Hey Art: The Hunger Project - History Lesson
depro...@mailandnews.com
Ellen
(From Mother Jones, December 1978)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We Confront Werner Erhard With Our Awareness Of His Manifestation
Of What We're Clear Is A Big Scam
LET THEM EAT est
By Suzanne Gordon
An evening at the White House is not an unusual event for Enud
McGiffert. As
the wife of Assistant Secretary of Defense David McGiffert, she has
been
there many times. But one particular evening. May 1, 1978, stands out
in her
mind. Mrs. McGiffert had gone to the majestic building on Pennsylvania
Avenue to attend a performance of a play presented by her daughter's
elementary school, whose students included Amy Carter. Before the
performance, President and Mrs. Carter greeted children and parents on
an
informal reception line. It was then that Mrs. McGiffert drew open the
curtain on her own personal drama. She stopped, said hello, and then
she
simply could not refrain. She had to convince Jimmy Carter of the
significance of a new "experience" in her life - the Hunger Project,
the
latest venture of Werner Erhard's est. For est, or Erhard Seminars
Training,
which began as one of the evangelistic human potential movements of the
'70s, had recently expanded its horizons from the self to the world.
Werner
Erhard had inaugurated a campaign that, he promises, will end hunger on
the
planet within the next two decades.
As Jimmy shook Enud McGiffert's hand, she smiled and began her tale. "I
just
want you to know," she told him, 'about the Hunger Project. There are
100,000 people out here who really just want to totally serve you and
do
anything you want them to do to end hunger and starvation on the planet
in
the next 20 years." The people standing behind her pressed her on. She
could
not decipher Carter's reaction.
All through the play, anxiety ate at her. Had she done the right
thing'?
Poor man, she thought, he can't even stand on a reception line without
someone pestering him. After the play, as the parents gathered in the
White
House dining room for refreshments, the President walked up to her.
"Now,
where were we?" he asked, smiling his famous smile.
Enud McGiffert was thrilled. "I want you to know," Carter went on,
"that I
know about your group and will call upon you when we have our plans
ready."
Mrs. McGiffert, an est graduate and enrollee in the Hunger Project, was
not
the only one pleased with Carter's response. Upon hearing of the
incident,
est Public-Relations Manager Brian Van der Horst beamed. It was nothing
short of a miracle, a miracle that would delight Werner Erhard. For if
one
man will spark America's movement to end hunger, many loyal est
supporters
believe, it is Werner Erhard, founder of est - a man who has
transformed
thousands of Americans' experience of themselves, has "made it work,"
and
who has not only now gone on to forge a campaign to end hunger on the
planet
but also, in the process, will show us how to "complete" our lives and
make
the world our "context rather than our condition."
Until 1977, Erhard's activity was based on a training system where
sonic 250
people sit in a hotel ballroom for two weekends to hear Erhard or one
of his
trainers combine techniques as varied as Eastern mysticism, Dale
Carnegie
and behavior modification so that they can heal their souls. The going
price
for this is $300. The training takes place in a distinctive upbeat
estian
language whose phrases pepper the statements of both Erhard and his
disciples, (see box, p. 44). Est's expansion into the field of hunger
is
significant not only because Erhard has initiated it, but also because
it is
one of the first attempts so far by one of the "self"-oriented
movements of
the '70s to address social or political issues.
To assure the eradication of hunger and starvation within the next two
decades, est created the Hunger Project as an independent, nonprofit
organization and gave it a $400,000 interest-free loan. Est's
tax-deductible
arm, the est Foundation, bestowed on the Project a $100,000 grant. This
money financed a series of 12 "presentations" in urban centers across
the
nation, where Erhard "presented" the idea of ending hunger to 40,000
Americans. In a slide show and lecture, he and his resident hunger
expert,
Roy Prosterman, tried to "get at" the first principles of hunger and
starvation. He then "gave" the Project to those Americans who, after
paying
$6 to attend the show, demonstrated that they wanted to take "personal
responsibility for being the source of the Project and ending hunger
and
starvation on the planet in the next two decades."
[Who Gets the Money?]
What, precisely, does The Hunger Project plan to do to end famine and
starvation? The Hunger Project does not, you see, do anything about
ending
hunger. That's why, Erhard tells anyone who asks, it is a difficult
idea to
grasp. The Hunger Project does not advocate any particular solution to
hunger-like land reform, food self-sufficiency or the wresting of power
from
landowners by peasants. Nor does it ask its enrollees to make
"dehumanizing
gestures" - like sending money to anti-hunger organizations. Above all,
the
Project does not want its members to feel guilty about the deplorable
situation that causes, each year, the death of some 15 million people
all
over the world. Rather, it asks them to view hunger and starvation as a
"wonderful opportunity," an opportunity to "make a difference in the
world."
To create such optimism, Erhard counsels us to examine our "positions"
about
hunger and starvation. This is the first step in "getting" the Project.
Once
we examine our attitudes, we will discover that two prevail: one, we
think
hunger and starvation are inevitable; two, we think that to end it, we
have
to "do" something, support a particular "position." But these things,
Erhard
assures us, are not the case. Hunger and starvation are not inevitable.
We
have the technology to eradicate them. And positions merely make
matters
worse - by engendering opposing positions.
What the Hunger Project literature-a slick collection of Werner
Erhard's
sayings, photographs and aphorisms gleaned from hunger experts and
their
writings - counsels is a process of de-education. For anyone confused
by the
complex issues of the day, this has enormous appeal. "Rather than
knowing
more and then more as you go along," Erhard counsels, "you will need,
instead, to be willing to know less and then less - that is to say, to
become somewhat confused as you go along. Finally, you will have
struggled
enough to be clear that you don't know. In the state of knowing that
you don
't know, you get, as a flash of insight, the principle out of which the
answer comes."
What forces caused hunger in the first place? Erhard is vague about
this,
"Call them political forces, if you like," he advises generously.
"Study the
political forces and you will see that hunger and starvation on the
planet
are the inevitable result of those forces. If you don't like the
politics,
do it with economic forces. If you don't like the economics, do it with
sociological forces. Psychological forces. Philosophical forces. Or if
you
prefer, a combination of them."
So far, 180,000 people have enrolled in this project to make the world
"work"; they have made more than 30,000 tax-deductible contributions,
which
have totaled $883,800. Almost none of this money goes into the mouths
of
hungry people, for that would, remember, contribute to the
"dehumanization"
of the world's hungry. This money goes, instead, toward the continued
communication of the Hunger Project to an ever-expanding sector of the
American public: it produces the Hunger Project quarterly newspaper, A
Shift
in the Wind; it helps pay for office space and slide shows and films.
Less
than one percent of the Project's money, $2,500, went to a well-known
British hunger organization called Oxfam. But the essence of the Hunger
Project is workability, alignment, communication and more
communication.
And here he is now, Werner Erhard, founder of the Hunger Project. Here
he is
on the stage of the San Francisco Cow Palace, or that of the Felt Forum
in
New York, communicating the Hunger Project to thousands of Americans.
The
auditoriums are enormous, so we have two Werners before us - the man on
stage, and above him, bigger than life, a videotaped image on a huge
screen.
Or here he is in Washington, gathering hunger experts together to
convince
them that ending hunger is an idea whose time has come. Or there he is
in
India, talking with Prime Minister Morarji Desai, and then quick, we
have to
catch up with him as he jets to the Franklin House, his Victorian
mini-mansion on Franklin Street in San Francisco. Wherever he is these
days,
the Hunger Project is on his lips, for it's a project that comes from
his
very intimate experience of the souls of the thousands and thousands of
Americans with whom he has had, he says, a very meaningful personal
relationship.
The est staff, the Hunger Project staff, the Hunger Project Council,
the est
Advisory Board, the Hunger Project Advisory Board, est assistants and
volunteers all echo Werner's language when "communicating" the Project.
And
they all claim that, except for the seed money, the Project has nothing
organizationally to do with est and that Werner Erhard has
magnanimously
taken months off his busy schedule to help Americans end world hunger.
A six-month investigation by Mother Jones and the Center for
Investigative
Reporting of Oakland, California, however, has revealed a far different
set
of goals for the Hunger Project:
. Werner Erhard is using the Hunger Project not only for
self-aggrandizement
but for promoting the for-profit corporation he founded, as well. The
Hunger
Project is a thinly veiled recruitment arm for est. Hunger Project
volunteers have said that est-trained Hunger Project staffers have
pressured
them until they agreed to do the $300-a-shot est training. Others told
of
being asked to lend their cars or provide other services to est.
The Hunger Project has nonprofit status - which gives it the ability to
receive tax-deductible contributions. But this use of a nonprofit
organization to recruit customers for a for-profit one is in violation
of
the spirit, if not the letter, of Internal Revenue Service laws.
. In various cities across the country, Erhard's disciples have
organized a
"Hunger Project Seminar Series" at $30 per enrollment. Yet the proceeds
go,
not to the Hunger Project, but directly to est.
. The official claim that est and the Hunger Project are
organizationally
separate is a fabrication. Careful examination reveals that top
personnel
pass through a revolving door from est to the Hunger Project. In many
cities, the Hunger project is housed in est offices. Est graduate
bulletins
advertise Hunger Project events. The three initial directors of the
Hunger
Project, Michael Chatzky, Robert Dunnett and Mark Schiavenza, all work
out
of the law firm of est lawyer and offshore tax-haven expert, Harry
Margolis,
(see, box, p. 52). In addition, Dunnett was vice president of Erhard
Seminars Training, Inc., when that was est's corporate name, Michael
Chatzky
was one of the directors of California Aesthetics, which was once the
sole
shareholder in est. The Hunger Project's current vice president, John
Emery,
and the secretary-treasurer, Helen Nahm, are both on the est Advisory
Board.
The Project's resident hunger expert, Roy Prosterman, the man who does
the
traveling hunger road show with Erhard, receives a grant from an est
foundation, which helps support his own hunger consulting work.
As we shall see, Erhard will deny some of these charges in his uniquely
estian way in an interview.
[No More Struggle]
Erhard's founding of The Hunger Project, a little over a year ago, was
a
stroke of genius. Though the est movement has been growing rapidly,
Erhard
had been getting increasingly bad reviews. There had been a number of
newspaper and magazine articles criticizing his movement's obvious
authoritarianism and its devaluation of independent thought. There were
also
questions about whether, with tens of thousands of people paying up to
$300
a crack for est training, Erhard was using the consciousness movement
to
make himself a tidy personal fortune. Erhard needed a good promotional
weapon to fight back with and, in the Hunger Project, he found it.
Examined carefully, of course, the Hunger Project is not a new
departure for
Erhard, but merely an application of the familiar est approach.
Consciousness is everything; distribution of wealth and power, nothing.
The
Hunger Project takes one of the most potent political issues of the day
and
totally depoliticizes it. The persistence of hunger, Erhard says, is
not
primarily due to an economic system in which rich get richer and poor
get
poorer (of which Erhard is a part, as est money finds its way to
offshore
tax havens). Rather, it is due to the lack of will, to attitudes, to
bad
intentions.
The emphasis is on the positive. Don't think about the depressing facts
of
hunger or the causes of starvation, think of the hunger issue as the
chance
of a lifetime - a way to have an impact on the world. All this talk of
impact neatly brackets the starving and the dying. They appear in
beautiful
color pictures in Hunger Project brochures - but the needs of
middle-class
Americans eclipse their reality. The people who flock to est, the
Hunger
Project and the other consciousness movements have just escaped a
decade of
disillusionment where political action promised social transformation.
This
promise was not fulfilled. Similarly, the '60s and early '70s were an
era of
journalistic exposés that revealed widespread corruption: Watergate,
the
CIA, FBI provocateurs, the list is endless. But again, information has
not
led to transformation. The more people learn about how bad things are,
the
more powerless they feel. Erhard realizes that his fans want to feel
both
powerful and needed. "The idea [of the Hunger Project] germinated
itself
from my experience of people with whom I was interacting, primarily
people
who had been through the training," he explains. So Erhard creates a
way for
them to feel like they're having the impact they know they've lost.
[SOIPs]
Hunger is one of the sexier issues in Washington, D.C., this year. No
one is
for it, and everyone is against it. Hunger is consequently a perfect
issue
around which a President with lagging popularity can mobilize public
support. Recently, Carter appointed a Presidential commission on the
subject. Like all Presidential commissions, it includes a
"non-partisan"
assortment of college presidents (Steve Muller of Johns Hopkins),
millionaires (Sol Linowitz), scientists (Jean Mayer), Republican and
Democratic senators and representatives, and, among others, entertainer
Harry Chapin and singer John Denver - the latter, an enthusiastic
backer of
est.
Denver is unfailingly helpful. His greatest contribution, aside from
his
coming role in the Presidential Hunger Commission, was a film he
financed
and narrated called I Want to Live. He sang the theme song, which
centered
around the lines: "I want to share / I want to give/ I want to live."
The
film also included the opinions of such luminaries as Hubert Humphrey,
U.N.
Representative Andrew Young and various hunger experts, who spoke about
the
possible solutions to the hunger problem. Ending on a rather vulgar
note of
self-celebration, Vice President Walter Mondale congratulated Denver on
his
great personal commitment. This film is a staple of Hunger Project
promotion.
Werner Erhard has promptly gone to work trying to propagate his ideas
to the
Presidential Commission's members and others in the White House.
President
Carter's son Chip, for example, represented his father at a three-day
Hunger
Project symposium at the Tarrytown, New York, Executive Conference
Center in
September. Chip Carter seems to have swallowed Erhard's pablum
undiluted:
"If my father can go from being almost unknown to being President in
four
years," he was quoted as saying by The Washington Post, "we can
certainly
end hunger in 20 years."
Harry Chapin and est regulars John Denver and Valerie Harper (TV's
Rhoda)
were also among the 100 guests at the Tarrytown symposium. Harper has
also
been active in the Hunger Project. She has served on the est Advisory
Board
and is a member of the Hunger Project Council. Her public effusions
about
est have been innumerable. On national television and in magazine
articles,
she has thanked Werner for transforming her life. Now, she enthuses
about
the Hunger Project, (see box below). She participates in events to
promote
the Project - a soccer game here, a speech there, a gathering at her
house -
or to help Werner meet the important people.
Because of hunger's non-partisan appeal and President Carter's
interest, a
campaign to end hunger is a natural way in which Erhard can appear to
be
"doing good" while cultivating powerful connections. A number of key
people
have paved Erhard's road from San Francisco. These people are known in
est
lingo as "Sphere of Influence People" or "SOlPs" - types who have taken
the
training and are later courted to help aggrandize Erhard. Although est
would
not admit whether or not it had constructed such a category as SOIP,
internal documents prove that it has. ("New York SOIP Participants,"
begins
one of them. "The following people have responded and will attend the
Reception: 1. Paul Albano, Asst. V.P., Chemical Bank. 2. Dave Andrews,
V.P.,
Chase Manhattan Bank. 3. Dick Aurelio, heads Daniel Edelman. 4. Polly
Bergen, Actress. 5. Josh Reynolds, Guest of Polly Bergen. . . ." This
list
of 33 names is followed by a list of those who "will not attend the
Reception," and finally a list of people who haven't answered yet,
identified by connection to SOIPs if they are not ones in their own
right:
"Senator and Mrs. [Jacob] Javits, Mrs. Javits is a grad. . . Edith
Rivera,
Daughter of Kurt Vonnegut. . . ." and so on.) John Denver and his
manager,
Jerry Weintraub, as well as Valerie Harper, have given Erhard an SOIP
entrée
into Hollywood. Est enthusiasts Buckminster Fuller and Dick Gregory
provide
other ties. But the real help comes from people with government
connections.
For example, take Roger Sant, former Assistant Administrator of the
Federal
Energy Administration under President Ford. Sant has also been a member
of
the prestigious San Francisco businessman's group, the Bay Area
Council, a
director of the National Security Bank and a frozen-food supplier. His
wife,
Vicki Sant, is Regional Director of the Hunger Project in Washington.
The
Sants introduced Erhard to former Carter administration drug and food
policy
adviser Dr. Peter Bourne, before Bourne's sudden fall from power last
July.
As we talk in Sant's Arlington, Virginia, office on the top floor of a
building that overlooks the Potomac and Washington beyond, Sant
radiates
enthusiasm about Erhard and his latest undertaking. Currently a
director of
the Energy Productivity Center of the Carnegie-Mellon Institute of
Research,
an organization funded by, among others, Gulf Oil and Atlantic
Richfield,
Sant is a member of the Hunger Project Council and speaks officially
for the
Project. He admits that he has not "read enough to be even informed
about
the problem." But since Werner says that to know less is to know more,
this
doesn't matter. "In effect," he says of the Hunger Project, bouncing
with
enthusiasm, "it's the world working. That's the exciting part of that.
. . .
So if you can handle hunger, you sort of get to go on to everything
else. If
you can get rid of hunger, my gosh," he trills, "we might even be able
to
get rid of mental illness."
Besides Sant, Erhard has on his team another well-connected Washington
executive-Greg Votaw, the former director of World Bank programs in
East
Asia and the Pacific. Votaw provided introductions for Erhard's trip to
India and has introduced him to various hunger experts in Washington.
And,
finally, there is Roy Prosterman, a truly non-partisan hunger expert
who has
worked as a consultant in land development for such diverse nations as
Brazil, the Socialist regime in Portugal, and South Vietnam (in 1967).
Roy Prosterman attended some of the first meetings between Erhard and
former
Presidential adviser Bourne. Prosterman and Erhard were able,
Prosterman
says, "to communicate a real sense of what the Hunger Project is about
and
the kind of support that that might mean is waiting in the wings for
the
President. I'm persuaded that this is a thing that could greatly add to
Carter's political capital to do lots of other things [emphasis ours
-MJ],
that if Carter showed himself to be someone with the vision and
leadership
and the sense of the future that would allow him to make a commitment
to
join with others on the planet to end hunger by the year 2000, I think
he
would be seen as a person of greater stature than he is now seen as
being."
The Hunger Project is every politician's dream: a huge block of voters
who
have nothing to advocate -and who will contribute their time and,
although
no one explicitly mentions it, their votes to the President and his
programs. Erhard knows this, and Hunger Project staffers are quite open
about their plans to go straight to the top. No matter who replaces
Bourne
on hunger issues, says Ellis Deull, president of the Hunger Project,
"we'll
be talking to him."
The Washington connection shows another side of Erhard's ingenuity in
creating the Hunger Project. The Project manages to give Erhard a
legitimate
issue through which he can reach people in government (he could never,
for
example, have gotten Carter to provide direct governmental support to
est),
while providing his followers with a program that will both occupy
their
time and assure their continued allegiance. This latter result is no
mean
thing. Although Erhard has put more than 150,000 people through his
training
and retained the loyalty of many est graduates, there is always the
risk
that without ongoing programs, they will move on to another of the many
new
consciousness gurus who have come after him. The Hunger Project
minimizes
this risk. Est graduates can become obsessed with hunger. And, when
Erhard
goes to Washington, est graduates all over the country can feel that
they,
too, have Jimmy Carter's ear.
["Werner Says."]
Any new volunteer to The Hunger Project coming to est headquarters in
San
Francisco is ushered into a huge, thickly carpeted room with large
potted
plants strategically placed next to partitions and walls. Overhead
pipes and
vents, painted various tones of orange and rust, crisscross the high
ceilings. Partitions section off offices, without, however, actually
dividing the area into private, soundproof rooms. Walking through the
large,
fragmented room, one has the uncanny feeling of people being together,
occupying the same space, but never connecting. It's the same feeling
one
has at an est training session. There are 250 people in the same room,
but
they do not relate. In proximity one practices not intimacy, but the
ability
to maintain a discreet distance.
Proximity within distance, distance at the heart of intimacy, the same
play
operates in the Hunger Project's relationship to est. The volunteer has
been
told, upon calling the Hunger Project, that est and the Project are
totally
different organizations. Never mind that the Hunger Project caller's
inquiry
is answered with the familiar estian "Hello, this is Grace, how may I
assist
you?" It's not est. Never mind the fact that its offices are at est
Central,
that it uses est's phones, that est started it, that Werner Erhard is
its
chief spokesperson and that his picture and aphorisms adorn the walls.
Remember, it's not est.
Despite denials of any relationship, however, the two organizations are
virtually one. Recently, for example, the Hunger Project purchased
$1,200
worth of tickets for a San Francisco World Affairs Council luncheon at
which
India's Prime Minister Desai was to speak. When the Indian consulate
was
distressed that the word "hunger" would appear on tables and programs,
the
Project conveniently switched identities. After purchasing the tickets
with
Hunger Project funds, they used est's name on its place cards at the
tables
(laden with crêpes Argenteuil, grilled mango and apple tart).
The Hunger Project is technically a separate legal entity, but in fact
it
functions as a recruitment arm for est. The experience of Hunger
Project
volunteers confirms this. From the moment she first went to the
Project's
offices in San Francisco as a volunteer, reported Lori Lieberman of the
Center for Investigative Reporting, members of the Project staff
concentrated on recruiting her to est. "I was greeted by Tracy Apple [a
local Hunger Project staffer and est graduate]," she recounts, "who
immediately asked me whether or not I had undergone the est training.
When I
said I had not, she reassured me that that was okay, but that it 'would
be
easier for you to work around the office if you do take the training
because
we use a different language and different ways of communicating around
esties.' Pressure to take the est training continued throughout my
five-hour
stay. I discovered only one other person among the 20 or 30 people that
I
encountered to be a non-est graduate. She was an office worker. And as
I was
sitting in the bathroom, I heard two other women office workers
harassing
her because she had worked at the Hunger Project for a month and still
refused to take the training. They said she was 'uncooperative,
closed-minded and had a narrow perspective.' I was later asked to
provide my
car to chauffeur some out-of-town est officials around the city several
days
later.
"I was also struck," Lieberman adds, "by the emphasis on Werner Erhard.
Everything was 'Werner says.' When I expressed confusion to someone
about
the way the Xerox machine worked, she explained that I really ought to
study
this machine because Werner says we all ought to get clear about how
machinery works so that it doesn't control us.'"
Another Center for Investigative Reporting staffer volunteering at the
Hunger Project described a similar experience. The effort to pressure
him
into taking the est training, says Dan Noyes, was as important as
Hunger
Project business: "When I asked Tracy Apple if est was important, she
said
"I personally recommend it, but it's not essential. It will help you
understand the Hunger Project and the man who created it. It's the
greatest
thing that ever happened to me.' Although she was careful to say that
est
was not essential to the Hunger Project, she then proceeded to pressure
me
to sign up for the two-weekend seminar, saying it cost $300. She asked
me
when I had a free weekend and sat down to call and find out when the
dates
of the next Bay Area sessions were, I said I would think about it.
"The next time I came in, I saw Tracy Apple. After saying hello, the
first
thing she asked was 'Have you decided about your training yet?' She
told me
that I had to have the $300 enrollment fee by the next day. She called
to
arrange for me to go down and enroll. When I went to a special est
guest
seminar the next week, I was surprised to see that it began jointly
with a
Hunger Project seminar, which then split up into an est seminar and a
Hunger
Project seminar. My general impression was that there was no difference
between the two." Hunger Project staffers expended so much energy
trying to
get Noyes to join est that they neglected to collect his Hunger Project
enrollment card or to convince him to contribute time or money to the
Project.
