Bill is a self described Wiccan and practitioner of Neuro Linguistic Programming. Its a free country, so that is not an issue, except in the context of how he is presenting Technocracy material. Witchcraft involves manipulating people in order to get something desired. Kolzenes presents himself as an expert/guru to people that do not know much about the concept of the technate design.
Bill advocates a certain system called Neuro Linguistic Programming. As the name implies, this system can be viewed as relying on thought control or brainwashing techniques and uses forms of disinformation delivery and repetition to make points and deliver messages. It is considered psuedo-science and manipulative in much peer reviewed literature.
So how does that relate to his involvement in the Technocracy movement?
Bill influenced a group of people that rely on his methods and explanations of the basic design of this concept. The main group of these people are on a website called NET. Network of European Technocrats - Re:"War" on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum
The group of people that blog on NET has been called a cult. They are group of Kolzene's graduates from his site, where he claims to teach technocracy. NET is not connected to the concepts and ideas of the technate design and is blacklisted as a spam link on Wikipedia and their site was deleted in an Articles For Deletion OriginalArchiveWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of European Technocrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. NET's director is Andrew Alexander Wallace or Isenhand/IronHand on the internet, of Umea University.
So how does this relate to Neuro Linguistic Programming ?
Virtually all the core members of NET were 'trained' in concepts that originate in Neuro Linguistic Programming in regard to extensive writing in a so called users manual from the TechCa site. That document uses techniques from N.L.P. People on the TechCa site sign up as students to learn information provided by Kolzene on his site. Some of that information is original research, and is not notable.
Actual Technocracy material is based on the Technocracy Study Course TechIncTNAT-TechnocracyStudyCourse2.pdf (application/pdf Object)
That is the very best source of information concerning Technocracy and its concepts. Bill and his group advocate another document. This document is partially written, and edited by Bill DesJardin who has publicly stated that he does not like the 'approach' of the Technocracy Study Course. One reason he does not like the Study Course book may be in statements such as this, which is an excerpt from that book.
Technocracy is functional governance.
While I do not doubt that many people benefit from NLP training sessions, there seem to be several false or questionable assumptions upon which NLP is based. Their beliefs about the unconscious mind, hypnosis and the ability to influence people by appealing directly to the subconscious mind are unsubstantiated. All the scientific evidence which exists on such things indicates that what NLP claims is not true.
Empirically validated psychotherapy ?In 1990 Beyerstein categorised NLP as 'neuromythology', 'New Age' and a pseudoscience.[37] He asserts that "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies". With reference to all the 'neuromythologies' covered in his article, including NLP, he states "In the long run perhaps the heaviest cost extracted by neuromythologists is the one common to all pseudosciences — deterioration in the already low levels of scientific literacy and critical thinking in society".
That judgment has been supported by others from the mainstream, empirically based psychology community, such as Lilienfield (2002),[36] Drenth (1999)[42]and (2003)[43] and Devilly (2005)[3] in peer-reviewed journals, and by commentators on the fields of psychology, psychotherapy and counselling such as Eisner in 'The Death of Psychotherapy',[35] and Singer and Lalich in 'Crazy Therapies'.[2]Psychologist Margaret Singer criticizes NLP as one of a number of 'quick-fix' techniques, unsupported by scientific evaluation, and criticizes its promotors and advertisers for continuing to "call the originators 'scientists' and to use such terms a 'science', 'technology' and 'hi-tech psychology' in describing NLP"(p.172).[2] Drenth (2003) uses the "movement known by the name NLP" to illustrate his descriptions of pseudoscience, stating "Unlike diagnosis, prediction of human performance or behavior, and assessment, therapy is not an (applied) scientific activity. Criteria for therapeutic activity is effectiveness, not verity;" ... "But what brings some of these therapeutic approaches into the category of pseudoscience
| Kolzene's Details | ||||||||||||||||||
|
| Kolzene's Schools | ||||
|
Bill DesJardine/Kolzene, and publicly listed autobiographical material.