This issue keeps coming up, especially in my face, that anyone who questions the existance of Lazaris, or the value of the materials MUST be mentally ill, paranoid, unhappy, suffering from sour grape syndrome, or whatever.

Has it ever occurred to you true believers that questioning is a healthy and happy thing?

It must be a hard concept, given how Con:Sin judges and punishes anyone who shows any signs of free and independent thought.

I've been asked by a few faithful, about doubting Lazaris' existence, character or whatever, "Who would want you to believe that?". Um, could it be ..."negative ego"? Reminds me of Dana Carvey's Saturday Night Live character, Church Lady, who so often asks, "could it be ...Satan?".

The cult party line is that anyone who is sane and decent would get with the program. Isn't it wonderful how people who don't know us do know that we need help and they're offering to provide it? That's really loving. Maybe the person who succeeds in getting us back into the fold will be rewarded with the coveted private session with Lazaris... Surely they won't need to return to the physical plane. They can spend the rest of eternity playing with Lazaris and Peny! God who...?

"Who would want to know?" indeed!

How about a healthy questioning mind and soul? And for me personally - the part of me that would prefer to know if I'm being manipulated, lied to, or defrauded. Negative ego I guess. What bullshit! Ignorance is not bliss IMO. And blind faith isn't either.
Truth whether it is painful or not is preferable. I have faced disillusionment of something I believed in for many years, and while my awakening wasn't entirely fun, I'm grateful that I did wake up to what was happening around me enough to break away. Pardon a quote from Lazaris but to be willing to be wrong in search of what is right, a concept that is quite valuble. Too much stuff swept under the rug and eventually that pile under there was getting pretty distracting, even if it was concealed by the pretty patterns on the wool.
May we all honor our own authoritah!
I once asked L about my skepticism. He said nothing wrong with that - just be skeptical of my skepticism. And I was. It was valuble to me to examine my motivations for my skepticism.
Did I want to be deluded? NO! And was it out of being cynical? NO again! For me it is the unexamined conflicts that can give rise to cynacism. Much of my life has been about discovering my spirituality, and questioning - honoring my discernment, and being willing to go on has been important. I recognize that I have given my power away before but I am determined that I will not do that again. That is the crux of what has been so valuble to me about this site. I see others that are going through this process and it gives me heart as well as a deeper knowing that I am not insane to have been disturbed by - for example the outrageous crystal hawking. I will not dismiss my thoughts and feelings with a tidy little - oh bad me I must be in neg. ego, listening to the trickster, nemisis or other convenient label to discount myself.

A curious aspect of the material is that while it is stated that love/positivity are more powerful than the negative, the convoluted nature of the way all the negative parts of ourselves are presented gives another impression altogether. Seemingly unending aspects to unravel.

quote:

---

A curious aspect of the material is that while it is stated that love/positivity are more powerful than the negative, the convoluted nature of the way all the negative parts of ourselves are presented gives another impression altogether. Seemingly unending aspects to unravel.

---

Yes, this is the way of cults, to pump endless streams of information but none of it ever leads anywhere but back into the information.

Lazaris presents us with a maze that has no exit. The "be skeptical even of your skepticism" is a perfect example. When do we actually allow ourselves to resolve our skepticism? I thought we were developing self-trust, and discriminating thinking.

Good news for Jach's bank account not to mention his desire for status and power.

This is one of my biggest reasons for believing that Jach and Lazaris are one and the same, or at the very best that Lazaris works for Jach, not for us.

I think when Lazaris says "we will love you forever and a day", they mean "you will have to pay forever and a day". Pretty words used to describe a beyond life sentence.

I took the liberty of copying a more detailed outline of Steve Hassan's BITE method for evaluating a group to see if it fits the model for a cult or destructive mind control group.

Anyone who hasn't read this yet might recognize a few things. And thanks to Jach's perfectly modeled handling of the recent deaths, the pile under that rug becomes even bigger and harder not to trip on.

quote:

---

I. Behavior Control

1. Regulation of individual’s physical reality

a. Where, how and with whom the member lives and associates with
b. What clothes, colors, hairstyles the person wears
c. What food the person eats, drinks, adopts, and rejects
d. How much sleep the person is able to have
e. Financial dependence
f. Little or no time spent on leisure, entertainment, vacations

2. Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals

3. Need to ask permission for major decisions

4. Need to report thoughts, feelings and activities to superiors

5. Rewards and punishments (behavior modification techniques- positive and negative).

5. Individualism discouraged; group think prevails

6. Rigid rules and regulations

7. Need for obedience and dependency

II. Information Control

1. Use of deception

a. Deliberately holding back information
b. Distorting information to make it acceptable
c. Outright lying

2. Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged

a. Books, articles, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio
b. Critical information
c. Former members
d. Keep members so busy they don’t have time to think

3. Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines

a. Information is not freely accessible
b. Information varies at different levels and missions within pyramid
c. Leadership decides who "needs to know" what

4. Spying on other members is encouraged

a. Pairing up with "buddy" system to monitor and control
b. Reporting deviant thoughts, feelings, and actions to leadership

5. Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda

a. Newsletters, magazines, journals, audio tapes, videotapes, etc.
b. Misquotations, statements taken out of context from non-cult sources

6. Unethical use of confession

a. Information about "sins" used to abolish identity boundaries
b. Past "sins" used to manipulate and control; no forgiveness or absolution

III. Thought Control

1. Need to internalize the group’s doctrine as "Truth"

a. Map = Reality
b. Black and White thinking
c. Good vs. evil
d. Us vs. them (inside vs. outside)

2. Adopt "loaded" language (characterized by "thought-terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words".

3. Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged.