Such pressure in recruiting new est members comes as no surprise to
anyone
familiar with the organization. Est has monthly enrollment quotas and
staffers are put under enormous pressure to fill them. "Werner once put
out
a list of ways to recruit people to est," explains one disillusioned
former
est staffer. "You would not believe the lengths staffers were asked to
go to
get people in the training. If someone called est by mistake, you know,
a
wrong number, you were supposed to not hang up but to try to recruit
him.
You were supposed to recruit your lover, your mate, your friends, your
family, the milkman or paper boy. It was incredible." According to
another
former staff member, Werner explained the purpose of the Hunger Project
as
that of increasing enrollments in the est training.
One has only to do some minor arithmetic to determine how potentially
lucrative a recruitment arm the Hunger Project is. There are, so far,
about
180,000 enrollees in the Project. About two-thirds of them have not
done
est. This means est has more than 100,000 potential students in close
reach.
If only half of these people take est, that is $15 million which Erhard
can
funnel into his offshore tax shelters.
Even when Erhard can't manage to recruit Hunger Project enrollees into
est,
est still has managed to get their ear and sometimes their money.
Cleverly
benefiting from the whole confusion between est and the Hunger Project,
est
officials recently mounted around the country a series of seminars on
hunger, whose proceeds went directly to est. It worked this way: in a
number
of cities, the est organization held a seven-session "Hunger Project
Seminar
Series." Both est graduates and non-graduates were eligible to come.
The
purpose of the seminars, in typically estian language, was advertised
as
being to "support you in realizing your intention in making a
difference in
the world, in making the world a place that nurtures and enlightens
human
beings." The advertisement adds, "to register, call the est Center in
the
city where you want to take the series." Forty-two hundred people
enrolled
at $30 apiece. The money, both Brian Van cler Horst and Ellis Deull of
the
Hunger Project admit, went directly to est.
["Like a Temperance Union?"]
Erhard claims that The Hunger Project has the support of other
organizations
that have been working for years to eradicate hunger. In February of
1978,
he met in Washington, D.C., with representatives of those organizations
to
explain the Project to them. Erhard, Prosterman, Van der Horst - all
insist
the meeting was a fantastic success. Ellis Deull, the New York
attorney, who
is president of the Hunger Project, optimistically explains that people
from
hunger organizations are thrilled about the Project. "They're delighted
to
have us aboard," he enthused.
This positive reaction is contradicted by the facts. The San Francisco
Chronicle reported a skeptical-to-hostile reception of Erhard at that
February meeting. Many of the most influential people in anti-hunger
organizations are quite critical of the Hunger Project.
Lester Brown, for example. Vicki Sant was evasive when asked why Brown,
who
heads the Worldwatch Institute and is a widely respected expert in the
field
of world food problems, failed to appear at the Washington meeting.
Mrs.
Sant explained that he was absent from the dinner because he was "out
of
town." Yet internal Hunger Project memos state very clearly that Brown
did
not attend because he was, in principle, against the Project. When
pressed
again about Brown's lack of involvement, Mrs. Sant replied that Brown
was
not involved "because he just isn't." Brown, however, says he has
repeatedly
explained to Vicki Sant his objections to the Hunger Project, and that
he is
quite outspoken about why he just isn't involved. "You have to do more
than
just collect pledge cards to end hunger. They [the Hunger Project]
remind me
of when I was a boy, and they used to pass out cards for the Women's
Christian Temperance Union in church," Brown elaborates. "I can't speak
for
the others who signed up, but they didn't work all that well for me.
"I have serious doubts about the social value of the Hunger Project,"
Brown
continues, "about its real contribution to the alleviation of hunger.
It's
probably collected more money in the name of hunger and done the least
about
hunger than any group I can think of. Anyone who has a real concern
about
hunger has to have some understanding and concern for social justice in
developing countries, about existing inequitable structures, about
rapid
population growth. I can't see the Hunger Project doing anything about
this."
[The Man in the Mobile Chair]
The Hunger Project Staffers, who busily recruit Project volunteers into
est,
insist that to understand the Hunger Project, you must understand
Werner. If
you want to understand Werner, take the training. That is Werner. They
are
right; the Hunger Project is Werner's. Whatever it does leads right up
to
his front door, then inside the hallways, through the thickly decorated
rooms and the extraordinarily invasive comfort of his Franklin Street
Victorian mansion in San Francisco.
Any experience of Werner Erhard is orchestrated in advance. The
environment
in which he lives is as much a part of an interview with him as the
words he
purrs out -thousands of them, wending their way past logical
intervention -
or the warm handshake of greeting, or the obligatory parting hug. The
interior of the Franklin House is overwhelming, opulent, dripping good
taste
and prosperity. Plants - perfectly watered and tended so that not the
slightest brown curls the end of leaf - protrude from enormous wicker
baskets. In the midst of this modern decor is a collection of African
and
Oriental gods and goddesses, among them an ancient Buddha. Puzzled, or
in
impassable resignation, he tends to his inner life while above him,
from the
midst of a clutter of ferns, a single, rocket-shaped sculpture juts out
from
the wall. The tip is whittled to a sharp point. Lethal, phallic,
primitive,
it seems a reminder that no matter how carefully assembled is this
collection of dormant divinity, the primary theme is power-hard,
driving,
alive, spikelike, nailed through the trappings of aesthetics.
I am told, as I walk in, where the interview will take place. "Here is
your
chair," a young man points to a thick, overstuffed armchair. "Put your
tape
recorder here," he points to a table, "and here is where Werner will
sit."
Erhard's chair, unlike any other in the room, is a comfortable office
chair
on casters, apparently out of place in this well-decorated living
room/library.
After a half-hour delay. Erhard finally appears. He is better-looking
than
his stage or screen image. He is filled with charm. From his perfectly
coiffed head to perfectly shod toe, the effect is deliberate and
immaculate.
Clean-shaven, white-shirted - several buttons, but not too many, open
from
the collar - he is a blend of browns that match the beiges and browns
of the
room in which we sit.
He smiles, shakes my hand, tells me how much he appreciates all the
work I'
ve put into this article. A rare thing, he compliments, to do so much
work.
Then, after the preliminary flattery, he begins to tell me the Hunger
Project line. Word for word he goes on and on. When he is not intent on
seduction, he is haranguing. And suddenly, the role of the chairs
becomes
clear. I am stationary, sitting back from him some six or eight feet.
But he
moves. He rolls in and back, intense and then relaxed, close and far.
In
control, while I am immobile.
The Hunger Project, he says, is about one thing and one thing only.
"The
Hunger Project represents a significant opportunity for us to learn
what the
principles of things working are. If we can discover the principles by
which
you end hunger and starvation," he explains, his eyes monitoring my
every
gesture, "we can discover the principles by which you handle . . .
prejudice, by which you handle . . . violence." The pauses around the
words
are deliberate.
Because of its political and social value, the Hunger Project. Erhard
declaims as if addressing 10,000 people at the Coliseum, is immune to
the
bad publicity est has received. "I don't think that est's relationthip
to
the Hunger Project is really very much of a detriment. I think you can
make
a case for its being a detriment, but I don't think that it is." Erhard
continues. "In fact, it's proven that it's not. The enrollments in the
Hunger Project are an absolute statement that est is not a problem for
people. That doesn't mean that it's not a problem for some people:"
The main person for whom est is not a problem is, of course. Erhard
himself.
Despite the fact that the law makes distinctions between for-profit and
nonprofit corporations, Erhard seems to think that a "really big"
person
does not occupy himself with such pettiness. "For me," he explains,
"the
whole issue of what's est and what isn't est had disappeared. I know
that is
not true for most of the rest of the world, but, for me, the boundaries
have
kind of washed away. I'm fairly clear that whatever's happening in est
is
really happening in the world, so how can you call it est? It's what's
happening, and I'm very clear that it's what's happened. I used to be
clear
about that when nobody was clear about it. And therefore I didn't see
much
use in saying it very often. although I did from time to time. But now
I don
't think it's my clarity any more. I think that people are pretty clear
it's
what's happening."
Struggling to find a way out of this extraordinary, overwhelming maze
of
language, I ask Erhard about his connection with the controversial tax
attorney Harry Margolis, one of the IRS's prime targets in its attempt
to
close offshore tax loopholes. Erhard's continuing relationship to
Margolis -
whom he says he would never abandon because it's simply not his policy
to
"sacrifice" people, even if they were indicted for tax fraud (of which,
he
cautions, Margolis has been acquitted) - seems particularly ironic. For
here
is a Project that Jimmy Carter feels he will be able to support, but
that is
rooted in est, an organization heavily tied into the offshore tax
havens
Carter constantly rails against. But Erhard has never been troubled
with
irony, either on the score of Margolis or his own efforts to pay as
little
taxes as possible. 'It's incumbent on a person to be responsible within
the
system in which they function to function in a way that's most
workable. For
instance, in my personal tax return, I pay the maximum amount of taxes
that
I can pay," Erhard outlines his generosity. "I just take a standard
deduction, whatever it is. I don't even understand what I'm saying,
totally," says the man who is responsible for everything in the world,
trying to wiggle out of responsibility for this particular issue,
"because I
don't know all the words to use. But I don't make up deductions for my
tax
return. [But for est] you maximize your assets in an organization by
paying
the least amount of taxes."
If Erhard did take the standard deduction on this year's tax form, it
was a
radical departure from his past practices; the IRS is now questioning a
series of Margolis-engineered deductions that Erhard made in the early
'70s
on interest payments to paper corporations overseas, as well as
Erhard's
personal expense deductions that the IRS claims are invalid.
Ironically, if
the IRS has its way on one of the cases and disallows his deductions,
they
will grant him just that: the standard deduction,
Erhard does not like my line of questioning. He acknowledges that it is
my
job, my responsibility, but it was not what he had in mind. Nor is my
response to him, it seems, a part of his symphony. At our initial
greeting,
he was thrilled by my efforts. Now, as we part, he dismisses me. "See,
I don
't really give a damn what you write because that's none of my
business.
That's your job, and not my job. And I don't want you telling me how to
do
my job, so I'm not going to presume to tell you how to do your job. You
might even be a jerk and write something stupid, which would really be
all
right with me," he says, giving me permission to be an idiot,
encompassing
my potential stupidity in his world, "because God must have loved us
jerks,
he put a lot of us around. ... I don't think this story is going to
make any
difference one way or the other. I have very little concern about one
day's
output. But, it's kind of a shame that you had to put so much time in
for
one output." But that's the way business is."
True, Erhard says, he appreciates me - his experience of my experience
of
the Hunger Project. As for my story, well, it's a pity so much effort
for
nothing. Or, as he tells someone several days later when speaking of
our
meeting, "You know what happens to magazine articles, they're used to
wrap
fish in the next day."
Suzanne Gordon is the author of Lonely in America and many articles for
Mother Jones and other magazines. This article was completed with the
aid of
a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*
"Brenda, Brenda, I Just Got Manifested!"
What attracts a talented, busy and hitherto sensible person to Werner
Erhard
and his Hunger Project? Mother Jones' Mark Schapiro called Valerie
Harper,
star of TV's Rhoda, to ask her a few questions, and found her so eager
to
talk he could barely get a word in edgewise. Here is a condensation of
her
response:
Well, first of all, The Hunger Project is each one of us. It's not like
I
joined an organization and now I'm a member of this group called the
Hunger
Project. In our world you have to say, 'What is the organization?' And
of
course there is an organization, but the actual work of the Hunger
Project
is individual responsibility. It does manifest and it's not a solid
thing,
it's not an object, as human beings are not objects. So the Hunger
Project
lives in each person who chooses to have it be there. And so, since
I've
been participating in the Hunger Project, a lot of things in my life
have
altered and my own personal power has expanded.
"What the Hunger Project is, is affording one that opportunity to
create an
idea's time coming. You see, there's only one way that an idea's time
comes,
and that is not through organization or money or political action or
group
stuff. It comes through the individual. So what the Hunger Project is,
is an
alignment of individuals, each doing their particular, individual
thing. Now
Wilbur and Orville Wright created the airplane. Now, what it looks to
us -
and now we'll talk physics for a minute - it looks to us like Wilbur
and
Orville built a plane and then flight occurred. So that's the Hunger
Project. The way an idea's time comes is individuals create it.
Individuals
create - again physics - a critical mass of agreement about an idea,
and
then out of that, things manifest. You got that? You don't have to
believe
it or understand it, but just kind of get the sense of what I'm saying.
"Werner Erhard has formulated the Project. He has. . . I'll tell you
what he
did, literally. He personally took responsibility for ending world
hunger.
He said to the Advisory Board, and I was at the meeting, 'That's what I
want
to do.' And there was tremendous static, and we all said, 'Now wait a
minute, Werner, what are you doing? What are you talking about?' He
said,
'This is an est organization, our organization will continue, will fill
trainings, will keep giving people a chance to nurture, expand their
lives,
etc. If the training's something they want to do, fine. If it isn't,
they
don't, and we'll keep providing it. That's our work as an est Advisory
Board. I'm just telling you that I am personally taking responsibility
to
end the starvation on this planet by 1997.' And I remember standing up
and
saying, 'But Werner, listen, I was taught as a child, and I believed,
that
it will always be with us. There will always be the starving throngs
because
it's part of the world, the Middle Ages, for all time - much further
beck
than the Middle Ages people have starved.' And he said, "I would put to
you,
Valerie, that you holding that is contributing to hunger. Your
responsibility is not if you ate pizza this afternoon.' And I got it so
clearly, and I began to see.
"The clearer I get about starvation, the more I can take responsibility
for
it. So, in one sentence, the Hunger Project is a project of
communication
and enrollment, and by enrollment that does not mean that you pay a fee
and
you're in and you have a card. It means that you enroll and then you
enroll
to enroll. You enroll people yourself. I'm sure you'll speak to other
people
about this. I'll send you material and I think you'll like it. I have
exactly the person for you to call to get some material. Brian Van der
Horst
is the public information office, the office of public information for
the
Hunger Project. Well, now wait a second, I'm giving you the wrong
thing,
honey, hold it, he's with est, that's not right.."
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*
Where Erhard Launders The Money
Trying to trace the flow of money through Werner Erhard's est operation
is a
bit like watching the flight of a golf ball on television. The
commentator
excitedly shouts "There it goes!" but all you can see is an endless
fairway
and trees waving in the wind.
In Erhard's case, the grass and trees that have swallowed up the golf
ball
are provided chiefly by Harry Margolis, a skillful California lawyer
who has
improbably combined a leftist past, an enthusiasm for est and an
expertise
in the arcane and lucrative field of offshore tax shelters.
After examining many documents and interviewing many sources, Mother
Jones
has pieced together the following picture of the complex financial
shell
Margolis has built for est:
Erhard Seminars Training, Inc. (EST - the use of the lower case came
later)
was born late in 1971, when Margolis changed the name of Saratoga
Restaurant
Equipment, a corporation in his office, to EST.
As EST was being formed, Erhard sold, for a promise of $1 million, what
he
called his "body of knowledge" to Presentaciones Musicales, S.A.
(PM.SA), a
Panamanian corporation, whose nature, musical or otherwise, remains
hidden
behind the Panamanian secrecy-in-business laws designed to attract U.S.
investors. EST then turned around and paid PMSA $1.2 million for the
license
to that body of knowledge for ten years.
What's known of PMSA's recent history leads to Margolis. Everyone
Mother
Jones could find who was associated with recent PMSA activities was a
Margolis employee.
Another oddity: EST originally had no money to pay PMSA for the license
on
the body of knowledge. To get the money, EST borrowed $1 million from a
Nevada corporation named International Aesthetics Limited (IAL), and
sold
IAL $200,000 worth of EST stock.
What kind of a company would loan $1 million and invest $200,000 in
EST, a
then brand-new firm with no success record, no money, no assets and no
collateral except an intention to buy a license to use Erhard's
knowledge?
Again, the answer leads back to Harry Margolis. All IAL officers and
directors worked out of Margolis' office.
This complicated series of paper shuffles created important tax
benefits for
Erhard. In selling the body of knowledge to PMSA as a capital asset,
Erhard
could claim that PMSA's million-dollar promise was "capital gain,"
rather
than ordinary income. Under U.S. tax laws of the time, only half of the
$1
million would be taxable as capital gain. And by receiving a promise to
be
paid over ten years instead of $1 million cash, Erhard could have the
money
trickle in slowly enough to avoid placing himself in higher tax
brackets.
Did that $1 million really exist somewhere, or did Margolis construct
an
empty prefabricated tax shelter for a million dollars Erhard hoped to
collect in future years from people who took his training?
That is one question the IRS tried to answer when the government, in
1975,
indicted Margolis on 23 counts of tax fraud and one count of
conspiracy.
Mentioned in connection with the indictment were EST, IAL and the two
million-dollar deals, which, the government charged, had never really
taken
place.
Federal lawyers argued that all the paperwork had been drawn up and
shuffled
by Margolis employees. But in 1977, a jury acquitted him. Court
observers
say that too many companies hid behind their status as foreign
corporations,
and ambiguities in tax law confused the jury.
Meanwhile, back to Erhard and the million dollars that may or may not
have
existed. Prior to the Margolis indictment, the IRS had disallowed
Erhard's
claim that the sale of his knowledge brought him capital gain.
Furthermore,
PMSA's word that it would pay up sometime during the next ten years
wasn't
good enough, in the government's view, to qualify for taxation on the
installment plan.
So the feds slapped Erhard with an income-tax bill on the million
dollars,
amounting to nearly half that amount. Currently, six tax cases against
est
and Werner Erhard, dealing with different aspects of their income, are
lined
up in U.S. Tax Court while Margolis and the IRS counsel conduct
pre-triaI
negotiations.
Now our invisible golf ball suddenly bounces off in a different
direction.
Perhaps Margolis felt shaky about his prospects of winning a case
involving
a body of knowledge no one could see, touch, patent or copyright. Or,
perhaps, EST income had just outgrown the million-dollar shelter.
Whatever
the reason, Margolis has created a brand-new set of corporations to
house
Erhard's empire. Four months after the IRS began asking for back taxes,
public documents recorded the creation of "est, an Educational
Corporation" - a for-profit California business, owned by the Werner
Erhard
Charitable Settlement - a tax-exempt trust on the isle of Jersey. Any
est
profits flow to Jersey, after the government diverts 30 percent to the
U.S.
treasury.
But 30 percent is a big dip. So est the second, like EST the first,
shows a
paltry profit, when it shows one at all. How can est avoid showing a
profit
when we know 161,395 people have taken Werner Erhard's training, now
selling
at $300 a shot? A good question. The answer is that before reporting
any
income, est pays for the use of Erhard's "knowledge." That knowledge
has now
found its way from Panama to its current owner, Welbehagen, B.V., a
Dutch
corporation. Est pays royalties to Welbehagen for using the body of
knowledge, while Welbehagen pays only 7 percent in Dutch taxes. Then,
all
Welbehagen's after-tax profits go to the Werner Erhard Foundation for
est,
which is headquartered in Switzerland.
Just how much may be piling up in Switzerland is hard to say, since
Swiss
tax returns are private. Available documents show that through April
30,
1973, EST, in its first corporate incarnation, paid out nearly $300,000
in
"interest" and "amortization." How much of that - or whether all of
that -
went to Welbehagen, the Swiss foundation or Erhard, no one knows.
During the first six months of est's reborn corporate existence,
revenues
through February of 1976 totaled almost $6 million. Nearly one-fourth
was
reported to have been paid out in "interest" and "amortization."
Income and expense figures since March of 1976 are unavailable.
What of Erhard's first million? PMSA no longer owes it, since Erhard
cancelled the contract without payment in 1975. Last year, at Margolis'
trial, Erhard couldn't remember whether he was still owed the million
dollars. - Arnold Levinson
The author is a San Francisco Bay Area newspaper reporter and an
investigator for the Center for Investigative Reporting.
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*
If You Really Want to End Hunger...
THE HUNGER PROJECT, AS THE story on these pages shows, has other goals
more
important than the elimination of world hunger. But if you really want
to do
something about famine and malnutrition, here are some groups to get in
touch with:
The Interfaith Center for Corporate ResponsibiIity (475 Riverside
Drive,
Room 566, New York, New York 10027, (212-870-2295) has helped organize
a
boycott against companies that distribute infant formula to the Third
World,
the cause of 'bottle-baby syndrome" malnutrition (see Mother Jones,
Dec.
'77) With affiliates all aver the country, ICCR can use volunteers.
The Institute for Food and DeveIopment Policy (2588 Mission Street, San
Francisco, California 94110, (415) 648-6090) is a research and
education
center reporting on government food policy and agribusiness, It
maintains a
resource library and distributes many articles and pamphlets.
World Hunger Year (P.O. Box 1975, Garden City, New York 11530, (516)
742-3700) provides resource materials for classrooms and community
groups.
Its bimonthly publication is called Food Monitor.
The North American Congress on Latin America (P.O. Box 57, Cathedral
Station, New York, New York 10025, (212) 749-6513; or P.O. Box 226,
Berkeley, California 94701, (415) 835-0677) researches the political
economy
of the Americas, with frequent attention to agribusiness. NACLA Report
on
the Americas is its bi-monthly publication.
Among the best books on hunger and related problems are: Food First:
Beyond
the Myth of Scarcity by Frances Moore Lappé and Joseph Collins with
Cary
Fowler (Houghton Mifflin, 1977), Hunger for Profits: U.S. Food & Drug
Multinationals in Latin America by Robert J. Ledogar (IDOC / North
America,
1975), and As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of
Agribusiness by Waiter Goldschmidt (Allanheld, Osmun, 1978).
- Ruth Henrich
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
*
computeruser
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115268504.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Caligari
news:45855$4279b1ec$42a1c61e$83...@FUSE.NET...
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.landmark/browse_frm/thread/28c0f11c647a04d1/8d3bcf1566b141fb?q=est+hunger+project+author:computeruser&rnum=3&hl=en#8d3bcf1566b141fb
>
>
> <depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
> news:1115268504.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> One thing you can count on in Weenie-Land; nothing changes very much.
>
>
>
> Ellen
>
>
Here is a post I placed in 2002 (
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.landmark/browse_frm/thread/cffa82f9d1593a20/9a041998580305a3?q=%22hunger+project%22+caligari&rnum=4&hl=en#9a041998580305a3 )
on the financials of The Hunger Project:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.landmark
From: iragi...@aol.com (Caligari) -
Date: 9 Mar 2002 09:19:45 -0800
Local: Sat,Mar 9 2002 12:19 pm
Subject: Re: Free Landmark Forums at prisons
"Fred Kidd" <f.k...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:7pck8uojmagbh509g...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 22:44:24 -0500, "Lawrence Berrick"
> <lberr...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >"Fred Kidd" <f.k...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:8qni8u47lhomk8i8k...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:38:52 -0500, "Lawrence Berrick"
> >> <lberr...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >> >Fred,
> >> >LEC is a profit making corporation because it is. What they do with
> >their
> >> >profits is to put them back into the business of transforming the
world.
> >> >Unlike other corporations who put their profits into the pockets of
the
> >> >bosses.
> >> >See Fred
> >> >See Fred make an ass of himself
> >> >Lawrence
> >> So like Harry and Art and the other shareholders are doing their jobs
> >> gratis ?
> >No, they get a salary, just as any employee of any company does. What
they
> >don't get is a share of any profits. And niether do any of the other
> >employees. All profits go back into running and expanding the work.
> So like, do you have a current quarterly income statement and balance
> sheet that you can "share" ? I see the words that you've written and
> I'm sure that you believe them. I don't.
This is a post I wrote in R&R Live on a related organization the
Hunger Project that is required to publish income statements as a
non-profit:
===================
Interesting, if you look at the STATEMENT OF FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES,
href=http://64.224.173.9/reports/annual/2000/functions.htm, for year
2000, comparing salaries to money for hunger grants there were
$2,468,568 in grants and $1,306,935 in Salaries and benefits and
Professional services. Roughly 35% spent on salaries and 65% on
grants to end hunger. I wonder what the individual types of grants
break down to.
BTW, 2000 was the year that hunger was going to end :)
====================
I asked a friend who is a CFO about this percentage and he said it was
excessively high. That few non-profit organizations spend more then
5% of income on administrative salaries.
On LEC delivering it's promises and goals, the point is still a
covered in the Assistants Orientation that LEC (as was in est) that
assistants are not "needed". LEC could hire people to get work done
and it would be the same to the organization. That it is an
opportunity to assist. If that is true, what would happen if LEC
attempted to deliver on it's promises without using assistants. Would
LEC financialy survive beyond about six months?
-- Caligari
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. The independent audit of The Global Hunger Project in 2002 is now
available at http://www.thp.org/reports/annual/2000/functions.htm other
years are available at http://www.thp.org/reports/annual/ (click on "Audit"
under the years.)
Interestingly the value for Salaries and Benefits is higher on this page,
$1,721,436, 41% of the total of grants + salaries. A impressively high
percentage of salaries for a non-profit.
-- Caligari
depro...@mailandnews.com
cow, how the Hunger Project stacks up against Landmark and its
programs. It sure looks as though Werner Erhard just sat down early on
and figured out a way to get his followers to keep writing checks after
they finished the "trainings" and needed some way to maintain their
estian "high," salve the guilt or shame they may have generated by
excessive narcissism, and keep themselves "in the fold" and connected
with fellow esties. Yes, the Hunger Project, or probably any other
"charity" project he might have come up with, fills three (human)
needs; needs for belonging, for feeling good about what one is doing,
and for "meaning." Plug those "needs" and you've got a money-maker,
regardless (evidently) of the facts that your "charity" is bogus, else
how would you explain that this scam is still in business?
Ellen
depro...@mailandnews.com
Here is the Hunger Project's official "response" to Carol's essay,
generously linked-to by Anton Hein at their "request." Check out their
"facts" and also their vague, fuzzy-sounding, impossible-to-verify
claims regarding ~committment,~ ~dedication,~ ~strategies &
approaches,~ ~mobilization,~ and ~enabling improvements.~ I could
(truthfully) claim the same thing if I publically declared my
~committment,~ got a friend to go with me to some park, and made a
speech to the local homeless people about accessing the many
food-kitchens, going downtown and applying for "general relief," and
better pan-handling strategies. I could also claim "enabling hungry
people to achieve lasting improvements in health, education, nutrition
and family income."
What a crock!
Ellen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
» Response to "The Hunger Project: Inside Out" by Carol
GiambalvoOff-site Link
Purpose
The purpose of this note is to correct the out-of-date, false and
misleading statements about The Hunger Project contained on the
Apologetics Index website and written by Carol Giambalvo.
Anton Hein, the publisher of the site, has stated he believes that the
piece by Ms. Giambalvo states opinions. In addition, however, the piece
makes numerous assertions of fact that are actually false. Not just a
little false. Easy-to-verify false. He has stated he is unwilling to
correct or remove the false statements, but has offered to carry a link
to this page where we can correct them.
The points below were in response to the piece Carol Giambalvo
originally posted on her own site, removed by AOL because it violated
their terms of service against false, misleading material.
In the new 2003 version of her piece posted for Apologetics Index, she
claims that we refused to provide her with annual reports (false - plus
they are readily available on our website and with all charity
registration offices). She included a cover letter I wrote to her
requesting corrections - a letter to which she never replied.
The facts
* The Hunger Project is a well-respected global organization
working in more than 5,000 villages across Latin America, South Asia
and sub-Saharan Africa. The Hunger Project has enabled millions of
hungry people to achieve lasting improvements in health, education,
nutrition and family income.
* The work of The Hunger Project is led worldwide by hundreds of
the most experienced and dedicated individuals in the work of ending
hunger. In Latin America, Africa and South Asia, The Hunger Project has
mobilized these committed activists who see The Hunger Project not only
as a highly effective organization but also as a global movement
committed to the end of hunger. Whether they are village women in
Bangladesh or Nobel Prize winners, these individuals have found an
outlet for their commitment through The Hunger Project.
* During the first years of The Hunger Project, its work focused on
education and advocacy in the developed world, to generate greater
commitment to the issue of ending hunger. Following the successful UN
World Summit for Children in 1990, The Hunger Project dramatically
redesigned its programs to focus on pioneering strategies and
approaches in the work of ending hunger on the ground.
* One of the founders of The Hunger Project was indeed Werner
Erhard, the founder of est. He co-founded The Hunger Project in 1977
with John Denver and Robert Fuller, the former president of Oberlin
College. Other members of the working group that formulated The Hunger
Project included Buckminster Fuller, the environmentalist Dana Meadows,
the land-reform expert Roy Prosterman and Joan Holmes, who was the
founding executive director. The Hunger Project has never hidden or
denied that Mr. Erhard was a founder of the organization or that he
served as a board member until 1990. In fact, during that time, his
name was listed on every publication along with those of his fellow
members.
* It is unfortunately true that controversy associated with Mr.
Erhard has, from time to time, attached itself to The Hunger Project.
This resulted in a handful of articles in the late 1970s and early
1980s containing false and/or misleading statements about Mr. Erhard's
association with The Hunger Project. Usually, when presented with the
facts, journalists issued retractions, corrections and/or apologies.
Ms. Giambalvo, however, has not corrected the misstatements in her
piece, but has repeated false statements from articles despite
retractions or apologies from the original authors.
* A large part of Ms. Giambalvo's piece also focuses on Mr.
Erhard's life and philosophy. As this lies outside the expertise of The
Hunger Project, we can make no comment on it.
* The Hunger Project has rightfully denied any formal affiliation
with "est" or any of its successor organizations. The Hunger Project
was incorporated as an independent non-profit organization in 1977, and
has always met the highest standards of non-profit organizational
integrity in its programs and finances. The only relationships between
est and The Hunger Project during the time that Mr. Erhard served on
our board, were (a) an initial grant from the est foundation, and (b)
announcements and events to encourage the participants of est programs
to support The Hunger Project. That support was strictly one-way, above
board, and, as reflected in The Hunger Project's many years of
unqualified audits, The Hunger Project was never involved in promoting
est or its successors. In addition, over its history, The Hunger
Project has received significant organizational support from many other
organizations and institutions.
* Ms. Giambalvo states that the majority if not all its staff and
volunteers have participated in the est training or the forum. While we
keep no records of such things, this is demonstrably not true, even in
the headquarters office, and absurd when applied to Hunger Project
organizations around the world.
* She misstates that "respected hunger organizations disassociated
themselves from The Hunger Project." Far from that, in country after
country where we work, The Hunger Project works in partnership with
other local and international organizations, and participates in
various coalitions and collective efforts. In the US, The Hunger
Project was awarded the 2001 "Mildred Leet Award" for our work for the
advancement of women by InterAction, the national coalition of US-based
non-profits involved in international relief and development. She
questions our funding of a development project by the respected
organization Save the Children in Costa Rica, a grant that she
mistakenly inflates 5-fold. The Costa Rica project was positively
evaluated by the US Agency for International Development, which
provided funds to expand and continue it.
* Later in her article, Carol Giambalvo states that her actual
complaint is not with the work of The Hunger Project, but with its
"underlying philosophy." This is a rather difficult complaint to deal
with. From its inception, The Hunger Project has indeed asserted that
it is important to have principles - to understand those principles
and, if one is committed to one's principles, then to put them into
practice. She takes particular issue with the principle that all human
beings are, at some level, interconnected (although she describes her
complaint in different words). We believe, as stated in our
"Principles" statement on our website, that "Issues of hunger and
poverty are not problems of one country or another but are global
issues, and we must solve them as global citizens... Our responsibility
extends beyond our immediate lives and families to the entire human
family." We recognize that others do not share this view and deny any
larger social responsibility.
* She accuses The Hunger Project of "emotionalism." In fact, The
Hunger Project rigorously avoids the stereotypical play on guilt and
pity that characterizes many charitable appeals because we feel it
demeans the dignity of hungry people. Instead, we appeal to people's
greatness - their vision and commitment. We do indeed appeal to
volunteers to "raise the bar" and to do their utmost in addressing this
important issue. For many people, this becomes a very important and
satisfying part of their life.
* She never directly accuses The Hunger Project of financial
misdealings, but implies it strongly. Any implication of financial
impropriety is simply not true. The Hunger Project has had unqualified
audits by leading independent audit firms every year of its existence.
We are consistently able to direct 75% of our income to our programs,
which is considered a very good ratio.
* In her conclusion, Ms. Giambalvo complains that The Hunger
Project has a hidden agenda. Far from it. The Hunger Project widely
publicizes its only agenda - the sustainable end of world hunger. Our
principles, our methodology, our history, the documentation of our
results, the texts and transcripts of our communications are all there
on our website for anyone to see and thoughtfully evaluate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115298023.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks. Yes, I remember when you posted this. I wonder, as a cash
> cow, how the Hunger Project stacks up against Landmark and its
> programs. It sure looks as though Werner Erhard just sat down early on
> and figured out a way to get his followers to keep writing checks after
> they finished the "trainings" and needed some way to maintain their
> estian "high," salve the guilt or shame they may have generated by
> excessive narcissism,
Back to narcissism again, are we? Have you been getting treatment for it
yourself yet?
Love your long, self-congratulatory posts. {:~D
Here's a link that may help you.
http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/personality_disorders/narcissism/
"The narcissist is an actor in a monodrama, yet forced to remain behind the
scenes. The scenes take center stage, instead."
(note: Ellenestnot's monodrama against Landmark)
"The narcissist does not cater at all to his own needs. Contrary to his
reputation, the narcissist does not "love" himself in any true sense of this
loaded word."
"He feeds off other people who hurl back at him an image that he projects to
them." (Esties and Weenies that disagree)
This is their sole function in his world: to reflect, to admire, to
applaud, to detest - in a word, to assure him that he exists. Otherwise,
they have no right to tax his time, energy, or emotions - so he feels." (No
dissenting view is tolerated)
and this:
http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/personality_disorders/narcissism/faq1.html
The narcissist differs from normal people in that his is a HIGHLY
unrealistic personal narrative. This could be the legacy of a Primary Object
(a narcissistic, domineering mother, for instance) - or it could be the
product of the narcissist's psyche. Instead of realistic guidelines,
therefore, the narcissist has a grandiose fantasy. The latter cannot be
effectively pursued. It is an elusive, ever receding target.
Grandiose fantasy and conspiracy theories. Sound like any of our anti-cult
heroes?
Tex
"Caligari" <irag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:SZGdnbXdfPK...@comcast.com...
> "computeruser" <cyra...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:45855$4279b1ec$42a1c61e$83...@FUSE.NET...
>>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.landmark/browse_frm/thread/28c0f11c647a04d1/8d3bcf1566b141fb?q=est+hunger+project+author:computeruser&rnum=3&hl=en#8d3bcf1566b141fb
>>
>>
>> <depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
>> news:1115268504.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> One thing you can count on in Weenie-Land; nothing changes very much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ellen
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Here is a post I placed in 2002 (
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.landmark/browse_frm/thread/cffa82f9d1593a20/9a041998580305a3?q=%22hunger+project%22+caligari&rnum=4&hl=en#9a041998580305a3 )
> on the financials of The Hunger Project:
Your favorite objective reference, yourself.
Self-love, perhaps?
Caligari
news:Qe6dnTzNILA...@adelphia.com...
>
> "Caligari" <irag...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:SZGdnbXdfPK...@comcast.com...
> > "computeruser" <cyra...@juno.com> wrote in message
> > news:45855$4279b1ec$42a1c61e$83...@FUSE.NET...
> >>
> >
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.landmark/browse_frm/thread/28c0f11c647a04d1/8d3bcf1566b141fb?q=est+hunger+project+author:computeruser&rnum=3&hl=en#8d3bcf1566b141fb
> >>
> >>
> >> <depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1115268504.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> One thing you can count on in Weenie-Land; nothing changes very much.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ellen
> >>
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> > Here is a post I placed in 2002 (
> >
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.landmark/browse_frm/thread/cffa82f9d1593a20/9a041998580305a3?q=%22hunger+project%22+caligari&rnum=4&hl=en#9a041998580305a3 )
> > on the financials of The Hunger Project:
>
> Your favorite objective reference, yourself.
> Self-love, perhaps?
You're "D" man: Divide, Distract & Demean.
-- Caligari
ultaware
Tex
Very perceptive of you to have noticed. {:~D
Of course the demeaning part is just reflecting back that of the anti-cult
cultist's insults.
Weenie-land? LOL
This newsgroup is called alt.FAN.landmark, not alt.HATE.landmark.
If it were alt.HATE.landmark I'd leave you all to your hatred and disdain
for Landmark.
Distract? Guilty as charged. Distracting those with hatred and disdain, that
is.
Divide? Thanks for pointing that out. That's an unexpected pleasure.
>
> -- Caligari
>
>
>
depro...@mailandnews.com
>Very perceptive of you to have noticed. {:~D
Of course the demeaning part is just reflecting back that of the
anti-cult
cultist's insults.
Weenie-land? LOL
This newsgroup is called alt.FAN.landmark, not alt.HATE.landmark.
If it were alt.HATE.landmark I'd leave you all to your hatred and
disdain
for Landmark.
Distract? Guilty as charged. Distracting those with hatred and disdain,
that
is.
Divide? Thanks for pointing that out. That's an unexpected pleasure.>>
.
Caligari should have written "Attempt."
.
As with any other of those who toe the Landmark/est line, it's all
about the attempt (try). And the funny thing is that Werner convinced
his followers that there's no such thing as "try." But that's all it
really is - a pathetic, impotent attempt to use expensive,
phoney-baloney Landmark/est "tools" that are in reality silly tricks
and tactics that go nowhere and mean nothing.
Nice try....
Ellen
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115349292.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
So then what's the problem?
Why your obsession with something so impotent?
Are you simply trying to define yourself as successful by attacking and
deriding something that, in your words, is pathetic and impotent?
Perhaps you should raise your self-esteem up a notch and take on something
powerful, potent, meaningful and going "somewhere."
Don't stop "trying" Ellen. Your effort and tenacity are admirable.
>
>
> Nice try....
>
>
> Ellen
>
depro...@mailandnews.com
intellectual sickness. The prescribed Landmark/est "way" of reacting,
of speaking, of doing things, of seeing the world, and of treating
other people is like some corrosive social malady, played out in
contrived and depressingly predicatable scenes that seem, at best,
nothing so much as a collosal waste of time.
One hates to see one's friends, one's aquaintences, one's neighbors
lose perfectly good portions of their minds to this manufactured
equivalent of an emotional illness. Werner Erhard wanted your money,
first, and your adulation, when he'd gotten that. Unfortunately, the
price you paid for whatever little bit of ~whatever~ you think you
~got~ was an infection of the above that has persisted and, no doubt,
spread to many of those with whom you've come in contact. You've,
indeed, lathered in on this newsgroup in astonishing bursts of noxious,
gaseous verbiage. Intellectual toxic waste - that's what it is.
Werner churned out little factories spewing the same garbage that he
did. Worst of all, the ~victims~ can't even see it, don't know what
they're doing, or don't care that the rest of us are downstream or
downwind. Who wouldn't try to do whatever they could to end it?
Ellen
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115371749....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> It's like a disease. It's like some disgusting, cloying, malodorous
> intellectual sickness. The prescribed Landmark/est "way" of reacting,
> of speaking, of doing things, of seeing the world, and of treating
> other people is like some corrosive social malady, played out in
> contrived and depressingly predicatable scenes that seem, at best,
> nothing so much as a collosal waste of time.
>
> One hates to see one's friends, one's aquaintences, one's neighbors
> lose perfectly good portions of their minds to this manufactured
> equivalent of an emotional illness. Werner Erhard wanted your money,
> first, and your adulation, when he'd gotten that. Unfortunately, the
> price you paid for whatever little bit of ~whatever~ you think you
> ~got~ was an infection of the above that has persisted and, no doubt,
> spread to many of those with whom you've come in contact. You've,
> indeed, lathered in on this newsgroup in astonishing bursts of noxious,
> gaseous verbiage.
I'm sure others see the irony of your above statement, given the nature of
this rant.
> Intellectual toxic waste - that's what it is.
Good descripton of your post. Of course in your world, anyone that dare
disagree with you must be wrong, deluded, misinformed, emotionally ill,
brainwashed clones, corrosive, toxic etc.
You do know that you are projecting to the world what is boiling up inside
yourself, don't you?
The world is exactly the way you see it Ellen, because that's what you
believe.
> Werner churned out little factories spewing the same garbage that he
> did. Worst of all, the ~victims~ can't even see it, don't know what
> they're doing, or don't care that the rest of us are downstream or
> downwind. Who wouldn't try to do whatever they could to end it?
Perhaps we could bring back the Spanish Inquistion techniques to rid the
world of this awful "scourge."
You have stated in the past that you knew very few people personally that
have participated in Est or Landmark.
Where does the hatred come from then?
>
>
> Ellen
>
Caligari
>
> "Caligari" <irag...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:hPOdnV3N6ZD...@comcast.com...
> > "Tex" <ritte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Qe6dnTzNILA...@adelphia.com...
> > >
> > > Your favorite objective reference, yourself.
> > > Self-love, perhaps?
> > > <snip>
> >
> > You're "D" man: Divide, Distract & Demean.
>
> Very perceptive of you to have noticed. {:~D
> Of course the demeaning part is just reflecting back that of the
anti-cult
> cultist's insults.
> Weenie-land? LOL
> This newsgroup is called alt.FAN.landmark, not alt.HATE.landmark.
> If it were alt.HATE.landmark I'd leave you all to your hatred and disdain
> for Landmark.
> Distract? Guilty as charged. Distracting those with hatred and disdain,
that
> is.
> Divide? Thanks for pointing that out. That's an unexpected pleasure.
People who have questioned and critical of Landmark have appeared in this
newsgroup since it was created. That is a reflection of the failed ideas in
Landmark. You can choose to rub your face in gravel, but it is your face
that will be effected not the gravel.
-- Caligari
depro...@mailandnews.com
Geeeeze, "Tex,"
Come up with something creative, or are you incapable....you'd think
after (?) how many hundreds of attempts you'd give up on the same old
tactic or might even have become boring to yourself, by now. (LOL, you
might be ripe for an "est" refresher," though you'll have to do it with
the watered-down Landmark, as that's all that's available these days.
Here's a clue: ~No cheese down that hole.~) In fact, I do believe
that IS your problem - partial, incomplete, or defective "programming."
I think you managed to retain a remnant of your critical thinking and
were only badly programmed by the "training," and so, are like some
kind of half-baked zealot, not knowing which way to flip - not so badly
damaged as to be able to "self-correct" through your own doing, but
badly damaged enough that you go around defending some contrived
~experience~ as though you'd touched the holy grail and faithfully
retain some of the idiot estian distortions that continue to mangle
what you think and feel.
Thirty years ago there were people who recognized, wrote about, and
warned of the coming "scourge" of mental manipulation being peddled by
the likes of Werner Erhard. They saw the monster for what it was:
Manufactured/designed programs of influence, persuasion, manipulation,
control, and exploitation - all the ingredients necessary for a
totalist, fascistic, pyramidal power-structure with a few obscenely
wealthy at the top and the rest of us working hard to keep them in
their luxury position. (Some wag from within even had the temerity to
call it "trickle-down" economics.) Is it your aspiration to be one of
the few at the top that keeps you defending this crapola? Think about
it - if you WERE one of the ones at the top of the pyramid, wouldn't
you be thrilled to find these programs that offer to keep your
slave-labor in control, stupid, working hard, not complaining, and all
the while ~believing~ you are doing something good for them, so
unlikely to assasinate you in the middle of the night?
http://www.rickross.com/reference/singer/singer4.html
The "Not Me" Myth: Orwell and the Mind
Margaret Thaler Singer Ph.D.
Emeritus Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Psychology
University of California, Berkeley
Orwell, as others before him such as Defoe, Zamyatin, Huxley and Jack
London, wrote about the "negative utopias." These were places in which
man's most central capacities for reasoning creatively, scientifically
and compassionately were gradually curbed and eventually stifled. Not
only in "1984" but in his essay on Politics and the English Language,
Orwell emphasized the power of words. Words represent thoughts and
without the capability to express those thoughts, people lost access to
them.
`Writers before Orwell prophesied centralized governments using
torture, drugs and mysterious esoteric techniques as the feared methods
by which man might be controlled. Orwell's genius was in sensing that
combinations of social and psychological techniques are easier, more
effective, and cheaper than the gun-at-the-head method of coercion.
Social and psychological persuasion are also less likely to attract
attention and thus are unlikely to mobilize opposition early and easily
from those being manipulated. Orwell reasoned that if a government
could control all media and communication, meanwhile forcing citizens
to speak in a politically- controlled jargon, this would blunt
independent thinking. If thought could be controlled, then rebellious
actions against a regime could be prevented.
As 1984 begins, various totalitarian governments control and censor the
media and squelch dissenting individuals. Perhaps more ominously and
subtly here and elsewhere in the world, there are mini-versions of
Orwell's Big Brother, Newspeak and Thought Police. Since the early
1970's there has been a burgeoning not of governments, but of
independent entrepreneurial groups going into the mind manipulation and
personality-change business. Myriads of faddist, cultists, quacks and
"new age" and "new-movement" groups have emerged using Orwellian mind
manipulation techniques. The groups recruit the naive, the
unaffiliated, the trusting and the altruistic. They promise
intellectual, spiritual and self-actualization utopias whereas the pied
pipers of the past promised primarily social and political new worlds.
The New Age pied pipers offer pathways to development, enlightenment
and egalitarianism. Many later subject their followers to mind-numbing
treatments that block thinking and subjugate free will in a context of
a strictly enforced hierarchy.
Just as most soldiers believe bullets will hit only others, not
themselves, most citizens like to think that their own minds and
thought processes are invulnerable. " Other people can be manipulated,
but not me," they declare. People like to think that their opinions,
values and ideas are inviolate and totally self-regulated. They may
admit grudgingly that they are influenced slightly by advertising.
