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?

Please do...ramble on. I think the rambling is a very good thing. So much better than continuing to sit in puddle that has long since begun to fester and draw flies. I see a lot of people doing that too, in the name of "well the material is still valid". Geez!

If the Goddamned material is so valid why isn't anyone finished with that negative-ego yet? Forget rich, powerful and blissed out, let's just get that bugger settled! Oops, I mean dangerous murderer.

I found some more articles today on mind control, persuasion and manipulation which I found very interesting.

This is a site that advocates the "ethical" use of persuasion and manipulation, claiming those to be the keys to success and happiness. Ouch!

But, even this numbrain does grant that manipulation can be unethical, and considers it's use by cults to be one of those times.

I contend that all manipulation is unethical. The thought that we need to manipulate others indicates a lack of faith in each other, and the thought that the only way we can get what we want is to take it, rather than living in the confidence that all we want is already given, WITH HARM TO NONE.

I do like it though, that this is not a cult-awareness site, and that the author, one Kelton Rhoads, PhD, explains the cult dynamic from the perspective that it isn't really brain surgery to pull it off.

He goes into an interesting discussion of the "Hot Seat Technique", a lot like what we've heard about these therapy groups, and very much like the stories we've heard of Peny's weekly "love healings" where people were routinely slammed and shattered.

He provides a bit of information on "persuasion research" which shows how in order to keep a person under the influence, there is the need to keep a balance of self-esteem, not too low, and not too high, just happily right in the middle where the subject is neither too depressed or too self-confident to respond to persuasive messages.

I find the article quite interesting and revealing.

http://www.influenceatwork.com/cult2.html

I think you will find it most interesting Sky Voice, especially in light of your "therapy" experience.

I do wonder if any of our "firm and true" believers ever read any of this material. It's one thing to declare us cynics to be in the throes of negative-ego, or just a bunch of cry-baby failures, but all these researchers and scientists too? Wow!

Now, the theory that there once was a Lazaris and now there is not. Hmm. That one keeps coming up.

I think I've stated my thoughts on that before, and given that I have no way of knowing, all I can say is that if so, Lazaris still has an obligation to get the information out that he is being used.

If we assume that L was present at some point and was therefore around when the promise was made that "he" would channel through Jach, and only Jach, until the end of Jach's days, I don't know how we could account for the possibility that he has now stopped channelling through Jach, and left himself with no out, or no other way to communicate that would be accepted as valid as long as Jach is alive.

That theory would mean that L "himself" created a monster and foisted it off on us, and that he is now doing nothing to undo the mistake.

Once again, that would make the Orb less than trustworthy IMO, so the theory just brings me back to the same place.

It doesn't matter whether L is real or not. He sucks big time either way, and I have no interest in investing in the teachings of someone so irresponsible.

I think it's just so damned hard for us to want to admit that we have been completely hoodwinked, and so shocked and astounded that anyone could pull of such a long running scam, that we are always looking for ways to somehow validate the high points of our experience with L.

We can validate them easily, if we just stop crediting them to L, and give the credit where it is due, to ourselves, and the Love of the Universe.

That's the only "safe place" for me, but it does require enough self-confidence to KNOW that we don't need any help to reach those stellar places.

That's the rub of it all. Our exceptional moments are all tangled in with a bunch of slime, and we keep trying to untangle the web.

Maybe it's good enough to just leave the slimy tangled web where it belongs, in the garbage, and move ahead with confidence in the knowing that nothing that is ours can ever be taken from us. If it's in that mess, it isn't worth having.

Ultimately, I don't believe that the gifts of the Universe adhere to slime anyway. Shake it out, grab the gems, and toss that smelly festering mess into the trash can. Better yet, burn it in the hot fires of passion and love for Truth.

That's my take on the whole thing anyway.

Katie

The following text is taken from a Task Force report which was presented to the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1986. The Task Force was headed by Margaret Thaler Singer, PhD who has since become a prolific author on the topics of cults and mind control.

The report was rejected by the APA, not because of it's content, but due to questions raised about the scientific procedures used to generate it. There is great speculation that the APA backed off on the study for political reasons. Issues of mind control, brainwashing, and psychological coercion are considered "hot potatoes" within the scientific community.
My theory on that is because of the reluctance within these professional groups to take on large and established religions and organizations. Also, the Church of Scientology has limitless money to throw around to prevent any definitive scientific or legal resolution on this issue.

The full text of the report can be found at:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist23.html

"LGAT" refers to "Large Group Awareness Training" which would include Con:Sin, which are in effect, therapy groups led by non-professionals.

The study also includes information on Psychological Therapy groups, such as those which have been mentioned here by some posters.

quote:

---

The preceding literature review suggests that most of the nationally known LGATs and a burgeoning, but as yet undetermined number, of take-offs on them are using powerful psychological techniques capable of stripping individuals of their psychological defenses, inducing behavioral regression, and promoting regressive modes of reasoning. Further, it appears that deceptive sales techniques are involved in promoting the trainings since the secrecy surrounding the programs' sales promotions prevents consumers from obtaining full disclosure. Consumers are persuaded to purchase programs described as educational, while in actuality the programs consist of highly orchestrated, intense indoctrination processes capable of inducing marked psychological experience. Consumers are not fully and adequately informed about the programs' intensity, the new philosophical formulations of reality that they imply, the potentially harmful consequences of some of the exercises to which participants will be exposed, the sometimes lurid psychological upset they will witness, nor the fact that management is aware of at least some of the risks to which they subject participants. Such practices run counter to American Psychological Association recommendations on the running of growth groups (American Psychological Association, 1973).

Analysis

As should be clear by now, criticism of cults and LGATs stems from the observation that such groups use deceptive and indirect (and sometimes coercive) techniques of persuasion and control to advance the goals of leaders, frequently to the detriment of members, their families, and society at large. The problems posed by such groups, then, have psychological and ethical aspects. The psychological aspect concerns the nature of behavior and attitude change techniques and their consequences. The ethical aspect of the problem concerns the appropriateness of such techniques in various situations. Preceding sections of this report have detailed many of the harmful consequences. This section explores the nature of influence techniques and ethical implications.

---

I think this is an important read for anyone who has strong opinions about this topic one way or the other.

A profile of Dr. Singer can be found at: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_profile/singer_margaret.htm which also includes a list of her writings and information on obtaining copies.

Katie