4. Thought-stopping techniques (to shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts); rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism.

a. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking
b. Chanting
c. Meditating
d. Praying
e. Speaking in "tongues"
f. Singing or humming

5. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate

6. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful

IV. Emotional Control

1. Manipulate and narrow the range of a person’s feelings.

2. Make the person feel like if there are ever any problems it is always their fault, never the leader’s or the group’s.

3. Excessive use of guilt

a. Identity guilt

1. Who you are (not living up to your potential)
2. Your family
3. Your past
4. Your affiliations
5. Your thoughts, feelings, actions

b. Social guilt
c. Historical guilt

4. Excessive use of fear

a. Fear of thinking independently
b. Fear of the "outside" world
c. Fear of enemies
d. Fear of losing one’s "salvation"
e. Fear of leaving the group or being shunned by group
f. Fear of disapproval

5. Extremes of emotional highs and lows.

6. Ritual and often public confession of "sins".

7. Phobia indoctrination : programming of irrational fears of ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader’s authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group.

a. No happiness or fulfillment "outside"of the group
b. Terrible consequences will take place if you leave: "hell"; "demon possession"; "incurable diseases"; "accidents"; "suicide"; "insanity"; "10,000 reincarnations"; etc.
c. Shunning of leave takers. Fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family.
d. Never a legitimate reason to leave. From the group’s perspective, people who leave are: "weak"; "undisciplined"; "unspiritual"; "worldly"; "brainwashed by family, counselors"; seduced by money, sex, rock and roll.

---

Read through, and ponder that fact that even though most of us will see some definitions that don't fit Con:Sin, the employees and those closest to the organization won't.

My opinion is that anyone who is in the business of dispensing spiritual advice goes in corrupt, and the corruption continues and evolves as the ego strokes and money start pouring in.

All of the cult signs might not be present in the beginning, but as time moves on their evolution becomes inevitable. It is the only way to keep people coming back, especially when the material has it's limits, but the lust and greed do not.

Thanks for writing Oakspirit! I really enjoyed your post and celebrate your freedom!

Katie

The continual SELF-PERPETUATED doubt that is just put into motion, and then tweaked from time to time, by all of the negative ego, martyr, nemesis, etc. etc. conditioning, is amazing when you look at it like that. Like, as you mentioned, Oakspirit, IMMEDIATELY being "self-correcting" when you have doubts about the "hawking" of the crystals -- must be something wrong with me.

The list of cult tactics/traits is very freeing, but also kind of scary, when you think about how many organizations or so-called leaders use, perhaps unconsciously, many of these tactics.

And we do seem to be geared, as human beings, to susceptibility to this kind of thing. There are some experiments performed in the 1970s, among others, that I think are very pertinent to many of the threads on this board. I take the liberty of posting a synopsis here:

"Obedience to authority

The most impressive and appalling studies in this area were done by Stanley Milgram (1974). They are famous studies. Milgram's intent was to see how much harm ordinary people would do to another person if directed and urged to do so by an authority (a psychologist asking them to shock a person when he/she gave a wrong answer in a learning experiment). Actually, no one was shocked but the subjects obviously believed they were hurting another participant in the experiment. The shock was to be increased with every mistake. To do this there were 30 switches at 15-volt intervals labeled as follows: Slight shock (15-60 volts), Moderate shock (75-120 volts), etc. on up to Extreme-intensity shock (315-360 volts), DANGER--severe shock (375-420 volts), and XXX (435-450 volts). Most of us would assume that our friends and relatives wouldn't do such a mean, dangerous thing. Certainly, we wouldn't. Especially if the person being shocked in the next room started moaning (at 75 volts) and then yelling, "Hey, that really hurts" (at 120 volts) and then at 150 volts, "Experimenter, get me out of here!...I refuse to go on!" At 180 volts the victim cries, "I can't stand the pain." Later, there are agonized screams after every shock and he pounds on the wall pleading with you...and finally at 330 volts the subject falls silent. When the shocker wants to stop the psychologist simply says, "Please continue" or "You must go on." What do most people do?

Amazingly, 65% of the subjects went all the way to 450 volts! In fact, every one of the 40 subjects administered at least 300 volts! Milgram wrote, "Many subjects will obey the experimenter no matter how vehement the pleading of the person being shocked...It is the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority that constitutes the chief finding of this study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation." The subjects administering the shock were not sadistic monsters nor very angry nor prejudiced against the learner nor indifferent (they appeared to be very stressed).