Beyond that, they want to preserve a myth in which other persons are
weak-minded and easily influenced, but they are strong-minded. People
cherish a fantasy that manipulators confront, browbeat and argue people
into doing their bidding. They envision Big Brother coming in
storm-trooper boots, holding guns to heads and forcing persons to
change their beliefs, alter their personalities, and accept new
ideologies. Orwell drew on the wisdom of the ages -- most manipulation
is subtle and covert. Orwell envisioned the evolution of an insidious,
but successful mind and opinion manipulator. He would appear as a
smiling, seemingly beneficent Big Brother. But instead of one Big
Brother, we see hordes of Big Brothers in the world today.
Orwell's predictions have not totally, and perhaps may never completely
occur because of the wondrous properties of the human mind when it
remains free to reason. But his ideas serve as warnings of the extent
to which people's thinking can be influenced.
The myth of mind invulnerability needs to be examined over and over to
prevent Orwell's 1984 world from happening. In just the past
half-century, the world has seen numerous examples of the extent to
which people can be influenced. A number of these have been
California-based phenomena. In the 1930's we saw the Russian purge
trials, in the late 1940's the world witnessed the Chinese Thought
Reform programs change the beliefs and behavior of the largest nation
in the world. The 1950's brought the Korean War in which North Korea's
intensive indoctrination of United Nations prisoners of war showed the
extent to which captors would go in an attempt to win converts to their
political cause. Later in the same decade Cardinal Mindszenty, the head
of the Catholic Church in Hungary, and a man of tremendous personal
forcefulness, strength of convictions, and faith in God, ended up being
so manipulated and processed by his Russian captors that he -- as had
the purge trial victims of the 1930's-- both falsely confessed and
falsely accused his colleagues. As he later looked back on the
manipulation and processing done to him, he wrote in his memoirs,
"Without being aware of what was happening, I had become another
person." These extremes of social and psychological manipulations of
thought and conduct are often disregarded by Americans because the
events occurred for away and could be dismissed as merely foreign
propaganda, and political acts. The reasoning was based on the "not me
myth" -- not in our land could such happen. Then we had to begin
looking at certain events that were occurring the California and see
that extremes of influence and manipulation were possible here. Charles
Manson manipulated a band of middle-class youths into believing his mad
versions of "Helter Skelter" and under his influence they carried out
multiple vicious murders. Later Patricia Hearst, a kidnap victim, was
psychologically and otherwise abused by a rag-tag group of Bay Area
revolutionaries. They used Orwellian mind manipulations as well as
gun-at-the-head methods to coerce her compliance. Then in 1978, Jim
Jones manipulated 912 persons into history's largest mass
murder-suicide phenomenon. Since him the world has seen other cult
leaders such as David Koresh in Texas, Luc Jouret with followers in
Canada, France and Switzerland lead their followers to fiery deaths.
Hundreds of other cult leaders have gathered far more followers than
Jones by promising new psychological and spiritual utopias. They have
succeeded by combining various ages-old psychological and social
persuasion techniques in an atmosphere os Madison Avenue soft-sell
approaches. Because most of the followers have been youthful or poor,
little attention and credence has been given to reports from
ex-members, families and friends who report the effects of the
techniques of manipulation used by the groups. Representative Leo J.
Ryan understood the manipulation phenomena people were describing to
him and he lost his life in a Guyanese jungle investigating how Jim
Jones "bent minds."
Were George Orwell alive, he might be intrigued with the variety of
situations in which mind-bending and thought manipulation techniques
are applied today. His genius centered on seeing how language, not
physical force would be used to manipulate minds. In fact the growing
evidence in the behavioral sciences is that a smiling Big Brother has
greater power to influence thought and decision-making that a visibly
threatening person. As Orwell's last words in his prophetic book
stated: "He loved Big Brother."
Tex
Rub your face in gravel?
Is that a Zen Koan? {:~D
As far as opposing views are concerned, the fact that someone disagrees is
not a reflection of failed ideas.
Academics have dismissed Ayn Rand's philosophy because it does not pass the
"is-ought" litmus test, otherwise known as Hume's Law.
Is the overwhelming non-acceptance of Rand's Objectivism by Academia a
reflection of her "failed ideas?"
Here's a link to an article from "The Journal of Libertarian Studies" Spring
1983.
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_4.pdf
It is entitled "Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem."
Subtitled "The Essential Subjectivity of Objectivism"
It is a well-reasoned 19 page article rejecting, as most Academics do,
"Randian Ethics" as a solution to the "Humean dilemma," the Is-Ought
problem.
So again, do you view disagreement as a "reflection of the failed ideas " of
Objectivism, as well as Landmark?
>
> -- Caligari
>
>
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115395295.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Geeeeze, "Tex,"
>
> Come up with something creative, or are you incapable....you'd think
> after (?) how many hundreds of attempts you'd give up on the same old
> tactic or might even have become boring to yourself, by now. (LOL, you
> might be ripe for an "est" refresher," though you'll have to do it with
> the watered-down Landmark, as that's all that's available these days.
> Here's a clue: ~No cheese down that hole.~) In fact, I do believe
> that IS your problem - partial, incomplete, or defective "programming."
Who "programmed " you Ellen. Maybe I should get some of that!!! {:~D
I've always wondered what it would be like to hate the world and everything
in it.
A conspiracy at every turn.
Look out, their gonna getcha!!!!
Ellen, you are a card carrrying member of the newsgroup "thought police."
If Orwell knew you he would have written about Big Sister, instead of Big
Brother.
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115395295.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Thirty years ago there were people who recognized, wrote about, and
> warned of the coming "scourge" of mental manipulation being peddled by
> the likes of Werner Erhard. They saw the monster for what it was:
> Manufactured/designed programs of influence, persuasion, manipulation,
> control, and exploitation - all the ingredients necessary for a
> totalist, fascistic, pyramidal power-structure with a few obscenely
> wealthy at the top and the rest of us working hard to keep them in
> their luxury position. (Some wag from within even had the temerity to
> call it "trickle-down" economics.) Is it your aspiration to be one of
> the few at the top that keeps you defending this crapola?
You view disagreeing with faulty and misinformed conclusions you have made
about Est/Landmark with some how defending it.
I am challenging you and your facts, limited as they are, and jaundiced in
view. You view disagreement with your viewpoint as an automatic defense to
what you're attacking.
You know that I've agreed with you on some points along the way. But you
have a "with us or against us" mentality that polarizes the discussion. You
do know that your venomous and hateful tone does not serve your stated
purpose of helping people, don't you? Labeling and stereotyping based on
their association with a given group is nothing more than prejudice. Doing
so hatefully is nothing more than bigotry.
Where does that get any of us?
> Think about it - if you WERE one of the ones at the top of the pyramid,
> wouldn't
> you be thrilled to find these programs that offer to keep your
> slave-labor in control, stupid, working hard, not complaining, and all
> the while ~believing~ you are doing something good for them, so
> unlikely to assasinate you in the middle of the night?
>
<snip>
depro...@mailandnews.com
>You view disagreeing with faulty and misinformed conclusions you have
made
about Est/Landmark with some how defending it.
I am challenging you and your facts, limited as they are, and jaundiced
in
view.>>
.
Which "facts," exactly? Just to keep it simple, name the first three
that come to mind.
.
>You know that I've agreed with you on some points along the way. But
you
have a "with us or against us" mentality that polarizes the discussion.
You
do know that your venomous and hateful tone does not serve your stated
purpose of helping people, don't you?>>
.
Though shit, "Tex." Why would I want to help Landmark? Or the people
involved with defending, promoting, or perpetuating Landmark? Or
anyone who thinks iterating and reiterating some "beneficial,"
"acceptable," or innocuous portions of the Landmark "programming"
somehow excuses it or provides a "fair & balanced" opinion that is in
some way superior to plain-old, downright castigation. We're not
talking about "undocumented immigrants" or "homeland defense," or
"social security," which are mixed-bags and can be argued endlessly -
we're talking about an exploitive and abusive cult.
Oh, and I notice you didn't or don't address what I've written, you'd
rather focus on ME, my motivations, my ~issues,~ my shortcomings. Why
is that?
Ellen
Caligari
Attempting to distract.
-- Caligari
Caligari
Disagreement does not necessarily have a cause of a failed idea. I am
saying that in this case of Landmark and it's critics there is a
relationship. That Landmark is based on unworkable ideas that result in
critique. So attempting to stop disagreement in this newsgroup will be
futile without overwhelming force.
-- Caligari
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115402062.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "Tex" pontificates:
>
> >You view disagreeing with faulty and misinformed conclusions you have
> made
> about Est/Landmark with some how defending it.
> I am challenging you and your facts, limited as they are, and jaundiced
> in
> view.>>
>
> .
> Which "facts," exactly? Just to keep it simple, name the first three
> that come to mind.
1.) Just today you said this.
<begin quote>
As with any other of those who toe the Landmark/est line, it's all
about the attempt (try). And the funny thing is that Werner convinced
his followers that there's no such thing as "try." <end quote>
Your own statement contradicts itself. The last part is a total
misrepresentation of a short discussion about trying to do something, and
doing it. Try as defined as an attempt, an effort. You don't need to
convince someone about a definition in the dictionary.
2.) You have stated that the concept that humans are God and forgot they
were God was derived from Elron and Scientology. As I've pointed out to you
before, the concept is rooted in the ancient, 7,000 year old Sanskrit
scriptures and that Werner most likely learned this from Alan Watts. Your
response was to deride the idea as a version of Hin"doo"ism. Once again
showing your intolerance and bigotry towards religions you don't agree with.
3.) Your insistence that Est was about abuse and humiliation.
Total nonsense. I took the Est Training. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Others here have stated the same. I witnessed other Trainings and
talked to dozens if not hundreds of people about their Est or Forum
experience. No one EVER told me they were abused or humiliated. But of
course you weren't there, so you'll have to take someone else's word for it.
>
>
> .
> >You know that I've agreed with you on some points along the way. But
> you
> have a "with us or against us" mentality that polarizes the discussion.
> You
> do know that your venomous and hateful tone does not serve your stated
> purpose of helping people, don't you?>>
>
> .
> Though shit, "Tex." Why would I want to help Landmark?
You are helping Landmark, by exposing yourself as an angry bigot and thereby
eroding your own credibility.
No intelligent person would consider your hateful rants as anything other
than a wacko with an opinion.
Or the people involved with defending, promoting, or perpetuating Landmark?
Or
> anyone who thinks iterating and reiterating some "beneficial,"
> "acceptable," or innocuous portions of the Landmark "programming"
> somehow excuses it or provides a "fair & balanced" opinion that is in
> some way superior to plain-old, downright castigation. We're not
> talking about "undocumented immigrants" or "homeland defense," or
> "social security," which are mixed-bags and can be argued endlessly -
> we're talking about an exploitive and abusive cult.
>
>
> Oh, and I notice you didn't or don't address what I've written,
I'm addressing what you've written, point by point.
you'd rather focus on ME, my motivations, my ~issues,~ my shortcomings. Why
> is that?
It's so easy.
>
>
> Ellen
>
Tex
A rather subjective point of view from someone who claims to be an
Objectivist.
The above article makes a much stronger argument against Rand's philosophy
than your subjective references about Est and Landmark.
> So attempting to stop disagreement in this newsgroup will be
> futile without overwhelming force.
I think disagreement is a good thing. It stirs the pot, challenges one to
rethink one's position and to find objective references to support said
positions. Or one can change one's mind after analyzing the facts at hand.
As you may remember, I had nothing to do with Est after about a year. There
was a reason for that. It outlived it's usefulness to me. But if others find
some value in Landmark, or Objectivism, or their Church, or country club, I
say good for them.
>
> -- Caligari
>
>
Serena Nordstrup
IF you in some way disapprove of prejudice, hanging out on
alt.fan.landmark may damage your equilibrium.
depro...@mailandnews.com
>1.) Just today you said this.
<begin quote>
As with any other of those who toe the Landmark/est line, it's all
about the attempt (try). And the funny thing is that Werner convinced
his followers that there's no such thing as "try." <end quote>
Your own statement contradicts itself. The last part is a total
misrepresentation of a short discussion about trying to do something,
and
doing it. Try as defined as an attempt, an effort. You don't need to
convince someone about a definition in the dictionary.>>
.
Oh, excuuuuuuse me. I didn't ~frame~ the Wernerism in proper
Werneristic terms.
This is the best you can come up with? Hey, tell you what....I'll make
it easy for you: Even when I write "is," I am using my opinion of what
~is~ a fact. If you want ~real~ facts, I suggest you get out your
gloves, your magnifying glass, and your test kits. Everything else is
deduction, conjecture, claim, supposition, reasoning, testimony,
analysis, "best guess," deposition, "most likely explanation," "as yet
not disproven," induction, hypothesis, or proposition.
.
>2.) You have stated that the concept that humans are God and forgot
they
were God was derived from Elron and Scientology. As I've pointed out to
you
before, the concept is rooted in the ancient, 7,000 year old Sanskrit
scriptures and that Werner most likely learned this from Alan Watts.
Your
response was to deride the idea as a version of Hin"doo"ism. Once again
showing your intolerance and bigotry towards religions you don't agree
with.>>
.
Oh cowpies, "Tex,"
.
Why would I claim anything so ridiculous? "The concept" that (blah,
blah, blah) could have come from Neanderthals, for all I know. Or
arrived with aliens from other planets. If I wrote anything close to
this, it was probably that the "concept" Werner Erhard included as one
of the basic "tenets" in his "programs" was similar to one proclaimed
by L. Ron Hubbard where Werner most likely got it. How would YOU know
whether he got it from ElRon or Alan Watts, or that he didn't get it
from scientoloty, which he "studied"? Were you there? I kind of doubt
that he read the "Sanskrit Scriptures." And what do you know about
Hinayana Buddhism, anyway, which ElRon claimed to be the "spiritual"
predecessor of his "philosophy"? Maybe Alan Watts got it from ElRon.
Or vice versa. It's just as silly, either way - human delusion of
power and control - just so much fantasizing and magical thinking. But
you can see the appeal, especially for purveyors of snake-oil. And, as
far as Hin"doo" is concerned, do you imagine that one of the most
irrational and oppressive religions ever concocted by man deserves a
pass when its followers ~believe~ in something as cruel and exploitive
as a "caste" system? Who gets to decide? YOU? Oh, and, guess what?
I have "intolerance & prejudice" towards people who ~believe~ that they
have a right to practice human sacrifice also.
.
>3.) Your insistence that Est was about abuse and humiliation.
Total nonsense. I took the Est Training. Nothing could be further from
the
truth. Others here have stated the same. I witnessed other Trainings
and
talked to dozens if not hundreds of people about their Est or Forum
experience. No one EVER told me they were abused or humiliated. But of
course you weren't there, so you'll have to take someone else's word
for it.>>
.
Well, duh....all those people who were brainwashed or "persuaded" to
NOT "be ~victims~" denied,( to you), that they ~experienced~ something
like abuse or humiliation. And all the hundreds and thousands of
people who experienced what they identified as abuse or humiliation,
(not to you), either themselves or directed towards "ginuea pigs,"
"unwitting sacrificial victims," or "shills," were lying,
hallucinating, or mis~interpreting~ what they saw or felt? Geeeze,
"Tex." The abuse and humiliation has been witnessed, written about,
examined, commented on, used in stories, comedy routines, and movie
scenes, "deconstructed," "dissected," and explained for more than
thirty years. Werner Erhard himself explained why he used this
"tactic" in his programs and tried to "dress it up" in some sort of
"Zen" costume. Why is this such a bugaboo for you to admit? Perhaps
you also ~believe~ it was a "nurturing" experience.
Ellen
Caligari
If you spent little more than a year in est, why do you put time, thought
and energy every day to posting messages here?
-- Caligari
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115480053....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "Tex" proposes some "facts"
>
>
> >1.) Just today you said this.
> <begin quote>
> As with any other of those who toe the Landmark/est line, it's all
> about the attempt (try). And the funny thing is that Werner convinced
> his followers that there's no such thing as "try." <end quote>
> Your own statement contradicts itself. The last part is a total
> misrepresentation of a short discussion about trying to do something,
> and
> doing it. Try as defined as an attempt, an effort. You don't need to
> convince someone about a definition in the dictionary.>>
>
> .
> Oh, excuuuuuuse me. I didn't ~frame~ the Wernerism in proper
> Werneristic terms.
> This is the best you can come up with?
You asked me for the first 3 things that came to mind. You didn't ask me for
my best.
That ridiculous misrepresentation of what happened was from one of your most
recent posts.
"It's all about the attempt...." but Werner convinced his followers that
there's no such thing as "try."
Besides the factual inaccuracy of your statements, they are also illogical.
If anything is true on this topic, it would be that it's all about the
result, not the effort.
Est and later Landmark were result-oriented and those results were
statistically measured.
If your car goes to the auto repair shop and they don't fix your problem,
but they "tried" really hard, do you pay them anyway?
It was all about the results, not the effort or the process. I thought this
was a flaw that got them into trouble. The end justified the means. I didn't
like it. One of the reasons I discontinued my association with them.
> Hey, tell you what....I'll make
> it easy for you: Even when I write "is," I am using my opinion of what
> ~is~ a fact. If you want ~real~ facts, I suggest you get out your
> gloves, your magnifying glass, and your test kits. Everything else is
> deduction, conjecture, claim, supposition, reasoning, testimony,
> analysis, "best guess," deposition, "most likely explanation," "as yet
> not disproven," induction, hypothesis, or proposition.
>
>
> .
> >2.) You have stated that the concept that humans are God and forgot
> they
> were God was derived from Elron and Scientology. As I've pointed out to
> you
> before, the concept is rooted in the ancient, 7,000 year old Sanskrit
> scriptures and that Werner most likely learned this from Alan Watts.
> Your
> response was to deride the idea as a version of Hin"doo"ism. Once again
> showing your intolerance and bigotry towards religions you don't agree
> with.>>
>
> .
> Oh cowpies, "Tex,"
> .
> Why would I claim anything so ridiculous?
I don't know, why do you constantly mention that all things lead back to
L.Ron Hubbard?
I venture to guess it is due to your own ignorance.
> "The concept" that (blah,
> blah, blah) could have come from Neanderthals, for all I know. Or
> arrived with aliens from other planets. If I wrote anything close to
> this, it was probably that the "concept" Werner Erhard included as one
> of the basic "tenets" in his "programs" was similar to one proclaimed
> by L. Ron Hubbard where Werner most likely got it. How would YOU know
> whether he got it from ElRon or Alan Watts, or that he didn't get it
> from scientoloty, which he "studied"?
Even Pressman's book indicates his dabbling in Scientology was minor. He
used to hang around Alan Watt's and listen to him on his boat. Being
familiar with both of these men's work, I'd say much of what he used came
from what he learned from Watts, among others.
I'm glad to see your seeing it my way. We don't know for sure where he got
his ideas. But many of them have thousand year legacies.
How many of these "thousands" can you name? Where are the studies? Are we
talking "Estie Lauder" again?
> (not to you), either themselves or directed towards "ginuea pigs,"
> "unwitting sacrificial victims," or "shills," were lying,
> hallucinating, or mis~interpreting~ what they saw or felt? Geeeze,
> "Tex." The abuse and humiliation has been witnessed, written about,
> examined, commented on, used in stories, comedy routines, and movie
> scenes, "deconstructed," "dissected," and explained for more than
> thirty years. Werner Erhard himself explained why he used this
> "tactic" in his programs and tried to "dress it up" in some sort of
> "Zen" costume. Why is this such a bugaboo for you to admit? Perhaps
> you also ~believe~ it was a "nurturing" experience.
I didn't see it in my Training or any other Trainings I witnessed.
In the Centers, that's a different story. I yelled at staff members while
assisting in the Boston Area Center because they were acting like @ssholes.
You'll love this one. I was later acknowledged for "clearing the space" that
allowed a couple of phone enrollments.
Now that's Cow Pucky for ya!!! {:~D
>
>
> Ellen
>
Tex
It's become a vehicle to motivate myself to research some of the topics
discussed. IF I'm going to venture an opinion on a topic outside of my own
subjective experience, I want to know something about it first. Thanks to
you, I have researched Objectivism and some of Ayn Rand's work. I now know
she influenced the birth of the Libertarian Party.
Serena and I had a discussion about a Kafka quote I provided, and later
found the full context of the quote and an alternate translation.
Ellen motivated me to read some of Krishnamurthi writings, after he
referenced him in one of her posts.
Markus and I have had spirited debates about the Constitution and the
founding Fathers that wrote them. I have re-read some of John Locke's works
because of this.
When Black_Ice was posting, he had many excellent posts about Est and
Landmark, and some laugh out loud "flames."
I like also to debate. I find it odd that people would come to a newsgroup
to simply say something sucks, is stupid, evil, a scam, or other insults and
then not be able to back it up with any facts. Very subjective, obviously
motivated by something deeply personal. To me, it borders on irrationality.
So it's an interesting study in the psychology of hatred.
Thanks for asking.
>
> -- Caligari
>
>
Caligari
Sure, thanks for the perspective.
BTW, I found the "Ayn Rand and the Is-Ought Problem." article interesting
(only half of it deals with Objectivism, the rest is on Natural Law which I
skipped.) I don't agree that the principle that one's life IS the basis of
Objectivist Ethics mean the principal is without evidence and faith. It is
objective through indirect evidence similar to how atoms, quarks and other
sub-atomic particals are objectively known indirectly. One of the indirect
evidences is that practically every ethics of religions and philosophies are
of an individuals life -- whether it's living in the hereafter or now. I
think basic principals can only be studied indirectly through their
artifacts since human beings sense at a macro level. Therefore they have
the sense of being an IS or based on faith rather than redudictive OUGHT.
But they are actually a objective, non-faith through indirect study.
-- Caligari
depro...@mailandnews.com
>Even Pressman's book indicates his dabbling in Scientology was
minor.>>
.
Read it again, "Tex." He used "E-Meters" on his staff and on himself,
for crisssakes!! He hired scientologists to "lift" material and
translate it into est-speak. The early esties were so clueless, they
didn't even try to hide the fact the they were using a lot of material
that came from scientology. The "communication" course was/is
supposedly an almost complete copy. "Complete" - yeah, that's it.
Those idiots still use ElRon's silly "concepts" like ~complete,~ as in:
"Are you ~complete~ with that?" "Did you ~complete~ with him?" It all
boils back to the silly Hubbardian view that there exists such a thing
as ~completion.~ Or ~disappearing~ something, as in "I could
~disappear~ you with a thought." Even that sycophant, W. W. Bartley,
had trouble with this one and had to print a disclaimer at the end of
his slavering, saccharine "biography." Besides, even if the
scientology "content" was reduced to a small fraction, who wants any of
it? It's stupider than even est. The megalomaniacal notion of
~personal responsibility,~ in Landmarkland, equates to the same
grandiosity that it does in the Co$ - that being that each and every
one of us is 100% responsible for everything that happens in our lives.
Ludicrous, and at the same time, tragic, for those who accepted this
~belief~ under hypnotic suggestion or by some other route. Someone
here mused over the "jumpers" on September 11th, and those Landmarkers
amongst them contemplating their ~choice~ to die in that particular
fashion. Get a clue, "Tex."
(snip)
>I didn't see it in my Training or any other Trainings I witnessed.>>
.
Good grief. You remind me of "W" and his backers denying any
obligation to recognize the Kyoto Protocols because "there is no
*DIRECT* evidence (what ever that means) that human activity has any
effect on global warming. They've hired their own scientists(whores)
to legitimize and verify the current administration's position - that
there is no way to prove or it has not been proven what *exactly* is
causing the melting of the poles, so why should we do anything when we
don't even know that it's not a "natural" fluctuation. No amount of
evidence and no number of real scientists can persuade these Luddites.
That's what you sound like to me. There's a reason that cartoon shows
"estie" ostriches burying their heads in the sand. To remain an
est/Landmark "believer," you'd pretty much have to. Which is what
you've apparently done. Only problem is, your great big horse's rear
end is hanging out for the rest of the world to see.
Ellen
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115597255.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> "Tex" pants:
>
> >Even Pressman's book indicates his dabbling in Scientology was
> minor.>>
>
> .
> Read it again, "Tex." He used "E-Meters" on his staff and on himself,
> for crisssakes!! He hired scientologists to "lift" material and
> translate it into est-speak. The early esties were so clueless, they
> didn't even try to hide the fact the they were using a lot of material
> that came from scientology. The "communication" course was/is
> supposedly an almost complete copy.
They stopped doing the Communication Workshop in the mid 80s.
If it was an exact copy of something from Scientology, then good for them.
It was an excellent course.
"Complete" - yeah, that's it.
> Those idiots still use ElRon's silly "concepts" like ~complete,~ as in:
> "Are you ~complete~ with that?" "Did you ~complete~ with him?" It all
> boils back to the silly Hubbardian view that there exists such a thing
> as ~completion.~ Or ~disappearing~ something, as in "I could
> ~disappear~ you with a thought."
The word complete. Now there's a smoking gun if I ever saw one.
> Even that sycophant, W. W. Bartley,
> had trouble with this one and had to print a disclaimer at the end of
> his slavering, saccharine "biography." Besides, even if the
> scientology "content" was reduced to a small fraction, who wants any of
> it? It's stupider than even est.
Coming from a "genius" like you Ellen, a comment like that should be a
ringing endorsement for Est and Scientology. {:~D
> The megalomaniacal notion of ~personal responsibility,~ in Landmarkland,
equates to the same
> grandiosity that it does in the Co$ - that being that each and every
> one of us is 100% responsible for everything that happens in our lives.
> Ludicrous, and at the same time, tragic, for those who accepted this
> ~belief~ under hypnotic suggestion or by some other route. Someone
> here mused over the "jumpers" on September 11th, and those Landmarkers
> amongst them contemplating their ~choice~ to die in that particular
> fashion. Get a clue, "Tex."
>
>
>
> (snip)
> >I didn't see it in my Training or any other Trainings I witnessed.>>
>
>
>
> .
> Good grief. You remind me of "W" and his backers denying any
> obligation to recognize the Kyoto Protocols because "there is no
> *DIRECT* evidence (what ever that means) that human activity has any
> effect on global warming. They've hired their own scientists(whores)
> to legitimize and verify the current administration's position - that
> there is no way to prove or it has not been proven what *exactly* is
> causing the melting of the poles, so why should we do anything when we
> don't even know that it's not a "natural" fluctuation. No amount of
> evidence and no number of real scientists can persuade these Luddites.
> That's what you sound like to me. There's a reason that cartoon shows
> "estie" ostriches burying their heads in the sand.
Oooooh! Cartoons!!! I like cartoons. I like stories too!!! Doh
> To remain an est/Landmark "believer," you'd pretty much have to. Which is
what
> you've apparently done. Only problem is, your great big horse's rear
> end is hanging out for the rest of the world to see.
You should tell your shrink to up your medication. You are clearly not
getting a therapeutic dose. {:~D
Ellen, Werner Erhard and L Ron Hubbard are passé. Old news. Hubbard is dead.
Werner is a disgraced former star of the 70s. The only one taking about him
is you. he is your obsession, your addiction. There may be a 12 step program
out there for you.
>
>
> Ellen
>
Serena Nordstrup
Tex wrote:
> <depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
> news:1115597255.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > "Tex" pants:
> >
> > >Even Pressman's book indicates his dabbling in Scientology was
> > minor.>>
> >
> > .
> > Read it again, "Tex." He used "E-Meters" on his staff and on
himself,
> > for crisssakes!! He hired scientologists to "lift" material and
> > translate it into est-speak. The early esties were so clueless,
they
> > didn't even try to hide the fact the they were using a lot of
material
> > that came from scientology. The "communication" course was/is
> > supposedly an almost complete copy.
>
> They stopped doing the Communication Workshop in the mid 80s.
> If it was an exact copy of something from Scientology, then good for
them.
> It was an excellent course.
~Landmark~ ~Education~ Corporation advertizes the ~Landmark
Communication Curriculum~, comprising the basic ~Communication Course~
and the so-called ~Advanced Communication Course~, see:
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=22&mid=175&siteObjectID=195
Recognize anything familiar there?
Tex
"Serena Nordstrup" <s_nor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1115629730....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
http://www.landmarkeducation.com/display_content.jsp?top=22&mid=175&siteObjectID=195
Recognize anything familiar there?
Other than the word communication, NO! The new course does not sound
anything like the original Communication Workshop. More like the linguistic
mumbo-jumbo they added to their programs when they instituted the Forum to
replace Est.
Perhaps there are some old-timers out there that have done the original and
the one you linked that could comment on the distinctions between the 2.
Bruno Tonon
"depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115371749....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>
It's like a disease. It's like some disgusting, cloying, malodorous
> intellectual sickness. The prescribed Landmark/est "way" of reacting,
> of speaking, of doing things, of seeing the world, and of treating
> other people is like some corrosive social malady, played out in
> contrived and depressingly predicatable scenes that seem, at best,
> nothing so much as a collosal waste of time."
My daughter has just completed 2 courses with LEC both in Communication at a
certain cost to her.
In my mind I disagreed with her doing these courses as I had assisted on
one of them and I didn't think it was worth the expense. I kept my mouth
shut and did not let her know my true feelings and as she is now an adult
25 + years old .I decided that she could make up her own mind about what
she was about to experience.
She came home the other night and told me about some misunderstandings she
had with me in the past and we talked them over and cleared the air. She
also did that at work and also with her friends. As a parent I was proud
that I could talk to my daughter on a level I had never experienced before.
I certainly did not have the courage to do it with my parents and yet she
was able to accomplish it with me. This communication cycle was initiated by
her through what she had learned at LEC so the responsibility to clear
things with me were totally initiated by my daughter.
This may not mean much to you however I can assure you that it means a lot
to me!!!!!
I have allways maintained that communication allways seems easier and less
stressfull after LEC courses and often its easier to clear many of the
misunderstandings of the past.
I cannot agree with your statements above as it does not fit into my open
commuincation life experience that I am presently having with my daughter.
It shows me that you have never done any of the LEC courses, and also have
fully misunderstood what they are about.
I will allways be eternally grateful that my daughter had the courage to
discuss matters of the past that had affected and robbed some of the bonds
of a family relationship that often wither away due to misunderstandings..
Yes it was Landmark that helped to achieve this.
Am I going to enrol in an LEC course ??? No however I must acknowledge
that my daughters behaviour has certainly changed for the better both in her
Family communication and also at her work.
It really does amaze me how we can both sit at different ends of the
spectrum.
I wonder at times how you can be so certain of your beliefs when I
experience the opposite of what you are saying???
--
Hope you are well
Have a nice day
Bruno Tonon
http://www.vespa-house.com.au
http://www.healthfullifestyle.com
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115371749....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Glam
>were statistically measured.
ROTFLMAO! Show us the money, "Tex!"
Caligari
I don't think you can evaluate the courses based on the advertising on the
website. I took sessions of the Landmark Forum in Action seminar in 2002.
The material and coverage was almost exactly the same as in seminars I took
in est 25 years earlier. But the descriptions and advertisement for the
course have completely changed.
I also found the original Communication Course quite good.
-- Caligari
Tex
"Glam" <glama...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115642529.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >Est and later Landmark were result-oriented and those results
>>were statistically measured.
>
> ROTFLMAO! Show us the money, "Tex!"
The Queen of cut-and-paste out of context has returned!!!
Perhaps she can only digest one sentence at a time.
Glam
>> >were statistically measured.
> >ROTFLMAO! Show us the money, "Tex!"
>The Queen of cut-and-paste out of context has returned!!!
>Perhaps she can only digest one sentence at a time.
LOL!!!! Oh, please, "Tex." Hundreds upon hundreds of Texanany inane and
incredibly dull posts here, and you still can't answer a direct
question.
Hey Tex, where's the beef? Show us the statistics, baby!
Tex
>> > >Est and later Landmark were result-oriented and those results
>>> >were statistically measured.
>
>> >ROTFLMAO! Show us the money, "Tex!"
>
>>The Queen of cut-and-paste out of context has returned!!!
>>Perhaps she can only digest one sentence at a time.
>
> LOL!!!! Oh, please, "Tex." Hundreds upon hundreds of Texanany inane and
> incredibly dull posts here, and you still can't answer a direct
> question.
What direct question would that be?
Tex
"Bruno Tonon" <bto...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:427f4196$0$8122$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
She's speaking from ignorance and a prejudice view point.
It similar to the prejudice one sees in racism.
Maybe you've heard people say things like this:
"You know how THOSE people are, ......."
Fill in the blank..... lazy, dishonest, smelly, disgusting, stupid, inferior
etc.
In Ellen's case, when it comes to Landmark and Est Grads, she views them as
"narcissistic, egotistical, selfish, brain-washed, stupid, dumb, devious,"
in her eyes, worthless vermin polluting the gene pool.
Bigotry is one the truly terrible maladies of the human psyche.People are
blinded by so much hatred that they are unable to see the humanity in their
fellow Brothers and Sisters. It's a sad state of affairs.
I'm glad to hear about your experience with your daughter. At it's best,
Landmark and Est could be a catalyst for improved communication among
people. The problem comes when people try to use "technology," techniques as
tools as opposed to just being authentic and real.
When I took the Communication Workshop during my GSLP, some of the people
who communicated most naturally and effortlessly were those that had not
taken the Est Training. Some of the most rigid, stiff, in-their-head people
were members of my GSLP. The Trainer also observed this and pointed it out.
Sometimes those that get most involved are the ones with the most to learn.
Serena Nordstrup
Bruno Tonon wrote:
> Hi Ellen,
>
>
> "depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
> news:1115371749....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>
>
> It's like a disease. It's like some disgusting, cloying, malodorous
> > intellectual sickness. The prescribed Landmark/est "way" of
reacting,
> > of speaking, of doing things, of seeing the world, and of treating
> > other people is like some corrosive social malady, played out in
> > contrived and depressingly predicatable scenes that seem, at best,
> > nothing so much as a collosal waste of time."
<snip>
> I cannot agree with your statements above as it does not fit into my
open
> commuincation life experience that I am presently having with my
daughter.
>
>
>
> It shows me that you have never done any of the LEC courses, and also
have
> fully misunderstood what they are about.
It shows nothing of the sort. It does not even demonstrate that Ellen
has or has not attended the many ~landmark~ courses you have not
attended. It leaves quite ~open~ the distinct ~possibility~ that even
though you may have "fully" understood (say) 99% of the "aboutness" of
~landmark~ courses, nevertheless Ellen may have aquired an overwhelming
understanding of the "aboutness" of 2.7% of them.
<snip>
> It really does amaze me how we can both sit at different ends of the
> spectrum.
The existence of a spectrum gives the lie to ~nothingness~ - and
provides lots of places to sit.
> I wonder at times how you can be so certain of your beliefs when I
> experience the opposite of what you are saying???
"Only the foolish learn from experience - the wise learn from the
experience of others." - Rolf Hochhuth
Simpatice
Serena
Caligari
Like John Paul Rosenberg.
-- Caligari
depro...@mailandnews.com
>She's speaking from ignorance and a prejudice view point.
It similar to the prejudice one sees in racism.
Maybe you've heard people say things like this:
"You know how THOSE people are, ......."
Fill in the blank..... lazy, dishonest, smelly, disgusting, stupid,
inferior
etc. In Ellen's case, when it comes to Landmark and Est Grads, she
views them as
"narcissistic, egotistical, selfish, brain-washed, stupid, dumb,
devious,"
in her eyes, worthless vermin polluting the gene pool.>>
.
Sorry, "Tex." You head's up you rear-end, again. "When it comes to
Landmark and Est *Grads,*" I view them as (mostly) normal, decent
INFECTED, brainwashed, under-the-influence, manipulated, half-baked,
fooled, and deluded PEOPLE who made the mistake of believing a
con-man's claims, a slickster-organisation's PR, a sleazy sales pitch,
and got sucked in to a "narcissistic, egotistical, selfish, blah,
blah, blah" program which turns out "Grads," many of whom mirror or
mimic or resemble the qualities that characterize it or its founder,
Werner Erhard.
.
He continues from some imagined pulpit:
>Bigotry is one the truly terrible maladies of the human psyche.People
are
blinded by so much hatred that they are unable to see the humanity in
their
fellow Brothers and Sisters. It's a sad state of affairs.>>
.
The loss of the ability (which is a very real risk of taking one of the
Landmark "programs") to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad,
blindness from cold-assessment, quality from sleaze, decency from
gutter-ethics, bigotry from rightful criticism, hatred from active
condemnation, blah, blah, blah, is the "real" sad state of affairs.
.
>I'm glad to hear about your experience with your daughter. At it's
best,
Landmark and Est could be a catalyst for improved communication among
people. The problem comes when people try to use "technology,"
techniques as
tools as opposed to just being authentic and real.>>
....or have to join a cult to learn some ordinary courtesy, honesty, or
decency.
Ellen
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115727078.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps there is hope for you yet. Maybe Bruno can send you a registration
form. {:~D
>
>
>
>
> Ellen
>
Tex
He certainly is an excellent example of my latter statement. {:~D
depro...@mailandnews.com
>Perhaps there is hope for you yet. Maybe Bruno can send you a
registration
form.>>
.
Hope for what?
.
Hope for me to turn (or be turned) into a mindless drone - a
glassy-eyed, pasted-on-smiling, brain-deadened LEC robot? Into someone
who can no longer tell what is good from what is bad, has no grounding
in reality or cannot tell what is real, and is unable to decide when or
how to respond in a way that is not tainted by some kind of low-grade,
bogus, "philosophy?" Rest assured, if I decide a response calls for my
using courtesy, honesty, or decency, I am fully capable of doing so
without any guidance from people like Werner Erhard or his clones.
.
Thanks just the same.
Ellen
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115738479....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> "Tex" snipes:
>
>>Perhaps there is hope for you yet. Maybe Bruno can send you a
> registration
> form.>>
>
>
> .
> Hope for what?
in. your own words "...or have to join a cult to learn some ordinary
courtesy, honesty, or decency."
Many of your posts seem to lack these qualitites. If joining a "cult" could
gain you these virtues, perhaps you should consider it as an option. {:~D
depro...@mailandnews.com
could
gain you these virtues, perhaps you should consider it as an option.>>
.
Oh, surprise, surprise.....
You are judging my responses to YOU as being indicative of my responses
in general or to anybody else. I don't think what you post here
warrants any courtesy on my part, though I do think I have used a
considerable amount of restraint and forbearance and willingness to
engage, even to your bombastic, poorly thought-out tirades. You
emailed me a lot of hate-mail privately before you started posting as
"Tex." I doubt your sincerity. I think you just like playing games
and think Werner Erhard's est gives/gave you some advantage. The funny
thing, to me, is that you mistake handicap for advantage and that's a
likely ~result~ of "doing" the "training" - a bassackwards appraisal
of reality or an inability to guage the quality of your own thoughts.
(Given that you were capable of those things in the first place.) You
seem to be your own biggest fan.....hmmmm, now what would that
indicate???
Ellen
Gerald Squelart
Or it could also be that Bruno experienced the positive effects while
Ellen only got the negative ones (either by direct or indirect
experience). Bad luck or self-fulfilled prophecy?
Or it could be that Bruno disregarded the negative aspects of LEC while
Ellen disregarded the positive ones.
Etc.
> <snip>
>
>>It really does amaze me how we can both sit at different ends of the
>>spectrum.
>
> The existence of a spectrum gives the lie to ~nothingness~ - and
> provides lots of places to sit.
>
>>I wonder at times how you can be so certain of your beliefs when I
>>experience the opposite of what you are saying???
>
> "Only the foolish learn from experience - the wise learn from the
> experience of others." - Rolf Hochhuth
According to this, you'd be wise to learn from foolish-Bruno's
experience. ;-)
> Simpatice
> Serena
G.
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115743054.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >Many of your posts seem to lack these qualitites. If joining a "cult"
> could
> gain you these virtues, perhaps you should consider it as an option.>>
>
>
>
> .
> Oh, surprise, surprise.....
>
>
> You are judging my responses to YOU as being indicative of my responses
> in general or to anybody else.
Your posts generalize hundreds of thousands of people you've never met. I'm
not talking about your personal attacks on "Tex." Fire at will, I don't
care. Your posts speak for themselves. They are bigoted towards all people
that dare say they got something valuable from Est or Landmark, at a website
called alt.FAN.landmark. That makes you both a bigot and a troll.
Again, I take no personal offense to anything you say. I really don't value
the opinions formulated by people with hate in their heart and that are
ignorant of the facts.
> I don't think what you post here warrants any courtesy on my part, though
I do think I have used a
> considerable amount of restraint and forbearance and willingness to
> engage, even to your bombastic, poorly thought-out tirades. You
> emailed me a lot of hate-mail privately before you started posting as
> "Tex." I doubt your sincerity. I think you just like playing games
> and think Werner Erhard's est gives/gave you some advantage. The funny
> thing, to me, is that you mistake handicap for advantage and that's a
> likely ~result~ of "doing" the "training"
You're projecting your own need to have an advantage, to dominate or avoid
domination, to control and manipulate, on me. That's how you see the world.
There is another way Ellen, if you are willing to give up your righteousness
and realize that those you try to minimize by your sweeping generalizations
and mischaracterizations, are fellow human beings.
depro...@mailandnews.com
Ellen only got the negative ones (either by direct or indirect
experience). Bad luck or self-fulfilled prophecy?
Or it could be that Bruno disregarded the negative aspects of LEC while
Ellen disregarded the positive ones.
Etc.>>
Congratulations, Gerald. You've learned and apparently adopted as your
own the first three ~laws~ of Landmark:
-- Your ~saying~ makes it so.
-- Everything is just someone's ~interpretation.~
-- For those who find fault with Landmark, the fault is their own
perspective, ~interpretation,~ or personal failing, and never that of
Landmark.
Watch out. Lots of trouble down the path of crippled critical
thinking.
Ellen
depro...@mailandnews.com
met. I'm
not talking about your personal attacks on "Tex." Fire at will, I
don't
care. Your posts speak for themselves. They are bigoted towards all
people
that dare say they got something valuable from Est or Landmark, at a
website
called alt.FAN.landmark. That makes you both a bigot and a troll.>>
.
Ha! So that's the hair up your heiny. You want to protect the fragile
egos of Landmark grads (or the profits to Landmark owners) from what
people say in cyberspace. LOL....You want to shield the name of
Landmark so that those who do a search on Google aren't *exposed* to
non-Landmark or anti-Landmark commentary in the first or second "hit."
You want to take back alt.fan.landmark from the critics and make it a
~safe space~ for LEC-heads. What a riot!
Ellen
Gerald Squelart
>>>Or it could also be that Bruno experienced the positive effects while
>
> Ellen only got the negative ones (either by direct or indirect
> experience). Bad luck or self-fulfilled prophecy?
>
> Or it could be that Bruno disregarded the negative aspects of LEC while
> Ellen disregarded the positive ones.
>
> Etc.>>
>
> Congratulations, Gerald. You've learned and apparently adopted as your
> own the first three ~laws~ of Landmark:
>
> -- Your ~saying~ makes it so.
I'm not even sure what that sentence means. Please explain what you
think it means, and how what I wrote above proves that I've learned and
adopted it as my own.
> -- Everything is just someone's ~interpretation.~
AFAICR I've be reasoning this way for all my life. LEC must have learned
it from me. :-)
Do you disagree with this concept? Do you have another *gasp*
interpretation?
> -- For those who find fault with Landmark, the fault is their own
> perspective, ~interpretation,~ or personal failing, and never that of
> Landmark.
I think LEC has its faults, but your over-reaction to someone telling
about some very good things that have come out of it makes me think that
LEC is not the only party at fault for your ultra-negative point of view.
And because I've listed some possible causes for the wide gap between
your view and Bruno's, trying to find how each of you *may* have come to
it, you automatically assume I'm reacting as an LEC drone. Sorry, that's
me speaking and thinking, the same way as I did before I knew LEC. I'm
an ISTP programmer, I compile lists for a living as part of
problem-solving processes, to be sure I cover all or most avenues. But I
guess it's easier to automatically ~gesticulate~ ~vehemently~ and blame
LEC for whatever non-anti-Landmark types do.
I've only seen so much irrational anger and unshakable righteousness
from religious fanatics when they're confronted with calm logic.
Fascinating, Captain.
> Watch out. Lots of trouble down the path of crippled critical
> thinking.
I agree.
Looks to me like you're crippled by your preconceptions and hatred.
Don't you see it's detrimental to your cause? The inquisition only
worked for so long...
But maybe you just work differently from me?
My thinking process is to compile lists and judge every item on its own
merit to best achieve a given result against a set of criteria. I think
it fits this definition of 'critical' relatively well: "Characterized by
careful, exact evaluation and judgment".
Is that crippled? Well, I guess it is: it usually takes me more time to
get to a solution; it was an issue at school&uni in timed exams: I never
finished my papers, but what I'd done was usually correct, so I still
achieved average-to-good marks. :-P
But it's ok at work because I usually get to a satisfying solution in
less time it would take to just try any solution and then fix it until
it actually works.
And it's ok here because I can take the time I want to construct my reply.
But enough about me me me: How do you do your critical thinking?
Maybe you're using this definition of 'critical': "Inclined to judge
severely and find fault". :-P
> Ellen
G.
Glam
Gerald Squelart wrote:
>I've only seen so much irrational anger and unshakable righteousness
>from religious fanatics when they're confronted with calm logic.
You've been reading "Tex's" posts, then?
>My thinking process is to compile lists and judge every item on its
>own merit to best achieve a given result against a set of criteria.
>I think it fits this definition of 'critical' relatively well:
>"Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment".
Care to share your lists for Landmark?
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115800136.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Your posts generalize hundreds of thousands of people you've never
> met. I'm
> not talking about your personal attacks on "Tex." Fire at will, I
> don't
> care. Your posts speak for themselves. They are bigoted towards all
> people
> that dare say they got something valuable from Est or Landmark, at a
> website
> called alt.FAN.landmark. That makes you both a bigot and a troll.>>
> .
>
> .
> Ha! So that's the hair up your heiny. You want to protect the fragile
> egos of Landmark grads (or the profits to Landmark owners) from what
> people say in cyberspace.
Nope. I'm challenging your stereotypes of people that have been involved
with something that you disapprove. Those that have posted here with
something positive to say about Landmark like Bruno, Gerald, Siam, and
Black_Ice certainly don't need me to protect their egos. The only fragile
egos I've met here have been of the ant-landmark ilk, feigning offense to
criticisms of their posts and positions.
>LOL....You want to shield the name of Landmark so that those who do a
search on Google aren't *exposed* to
> non-Landmark or anti-Landmark commentary in the first or second "hit."
If that were true why have some of my posts criticized Werner Erhard
personally, criticized "the enrollment game" several times, and agreed with
you on a number of occasions? If you were exercising the same critical
thinking you claim all those thousands of people have lost by participating
in Landmark, you would not come to such irrational conclusions.
> You want to take back alt.fan.landmark from the critics and make it a
> ~safe space~ for LEC-heads. What a riot!
It is a safe space. Your irrational rants juxtaposed to mine suit me just
fine.
Please continue. {:~D
>
>
> Ellen
>
Gerald Squelart
> Gerald Squelart wrote:
>
>>I've only seen so much irrational anger and unshakable righteousness
>>from religious fanatics when they're confronted with calm logic.
>
> You've been reading "Tex's" posts, then?
I'm reading the newsgroup sporadically, and from what I can remember in
recent times, I'm happy with Tex' logic against the constant onslaught
of anti-LM fanatics.
Still using the quotes, I see, does that make you feel superior?
intriguing, coming from someone posting under a pseudonym...
>>My thinking process is to compile lists and judge every item on its
>>own merit to best achieve a given result against a set of criteria.
>>I think it fits this definition of 'critical' relatively well:
>>"Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment".
>
> Care to share your lists for Landmark?
Sure, when I take the time to do it for public consumption... I'm still
gathering information informally (i.e. reading from all sides), but I'm
not that much into it anymore anyway, life goes on, I've moved on. Just
passing by, so don't hold your breath for me ;-)
G.
Glam
>Still using the quotes, I see, does that make you feel superior?
>intriguing, coming from someone posting under a pseudonym...
Actually, I do it to be polite, since "Tex' likes to put quotes around
his own "name," as if to reassure people that he's not the "character"
he "portrays" here. But I see you've jumped to the worst possible
conclusion about my "motives"...how sadly typical of the conclusions
you jump to about the motives of all "anti-Landmarkers." And how
insulting! Jeez, you'd think all your Landmark "training" would have
prepared you to communicate more "effectively" and to "accept" people
(we're all perfect, don't lie about it) and their "stories" without
being snarky.
Funny how that "training" seems to have the opposite effect on
"graduates," even as they claim it's "helped" them. I see you've
absorbed the ability to automatically insult anyone who attacks
Landmark quite thoroughly. And you no doubt believe that's your own
thought process at work, and not your "training." Kudos.
>> Care to share your lists for Landmark?
>Sure, when I take the time to do it for public consumption... I'm
>still gathering information informally (i.e. reading from all sides),
>but I'm not that much into it anymore anyway, life goes on, I've
>moved on. Just passing by, so don't hold your breath for me ;-)
Oh, I never hold my breath for you. You've made it quite clear you'll
never change your position on Landmark, and you've also make it quite
clear, through your professed "lack of time," or "more important things
to do," or "refusal to do what other suggest," or your "refusal to
share what you've brought up," that you're really not at all interested
in actually reading or learning anything that you perceive to be
negative about Landmark except to dismiss it or rail against it (of
course, we who are "anti-Landmark" see that sort of "negative" stuff as
being the "truth").
You've also absorbed the ability to "interpret" abuse and brainwashing
as sparkling, fabulously GOOD things, which of course belies the fact
that you've been abused and brainwashed.
Cheerio!
"Glam"
P.S. Enough "quotes" for ya?
Gerald Squelart
> Gerald Squelart wrote:
>
>
>>Still using the quotes, I see, does that make you feel superior?
>>intriguing, coming from someone posting under a pseudonym...
>
>
> Actually, I do it to be polite, since "Tex' likes to put quotes around
> his own "name," as if to reassure people that he's not the "character"
> he "portrays" here. But I see you've jumped to the worst possible
> conclusion about my "motives"...how sadly typical of the conclusions
> you jump to about the motives of all "anti-Landmarkers." And how
> insulting! Jeez, you'd think all your Landmark "training" would have
> prepared you to communicate more "effectively" and to "accept" people
> (we're all perfect, don't lie about it) and their "stories" without
> being snarky.
>
> Funny how that "training" seems to have the opposite effect on
> "graduates," even as they claim it's "helped" them. I see you've
> absorbed the ability to automatically insult anyone who attacks
> Landmark quite thoroughly. And you no doubt believe that's your own
> thought process at work, and not your "training." Kudos.
Thinking I made a terrible mistake, I looked back at messages... I can't
see Tex using quotes while you and ellen sprinkle them generously; of
course he puts quote around his own name, but my guess is that he's
being sarcastic in response to your quoting (Tex, am I guessing wrong?).
Of course, if Tex did use quotes around your pen name in recent times,
then I'd be wrong and sorry about it.
As for my attack, I'm afraid LEC didn't have anything to do with it,
except for the context of this newsgroup. That proves my point in a
previous post, that anti-lm will blame lm for everything.
Finally, it was just a question. A simple 'no' would have sufficed. But
you've chosen to feel insulted. I suppose I should be more diplomatic, eh.
>>>Care to share your lists for Landmark?
>
>>Sure, when I take the time to do it for public consumption... I'm
>>still gathering information informally (i.e. reading from all sides),
>>but I'm not that much into it anymore anyway, life goes on, I've
>>moved on. Just passing by, so don't hold your breath for me ;-)
>
> Oh, I never hold my breath for you. You've made it quite clear you'll
> never change your position on Landmark, and you've also make it quite
> clear, through your professed "lack of time," or "more important things
> to do," or "refusal to do what other suggest," or your "refusal to
> share what you've brought up," that you're really not at all interested
> in actually reading or learning anything that you perceive to be
> negative about Landmark except to dismiss it or rail against it (of
> course, we who are "anti-Landmark" see that sort of "negative" stuff as
> being the "truth").
>
> You've also absorbed the ability to "interpret" abuse and brainwashing
> as sparkling, fabulously GOOD things, which of course belies the fact
> that you've been abused and brainwashed.
Yes, that must be it!
> Cheerio!
>
> "Glam"
>
> P.S. Enough "quotes" for ya?
Too many, it makes it difficult for me to read your posts.
Cheers,
Gerald.
Gerald Squelart
Thinking back about our posts...
Funny how you complain that I do things I don't and then you don't
hesitate to do those things yourself with force.
I wrote: "Does it make you feel superior?", not: "It must make you feel
superior!", because I honestly didn't know why you were doing it, I
could only venture a guess, given the usual anger you display in your
posts to non-anti-lm people.
To which you replied with your absolute truths and no room to wiggle.
"Do as I say, not as I do" :-)
Tex
"Gerald Squelart" <from_news...@squelart.com> wrote in message
news:d5u1us$n13$1...@nnrp.waia.asn.au...
> Glam wrote:
> > Gerald Squelart wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Still using the quotes, I see, does that make you feel superior?
> >>intriguing, coming from someone posting under a pseudonym...
> >
> >
> > Actually, I do it to be polite, since "Tex' likes to put quotes around
> > his own "name," as if to reassure people that he's not the "character"
> > he "portrays" here. But I see you've jumped to the worst possible
> > conclusion about my "motives"...how sadly typical of the conclusions
> > you jump to about the motives of all "anti-Landmarkers." And how
> > insulting! Jeez, you'd think all your Landmark "training" would have
> > prepared you to communicate more "effectively" and to "accept" people
> > (we're all perfect, don't lie about it) and their "stories" without
> > being snarky.
> >
> > Funny how that "training" seems to have the opposite effect on
> > "graduates," even as they claim it's "helped" them. I see you've
> > absorbed the ability to automatically insult anyone who attacks
> > Landmark quite thoroughly. And you no doubt believe that's your own
> > thought process at work, and not your "training." Kudos.
>
> Thinking I made a terrible mistake, I looked back at messages... I can't
> see Tex using quotes while you and ellen sprinkle them generously; of
> course he puts quote around his own name, but my guess is that he's
> being sarcastic in response to your quoting (Tex, am I guessing wrong?).
I normally don't refer to myself in the third person, but when "Tex" is
characterized in some stereotypical way I have put quotes around my own
pseudonym. You're guessing correctly Gerald, I'm having a little fun. I
don't take offense to Glam or Ellen saying anything to Tex, as I don't
value their misinformed, hyperbolic opinions.
> Of course, if Tex did use quotes around your pen name in recent times,
> then I'd be wrong and sorry about it.
I don't think I have, but to be fair I have pulled no punches with either of
them so placing quotes around their names would be relatively minor. I think
they're misinformed, intolerant, unconscious, hateful, arrogant and deeply
self-hypnotized into believing their own bullsh!t.
And you can quote me on that!!! {:~D
Good to hear from you again Gerald. I hope business is going well for you.
depro...@mailandnews.com
>I'm reading the newsgroup sporadically, and from what I can remember
in
recent times, I'm happy with Tex' logic against the constant onslaught
of anti-LM fanatics.>>
Well then, it makes perfect sense that you're also happy with Landmark
"logic," which isn't anything remotely resembling logic but, what the
heck - neither is "Tex' logic."
(In good Landmarkian sense, if you, Gerald, call it "logic," does that
mean for you it ~IS~ logic? Does it matter if it doesn't fall into the
logic category for anyone else, few others, or only for other
Landmarkers?)
>Still using the quotes, I see, does that make you feel superior?
intriguing, coming from someone posting under a pseudonym...>>
Answering for myself, the reason I use quotation marks is because "Tex"
has about twenty or thirty other identities. He's used many different
names and pretenses with me.
>>My thinking process is to compile lists and judge every item on its
>>own merit to best achieve a given result against a set of criteria.
>>I think it fits this definition of 'critical' relatively well:
>>"Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment".
>From what basis or using what criteria do you make your evaluations
and judgments?
Ellen
Serena Nordstrup
Gerald Squelart wrote:
> depro...@MailandNews.com wrote:
<snip>
> I think LEC has its faults, but your over-reaction to someone telling
> about some very good things that have come out of it makes me think
that
> LEC is not the only party at fault for your ultra-negative point of
view.
I find Ellen pretty positive. Can you give any examples which might
objectively suggest she has an "ultra-negative point of view"?
Simpatice
Serena
Serena Nordstrup
Gerald Squelart wrote:
> Serena Nordstrup wrote:
> > Bruno Tonon wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Ellen,
> >>
> >>"depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1115371749....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>
<snip>
> >>I wonder at times how you can be so certain of your beliefs when I
> >>experience the opposite of what you are saying???
> >
> > "Only the foolish learn from experience - the wise learn from the
> > experience of others." - Rolf Hochhuth
>
> According to this, you'd be wise to learn from foolish-Bruno's
> experience. ;-)
Oh I do, Gerald, I do.
Simpatice
Serena
Bruno Tonon
I can understand why you see Ellen pretty positive?????
"I find Ellen pretty positive. Can you give any examples which might
objectively suggest she has an "ultra-negative point of view"?
Her position on LEC is very logical open and fair. The following,
"It's like a disease. It's like some disgusting, cloying, malodorous
intellectual sickness. The prescribed Landmark/est "way" of reacting,
of speaking, of doing things, of seeing the world, and of treating other
people is like some corrosive social malady, played out in
contrived and depressingly predicatable scenes that seem, at best, nothing
so much as a collosal waste of time."
in no way resembles a "Ultra-negative view point"
We can all see how fair and balanced it is?????
Thank you Serena for pointing this out to me.
"
--
Hope you are well
Have a nice day
Bruno Tonon
http://www.vespa-house.com.au
http://www.healthfullifestyle.com
"Serena Nordstrup" <s_nor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1115886043.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jim_...@my-dejanews.com
Bruno Tonon wrote:
> Hi Serena,
>
> I can understand why you see Ellen pretty positive?????
>
> "I find Ellen pretty positive.
used as noun or an adjective I can agree to both as in:
Adj: Ellen is positively ________ (fill in the blank)
Noun: 1c1: fully assured: CONFIDENT or 1c2 self assured: AROGANT
depro...@mailandnews.com
(If you happen here again, in some down time from your very busy and
productive life....)
You observe:
>Or it could also be that Bruno experienced the positive effects while
Ellen only got the negative ones (either by direct or indirect
experience). Bad luck or self-fulfilled prophecy? Or it could be that
Bruno disregarded the negative aspects of LEC while
Ellen disregarded the positive ones.>
There are other possibilities, are there not? Your limited
propositions leave out some others that appear more than obvious and
glaring in their absense. I suggest you list them, if for no other
reason than it might give your "logic" a little excercise.
[ -- Your ~saying~ makes it so.]
>I'm not even sure what that sentence means. Please explain what you
think it means, and how what I wrote above proves that I've learned and
adopted it as my own.>
No "proof," Gerald. I used the word "apparently." In my "logic,"
proof rests in scientific or mathematical realms, and most of the time,
not even there. My suggestion was a goad. Something to get your
attention. Often Landmark "true believers" assume powers that marry
declaration or intention with reality. The idea was listed in Werner
Erhard's little book of ~aphorisms~ and was probably a reworking of
something from one of the previous incarnations of the self-help scam
like: "If you can say it; you can be it," or "If you experience it, it
is true for you," "If you say it often enough, eventually......."
[-- Everything is just someone's ~interpretation.~]
>AFAICR I've be reasoning this way for all my life. LEC must have
learned
it from me. :-)
Do you disagree with this concept? Do you have another *gasp*
interpretation?>
Well, from a pragmatic standpoint, or in order to survive, I think
there are "generally accepted" criteria we all pretty much go along
with that don't involve someone's interpretation such as, "that guy is
dead." What caused the guy's death is very often a matter of
interpretation, though, and can rest forever in some netherworld of
uncertainty and speculation.
[ -- For those who find fault with Landmark, the fault is their own
perspective, ~interpretation,~ or personal failing, and never that of
Landmark.]
>I think LEC has its faults, but your over-reaction to someone telling
about some very good things that have come out of it makes me think
that
LEC is not the only party at fault for your ultra-negative point of
view.>
How is mine an "over-reaction?" I can think of lots of much more
"over" reactions. I think my reaction is pretty standard, for anyone
not involved with a cult but who has friends or family members who
are.
>And because I've listed some possible causes for the wide gap between
your view and Bruno's, trying to find how each of you *may* have come
to
it, you automatically assume I'm reacting as an LEC drone. Sorry,
that's
me speaking and thinking, the same way as I did before I knew LEC. I'm
an ISTP programmer, I compile lists for a living as part of
problem-solving processes, to be sure I cover all or most avenues. But
I
guess it's easier to automatically ~gesticulate~ ~vehemently~ and blame
LEC for whatever non-anti-Landmark types do.>
Uhhhh....
>I've only seen so much irrational anger and unshakable righteousness
from religious fanatics when they're confronted with calm logic.>
I find this kind of sad. Considering you've placed a quasi-religious
business cult in your own estimation of "calm logic," and an outsider's
(my admittedly atheistic) long-term observations, research, experience,
and considerations in the category of a "religious fanatic." Landmark
"graduates" are often referred to, even by themselves, as fanatics or
zealots. The whole purpose of the "training" is to produce them, for
they make good salesmen and women, often doing the job with no
compensation.
>Looks to me like you're crippled by your preconceptions and hatred.
Don't you see it's detrimental to your cause? The inquisition only
worked for so long...>
Uhhhhh....I don't recall any interrogation. (And I can see that you've
been unduly influenced by "Tex's" blathering.) What information would
an interrogation of Landmarkers get me? I already know, with a
relatively high degree of certainty, what they will say. So far,
you've performed right to script. Even dove-tailed your own sense of
yourself into the Landmark jive.
Ellen
Glam
feel
>superior!", because I honestly didn't know why you were doing it, I
>could only venture a guess, given the usual anger you display in your
>posts to non-anti-lm people.
Oh, bull waste, Gerald. Asking "why do you put "Tex's" name in quotes?"
(notice I don't do that with anyone else here, because nobody else here
does that themselves) would be a neutral question, if you were inclined
to be neutral. Couching your question in terms of an insult is still an
insult, which is exactly how you meant it. Step up and take
"responsibility," LE grad.
Glam
Glam
Gerald Squelart wrote:
>
> Thinking I made a terrible mistake, I looked back at messages... I
can't
> see Tex using quotes while you and ellen sprinkle them generously; of
> course he puts quote around his own name, but my guess is that he's
> being sarcastic in response to your quoting (Tex, am I guessing
wrong?).
> Of course, if Tex did use quotes around your pen name in recent
times,
> then I'd be wrong and sorry about it.
Why, just look at "Tex's" most recent posts in response to our
"conversation!" See how he refers to "Tex" in the third person, as if
"Tex" is someone other than himself? I suppose he somehow believes this
tactic divorces his "true" self from his "alt.fan.landmark" self.
Which, coincidentally enough, has been described as the process that
occurs to victims in a cult. Cult abuse and indoctrination creates a
new "cult" psuedo-personality, while the true self hides somewhere,
grumbling softly but angrily, in the deep recesses of the mind. "Tex"
is unknowingly giving us a glimpse of this process in brilliant
technicolor.
>
> As for my attack, I'm afraid LEC didn't have anything to do with it,
> except for the context of this newsgroup. That proves my point in a
> previous post, that anti-lm will blame lm for everything.
>
> Finally, it was just a question. A simple 'no' would have sufficed.
But
> you've chosen to feel insulted. I suppose I should be more
diplomatic, eh.
Nonsense. Meant to be an insult, taken as such. Do I "feel" "insulted?"
Nah. I'm simply pointing out how your "training" has conditioned you to
react to attacks on Landmark in a certain specific way. As Ellen has
pointed out, you've folded your own sense of self in with Landmark...as
if it's part of yourself. Reread my post. You'll see I congratulate you
on your absorption of the material.
Out out, damned spot.
Glam
Caligari
"Bruno Tonon" <bto...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:427f4196$0$8122$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Hi Ellen,
>
>
>
>
>
> My daughter has just completed 2 courses with LEC both in Communication at
a
> certain cost to her.
>
> In my mind I disagreed with her doing these courses as I had assisted on
> one of them and I didn't think it was worth the expense. I kept my mouth
> shut and did not let her know my true feelings and as she is now an adult
> 25 + years old .I decided that she could make up her own mind about what
> she was about to experience.
>
> She came home the other night and told me about some misunderstandings she
> had with me in the past and we talked them over and cleared the air. She
> also did that at work and also with her friends. As a parent I was proud
> that I could talk to my daughter on a level I had never experienced
before.
> I certainly did not have the courage to do it with my parents and yet she
> was able to accomplish it with me. This communication cycle was initiated
by
> her through what she had learned at LEC so the responsibility to clear
> things with me were totally initiated by my daughter.
> This may not mean much to you however I can assure you that it means a lot
> to me!!!!!
>
That it significant for you is fine. That it have accurate value to anyone
reading it in the newsgroup is unlikely. The details are not known to be
evaluated.
> I have allways maintained that communication allways seems easier and less
> stressfull after LEC courses and often its easier to clear many of the
> misunderstandings of the past.
You may reach that conclusion. However, the details of your daughter and
others out of LM resolving misunderstandings is unknown. They can't be
evaluated as accurately working out misunderstandings or otherwise.
Sometimes the negative evalution of a reliationship is accurate and
attempting to change that through communication does not work.
> I cannot agree with your statements above as it does not fit into my open
> commuincation life experience that I am presently having with my
daughter.
>
People do not need to agree.
>
>
> It shows me that you have never done any of the LEC courses, and also have
> fully misunderstood what they are about.
>
It only shows that you disagree.
>
>
> I will allways be eternally grateful that my daughter had the courage to
> discuss matters of the past that had affected and robbed some of the
bonds
> of a family relationship that often wither away due to misunderstandings..
Not knowing the details and lacking the ability evaluating this from other
accounts without an agenda on LM, others cannot necessarily come to the same
conclusions or necessarily any judgement.
>
> Yes it was Landmark that helped to achieve this.
OK, and that will only reinforce those already believing that.
>
> Am I going to enrol in an LEC course ??? No however I must acknowledge
> that my daughters behaviour has certainly changed for the better both in
her
> Family communication and also at her work.
Others cannot make that evaluation except to implicitly trust your view.
>
>
> It really does amaze me how we can both sit at different ends of the
> spectrum.
>
You may want to think things through rather than be amazed.
-- Caligari
>
>
> I wonder at times how you can be so certain of your beliefs when I
> experience the opposite of what you are saying???
>
>
> --
> Hope you are well
> Have a nice day
>
> Bruno Tonon
>
> http://www.vespa-house.com.au
> http://www.healthfullifestyle.com
> <depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
> news:1115371749....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > It's like a disease. It's like some disgusting, cloying, malodorous
> > intellectual sickness. The prescribed Landmark/est "way" of reacting,
> > of speaking, of doing things, of seeing the world, and of treating
> > other people is like some corrosive social malady, played out in
> > contrived and depressingly predicatable scenes that seem, at best,
> > nothing so much as a collosal waste of time.
> >
Serena Nordstrup
Bruno Tonon wrote:
> Hi Serena,
> "Serena Nordstrup" <s_nor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1115886043.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi Gerald:
> >
> > Gerald Squelart wrote:
> > > depro...@MailandNews.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I think LEC has its faults, but your over-reaction to someone
telling
> >
> > > about some very good things that have come out of it makes me
think
> > that
> > > LEC is not the only party at fault for your ultra-negative point
of
> > view.
> >
> > I find Ellen pretty positive. Can you give any examples which might
> > objectively suggest she has an "ultra-negative point of view"?
>
> I can understand why you see Ellen pretty positive?????
> Her position on LEC is very logical open and fair.
Agreed; not that that has anything to do with positivity or
negativity...
> The following,
> "It's like a disease. It's like some disgusting, cloying, malodorous
> intellectual sickness. The prescribed Landmark/est "way" of
reacting,
> of speaking, of doing things, of seeing the world, and of treating
other
> people is like some corrosive social malady, played out in
> contrived and depressingly predicatable scenes that seem, at best,
nothing
> so much as a collosal waste of time."
>
> in no way resembles a "Ultra-negative view point"
Comparing ~landmark~ to a disease seems not in the least negative, but
a useful, sustained analogy containing valuable lessons. This positive
contribution towards understanding the functioning of ~landmark~ may
even suggest ways of combatting LGATs. Boldly facing up to the
phenomenon under discussion, Ellen has suggested an analysis of a
perceived problem. That sounds positive to me.
Do you regard people who research disease or who attempt to understand
maladies as negative? Should one not talk about "corrosive social
maladies" in polite society?
Take out the negative elements and see what it sounds like:
> It's like a disease.
It resembles a lack of health.
> It's like some disgusting, cloying, malodorous intellectual sickness.
It resembles some gusting, saccharine, smelly lack of intellectual
health.
> The prescribed Landmark/est "way" of reacting,
> of speaking, of doing things, of seeing the world, and of treating
other
> people is like some corrosive social malady, played out in
> contrived and depressingly predicatable scenes that seem, at best,
nothing
> so much as a collosal waste of time.
The prescribed ~landmark~/est way of acting, of uttering, of performing
actions, of viewing the world, and of dealing with others resembles
some gnawing social epidemic, taking place in artificial and
mentally-crushing pieces of theater that appear, at BEST, to closely
resemble a large squandering of time.
Does that sound better and make more sense from the pruning out of
apparent superficial negativities?
> We can all see how fair and balanced it is?????
Not that fairness and balance have anything intrinsically to do with
positivity or negativity...
> Thank you Serena for pointing this out to me.
Think ~nothing~ of it, Bruno. Positively, positively ~nothing~.
Simpatice
Serena
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115877962....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Gerald writes:
>
>>I'm reading the newsgroup sporadically, and from what I can remember
> in
> recent times, I'm happy with Tex' logic against the constant onslaught
> of anti-LM fanatics.>>
>
>
> Well then, it makes perfect sense that you're also happy with Landmark
> "logic," which isn't anything remotely resembling logic but, what the
> heck - neither is "Tex' logic."
>
> (In good Landmarkian sense, if you, Gerald, call it "logic," does that
> mean for you it ~IS~ logic? Does it matter if it doesn't fall into the
> logic category for anyone else, few others, or only for other
> Landmarkers?)
>
>
>
>>Still using the quotes, I see, does that make you feel superior?
> intriguing, coming from someone posting under a pseudonym...>>
>
>
> Answering for myself, the reason I use quotation marks is because "Tex"
> has about twenty or thirty other identities. He's used many different
> names and pretenses with me.
I only post under the name Tex. In attempting to post at the Rick Ross site,
one's posts are often blocked, and user names often banned, so one must
create a new user in order to continue. Ellen can attack with impunity at
the Rick Ross message board, with little or no accountability. Any attempt
to respond to her screeds were usually censored by the moderators.
I never had close to 20 accounts at Rick Ross, and never more than one at a
time. My last user there was Tex, and when I found I was being read by
Ellen, Glam, Rick and other anti-cultists it was no longer necessary to
create new users and use proxy servers etc.
I think Gerald mentioned that his first and only post at Rickross.com was
also censored.
Rick probably thought you were "Tex," Gerald. Just as Ellen and Glam think
every "poster" that disagrees with them at rickross.com must be me.
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115899463.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Of course, I've brainwashed Gerald. He can no longer think for himself.
{:~D
> What information would an interrogation of Landmarkers get me? I already
> know, with a
> relatively high degree of certainty, what they will say.
No you don't. You don't even understand what Gerald just said. I can see why
you are so deeply confused about what you see and hear.
The Inquisition was an attempt to "deprogram" or reprogram non-Christians,
mostly Jews, to the "Christian" way of thinking.
There are similarities between you, an atheist, and religious fanatics.
Both you and religious fanatics believe your way is the right way. Anyone
else who disagrees is wrong.
In fact, you think people with beliefs different than yours are infected,
diseased, brainwashed robots. You think of them as less than humans, not
worthy of anything but your scorn. That is the nature of a narrow minded
bigot, whether it be a religious fanatic or an anti-cult atheist.
>So far, you've performed right to script. Even dove-tailed your own
sense of yourself into the Landmark jive.
There is no script Ellen. You're truly delusional. Keep posting, your posts
have the opposite effect of that which you intend. Most conscious people see
you for what you are.
>
>
>
> Ellen
>
Tex
Ellen isn't qualified to research mental illness. But she would be a good
case study for NPD Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
http://samvak.tripod.com/msla1.html
<begin quote>
a.. To ensure a constant flow of Narcissistic Supply, the narcissist seeks
to "replicate" his projected self. He becomes addicted to publicity, fame,
and celebrity. Merely observing his "replicated self" - on billboards, TV
screens, book covers, newspapers - sustains the narcissist's feelings of
omnipotence and omnipresence, akin to the ones that he experienced in his
early childhood. The "replicated self" provides the narcissist with an
"existential substitute", proof that he exists - functions normally carried
out by a healthy, well-developed Ego through its interactions with the
outside world (the "reality principle").
a.. In extreme cases of deprivation, when Narcissistic Supply is nowhere
to be found, the narcissist decompensates and disintegrates, even up to
having psychotic micro-episodes (common, for instance, in psychotherapy).
The narcissist also forms or participates in hermetic or exclusive,
cult-like, social circles, whose members share his delusions (Pathological
Narcissistic Space). The function of these acolytes is to serve as a
psychological entourage and to provide "objective" proof of the narcissist's
self-importance and grandeur.
<end quote>
For an example of the "hermetic or exclusive, cult-like, social circles,
whose members share his/her delusions," visit the rickross message board.
{:~D
depro...@mailandnews.com
site,
one's posts are often blocked, and user names often banned, so one must
create a new user in order to continue. Ellen can attack with impunity
at
the Rick Ross message board, with little or no accountability>
ROTFLMAO.......
To whom would you have me account, "Tex?" The ~Church~ of Landmark?
Art Schreiber? Werner? The Board of Registered Para-Psychologists? The
National Association of Cults and LGATs? The Heritage Foundation?
To whom do you "account?"
Ellen
depro...@mailandnews.com
himself>
He's obviously impressionable. Probably why Landmark has had an easy
time of him.
> What information would an interrogation of Landmarkers get me? I
already
> know, with a
> relatively high degree of certainty, what they will say.
No you don't. You don't even understand what Gerald just said. I can
see why
you are so deeply confused about what you see and hear.
The Inquisition was an attempt to "deprogram" or reprogram
non-Christians,
mostly Jews, to the "Christian" way of thinking>
Well, first it was an "inquiry" to find out whether or not a person was
an "infidel," though not a real inquiry, any more than Landmark is an
inquiry.
>There are similarities between you, an atheist, and religious
fanatics.
Both you and religious fanatics believe your way is the right way.
Anyone
else who disagrees is wrong>
Well, I usually just say "agnostic," but "atheist" seems more apropos
in this setting.
I surely disagree with accepting major tracts of religious dogma on
anything so flimsy as faith or belief. I surely disagree with the many
businesses masquerading as religions we have had to endure for most of
the existance of the human race.
>In fact, you think people with beliefs different than yours are
infected,
diseased, brainwashed robots>
No, "Tex." I think people who attend, accept, adopt, defend, promote,
and carry out the Landmark directives are "infected, brainwashed,
robots."
>You think of them as less than humans, not
worthy of anything but your scorn. That is the nature of a narrow
minded
bigot, whether it be a religious fanatic or an anti-cult atheist.
>So far, you've performed right to script. Even dove-tailed your own
sense of yourself into the Landmark jive.
There is no script Ellen. You're truly delusional. Keep posting, your
posts
have the opposite effect of that which you intend. Most conscious
people see
you for what you are>
Thanks. Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
Ellen
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115998403.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You have unfettered access to RR.com's message board. Those that disagree
are censored or banned.
I give you credit for engaging at alt.FAN.landmark though, where a free
exchange of ideas can take place.
>
>
>
> Ellen
>
Tex
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1115999572....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On this we surely agree. But some will disagree with you and me on this
point.
Are we to be so arrogant as to discount the opinions of those that believe
differently than us?
>
>>In fact, you think people with beliefs different than yours are
> infected,
> diseased, brainwashed robots>
>
>
> No, "Tex." I think people who attend, accept, adopt, defend, promote,
> and carry out the Landmark directives are "infected, brainwashed,
> robots."
And do you think anyone that disagrees with you on this topic fits that
description?
I don't promote nor have I carried out any Landmark or Est directives.
They used to encourage people to talk about the Est Training with anyone
that would listen. I thought that was absurd. I never did that, but a few
impressionable followers probably did. You probably had the misfortune to
meet some of these people, and they surely do behave like robots. But there
is a difference between attending a seminar or two and enjoying it and
become an "infected, brainwashed robot."
Did you learn this technique from Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda
for the Third Reich?
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb64.htm
From "The Creators of the World's Misfortunes"
"Humanity would sink into eternal darkness, it would fall into a dull and
primitive state, were the Jews to win this war. They are the incarnation of
that destructive force that in these terrible years has guided the enemy war
leadership in a fight against all that we see as noble, beautiful and worth
keeping. For that reason alone the Jews hate us. They despise our culture
and learning, which they perceive as towering over their nomadic worldview.
They fear our economic and social standards, which leave no room for their
parasitic drives. They are the enemy of our domestic order, which has
excluded their anarchistic tendencies. Germany is the first nation in the
world that is entirely free of the Jews. That is the prime cause of its
political and economic balance. Since their expulsion from the German
national body has made it impossible for them to shake this balance from
within, they lead the nations they have deceived in battle against us from
without. It is fine with them, in fact it is part of their plan, that Europe
in the process will lose a large part of its cultural values. The Jews had
no part in their creation. They do not understand them. A deep racial
instinct tells them that since these heights of human creative activity are
forever beyond their reach, they must attack them today with hatred. The day
is not distant when the nations of Europe, yes, even those of the whole
world, will shout: The Jews are guilty for all our misfortunes! They must be
called to account, and soon and thoroughly!"
Glam
directives.
>They used to encourage people to talk about the Est Training with
anyone
>that would listen. I thought that was absurd. I never did that, but a
few
>impressionable followers probably did.
ROTFLMAO!
Ha ha ha, hoo hoo....wait, hoo...hoo...please tell us the story again
about that time you called some guy (not to "talk about the Est
trainings with anyone who would listen," oh, no, not that) in an effort
to recruit him (while you were busy not recruiting people) and then you
tore up his index card over the phone to reassure him that you wouldn't
be calling to recruit him again (not that that's what you were doing,
of course).
Ha ha! That was such a funny non-recruiting recruiting story!
Caligari
news:Wv-dnb4IJJv...@adelphia.com...
>
> "Bruno Tonon" <bto...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:427f4196$0$8122$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > Hi Ellen,
> >
> >
> > news:1115371749....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>
> >
> > It's like a disease. It's like some disgusting, cloying, malodorous
> > > intellectual sickness. The prescribed Landmark/est "way" of reacting,
> > > of speaking, of doing things, of seeing the world, and of treating
> > > other people is like some corrosive social malady, played out in
> > > contrived and depressingly predicatable scenes that seem, at best,
> > > nothing so much as a collosal waste of time."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
less
> > stressfull after LEC courses and often its easier to clear many of the
> > misunderstandings of the past.
open
> > commuincation life experience that I am presently having with my
> daughter.
> >
> >
> >
have
> > fully misunderstood what they are about.
> >
> >
> >
to
> > discuss matters of the past that had affected and robbed some of the
> bonds
> > of a family relationship that often wither away due to
misunderstandings..
> >
> >
> > that my daughters behaviour has certainly changed for the better both in
> her
> > Family communication and also at her work.
> >
> >
> > spectrum.
> >
> >
> >
> > experience the opposite of what you are saying???
>
> It similar to the prejudice one sees in racism.
This is reaching and probably false. Racism is that biology determines
destiny. Examples are the idea that a white person is destined to be
superior to other races (or Japanese, Germanic, etc.)
What can be seen is that Ellen, even in the pseudonym she chooses
(deprogramm) espouses that people positive about Landmark don't have
volition. They don't think and choose for themselves, and therefore need to
be reprogrammed. It is in many of Ellen's post that Landmark advocates are
just spouting Landmark words and programmed. It is evident in her usage of
the unsubtantiated concept of "brainwashing" which does not in it's
definition correctly apply to Landmark courses (physical coercion is not
present, though an attempt to make persuasion equal to physical coercion is
made.) Some posts also try to make hypnosis into brainwashing -- hypnosis
is volitional. Her rejection and dismissal of the idea of "taking
responsibility" is overreaching. While that idea is misused and turned on
it's head in Landmark ideology, it is not a false idea. People do have
volition and choice -- it is not required they be in a position of victim.
The truth of an event where they were a victim cannot be erased, cleared or
reinvented. But people are volitional and create their values and
actions -- life -- in the present and toward their future, so they can be
not a victim now and/or in the future of a past event. So the main problem
in Ellen's posts is a view that people involved and positive about Landmark
don't have volition or choice.
-- Caligari
>
> <snip>
>
Tex
"Caligari" <irag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:NOCdnTj7tpO...@comcast.com...
I mostly agree with what you have said here. I was commenting on her tone
more than the substance, or as you point out, the lack thereof.
The highly prejudiced stereotyping that Ellen engages in is not much
different than racism. The major difference being one isn't born
"Landmarkian."
Racism doesn't necessarily lead to bigotry. But Ellen displays bigotry
towards those that have been involved with Landmark/Est.
bigot n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or
politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
>
> -- Caligari
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
>
Tex
"Glam" <glama...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116022423.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You've got me there. I guess tearing up the index card of someone who said
no would be following an Est directive. {:~D
Caligari
I'm not sure what you mean here by "lack thereof"? Lack of tone?
> The highly prejudiced stereotyping that Ellen engages in is not much
> different than racism. The major difference being one isn't born
> "Landmarkian."
Communism and Facism ends up treating their citizens similarly, but they are
significantly different. Differences and distinctions are useful and
important to keep though results are similar. Likewise Scientology and
est/Landmark have similarities, but their differences need to be considered
when judging them.
> Racism doesn't necessarily lead to bigotry. But Ellen displays bigotry
> towards those that have been involved with Landmark/Est.
>
> bigot n.
>
> One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or
> politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
>
By this definition racism would lead to bigotry. Can one be a racist and
not partial to one's race?
-- Caligari
> >
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Tex
I would say that one could be partial to one's own race without being
intolerant. It would certainly be a slippery slope on the way to bigotry,
and I would agree this is most often the case.
two definitions for racism
1.. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or
ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Kipling's poem, "The White Man's Burden," as a form of benevolent
Racisim. He was later to be reviled as the poet of British imperialism. I
don't think he was showing intolerance towards Phillipinos for suggesting
the United States help the newly acquired territory "won" in the
Spanish-American War when he wrote "The White Man's Burden." But many are
offended by this poem and think it is Racist.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
>
> -- Caligari
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Caligari
I see, a racist can be tolerant, thanks for clarifying.
-- Caligari
> <snip>
Bruno Tonon
I have taken Serena's guidance here and replied below.
--
Hope you are well
Have a nice day
Bruno Tonon
http://www.vespa-house.com.au
http://www.healthfullifestyle.com
"Caligari" <irag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aN-dnVfl2qx...@comcast.com...
" Well you have to take my word for it.
Do you think I could tell this group the personal intricacies of what was
discussed??? so they can evaluate whether it is relevant or not?????.
You know from your EST experience that you could very easily do that in an
LEC setting, however in this newsgroup, where people claim to know it all
without having experienced or accepted an LEC ambience, it would be
impossible.
Can you explain to me why this is so?????
I think its important to understand this and it may shed light on why we
have these ingrained polaraties of view.
> > I have allways maintained that communication allways seems easier and
less
> > stressfull after LEC courses and often its easier to clear many of the
> > misunderstandings of the past.
>
> You may reach that conclusion. However, the details of your daughter and
> others out of LM resolving misunderstandings is unknown. They can't be
> evaluated as accurately working out misunderstandings or otherwise.
" I find them relevant and meaningful to my life and thats why I quote
them. What is relevant or important to me dosn't necessarily have to be
meaningful to other people. I'm not here to defend LEC, I'm here to defend
the validity of my experiences which I feel others are trying to put shit
on!
> Sometimes the negative evalution of a reliationship is accurate and
> attempting to change that through communication does not work.
" Again you and I cannot be the judge of this and the generalisation is
invalid. The future is not guranteed for any of us???
Each person has to decide for themselves whether they want to pursue this
line of exploration. If it does not work and there is no guarantee that it
will, this then must be taken by the person concerned whether they want to
pursue this path of inquiry further ??"
>
> > I cannot agree with your statements above as it does not fit into my
open
> > commuincation life experience that I am presently having with my
> daughter.
> >
>
> People do not need to agree.
Yes I get that. What I am trying to say is that my daughter did the workshop
and this was the result for me. My experience is taking place in real time
and not in the rantings of what has been reported by others on paper and not
in real time. Ellen to my knowledge has no experience of LEC apart from the
rantings of others.
You on the other hand have, and even though we may disagree with what
happened, there is room on both sides for an acceptance of their positions.
It's not a " It's My way or the Highway type of discussion"
>
> >
> >
> > It shows me that you have never done any of the LEC courses, and also
have
> > fully misunderstood what they are about.
> >
>
> It only shows that you disagree.
"Fine I get that"
>
> >
> >
> > I will allways be eternally grateful that my daughter had the courage
to
> > discuss matters of the past that had affected and robbed some of the
> bonds
> > of a family relationship that often wither away due to
misunderstandings..
>
> Not knowing the details and lacking the ability evaluating this from other
> accounts without an agenda on LM, others cannot necessarily come to the
same
> conclusions or necessarily any judgement.
" I get that , but what would you suggest I do to open up this dialogue. How
can I communicate these experiences with the "Ranters"
>
> >
> > Yes it was Landmark that helped to achieve this.
>
> OK, and that will only reinforce those already believing that.
>
> >
> > Am I going to enrol in an LEC course ??? No however I must acknowledge
> > that my daughters behaviour has certainly changed for the better both in
> her
> > Family communication and also at her work.
>
> Others cannot make that evaluation except to implicitly trust your view.
"Correct. I'm either telling the truth, Lyiing or Misguided."
Can someone show me where I am persuasively ????
>
> >
> >
> > It really does amaze me how we can both sit at different ends of the
> > spectrum.
> >
>
> You may want to think things through rather than be amazed.
"I'm open to guidance here Cal. I am willing to admit to the possibility of
having erred. My belief in my LEC experience is not absolute, and I am
prepared to change my thought patterns when someone shows me the
inaccuracies of my thinking????"
depro...@mailandnews.com
>What can be seen is that Ellen, even in the pseudonym she chooses
(deprogramm) espouses that people positive about Landmark don't have
volition. They don't think and choose for themselves, and therefore
need to
be reprogrammed>
No!
No way, Caligari. Plenty of "volition" in many people's adoption of
Landmark "philosophy," ~tools,~ ~ways-of-being,~ or "technology." I
can't say what the percentage is - it's probably substantial - but many
people just like the ideas, the (imagined) superiority, the "secret"
tricks of the trade, and the expectation of wealth, prominence,
success, or whatever else their fantasies come up with. No, many "buy
into" it, fully volitional, and with the knowledge of what a scummy
organisation it is. They want to be ~confident,~ influential,
"special," ~extraordinary,~ dominant, "alpha dogs." They want to be
super-salesmen, take-charge-kind-of-guys who "determine their own
destiny" by prevailing over others (and getting others to do the work,
make the sacrifices, support them, "honor" them). They want to be seen
as leaders.
No. Landmark followers fall all over the spectrum, from completely
innocent, naive, gullible, friendly, generous, and helpful types to
cunning, ruthless, sociopathic Werner wannabes. In fact, Landmark is
designed to target both extremes - the former being picked for their
"usability," the latter selected-out for positions as "trainers,"
"closers," or Werner Erhard stand-ins.
>It is in many of Ellen's post that Landmark advocates are
just spouting Landmark words and programmed. It is evident in her
usage of
the unsubtantiated concept of "brainwashing" which does not in it's
definition correctly apply to Landmark courses (physical coercion is
not
present, though an attempt to make persuasion equal to physical
coercion is
made.)>
Call it "though reform," "coercive persuasion," "emotional
manipulation," or whatever other words or phrases you like. There have
been many. I call it "brainwashing" or "mind control" because, in my
opinion, those terms are better at getting the idea across. Legally,
the term might be "undue influence," but that just doesn't convey what
I mean with much punch. The tricks are also psychological, varied,
mostly covert these days, and have been used, I'm guessing, as long as
humans have stood upright.
And are you dismissing all the very important work done by people like
Margaret Singer, Richard Ofshe, Robert Lifton, Edgar Schein, Louis
West, John Clark, Michael Langone, Steve Hassan, (to name a few), in
calling brainwashing (or whatever other name you want to use)
"unsubstantiated?"
>Some posts also try to make hypnosis into brainwashing -- hypnosis
is volitional>
In the beginning, yes, people "allow" themselves to be hypnotized. How
much they "allow" after the induction is another issue. Hypnosis is
one of the tactics and works on enough people, especially when combined
with all the other tricks.
>Her rejection and dismissal of the idea of "taking
responsibility" is overreaching>
No, the Landmarkian "concept" of ~responsibility~ is "overreaching."
>While that idea is misused and turned on
it's head in Landmark ideology, it is not a false idea. People do have
volition and choice -- it is not required they be in a position of
victim>
Aw....cut out the Werner/ElRon stuff. People are victimized all the
time.
>The truth of an event where they were a victim cannot be erased,
cleared or
reinvented. But people are volitional and create their values and
actions -- life -- in the present and toward their future, so they can
be
not a victim now and/or in the future of a past event>
I don't know....this just seems kind of silly. And also dismissive of
all the very real tragedy and suffering in the world, only a small
portion of which could probably be categorized as neurotic. People
manage and deal with and prevail in many ways, and reducing their
plight to some simple-minded formulaic est-type nostrum is or may be
both shallow and cruel.
>So the main problem in Ellen's posts is a view that people involved
and positive about Landmark don't have volition or choice>
I don't think you've been reading my posts.
Ellen
Caligari
The difference in a seminar room or any situation where one is in person is
people can look at your behavior and draw conclusions on your honesty. This
is a form of fact demonstrating your honesty of belief. In a written media,
a concept like "my daughter was initiated through a LEC course to resolve
misunderstandings" has nothing to indicate it's honesty and truth. Those
that agree with take it implicitly will take it as accurate and those that
disagree will implicitly see it as false. In writing the proof of a concept
is it's contextual detail. What was in the course, what did she say to you,
etc. Then the concept can be evaluated as accurate or not. Now, I'm not
asking you to divulge details, I'm pointing out the difference from a making
a statement in a seminar room or any situation that is face to face from
writting the statement. I would also say that proof writing requires more
rigorous logic than persuasion in person.
Ellen is using deductive rather inductive logic. Deductive logic needs to
be sound (the inferences from lower concepts to higher and across concepts
need to follow correctly) and has to be confirmed by the evidence of
reality.
>
> You on the other hand have, and even though we may disagree with what
> happened, there is room on both sides for an acceptance of their
positions.
> It's not a " It's My way or the Highway type of discussion"
A position should not be accepted if false. There is nothing inherintely
wrong with "I'ts My way or the Highway."
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It shows me that you have never done any of the LEC courses, and also
> have
> > > fully misunderstood what they are about.
> > >
> >
> > It only shows that you disagree.
>
> "Fine I get that"
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I will allways be eternally grateful that my daughter had the courage
> to
> > > discuss matters of the past that had affected and robbed some of the
> > bonds
> > > of a family relationship that often wither away due to
> misunderstandings..
> >
> > Not knowing the details and lacking the ability evaluating this from
other
> > accounts without an agenda on LM, others cannot necessarily come to the
> same
> > conclusions or necessarily any judgement.
>
>
> " I get that , but what would you suggest I do to open up this dialogue.
How
> can I communicate these experiences with the "Ranters"
>
Consider what the difference is between a seminar room or being in person
with someone and writing to people. Look at how to effective communicate in
the media of writing.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Yes it was Landmark that helped to achieve this.
> >
> > OK, and that will only reinforce those already believing that.
> >
> > >
> > > Am I going to enrol in an LEC course ??? No however I must
acknowledge
> > > that my daughters behaviour has certainly changed for the better both
in
> > her
> > > Family communication and also at her work.
> >
> > Others cannot make that evaluation except to implicitly trust your view.
>
>
> "Correct. I'm either telling the truth, Lyiing or Misguided."
> Can someone show me where I am persuasively ????
No, they can't unless they know you.
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It really does amaze me how we can both sit at different ends of the
> > > spectrum.
> > >
> >
> > You may want to think things through rather than be amazed.
>
>
>
> "I'm open to guidance here Cal. I am willing to admit to the possibility
of
> having erred. My belief in my LEC experience is not absolute, and I am
> prepared to change my thought patterns when someone shows me the
> inaccuracies of my thinking????"
I don't know how you think. And I don't consider that anyone can know
enough from your posts here to determine conclusively your thinking. I may
draw conclusions on fallacies in your writing from it's history; but it is
not a conlusion on your thought process. The requirements are high for the
amount of data to make such an intrusive evaluation and would require in
person knowledge. I would actually dissuade you from seeking guidance and
work on determining the truth of things for yourself regardless of what
others say.
-- Caligari
>
> <snip>
Caligari
respond without taking some time and writing. If you want to take a few or
reduce them to a single statements with definitions that would be workable
for me. I suggest the idea brainwashing and it's definition as one point of
discussion.
-- Caligari
<depro...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:1116034534.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Tex
Bruno Tonon
What does DE Bono in his book "I am Right and you are Wrong" mean when he
says
"There are many highly intelligent people who are poor thinkers. For example
an intelligent person may use his or her thinking simply to defend a point
of view.The more skilled the defence the less does that person ever see a
need to explore the subject, listen to others or generate alternatives. This
is poor thinking"
Do people in this group fit the above definition?????????
If so who are they????
--
Hope you are well
Have a nice day
Bruno Tonon
http://www.vespa-house.com.au
http://www.healthfullifestyle.com
"Serena Nordstrup" <s_nor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1115991508.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bruno Tonon
--
Hope you are well
Have a nice day
Bruno Tonon
http://www.vespa-house.com.au
http://www.healthfullifestyle.com
"Caligari" <irag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:wIKdncd1VPN...@comcast.com...
"Writing may require more rigorous logic I agree however I'm not out to
persuade anyone that they should complete an LEC course. As I have mentioned
before I'm defending my LEC experience and results with my daughter and the
fact that our communication has increased both in value and intensity in
coming to understand each other compared to Ellens rantings and Serena's
analysis of looking for the needle in the haystack on everything that has
been stated."
I have never seen Ellen discuss general principles about LEC to lay some
kind of foundation that one could argue from. She attacks vehemently
anything that smells of LEC and then associates it with ELRon, and therefore
it must be bad!!!!!
I can't see it Cal???????
> > You on the other hand have, and even though we may disagree with what
> > happened, there is room on both sides for an acceptance of their
> positions.
> > It's not a " It's My way or the Highway type of discussion"
>
> A position should not be accepted if false. There is nothing inherintely
> wrong with "I'ts My way or the Highway."
" Well the problem with that position is that you have become prejudice
about any other position except your own. You then do not see a need to
explore the subject any further, listen to others or generate
alternatives??? This is poor thinking!!!! ( From DeBono page 19 I'm
right you are wrong)"
Fine,but how can you persuade anyone about a +ve emotional experience?????
unless they try it on for themselve's?????
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes it was Landmark that helped to achieve this.
> > >
> > > OK, and that will only reinforce those already believing that.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Am I going to enrol in an LEC course ??? No however I must
> acknowledge
> > > > that my daughters behaviour has certainly changed for the better
both
> in
> > > her
> > > > Family communication and also at her work.
> > >
> > > Others cannot make that evaluation except to implicitly trust your
view.
> >
> >
> > "Correct. I'm either telling the truth, Lyiing or Misguided."
> > Can someone show me where I am persuasively ????
>
> No, they can't unless they know you.
I get that too.
Its my name on the Email and their are websites next to my name so I have
nothing to hide. If you came to Melbourne Australia you could find me
instantaneously. Most members in this group don't supply that kind of
information???
If they really believe the talk and their viewpoints why aren't people more
open in who they are??????
I can't understand that either unless they have other Agenda's????
I think I have been open and honest in all of my dealings with the
group?????
depro...@mailandnews.com
the forefront any time something like the Heaven's Gate suicides occur.
It's a good article and a good example - all the better to illustrate
the point. It might be easier to see if you have no personal
involvement.
(Seems like you might want to read Margaret Singer's book. It doesn't
sound like you've looked at it. Only the earlier editions have the
Landmark material.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLUMN ONE; Free Will, or Thought Control?; Were the deaths of Heaven's
Gate members the result of brainwashing? The debate reflects larger
cultural questions about the role of choice and the issue of
victimization.;
TERENCE MONMANEY. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 4, 1997.
pg. 1
Subjects: Suicides & suicide attempts, Religious cults,
Brainwashing
Companies: Heavens Gate
Document types: News
Section: PART-A; Metro Desk
ISSN/ISBN: 04583035
Text Word Count 2524
Document URL:
Abstract (Document Summary)
West and others believe that members of "totalist" religious cults are
subjected to a form of psychological manipulation known as undue
influence, coercive persuasion or thought reform. And their analysis of
Heaven's Gate practices, from the insistence that members forsake
family to the minute-by-minute schedules they had to keep, suggest that
the cult was structured to undermine individuals' identities, leaving
them to ignore misgivings and ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
depro...@mailandnews.com
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/users/fennell/highland/harper/millenial5.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1997 Times Mirror Company
Los Angeles Times
View Related Topics
April 4, 1997, Friday, Home Edition
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Metro Desk
LENGTH: 3387 words
HEADLINE: COLUMN ONE;
FREE WILL, OR THOUGHT CONTROL?;
WERE THE DEATHS OF HEAVEN'S GATE MEMBERS THE RESULT OF BRAINWASHING?
THE DEBATE REFLECTS LARGER CULTURAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE OF CHOICE
AND THE ISSUE OF VICTIMIZATION.
BYLINE: TERENCE MONMANEY, TIMES MEDICAL WRITER
BODY:
In those now-familiar sun-washed video farewells, the members of
Heaven's Gate said they had made up their own minds. Even the parents
of one young man found among the purple-shrouded dead tried to reassure
us about what happened in Rancho Santa Fe, issuing a statement saying
"he was happy, healthy and acting under his own volition."
But despite claims that the 38 followers who committed suicide last
week were not brainwashed or bullied by their wild-eyed leader, there
is evidence to the contrary. Far from being freely thought-out final
acts, the suicides are seen by some mental health experts and cult
scholars as largely the result of a sustained, calculated and ruthless
program of psychological coercion.
"I see them as victims of a hoax," said Dr. Louis J. West, a UCLA
psychiatrist and cult watcher. "There was villainy here."
West and others believe that members of "totalist" religious cults are
subjected to a form of psychological manipulation known as undue
influence, coercive persuasion or thought reform. And their analysis of
Heaven's Gate practices, from the insistence that members forsake
family to the minute-by-minute schedules they had to keep, suggest that
the cult was structured to undermine individuals' identities, leaving
them to ignore misgivings and do the group's bidding no matter how
irrational.
However, the role of "thought reform" in cult behavior is hotly
disputed in academic circles. Some scholars challenge the idea of
psychological manipulation, arguing that followers are drawn to a cult
by its philosophy, as are observers of mainstream religions.
"I'm very dubious of the psychological interpretation" of the Heaven's
Gate suicides, said Richard Hecht, chairman of religious studies at UC
Santa Barbara. A person is attracted to a cult because it espouses a
"convincing narrative" in which the follower "finds meaning," he says.
By implication, a follower is not passively brainwashed but actively
"buys into" the message.
The question of free will in the Heaven's Gate deaths is more than
academic: It shapes our emotional reaction to the event, perhaps the
largest mass suicide ever in the United States. Beyond that, it
reflects a struggle at the core of contemporary society.
It's commonly said that Americans too often avoid personal
responsibility by claiming to be victims. Advocates of welfare reform
argue that cutting federal aid breaks cycles of defeatist dependence.
Many obstetricians say they can hardly afford to stay in practice
because of malpractice suits from parents blaming their baby's defects
on their doctors. Talk shows are an orgy of finger-pointing, with one
guest after another shouting that their faults are someone else's
fault.
But the irony would be painful, others say, if legitimate concerns
about what has been called the "cult of victimization" numbed us to the
possibility that some who died in Rancho Santa Fe were indeed the
victims of a cult.
Divergent Impressions of Cult Members
People who recently encountered Heaven's Gate, which was started in the
mid-1970s by Bonnie Lu Trusdale Nettles and Marshall Herff Applewhite,
whose body also was found in the rented hillside mansion, have
divergent impressions of the cult's hold over members. A Rancho Santa
Fe neighbor, businessman Anthony Demopoulos, recalled that cultists he
met were slow-talking, deliberate, almost robotic in their actions.
"They were not normal people," he said. "Something was done to them."
Demopoulos especially noticed that one cultist, John Craig, who was
known as "Brother Logan," held sway over the others. "He would never
let them even be on the phone alone to talk to me. They couldn't
breathe without him."
In contrast, Beverly Hills computer businessman Nick Matzorkis, who
employed about a dozen cult members to design World Wide Web sites, had
the impression that they were not being coerced. His employee Richard
Ford, or "Rio," is the former cultist who discovered the bodies.
"The one thing that's been made very clear to me in conversations with
Rio is that anyone was free to leave at any time," Matzorkis said.
"They never had any restrictions if someone wanted to leave the group."
He added: "They were good, smart, well-intentioned people and they
believed so strongly . . . that they were willing to give their lives
for it."
Since the suicides, experts have hastened to point out that cults are
not composed only of marginal people. "It isn't just the crazies and
crackpots who become cult members," said Marybeth Ayella, a sociologist
at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia, who has studied extremist
cults in California. "It's often otherwise normal people who are
approached and recruited."
Researchers say that cults tend to prefer sophisticated recruits, the
better to woo them with fanciful pseudointellectual notions.
A noted authority on deception, magician James "Amazing" Randi, said
that sophisticates are often easier to deceive than street-smart folks
or, for that matter, kids. "Children are notoriously hard to fool," he
said, adding that youngsters do not know enough logic to be taken in by
logic-defying tricks.
Randi, author of "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds & Hoaxes of the
Occult & Supernatural," said that recruiters working for deceptive
cults use a psychological strategy similar to that of confidence men:
Giving the "target" a chance to share in an illicit gain. A con man
offers a piece of tax-free action; a cult recruiter "says that out of
all the people on Earth, you're going to be one of the selected few who
ride the spaceship to heaven."
Comparisons to Religious Beliefs
On the theory that one person's religion is another's cult, many
scholars argue that there is little rational difference between the
beliefs espoused by mainstream Christianity and, say, Heaven's Gate.
The resurrection of Christ, though attested to in the Gospels, is no
more verifiable than is the cultists' belief that they would become
intergalactic gardeners.
Hecht, of UC Santa Barbara, says that cults and religions put forth
"symbolic narratives" that make untestable claims to "ultimate truth."
And both serve a not always pleasant function of dividing a community
into "those on the inside and those on the outside." A cult, he says,
is essentially a religion that you don't like or understand.
But Hal French, religious studies scholar at the University of South
Carolina, says that cults often purvey a sense of "spiritual paranoia,"
on the one hand, and are generally headed by a messianic figure
claiming to have a lock on the truth. That is in contrast to most
traditional religions, in which the important texts are open to all.
Moreover, he said, "churches try to help people live in the world, not
take them out of it, help them find meaning and not segregate
themselves into tight little islands that are not subject to the checks
and balances most of us encounter."
Some psychologists say that followers of mainstream religions often
engage in what ethicists call informed consent: You evaluate the
primary beliefs, texts, and rituals before you make a commitment to
join in and worship. By contrast, followers of religious cults are not
quite sure what they are getting into. As one Heaven's Gate member
wrote on the Internet, "conceptual understandings are given to us only
on a 'need to know' basis."
The Heaven's Gate recruitment practices appear to have been low-key.
The group used posters, newspaper ads, satellite TV and the Internet to
advertise meetings and disseminate ideas. People who wanted to follow
up left word and were later contacted from one of the group's
ever-shifting redoubts.
Anyone who has been buttonholed on the street by a member of a
religious cult and offered free literature or a chance to go on a
weekend retreat--all standard come-ons--can appreciate that the
Heaven's Gate approach was relatively laid-back. (In contrast to some
New Age self-awareness cults, extremist forms espouse radically
unorthodox views and demand total loyalty or subservience.)
Robert Balch, a University of Montana sociologist who briefly
infiltrated the then-fledgling cult in 1975 and has studied it
extensively, described the group's tactics in a 1994 article. The
leaders, he said, "emphasized the importance of free choice" in
recruitment. "Seekers had to want membership in the next kingdom more
than anything else. Those who had to be persuaded obviously weren't
ready to leave the planet."
Nonetheless, experts say that extremist cults practically never engage
in pressure tactics at first. A typical used car salesman, they say,
comes on stronger in the first meeting than a cult recruiter, who is
more likely to employ flattery than fire and brimstone.
"There's no hard sell," said Margaret Thaler Singer, a clinical
psychologist and author of the 1995 book "Cults in Our Midst." She
estimated there are 5,000 cults in the United States "and none do hard
sell. They cajole people in, they're seductive."
Balch contrasts Heaven's Gate's seemingly low-pressure recruitment with
the "systematic social influence processes" used to engender commitment
once a person joined up. Members were subjected to "a highly regimented
lifestyle where personal freedom was not permitted and independent
thinking was replaced with what a member characterized as
'crew-mindedness.' "
While the "UFO cult" was "an extreme case of religious totalism where
activities were prescribed literally down to the minute," members were
not "coerced," Balch says. "They remained free to leave at any time,
and some did."
But being allowed to leave isn't the same as having free will, says
Singer. She said that indoctrinated members of extremist cults
generally "are really not free to leave in the psychological sense."
Emotional attachments to fellow members, fear of the leaders, fear over
abandoning loved ones and dependence on the cult for food, money and
shelter create hard-to-break bonds, said Singer, who has interviewed
4,000 active and former cult members, including some from Heaven's
Gate. She believes the Heaven's Gate suicides were the result of
brainwashing or "thought reform," of repeated drills and lectures about
the "next level" that "desensitized" members to conventional ideas
about death.
She recalled former Heaven's Gate members who had been psychologically
blackmailed. "They were told that if they turned their back, their
nearest and dearest would be hurt or would die. They would be 'breaking
the faith with the whole intergalactic system.' "
Motives of Leader Mysterious
It is not immediately obvious what Applewhite got out of leading
Heaven's Gate. Unlike other cult heads, the celibate, ascetic
Applewhite, 66, did not appear to be in it for money, sex or access to
movie stars. Also unlike some cult leaders, he seemed to believe in the
ideas he espoused.
Psychiatrists and psychologists suggest that he suffered from untreated
mental disorders, ranging from anxiety over his ambivalent sexuality to
paranoia and delusions. None of these experts examined Applewhite. But
their diagnoses are less important than the overall theory that the
grandiose persona that he created for himself somehow eased his mind.
As Singer put it, Applewhite was living in a fantasy world, and it must
have made him feel better to have others in it.
Critics of the purely psychological explanation for the cult phenomenon
do not dispute that many cult leaders have megalomania. They just place
much more emphasis on members' willingness to participate in it.
Hecht discounts "the psychology of the group's leaders" and instead
focuses on the "ability of the leader to articulate a powerful,
convincing narrative in which the individuals found meaning."
Applewhite's narrative, he said, appealed to his followers because it
suggested that the "cosmos is not empty, that there are positive forces
in the universe that want to do best by us."
As for the suicides, Hecht said he did not regard the members as
"victims." He makes no judgment as to whether the cultists'
understanding of heaven was wise or reasonable and takes their final
act at face value: eagerness for another life.
"A person buys into a narrative or not," he says. "There's a mutual
responsibility for those who act out narratives." Hecht objects to the
"thought reform" camp for moral reasons. "If you buy into the
psychological interpretation, it ultimately frees us of responsibility
for our actions."
There is perhaps a middle ground between viewing this largely
incomprehensible group suicide as either an expression of brainwashing
or especially powerful storytelling. Stanton Peele, a clinical
psychologist specializing in addiction treatment and theory in
Morristown, N.J., compares it to drug use. Though belonging to the
group was ultimately destructive, he says it must have also been
rewarding in the sense that a narcotic or even alcohol can temporarily
allay anxieties. Not everyone who tries heroin becomes addicted, he
said, and not everyone exposed to an extremist cult's "thought reform"
techniques is captivated.
In this view, the microscopic control exerted over the group members'
lives becomes for some susceptible people a kind of psychological or
emotional salve. "Obviously," said Peele, author of the book "Diseasing
of America," a critique of rampant victimhood, "the reassurance and
predictability of group membership was something that they very deeply
sought and they were willing to give up everything for it."
Some support for that theory was furnished by a former Heaven's Gate
member, Justin Cooke, whose wife was among the dead. "We wanted our
brains washed," he told CBS. "There's a lot of joy in it."
Times staff writers Greg Krikorian, Stephanie Simon and John Dart
contributed to this story.
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
Thought Reform Methods
Clinical psychologist Margaret Thaler Singer, a professor emeritus at
UC Berkeley and author of the 1995 book "Cults in Our Midst," has
identified six methods common to cults that engage in "thought reform,"
which wards off individual doubts, erodes identity, fosters group bonds
and engenders obedience. Here are those techniques and corresponding
Heaven's Gate rules or activities:
Keep members unaware of actual agenda.
Among the "offenses" outlined in a cult rule book appearing on the
Internet were "second-guessing or jumping ahead of my teachers,"
"trusting my own judgment," "putting myself first" and "having
inappropriate curiosity."
Control time and physical environment.
One ex-member told a socioloigist that there was a "procedure for every
conscious moment of life," including a schedule that had one woman
bathing at 5:57 p.m., drinking a protein shake at 6:36 and going to bed
for two hours at 9:54.
Create a sense of powerlessness, fear and dependency.
Heaven's Gate required members to give up belongings and outside
incomes. And a woman interviewed by The Times in 1975 said that the
leaders, then known as Bo and Peep, used fear tactics, "telling us the
spirit entities would kill or maim or harm our friends and loved ones
if we didn't go along with them."
Suppress old behaviors and attitudes.
Members were required to abandon loved ones, jobs, hometowns and
clothing, and to change their names.
Instill new behaviors and attitudes.
Members wore short-cropped hair and uniforms, lived in houses with
fellow "classmates" and studied such esoterica as "the Evolutionary
Kingdom Level Above Human."
Put forth a closed system of logic and authoritarian structure.
As a member's Internet memoir put it: "Timetables and even conceptual
understandings are given to us only on a 'need to know' basis.... The
premature introduction of more advanced concepts and understandings
early on would have completely 'blown' the circuitry of the
comparitively primitive human computers brains we were using."
GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC-CHART: Thought Reform Methods, Los Angeles Times
PHOTO: (...)
LANGUAGE: English
LOAD-DATE: December 21, 1998
Copyright© 2000, LEXIS-NEXIS, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All
Rights Reserved.
Serena Nordstrup
Whether or not Ellen has appropriate qualifications to research mental
illness, does one need qualifications to research before one can
comment on things that resemble disease or "corrosive social maladies"
?
Whether or not Ellen has appropriate qualifications to research mental
illness, can we discuss in the abstract "people who research disease or
who attempt to understand maladies" ?
Simpatice
Serena
rick...@rickross.com
The message board at the Ross Institute website is moderated.
There are rules that are posted, which everyone who posts agrees to in
advance before posting.
See http://forum.rickross.com/rules.php
Those who simply post flames and/or rant on and on are banned.
Most often someone is banned for wasting space on the board with long
rants, which become repetitious and frankly boring.
This type of borish chanting about some group or guru puts people off
who actually want to dialog and exchange ideas.
There is quite a bit of back and forth debate on the board, but some
people have abuse this by simply becoming insulting and abusive.
Instead of dialog they post insults (flames) and drone on with the same
responses over and over again.
People who want to harass members on the Ross Insitute message board
often become frustrated by being banned. Apparently according to at
least one post here they may be so fanatical that they are willing to
attempt fraud and pose as a new user rather than move on.
Typically the fraud is found out quickly and the alias discovered,
leading to yet another banning.
Such antics tell you something about the type of people that are
complaining here about the posted rules.
Rick A. Ross
www.rickross.com
Serena Nordstrup
>
> What does DE Bono in his book "I am Right and you are Wrong" mean
when he
> says
>
>
> "There are many highly intelligent people who are poor thinkers. For
example
> an intelligent person may use his or her thinking simply to defend a
point
> of view.The more skilled the defence the less does that person ever
see a
> need to explore the subject, listen to others or generate
alternatives. This
> is poor thinking"
I don't detect any esoteric meanings in this extract from De Bono. Whay
do't you ask him what he means?
> Do people in this group fit the above definition?????????
Perhaps.
> If so who are they????
Since you ask, the analysis reminds me faintly of Bruno.
Simpatice
Serena
Tex
<rick...@rickross.com> wrote in message
news:1116073157.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> To whom it may concern:
>
> The message board at the Ross Institute website is moderated.
>
> There are rules that are posted, which everyone who posts agrees to in
> advance before posting.
>
> See http://forum.rickross.com/rules.php
>
> Those who simply post flames and/or rant on and on are banned.
>
> Most often someone is banned for wasting space on the board with long
> rants, which become repetitious and frankly boring.
Rick is easily bored by those that shed light on the subject matter, as
opposed to those that walk lock-step with his myopic, narrow view of the
world and the subject matter at hand.
Rick talks about his rules, but he has had trouble following the rules of
civil society. He is a convicted felon and also a misdemeanor conviction. He
was acquitted of kidnapping but later lost a multi-million dollar lawsuit
for the same offense. He was even sued by his own aunt, for a business deal
gone bad.
Several others on alt.FAN.landmark have tried to "dialogue" at the RR.com
message board. Their posts were blocked. Perhaps they'd like to "share"
their experiences with the rest of the group. {:~D
Tex
People are certainly free to comment. Everyone has an opinion. But let's not
confuse opinion with any serious form of research. Someone truly researching
does not start with an opinion immutably formed. Their prejudice views
colors all the data they view, impartiality is lost.
Glam
>said no would be following an Est directive. {:~D
LOL! Oh, Tex, you're so independent! Such a rebel! Such an original
thinker! Of course, you never stop to consider WHY you were working the
phones trying to recruit for est in the first place, despite all your
protestations about never recruiting people for est or following any
est directives.
Oh, at first you claimed you got nobody involved...
Then it was just a couple of friends...
But in the course of conversation you forget what you've claimed
before, and admit to working the phones when trying to make a point
about "no meaning no!"
Your posts are a continuing dance of self-delusion...a textbook example
of what happens to the mind when too heavily involved with a cult.
Not that you're involved, of course....just have this full-time job
defending est and Landmark online...20-odd years later, you're still so
obsessed you're one of the top posters here of all time, in a very
short amount of time.
Keep going. Your delusions, rants and contradictions are a good
education for readers.