around)

he would be annoyed and this certainly would not help me to shape the behavior of doing his share of house work. If I stopped flossing and began seeing more cavities it is directly a result of my own lack of taking responsibility. I am not a child and should recognize the relationship of hygiene to health. It’s called GROWING UP INTO A RESPONSIBLE ADULT .

(39:58) the speaker continues

If you are the kind of person who gets nervous during these. If you’re more of a flight person than a fight person , if you’re the kind of person that just prefers to avoid these conversations or you’re really particularly concerned about getting emotional, one thing you can do is a process comment. This is pulling the lens way back and not commenting on any of the content of the conversation but on the style. This really helps you become less emotional and really works when debating people who pride themselves on their own logic. For example, the person starts attacking you as a person it says well “you just want to believe that because you want to feel like a good person, but you don’t actually care about these people. ”

Instead of saying “yes, I do.. how dare you? ” That’s getting into the content you could pull back and say , “you know, I’ve noticed we’ve been talking about this particular issue but you just changed it up to talking about me as a person. I think that really takes us away from the content of the argument. Why do you think you did that?”

It takes a step back, it helps you feel less emotional , it helps not put you on the defensive, and it brings the person back maybe to the content.

I agree, it makes more sense to try to stay less emotional….

This strategy might be beneficial in the mental health setting where a parent is trying to relate better to her 16 year old son. Yes, decrease nervousness, anxiety. Point out that there is no need to use personal attacks. How this strategy is used depends on the situation and the relationship. Its perfectly fine for either party to realize that they should agree to disagree and stop fighting. That is unless you are an evangelical who is always right and must convince others to join your faith. There is no reasoning with such people, walk away as I have done when Anna Siedzik called me a racist, bigot classist and TERF because I did not obey her. I walked away, but I was not silenced!

Straw Man

(41:28) the speaker continues

A non-political example of a straw man argument is where someone sets up an overly simplified version of your argument so one person says to the spouse- “I’d rather get a dog, instead of a cat ” . And the spouse says, ” why do you hate cats? ” So that’s a straw man argument or you could say, “you know, I think we should ease up on the deportations of people who arrived here illegally and make an easier path for them for citizenship. It just makes so much sense to me. ” and your relative could say: “I guess we should just throw open the doors to everyone and throw in the keys to our house etc. ”

Instead of saying “obviously I didn’t mean that or that’s never going to happen ” we’re going to start losing things in that sort of defensiveness. Instead you could say “well, Im noticing that you’re trying to take this argument to an oversimplified version ” or you’re claiming a slipper slope argument that there’s this huge chain of events that’s inevitable . Could you think of some other reasons why I might have said “I would like a pathway to citizenship to be easier ? ” This is good for diffusing high emotional argument.”

The straw man and slippery slope arguments are common.

I agree with the speaker that its a good idea to diffuse emotional arguments. I have an acquaintance who called immigrants “illegals”. I told her that she sounded ignorant and callous and I would not tolerate hearing such language. She agreed to monitor her language. I don’t think I changed her mind, but my speaking out made our relationship more tolerable and she actually may have learned something.

(42:57) the speaker continues

Be an anthropologist

This is for someone who prefers to generally flee or not to have the conversation at all or things are getting really heated. Pretend that you are Margaret Meade, imagine that you have a notebook, sit back and view the situation dispassionately.

Fascinating! Okay, this person really strongly believes that I wonder why that might be. This emotion comes out a lot when we talk about the election…. and it seems to be an area of great inflexibility. That’s interesting!

You’re not saying that out loud to the person but its really good for us, when we’re worried about our own emotions becoming overwhelmed and we just need to take a little mental space in the conversation. Maybe you don’t want to walk away, maybe you don’t want to end the conversation ,but you’re listening and dispassionately observing it as though you were a scientist and this helps again, stay out of that defensive sort of back and forth.

To tell you the truth, I don’t enjoy playing anthropologist when Trump talks about grabbing p***y or when Anna Siedzik calls me a racist.