So, why or how do we humans do such things? Milgram says the subjects (1) became absorbed in pleasing the authority and doing their assignment just right, (2) denied their responsibility, "the experimenter was a Ph. D." or just like Lt. Calley or Adolf Eichmann, many of the subjects said, "I wouldn't have done it by myself, I was just doing what I was told," (3) started to believe that the experiment was vitally important and that the pursuit of truth is a "noble cause" (even though someone has to suffer), (4) blamed the victim, "he was so stupid and stubborn he deserved to get shocked," and, most importantly, (5) just couldn't bring themselves to act on their values and defy authority.

This deference to authority is a serious problem, not just in terms of kowtowing to government officials, but also to "experts," doctors, bosses, owners, authors, and many others who are eager to tell you what to do."

I took this from the following website:
http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap8/chap8c.htm

The heading addresses the question: What Makes Us So Dependent? There's lots more, and I recommend it. We need to know! (Reminds me of what I've heard of the Forum, folks.)

I think, of course, of the mass hysteria that was Nazi Germany, as is mentioned. There is also the phenomenon known as The Stockholm Syndrome (after a real hostage situation that occurred in Stockholm). In that situation, as in many others (Patty Hearst), the people who are held as hostages, and are in danger of pain or death, will often defend their captors in some way. (Lots of stuff about this on the Net, also.)

Milgram was a very well-known researcher. You will find him in most psychology books, and there is a lot available on the web. This information, I think, contains all of the elements for anyone wishing to indulge in any level of controlling others. Another famous study, The Stanford Prison Experiment, was conducted at Stanford U. by Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo and colleagues. In this situation, people were hired to go into an environment for several days which would mimic a prison. Some would be guards, and some would be prisoners. Everyone knew that they were all actually "normal" people playing roles for which they were instructed. Needless to say, the guards really got into it! I highly recommend reading about this -- one site I found is from Dr. Zimbardo's own website: http://www.prisonexp.org/

I know this is really long. I am very charged up about all this. I am urging myself, and others, to be passionate about becoming very knowledgable about what goes on in our psyches. There are A LOT of people out there who know all this stuff, and a lot more, who DO NOT have our well-being in mind. And even if they did, who wants a "benevolent" controller?

I have found sites that talk about the military delving into these things, among others that I am concerned about.

On a slightly (ever-so-slightly, I'm afraid) different note, I close with something that has just recently occurred to me. Sometime back in the 80s, I think maybe around 1984 (!) or '85, Lazaris' accent, and even his voice -- his use of voice, one might say -- changed fairly dramatically. His "early" accent was actually more bizarre, and a lot thicker -- much more unusual. It wasn't overnight, but it was fairly quick. Lazaris himself felt the need to explain, saying that he was learning how to use the channel and language, and voice, better, etc. -- continuing to grow in his ability to relate and communicate with us. However ---
Anyone have any remembrance about this, any thoughts, any better info?

Thanks for all the info and links. Very interesting stuff. It certainly seems to be what happened in Forum Storm.

I wonder if the subjects would have been so complient if complience meant inflicting pain on themselves? I'm sure some would - anorexia comes to mind. But I suspect that there would be much less complience in that situation.

About "Lazaris'" accent: I did notice the change. We have several very old tapes that are difficult to understand. Maybe Jach took some acting lessons during that time?

I think Servant is going through a similar transformation as we speak...

This is wonderful information you provide, to me it's so much more important for us to explore and evaluate the dynamic of interaction we have had/are having with Jachzaris than to figure out the exact nature of that entity.

It doesn't matter to me ultimately whether it is some extra-terrestrial, or Jach himself. It's well and truly about time for us to start looking at what is going on here.

This information on how the human mind can be influenced is vital to us, far and beyond our interactions with Con:Sin. We see right here in our little group how the dynamic of authority can work to influence others, and how it has a tremendous ability to be used to control and manipulate.

I haven't read the studies you've linked to yet, so I'm wondering if there is any thought given to how we can learn to exercise our mental muscle to avoid falling prey to such powerful influences.

I've also been realizing another strong mind influencing POWER, and that is "Love".

I swear, all some people need to fall into a deep trance is to hear that word.

We see this all the time in abusive relationships, where all the abuser has to do is shift into "but I love you so much" mode to get the victim all mushy and weakminded. It's as though nothing is more important to us than being "loved", even if the "love" is served up with a healthy helping of broken bones, or shattered souls.

Maybe it's because we desperately seek from others that which we don't believe we can provide ourselves.

Authority and love would be two big areas where a lot of people have problems.

If I don't trust my self to act on my own authority, then I need someone else to do that to me. It's a security issue and we see it in infants, who begin testing the waters almost immediately to determine who is in charge. Babies and small children are smart enough to know that they aren't so they make it their business to find out who is. Maybe when they discover, as many do, that it ain't their parents, they spend the rest of their lives seeking someone who will provide that sense of security they never got from their parents. Does this make any sense?

Maybe if we take the time to realize that we are no longer in need of someone else to provide that kind of security, we can then begin to act upon our own authority and stop the endless quest for someone else's.

As to love, I think it's the same thing. Everyone wants to love and be loved, but we just don't know exactly what that is given the mixed messages we've received throughout our lives. We just know that when someone is telling us that they love us, we feel wonderful, so wonderful that we're willing to pay almost any price to have it again.

When we are loving ourselves, providing ourselves with that wonderful feeling, or better yet, allowing the Love of the Divine to manifest, we stop having the desperate NEED for someone no matter how dodgy to tell us they love us.

I know that when I was a "popular" girl, I was very very aware of the power of saying "I love you." I "loved" everybody, and everybody "loved" me. I was a master at the game. One day I woke up and realized that I wasn't any longer willing to pay the price for all that love, or extract that payment from others. It was never love, it was co-dependency.

So, I have ended my career as a love bomber and allowed myself to settle for quality rather than quantity. It's why people won't find me "love bombing" here, even though I know that politically it is a powerful thing to do.

Ultimately, I believe that expressions of love are powerful, and if I want those directed at me to have meaning, then mine must have them too.

There is a big difference between "feeling loved" and "being loved".

I think it is really vital for each of us to do some deep thinking on that, as well as on the issues of authority. If we first acknowledge that these are hot buttons, then we can find our own and dismantle them.

Then we can be real, safe, and free.

Thanks for a really thought provoking and important post Sky Voice, and thanks even more for not signing you post "Much Love" or "Love and Peace".

Lava and peas,

Katie

An excellent post by Skyvoice! The analogy you made to the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments were most appropriate.

I have some things I want to add about the Zimbardo experiment that might further shed some light on Orlando ganginess.

Phillip Zimbardo never published the results of this research. No reputable journal would publish it. He may have even been hauled up on ethics charges by the APA. The experiment got way out of hand. Later, he recognized his role in such a dangerous and abusive experiment gone bad. It is discussed in Psychology courses as what not to do when testing theories, which is where I first encountered this research. Zimbardo made a documentary about his abuses to apologize, and to caution researchers. As a researcher, he explained that the mistake he made was placing the project before the welfare of his subjects--in other words, blind ambition. As a human being, he explained that he abused his power and inflicted pain on other human beings, which he had no right to do. But the implications of his research are astounding.

As I recall, Zimbardo wanted to study the effects of incarceration on social conformity. His subjects were mostly students. The guards got into their roles, but so did the inmates. These people were literally incarcerated in a make shift prison, as memory serves me, for at least a week although it may have been only a day or two. The inmates were shamed by other inmates for being bad prisoners, had privileges denied them by the warden, were verbally abused and pushed around by the guards, and so on. People could leave any time they wanted. But when one subject talked to Zimbardo about wanting to leave, Zimbardo did a major shame dump--easy to do to a student who is looking for approval and respect from a mentor. During the course of the incarceration people broke down emotionally. Many became severely depressed afterwards--guards and inmates.

It strikes me that what many of us here have been through is a little make-shift prison. We have had painful experiences either directly as a result of involvement with Concept:Synergy, or with counseling groups who have used the Lazaris material. And it feels good to know that we "sprung" ourselves. I left such a group, and I feel as if a ton has been lifted off my shoulders.

And there is something else about Zimbardo's research. It was outrageous, and clearly abusive. However, the manner in which he cautions researchers, and his apology to the rest of the world for his behavior, speaks well of him. As far as I can tell, the Orlando people (more specifically Jach, and Peny when she was alive) are incapable of an apology or of accepting any level of responsibility for the damage they have done. The bullshit just keeps on flowing from Florida--lies, betrayals, justifications, manipulations, rationalizations.

By the way, I had a thought about the results of the presidential election. It occurred to me that with all of the right-wing reprobates at Concept:Synergy, and the abundance of wealth they have, they may have had some sort of input with Jeb Bush, "Shrub's" Florida Governor brother. I think they at least must have made a fairly hefty contribution to the Bush campaign, and probably did some major manipulative ju-ju work around the outcome. Any thoughts on this?

That's so funny what was said about the shrub's bro down there below the mason-dixon line..
You know those no-neck monsters gave lots 'o cash to the repubican party..musta been, cuz anyone in very high tax-bracket has to give lots, to keep the hairy eyeballs at bay..AND WE KNOW CON;SIN ARE IN A VERY HIGH TAX-BRACKET don't we.!!!!!!!

I am very interested in the mind-control info, and thanks so much for that.
It is true that many "leaders" use these techniques, let's face it when one isn't very good at being a leader, one needs to resort to time-tested manipulative techniques...

I've experienced the stckholm syndrom in a JOB..I know it sounds like a joke , but sadly it isn't... when I'd felt that I could not get out, like I had no choices, I'd have to give up so much etc. etc.. so I'll just stay!!! YUCK...
I'd like to say that won't happen again, but I have said that about cults too, and look I fell for Lazyass didn't I....
The disguises are difficult to see through sometimes..
I think the Stockholm syndrom is alot of what goes on in cults...
One thinks they can't leave..for all the various reasons I don't need to mention here.

AND....Like with Scientology you would also have the added ramification of being black-balled in the Entertainment industry in LA (if that is what is important, can you imagine)...I feel so sorry for those poor souls.

Whenever you see those movie stars and they are BROKE.and you can't figure how they could blow all that $$$$...guess what ..lotsa times...they are scientologists.. I swear...
that shit is soooooooo expensive!! It boggles the mind.....

I am avidly reading and absorbing the further thoughts and information regarding mind control, conformist behavior, abdication of power and personal authority, and our roles that you have all written about. Katie, one point you raise is really on my mind: How do we change this aspect of ourselves? I realize upon reflection of all of your words, that we each have our weak spots, one or more. You mention security, and love, as two of the major areas of vulnerability. I can see in my own life that I have given my power away because I have not felt confident in my ability to create security for myself. I became convinced that I needed to heed the authority of others, Lazaris included, because I had done such a piss-poor job on my own. And of course, it became self-perpetuating, because I became more and more self-doubting.

I was struck by your remark, Audrey, that you had experienced the Stockholm syndrome in a job -- feeling like you wanted to leave, but couldn't -- losses would be unbearable, etc. I think I can say that I have had a very similar experience. Making excuses for the "captors" all the way through.

Howdy, o Writer of Spirit. I do agree that the prison experiment of Zimbardo's got out of hand. However, it is my understanding that he was and still is a very highly regarded and respected member of the psychological community. As a matter of fact, I believe that he has been elected to serve as President of the APA (American Pschological Assoc.) in 2002. He has been on the faculty of Stanford continuously since the 70s, and previously was on the faculty of other respected universities. He has done a lot of other good research over the years.

What I understand is that the prison experiment, which I think took place in a basement area of Stanford's psychology dept, fitted out to be very much like a real prison, was intended to last about 2 weeks. The "guards," the "prisoners," and the researchers themselves, including Zimbardo, by his own admission, got so totally invested in their roles that they all lost track very quickly of reality. Prisoners began to feel that they really couldn't leave, and as Spiritwriter says, were shamed into feeling like bad prisoners -- guards began to inflict punishment on the prisoners at night, when they thought maybe they weren't being observed, in hopes of establishing better control. And Zimbardo, apparantly, became a warden, rather then a researcher and voice of reason.

On day 5 or 6, a member of the research team, a young woman who had recently completed her Ph.D., came into the situation "cold" to complete a previously-assigned task. Horror-stricken at what she was seeing, she confronted Zimbardo with the freakishness, cruelty and brutality of what was actually happening. I think she also pointed out other discrepancies in the design of the experiment which were very problematic from a scientific point of view, aside from the bizarre turn the entire scene had taken.

She insisted that the experiment be ended, and Zimbardo gradually realized what she was saying, and what had happened. They did stop the experiment, and then dealt with what had happened. And yes, I think Zimbardo was very sincere and outspoken about his mistakes and bad behavior, and also took professional responsibility.

I urge you all to visit the website, and go through the online slideshow. (www.prisonexp.org) I think there is also a video available online, and there are a lot of other websites that discuss it, as well. Especially important for those with scientific minds who would like to see what others have to say about it. I think this experiment, and the Milgram one, say so much about group mentality, and the urge to obey and be approved of.

It may well be that the experiment could not be published in academic journals as originally intended. However, the very nature of what had happened to Zimbardo, the students, and other researchers, except for the "voice of reason" person, ended up serving, albeit ironically, as even greater evidence of the problems inherent in these aspects of the human condition than could ever had been obtained if the experiment had gone "right."

The one to speak up, the oddball, the whistle-blower, are generally greatly disliked and feared in our society. At best, they are usually regarded as suspect. The seeds of conformity take so many different shapes, are sown by so very many hands with so many different purposes, and are scattered by a multitude of winds, not even all ill. So, how to recognize and uproot the plants when they are sprouting evil? How to even care to notice?

As Katie said: How about the research on how and why we resist inhumanity, injustice, degradation, manipulation? I haven't found a lot yet, but I am digging around. The concept of the Altruistic Personality, or the person who exhibits altruistic behavior, sometimes putting themselves at great risk, and often at total odds with the rest of their life (Oskar Schindler one of the most famous of these) is perhaps one good starting place. (The main character in the movie, "The Insider," a true story, is also one of these, as well as the John Travolta character in ) I think it is also a question of the resolve, NEVER AGAIN, on the part of folks like us who have become conscious of participating, and have the oppportunity to walk a way and start fresh.

I have long harbored the belief that most people who end up either ignoring terrible evil when they should speak, participating in it when they should not, or even spearheading it, when they and everyone else should know better, are usually dealing with the "slippery slope" syndrome. We have discussed this in many threads on this site. Gradually, one thing, then another, then another, gets swept under the rug. Gradually a thought, action or behavior that once was totally unacceptable becomes ok, etc. But, the more I learn, the less I think this is the case. It certainly isn't true in either of the experiments that I have described. I think it can be a factor, but not really the main element.

"If not me, who? If not now, when?"

Sorry, I left out the name of the Travolta movie, "A Civil Action," in my last post. Also based on a true story.

I also wanted to say something about my observation of the major change in Lazaris' use of voice and language in the early or mid '80s. One of my thoughts on that is that Lazaris was actually "here" and sending info through Jach, and then stopped for one reason or another, but some or all of the triumverate decided they did not want to stop. Why tell anyone that the goose who was laying the light-filled egg had flown the coop, slightly mixed metaphor notwithstanding? So they had Lazaris go through a "growth transformation."

They even played around with making their own tapes -- at least I remember Michaell doing one on money, with a kind of eerie affirmation or meditation section. Maybe when nobody responded much, they decided they better stick with Lazaris. Another thought -- all this happened not too long before Lazaris really went on the road. Going to many different cities, putting out more and more tapes, doing more and more workshops, having us jump through ever more hoops, and go through ever more steps, with ever more doubt and paranoia thrown in. And also, a lot of rituals and events became very institutionalized. The Saturday Night Healing Ceremony. The Final Meditation. The Introductory Welcome. Later, Small Groups, becoming Magic Time. The Crystal Ceremony. The Really Really Late Lunch Breaks.

Isn't that con-VEN-ient?

Ted, LOL, I am waiting with bated breath for your anticipated transformation of our own dear Servant.

(LOL also to Oakspirit and Spiritwriter for your hilarious remarks on this subject on other threads.)

One more thing -- I also understand that while highly regarded, both Milgram and Zimbardo have gotten heat regarding the ethics of "dark side of human nature" research.

quote:

---

How about the research on how and why we resist inhumanity, injustice, degradation, manipulation? I haven't found a lot yet, but I am digging around. The concept of the Altruistic Personality, or the person who exhibits altruistic behavior, sometimes putting themselves at great risk, and often at total odds with the rest of their life (Oskar Schindler one of the most famous of these) is perhaps one good starting place. (The main character in the movie, "The Insider," a true story, is also one of these, as well as the John Travolta character in ) I think it is also a question of the resolve, NEVER AGAIN, on the part of folks like us who have become conscious of participating, and have the oppportunity to walk a way and start fresh.

---

Maybe we are a part of that experiment right here. I would like to think that we could do our little part, as I've seen done on several cult sites. There is nothing so magnificent as a newly soaring free spirit.

For me it is very much a matter of putting all those parts of me to work that became numbed during the Lazaris years, and continuing to build on the parts that did not.

One thing about the Lazaris materials that I find isn't true for all destructive groups is that they are very intellectual, and in spite of the mind control and mountains of fluff, woven through that material is some very fertile food for thought.

I find that some of us ex-Lazarians are much more open to doing the kind of deep thinking it requires to really get to the heart of a matter, rather than just remaining on the surface, trading one set of platitudes for another.

What really interests me, is that I have the sense that the loudness of the crash is equal to the degree that we actually understood the material.

This is not meant to insult anyone, but I do find that for some the Lazaris material was just about pretty music and "We love you". It's surprising to me to realize that a lot of people never went much deeper than that into the material.

We did study and think about the function of human consciousness, those of us who actually listened and absorbed the material.
Sadly for Jach, and maybe ironically for those who continuously harp "just take the gems and move on", I think that some of us did take the gems, those really being just the exercise of thinking.

We were also drawn to the idea that we as humans can recreate ourselves, and that we are part of a paradigm shift of consciousness.

I still believe those things, I believed them going in, and I think for me that was the hook.

I would be willing to venture a guess that many of us within the Lazaris community stayed there so long because we do have a committment to growth and change, and beyond that, are willing to do the "work" needed to facilitate that.

The relative difficulty or ease of that, IMO, is our willingness to suspend ingrained beliefs and allow for something different to be true.

Maybe the biggest belief we have to suspend is in our own state of knowingness.

The Lazaris materials function as a double edged blade. On one hand we keep hearing that we are map makers, among the stellar minds of the universe, and on the other we are treated to the endless horrors of our inner consciousness.

Maybe the trick is to flip the coin, and learn to celebrate our inner consciousness while allowing that we don't have any maps to create for anyone, that our journeys are private ones, and relative only to ourselves.

I like your suggestion that NEVER AGAIN is a great starting place. When we state that to ourselves with the full force of committment, we are now charging ourselves with the responsibility to get down and dirty and figure out what happened not just TO us, but WITHIN us to allow ourselves to become completely mind controlled.

Lazaris definitely plays to our arrogance with the map maker bit, and I really believe that a lot of people never heard much beyond that. For some that was enough bait on the end of the hook to make them stop thinking and just keep following.

I realize that I'm walking a fine line here, and not wanting to suggest that we are flawed and weak, as the L materials ultimately imply. I believe just the opposite, but I think when we keep reinforcing this idea that there is something so special about us that we gained the eternal love of this incredible and wise being, that we become complacent even in our state of self-doubt and in some moments even self-loathing. We definitely learn to doubt and loath others on a lot of levels, given that for the most part it is always THEM who is "in negative-ego", martyr, victim, or whatever.

I think we have to reclaim those concepts away from the cult-speak, and give them due consideration, and assign them their proper place in our understanding of ourselves and others.

I also think we have to give up the idea that we can or have to manipulate the Universe to "create" our lives how we want them to be. Time to get off that treadmill, IMO.

I continue to be of the opinion that the "technique" is to simply allow our lives to be what we want them to be, because all is already given, equally to all. By focusing on all these blockages and barriers as issues to "work" on with tactics and techniques, we just spin our wheels.

The key is consciousness, being awake, not mindlessly puffing away on some treadmill of technique. It's just a diversion and a very numbing and potentially lethal one, IMO.

I believe in that biblical phrase "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and it shall be given to you."

The key is what we ask and how we ask it.

If we ask the question with all kinds of qualifications and from a place of either total arrogance or complete despair and desperation, that is exactly what we will get back.

If we ask from a sincere interest and from a place of humility and willingness to KNOW the real bottom line TRUTH, I believe, and it has been my experience that we will get exactly that, surprising and shocking as it might be sometimes.

This site is the ultimate result of me and Ted asking for the TRUTH about Peny. This was not at all what I thought would come back to me at the time I asked. I was expecting to find out what was wrong with ME and how to "fix" that.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but your post really hits home for me.

We do very much have to look past the understanding of what THEY did, and understand what WE did to participate and get sucked in.

There are a lot of pat answers to that, we gave away our power, etc, and I think they are all true, but the biggest TRUTH in this for me is that I forgot MYSELF and that I have always been and always will be directly connected to The Divine.

Gotta run, hope this isn't too rambling, I don't have time to edit.

quote:

---

Maybe the trick is to flip the coin, and learn to celebrate our inner consciousness while allowing that we don't have any maps to create for anyone, that our journeys are private ones, and relative only to ourselves.

---

This is lengthy. I got excited about the information exchange, and all the beautiful thinking.

Actually, Katie, it was SkyVoice that you quoted. But, it just so happens that my opinion exactly coincides with SkyVoice's. Sky mentioned studies on Altruism. I have read that book in search of answers to these very same questions. The book: The Altruistic Personality, by Samuel P. Oliner. Check out this website by the Altruistic Personality and Prosocial Behavior Institute at www.humboldt.edu/~altruism/altru.htm. It is very uplifting, especially since we are talking about the obedience to authority studies, and why people allow themselves to be controlled (and do things that are questionable, evil, or immoral when an authority figure sanctions the behavior). I have to say that to me, these issues are the most important ones to ever think about.

I'll try to explain why I feel this study is so important here. Katie, you mentioned that we need to reclaim some of our words and our definitions for them, thereby liberating them from cultspeak. Here goes:

Oliner defines Altruism: "For the purpose of our study, we prefer a definition that relies on objective, measurable criteria. We characterize a behavior as altruistic when (1) it is directed towards helping another, (2) it involves a high risk or sacrifice to the actor, (3) it is accomplished by no external reward, and (4) it is voluntary. Heroic altruism involves greater risk to the helper, whereas conventional altruism is not life-threatening to the helper." He determines in the book, that people who exhibit this kind of behavior fall around less than one percent of the population. He uses a shocking word in the Lazaris cult vocabulary (and quasi-therapeutic new age psychospeak).

Oliner calls the heroic altruist the "rescuer". His study centers mostly around people who helped, who rescued, or who worked to protect Jews and other Nazi pariahs during the holocaust. By the way, I like this word "rescuer". After years of relentless psycho-babble, I have come to understand a rescuer not as a perpetrator in a dysfunctional triangle, but as a person who sees something terrible about to happen and gets off their duff to do something about it, rather than sitting around scoffing that the victim creates their own reality. Anyway, the "rescuer" has nothing to gain from indulging in altruistic behavior. This relatively normal individual is simply offended by injustice, and rather than listening to an outside influence, heeds the inner voice to help, or to put a stop to the injustice, even if it is in a small way. And, I find great hope for us all in these remarkable people. Sky Voice mentioned Oskar Schindler. How perfect! Schindler would be the last person anyone would have expected to be an altruistic hero. He had many weaknesses, many "flaws", but he found murder so abhorrent that he placed himself great danger to do something about it. And, he had nothing to gain. "If not me, who? If not now, when?" The altruist answers, "Me, now!" Granted, they are maybe less than one percent of the population, but just think of the impact this measly one percent has! These folks are not martyrs, or fools, nor do they have a death wish. They value their lives, and most importantly they value liberty and justice. And, they haven’t given their power away, but instead have become powerful (to quote the orb: “giving themselves permission to act in accord with principles, and in alignment with character”).

Now, SkyVoice already pointed out the obedience study--that most every human being submits to authority, feeds that authority, and uses that authority to explain questionable and even monstrous behavior. Altruists have no unique development. You might call them “map makers”, although they usually don’t know it, and certainly aren’t interested in flaunting it. But, we all have access to the same “underlying principles”, and have the same basic needs.

I’m for going deeper into the issue, for thinking more independently, for cultivating a deeper sense of private authority, and for seeing the world and the people in it with new eyes. We are on the right track here, IMO. I agree with Katie. This forum, and places like them, is a really good place to start. It means that we are taking our power back.

Hasta Banana!

Spirit Writer

Sorry I got you two mixed up! It's those letter S's they have me all confused!

Spirit Writer you wrote:

quote:

---

Check out this website by the Altruistic Personality and Prosocial Behavior Institute at www.humboldt.edu/~altruism/altru.htm. It is very uplifting, especially since we are talking about the obedience to authority studies, and why people allow themselves to be controlled (and do things that are questionable, evil, or immoral when an authority figure sanctions the behavior). I have to say that to me, these issues are the most important ones to ever think about.

---

The link for some reason wasn't working but I was able to find the site by backing the
address out to www.humboldt.edu/~altruism .

It is a very interesting site, I'll be spending more time reading there over the next few days. A lot to ponder, and I agree very very important issues to think about.

I like the concept of "rescuer" also. There are times when it is an honorable thing to step in and help, intervene, whatever, and it certainly isn't always because we are playing martyr or savior.

I have other thoughts on the topic, but I'm fried, having spent the past few hours sawing hammering and nailing together that chat room.

Anyway, I didn't want this thread to get lost, it is really a great one, and I'll be back.

Katie

I've been thinking about this topic of reclaiming our own authority.

To me it's a matter of consciously evaluating our interactions and reactions to people and information with an ever sharpened understanding that our responses to a given situation are colored by layers of other information and experience.

I just looked at the time, and realized I don't have a lot of time to write, but maybe we could have a discussion in which we deconstruct the process by which we evaluate and respond to information.

What happens when we receive information, what do we do with it, how do we choose how to respond?

Is pondering this of any interest?

Sorry, I have to run right now, but would like to pursue this conversation.

Any thoughts?

Sounds like a good idea to me--a conversation about what we do with information, what we filter it through, how we respond. I'm game.

Sayonara!

This thread has filled with so much intriguing information. Very complex.

Katie, Thanks for the BITE overview of cultishness. Some of them hit close to home, and I agree it would seem the inner circle people fit with many of the criteria. It's interesting, maddening, infuriating to acknowledge where I have fit with some of the points as well.
On the issue of loaded language - some of those catchy little terms have worked my last nerve and have gone beyond into loaded diaper language!

Sky voice,
Thank you for the detailed info - definitely a lot that could be explored there.

I don't know about you guys, but when I heard about that earthquake in Peru, I slipped into old thought pattern; something like earthquake/volcano activity being somehow conected to what is going on on a human level,etc..

and then a thought about less volcanic eruptions due to the earthquake etc. etc.

I instantly realized that this was due to those parasites-tought patterns ( get those icky things offa me!!)

Like Jade had mentioned in another thread, you need to be vigilant and notice how some of those thoughts patterns are so deeply ingrained, it takes time to get them out!!!

Yeah, get those icky things off is right.

I can't tell you how many times I hear myself thinking "cult" thoughts. It's an f..ing bitch!!

This is why I'm so interested in doing this evaluative work about consciousness, how it works, and why we are so suggestible.

Anyway, gotta run, the chat room just got busy.

UH OH!!!

Something I've been noticing about the dynamic of how we process information is the tendency to respond to it emotionally.

When we hear something we like, maybe that gets our happy endorphins buzzing, and when we hear something we don't like, it gets our adrenal "fight or flight" mechanisms rolling.

How far do we go beyond our emotions when processing a particular piece of information?

I think the degree to which we allow ourselves to do that just might be the degree to which we are able to accurately process information.

No one likes to feel bad, or be challenged.
This is why Lazaris adds such healthy doses of Love Bombing into the information. If we couch challenging thoughts with lots of hugs and assurances to mitigate the "fight or flight" response, maybe that makes it easier to get through the defensiveness.

Those who recognize this tendency can exercise a lot of power over others, just by right of understanding that what most of us are looking for, is the quick fix of a happy glow, rather than the actual down and dirty TRUTH.

I think that dynamic is very much at play here, given that MOST of us are not resorting to the Love Bomb tactic to get our points across. We aren't wrapping our opinions up in soft and fuzzy security blankets geared toward creating a false sense of security in each other. We are operating from a sense of respect for each other that we don't need to be emotionally manipulated prior to hearing a new thought.

That makes us seem very mean to those who are still in need of a comforting sense of safety before allowing thier brain to kick in to process anything.

I think that many people never do go past the immediate emotions that are raised when hearing information, but just let it stop right there in the infant brain as either "feels good" or "feels bad". When it feels good we'll do anything to get more, and when it feels bad, we'll do anything to stop it, up to and including hurting the messenger. It explains a lot to me about why some here are so confused about the difference between a personal attack and an attack on an idea or concept.

I think even Lazaris once said that true genius is not knowing a lot of facts, it is knowing the difference between a thought and a feeling. On that I concur, although I won't give it to Lazaris as an original thought of "his", because that would make me feel bad!

Anyway, some quick thoughts.

WDYT?