There is clearly something wrong with these people and Im not wasting my time trying to understand their sociopathy. Instead focus on reducing the harm that they cause. That’s why I am spending time transcribing and commenting on this video ….

(45:00) the speaker continues

Don’t assume that you know why someone feels that way. Try to figure out why they have those thoughts.

Curious… the coalition uses that term a lot…

“I’m curious why do you think that you are a women and not a cisgender female? hmmmm. because I get to decide what to call myself and Trans people can tell me what to call them. Its simple!

Play Columbo!

The speaker continues…

This is a therapeutic technique used . Columbo let people think that he was stupid when he was really smart. He presented himself as sort of rumpled, inept and he had a lot of pestering behavior that annoyed criminals. . Its not really playing stupid but its sort of a lot of small questions that sort of get to an “I don’t get it, explain it to me point ” that helps explain it to me a point that can help highlight for the person their own problematic thinking.

Personally, I like playing Columbo but I hate when Anna Siedzik and her cult followers assume that they are right and everyone else is wrong….

Please explain to me why I am a TERF just because I don’t like and did not attend the loud, crowded, HW Pride party during a pandemic?????

Find the Feeling !!!!

(47:48) the speaker continues

So recall that fear or threat that could be at the core of a lot of anti-progressive use and a chance to try to align with the feeling not their beliefs might open their ears a little bit to open their ears. Speaker gives example, of feelings about wearing masks.

If you want to actually want them to hear you, you could identify with the feeling that you are hearing there. You don’t have to be their therapist. You don’t have to hold their hand. If instead of counter-arguing the facts, you find the feeling. You are going to open the door to them having any possibility of their listening to you. ”

Okay, lets try it… Anna, I’m really feeling sick that you lead a political lobby that controls all elected officials in Hamilton government. I’m curious as to why you are against free-speech, democracy and ban all voices that do not agree with yours. This makes me FEEL angry.

Find a Kernel of Truth

(49: 58) the speaker continues

No matter how miniscule to align with. Its really hard to argue with someone who is agreeing with you. It opens emotional doors. This is true of any argument. Its going to be hard to do this, especially if people are saying things in the vein of racism, sexism etc.

I agree, nice tactic and Anna uses it all the time….

that’s why Anna siedzik is so successful in brain washing. She is really smart and has a great vocabulary even though she speaks tooooo fast and her lingo is scripted. However, I still will not tolerate Anna conning gullible residents into believing that she has the best interests of Hamilton residents in mind. She earns her income from selling housing units. She uses her influence on the School Board to convince parents to join her movement. But she is a hard worker and can speak and type like a whirlwind……

Appeal to morality….

(51:31) the speaker continues

You can say something like… “I’m really surprised to hear you say that you know when I think of you as someone who cares deeply for others, especially for children ” You just gave compliments, opening the door…..

We are not children !!!!

This entire presentation is about how to control minds, values and behaviors. Anna and the Coalition have an agenda to push faith, develop housing regardless of community and environmental impacts, control who is elected both locally and statewide, make sure that children are indoctrinated before they can even read and to obey her authority, force proclamations, flags, pledges on the public because she is the all knowing savior.

Please share this post widely.

Summary of mind-control tactics recommended by the Hamilton Wenham Human Rights Coalition

  1. shaming is bad
  2. debating is bad
  3. utilize your political bandwidth as a privileged person
  4. be prepared
  5. Have a goal
  6. set small, achievable goals
  7. Don’t punish progress
  8. Do a process comment
  9. avoid attacking person rather than argument
  10. Avoid straw dog argument
  11. avoid slipper slope argument
  12. Be an anthropologist
  13. Be curious
  14. Play columbo
  15. Find the feeling
  16. Find a kernal of truth
  17. Appeal to morality

and a few more that trump and Anna taught me…..

18. If you keep repeating lies, people will start to believe them

19. If you harass and bully people as Anna does, you will likely wear them out and eventually people will give in just to get you to leave them alone.

20. Attacking and gaslighting work great! The problem is that these strategies are not ethical and they are cruel.

1 comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *