How Obama Is Using The Science of Change
By Michael Grunwald


Two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama's campaign was mobilizing millions of supporters; it was a bit late to start rewriting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) scripts. "BUT, BUT, BUT," deputy field director Mike Moffo wrote to Obama's GOTV operatives nationwide, "What if I told you a world-famous team of genius scientists, psychologists and economists wrote down the best techniques for GOTV scripting?!?! Would you be interested in at least taking a look? Of course you would!!"

Moffo then passed along guidelines and a sample script from the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation's leading behaviorists. The key guideline was a simple message: "A Record Turnout Is Expected." That's because studies by psychologist Robert Cialdini and other group members had found that the most powerful motivator for hotel guests to reuse towels, national-park visitors to stay on marked trails and citizens to vote is the suggestion that everyone is doing it. "People want to do what they think others will do," says Cialdini, author of the best seller Influence. "The Obama campaign really got that."

This explains a lot about how the Obama zealots are acting. The herd mentality, the intolerance and hostility toward anyone out of step, and the unthinking loyalty to the personality.


The existence of this behavioral dream team — which also included best-selling authors Dan Ariely of MIT (Predictably Irrational) and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago (Nudge) as well as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton — has never been publicly disclosed, even though its members gave Obama white papers on messaging, fundraising and rumor control as well as voter mobilization. All their proposals — among them the famous online fundraising lotteries that gave small donors a chance to win face time with Obama — came with footnotes to peer-reviewed academic research. "It was amazing to have these bullet points telling us what to do and the science behind it," Moffo tells TIME. "These guys really know what makes people tick."

All a cynical, manipulative marketing campaign, kept secret. The Obama zealots are so brain-washed, that when this becomes public they will laud and praise Obama for being so smart and modern and science-y - count on that.

But, wait! The marketing effort was not just used for the election campaign. It is being used now to run the country. Josef Goebbels, eat your heart out.


President Obama is still relying on behavioral science. But now his Administration is using it to try to transform the country. Because when you know what makes people tick, it's a lot easier to help them change.

Suggest that Obama was more of a cult-like New Age religious guru than a politician, and the zealots howled in indignation. It seems that the joke is on them.


We all know Obama won the election because he looked like change, sounded like change and never stopped campaigning for change. But he didn't call for just change in Washington — or even just change in America. From his declarations that "change comes from the bottom up" to his admonitions about "an era of profound irresponsibility," Obama called for change in Americans. And not just in bankers or insurers — in all of us. His Zen koan, "We are the change we've been waiting for," may sound like New Age gibberish, but it's at the core of his agenda.

Never mind politics, we are going to improve people. after all, they are the problem. Oh, could this ever backfire.


In fact, Obama is betting his presidency on our ability to change our behavior. His top priorities — the economy, health care and energy — all depend on it. We need to spend more money now to avert a short-term depression, then save more money later to secure our long-term economic future. We need to consume less energy in order to reduce our oil imports and carbon emissions as well as our household expenses. We need to quit smoking, lay off the Twinkies and avoid other risky behaviors that both damage our personal health and boost the costs of care that are ravaging the nation's fiscal health. Basically, we need to make better choices — about mortgages and credit cards, insurance and retirement plans — so we won't need bailouts down the road.

The problem, as anyone with a sweet tooth, an alcoholic relative or a maxed-out Visa card knows, is that old habits die hard. Temptation is strong. We are weak. We've got plenty of gurus, talk-show hosts and celebrity spokespeople badgering us to save energy, lose weight and live within our means, but we're still addicted to oil, junk food and debt. It's fair to ask whether we're even capable of changing.


I said since right after the Kerry defeat, when the Obama people first got to work on the campaign, that this was a go-for-broke power play to hijack the Democratic party by the modern up-scale liberals. They wanted to eliminate the influence pf the traditional base of the party, from Labor to environmentalists, and move to a "post-partisan" era that reflected their own upscale New Age-y self-improvement and enlightenment cult.

Rather than working to improve conditions for the people, the Obama administration is committed to a course of re-making the people, changing human nature. This bizarre doctrine, more of a religion than a political movement, has been growing in upscale liberal circles for the last 30 years or so, and they now are in power.


But the latest science suggests that yes, we can. Studies of all kinds of human frailties are revealing how to help people change — not only through mandates or financial incentives but also via subtler nudges that preserve our freedom to make choices while encouraging us to make better ones, from automatic-enrollment 401(k) plans that require us to opt out if we don't want to save for retirement to smart meters that warn us about how much energy we're using. These nudges can trigger huge changes; in a 2001 study, only 36% of women joined a 401(k) plan when they had to sign up for it, but when they had to opt out, 86% participated.

It's no coincidence that Obama's budget proposes an ambitious program of automatic-enrollment pensions for workplaces that don't offer 401(k)s or that his stimulus package has billions of dollars for smart meters. Behavioral science — especially the burgeoning field of behavioral economics that has been popularized by Freakonomics, The Wisdom of Crowds, Predictably Irrational, Nudge and Animal Spirits, which is the new must-read in Obamaworld — is already shaping dozens of Administration policies. "It really applies to all the big areas where we need change," says Obama budget director Peter Orszag. (See the top 10 non-fiction books of 2008.)

Orszag has been an unabashed behavioral geek ever since he read that 401(k) study. His deputy, Jeff Liebman of Harvard, is a noted behavioral economist, as are White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, Assistant Treasury Secretary nominee Alan Krueger of Princeton and several other key aides. Sunstein has been nominated to be Obama's regulatory czar. Even National Economic Council director Larry Summers has done work on behavioral finance. And Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan is organizing an outside network of behavioral experts to provide the Administration with policy ideas.

Need to change the country? Change the people. How? Sophisticated propaganda, using psychological techniques (which sounds fancy, but really means appeal to people's fear or greed) and marketing concepts and punishments and rewards to get people to behave the way you want them to behave.

"The Behavioralist Takeover"


Obama has a community organizer's appreciation for human motivation, and his rhetoric often sounds as if it's straight out of a behavioral textbook. He has also read Nudge, which inspired him to pick his friend Sunstein — best known as a constitutional scholar — to run the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the obscure but influential corner of the Office of Management and Budget where federal regulations are reviewed and rewritten. "Cass is one of the people in the Administration he knows best," says Thaler, the founder of behavioral economics and co-author of Nudge. "He knew what he was doing when he gave Cass that job."

Behavioralism in action...


The first sign of the behavioralist takeover surfaced on April 1, when Americans began receiving $116 billion worth of payroll-tax cuts from the stimulus package. Obama isn't sending us one-time rebate checks. Reason: his goal is to jump-start consumer spending, and research has shown we're more likely to save money rather than spend it when we get it in a big chunk. Instead, Obama made sure the tax cuts will be paid out through decreased withholding, so our regular paychecks will grow a bit and we'll be less likely to notice the windfall. The idea, an aide explains, is to manipulate us into spending the extra cash.

"Libertarian Paternalism"


Obama's efforts to change us carry a clear political risk. Republicans already portray him as a nanny-state scold, an élitist Big Brother lecturing us about inflating our tires and reading to our kids. We elected a President, not a life coach, and we might not like elected officials' challenging our right to be couch potatoes. Obama's aides seem to favor nudges that preserve free choice over heavy-handed regulation, an approach Thaler and Sunstein, the co-authors of Nudge, call "libertarian paternalism." But it's still paternalism, and Sunstein will have the power to put it into action. The idea of public officials, even well-meaning ones, trying to engineer our private behavior to produce change can seem a bit creepy.

But face it: Obama is right. Our emissions are boiling the planet, and most of our energy use is unnecessary. Our health expenditures are bankrupting the Treasury, and most of our visits to the doctor can be traced to unhealthy behavior. We do need to change, and we know it.

Here it is:

We do need to change, and we know it So why don't we? And how can we? The behaviorists have ideas, and the Administration is listening.

It is hard to overstate the degree to which we are being lied to by this crew, and how badly the people are being betrayed by this.

This goes way beyond Nixon's lying, or even Bush's. The entire program is a lie with this group.

Reaganomics on Steroids

The Chicago-school free market folks merely hoped that people would act selfishly, on greed. But the people are unreliable, and sometimes have a conscience. How inefficient! Hoe old-fashioned!

The solution? Manipulate people into being greedy and selfish - "making the right choices" - in modern liberal parlance - so that we can eliminate that irksome human element from the functioning of the market, and so we will all start making the right choices.

The Obama team is vastly more conservative and dangerous then the Bush administration was. The Bushies hoped the free market would work - trusted that ti would, asked us all to believe that it would. The Obamites are going to force us to comply so that it will work.

From here on out, you WILL be bullish on the market - or else. No more fooling around with those "ideas from the past."


Economics for the Real World

Obama has pledged that his bank-regulation overhaul would be based "not on abstract models ... but on actual data on how actual people make financial decisions." That's a plain-English way of saying it will be guided by behavioral economics, not neoclassical economics.

Neoclassical economics — another University of Chicago specialty — has ruled our world for decades. It's the doctrine that markets know best: when government keeps its hands off free enterprise, capital migrates to its most productive uses and society prospers. But its elegant models rely on a bold assumption: rational decisions by self-interested individuals create efficient markets. Behavioral economics challenged this assumption, and the financial meltdown has just about shattered it; even former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan confessed his Chicago School worldview has been shaken. "We couldn't have planned a better marketing campaign for behavioral economics," MIT's Ariely quips.

The problem is not with the system. It is with you and you and you and me. You are making bad choices. It is all your fault.


Behavioral economics doesn't ignore the market forces that were all-powerful in Econ 101, but it harnesses forces traditionally consigned to Psych 101. Behaviorists have always known we don't really act like the superrational Homo economicus of the neoclassical-model world. Years of studies of patients who don't take their meds, grownups who have unsafe sex, and other flawed decision makers have chronicled the irrationality of Homo sapiens. Some of our foibles are quite specific, like overvaluing things we have, overeating food in larger containers and overestimating the probability of improbable events — the quirk that made the Meet Barack Obama fundraising lottery such a smart idea. But in general, we're ignorant, shortsighted and biased toward the status quo. We're not as smart as Larry Summers. We procrastinate. Our impulsive ids overwhelm our logical superegos. We plan to lose weight, but ooh — a cupcake! We're especially irrational about money; we'll pay more for the same thing if we can use a credit card, if we think it's on sale, if it's marketed with photos of attractive women. No wonder we apply for mortgages we can't afford. No wonder our bankers approve them.

Fucking Nurse Ratchet is running the country.


"We truly want to make better choices," explains Yale economist Dean Karlan. He's a co-founder of stickK.com where users make binding "commitment contracts" to forfeit money to friends or charities — or even "anti-charities" they despise — if they fail to quit smoking, lose weight or meet other goals they set for themselves. "But we need help to get us there."

We want to be better! We are not worthy! Please oh great and wise Obama, help us to be better! Whip us when we are bad. Give us cookies when we are good. And we trust you to decide what is best for us. You are so much smarter and wiser than we are.

You WILL Become a Better Person

YOU are in the way. YOU are the cause of the suffering and misery around you and in your own life.


The Need to Know

The first step is knowledge. Studies suggest that better information — from public-service announcements, appeals by respected figures, even serial dramas to help reduce teen pregnancy and other social ills in developing countries — can assist us in making better choices. There was a run on energy-efficient lightbulbs after Oprah urged viewers to buy them; similarly, Michelle Obama's White House vegetable garden is intended to urge us toward fresh produce. We don't all realize that idling our cars wastes more energy than turning them off and on, or that granola is high in fat.

So now that we have decided that the social problems we are facing are the fault of the everyday person, how do we get them to change?

Not just mandatory health insurance is being plannd, but mandatory health care.


Econ 101 relies on prices to promote change, and it's true that $4 gas got us to drive less. But prices aren't everything.

Most of us will save for retirement, run our computers in energy-efficient mode and be organ donors if we have to take action to say no — but not if we have to take action to say yes. Almost nobody signed up for a German utility's clean-energy plan until it became the default, and then 94% stuck with it. We're also much likelier to go to the doctor for preventive care like flu shots if the appointment is made for us. In a speech last year, Orszag even suggested charging us for doctor's appointments unless we take action to cancel, though he conceded that might sound "a little crazy at first blush or even second blush."

You will be charged for NOT changing and for NOT making the right choices.


More along these lines is heading our way. The Administration hopes to harness our inertia with its automatic pension plan, a major step toward universal savings accounts, and by dramatically simplifying applications for federal tuition aid. Its push to computerize health-care records — another big-ticket stimulus item — could make generic drugs and cost-effective procedures our default treatments. And seniors who don't select health-care or drug plans could be automatically enrolled in low-cost options. "It would be nice if we all behaved like supercomputers, but that's not how we are," Orszag says.

While Obama's economists search for pain-free, hassle-free solutions to our easy-way-out instincts, his rhetoric often aims to build our tolerance for pain and hassle. He urges us to snap out of denial, to accept that we're in for some prolonged discomfort but not to wallow in it, to focus on our values. That happens to sound a lot like "acceptance and commitment therapy," the latest advance in behavioral psychology. Instead of assisting smokers to ignore cravings and chronic-pain sufferers to think about other things — the old denial approach — acceptance therapy pushes patients to acknowledge negative thoughts and then overcome them by focusing on values. Even a small amount of this approach seems to help smokers quit, dieters lose weight and patients with diabetes or chronic pain stay out of the hospital. University of Nevada, Reno, psychologist Steven Hayes believes our Prozac culture has trained us to avoid all discomfort, leaving us reluctant to exercise or adjust our thermostats. "We're supposed to be happy-happy-joy-joy all the time," Hayes says. "Obama is trying to help us get past that."

"It would be nice if we all behaved like supercomputers, but that's not how we are."

The Intentional Creation of a National Cult


But Obama is no therapist changing individuals one at a time. He's an organizer trying to build community and inspire collective action through house parties and Facebook as well as rhetoric about shared values. In other words, he's trying to create social norms — behavioral change's killer app.

From the Nazis to the Branch Davidians to the Fundamentalists, creating a new social norm is the "killer app" for tyrants to control people.

Why do Obama zealots act like cultists? Because the Obama team is intentionally causing that in the followers.

Everybody's Doing It!


Which message would persuade homeowners to save electricity: a call to their environmental conscience, or an appeal to their wallet? Cialdini tested those approaches in a San Diego experiment, and the answer was neither. What worked was an appeal to conformity. Residents used less power when they were told their neighbors were using less power. We're a herdlike species, more likely to be obese if our peers are.

In a 2005 study, Alan Gerber of Yale got Michigan voters to increase their turnout an amazing 8.6% with a single peer-pressure mailer that listed the previous voting records of their neighbors and noted that a follow-up would be sent indicating who voted this time. (The Obama campaign actually priced out a similar mailer but decided not to risk a backlash.) And shame works; even some AIG executives gave up bonuses. Cialdini says brain imaging shows that when we think we're out of step with our peers, the part of our brain that registers pain shifts into overdrive. "It's an incredibly powerful spur to action," he says.

To enslave and manipulate a herd, you must first create a herd.


Social norms help explain the attraction of opt-out 401(k)s as well: it's not just that we're too lazy to check a box but also that we assume the default is the accepted thing to do. Obama's push to weatherize millions of homes — another stimulus bonanza — will require new norms. In Oregon, a countywide program to upgrade windows and insulation at almost no cost to homeowners got a tepid response. But after an intense mobilization campaign — through citizen councils, churches and Girl Scouts who went door-to-door asking residents why they hadn't weatherized yet — 85% of the county enrolled. "What worked was creating a sense that we're all in this together and you're a social deviant if you don't join us," recalls Ralph Cavanagh of the Natural Resources Defense Council. This is why community report cards help promote preventive health care and why interdorm conservation competitions help colleges save energy. And this is why Administration officials — after their crash course in run-on-the-bank mentalities cited in Animal Spirits — are trying to boost consumer confidence into a social norm.

"You're a social deviant if you don't join us."

So far it is all happy, happy, happy. We get to immerse ourselves in the herd, and we will all be so much happier and healthier.

But of course some will resist...

"Sometimes We Need a Shove"


But we're not likely to spend if we don't have money. And we can't take public transit if there's none in our neighborhood. The bully pulpit has limits — Michelle Obama has literally urged us to eat our broccoli, but she can't make it taste like fudge. "I like nudges, but sometimes we need to do more," says Harvard's Mullainathan. Sometimes we need a shove. The research proves change can come about when it's easy and popular, but making it lucrative — or even mandatory — can make sure it happens.

This is one reason there's new interest in taxing gas, alcohol, electricity and even trans fats to discourage undesirable behaviors while closing budget gaps. Obama has already hiked taxes on cigarettes and wants to end tax breaks for drilling and offshoring. He seems even more eager to subsidize desirable behaviors like saving, teaching, weatherizing and buying fuel-efficient cars and energy-efficient appliances. Of course, his energy policy goes beyond incentives; he wants a strict national cap on carbon emissions. He has also signaled openness to a national health-insurance mandate.

This crowd makes the Bushies look good.


If neoclassical economics wants government to let us alone to do what we want, behavioral economics leaves room for government action to help us do what we would really want if we were rational agents. Unfortunately, the qualities that have crippled Washington in recent years — inertia, denial, allergy to complexity, preference for short-term gratification over long-term planning — are our own flaws writ large. Members of Congress are people too; they're likely to embrace change only when it's easy, popular and rewarding. Do we really want them trying to change us?

Michelle Obama warned us during the campaign, " is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your divisions, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better." The President reinforced this in his Inaugural Address when he urged Americans to set aside childish things and choose hope over fear.

[b]"We demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your divisions, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better."

I should state my position on the Obama program.

NO!!!

Hell no!!

I am more opposed to it now than I was to the Bush program - which is saying a lot.

Here is the link to the article for anyone lurking on here and wondering where it came from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889153,00.html

Interesting stuff, it was easy to see Obama's campaign as an ad campaign, there was so much work on branding his image and all that... truly scary.

I should state my position on the Obama program.

NO!!!

Hell no!!

I am more opposed to it now than I was to the Bush program - which is saying a lot.


Here is the link to the article for anyone lurking on here and wondering where it came from: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889153,00.html

Interesting stuff, it was easy to see Obama's campaign as an ad campaign, there was so much work on branding his image and all that... truly scary.


When I heard about the laughable Ted Stevens thing, the same thing occured to me..this fucker is activley trying to be worse than Bush

Reasons to teach critical thinking skills and basic advertising techniques (like bandwagon) in schools...

I know this is a "wall of text" but people need to read it and not just scan it. I broke it into chunks and added my own witty and entertaining comments.

"Brand Obama," "Brand Usa," And "The Audacity Of Marketing": Some Candid Reflections at Advertising Age
November, 19 2008
By Paul Street



The election and nomination process is the brand re-launch of the year. Brand USA. It's just fantastic.

-- David Brain. CEO of the global public relations firm Edelman Europe, Middle East and Africa

The last eight years broke faith in Brand America, and people want that faith restored.

-- Carolyn Carter, London-based president and CEO of the global public relations firm Grey Group Europe, Middle East, and Africa

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful.

-- Barack Obama, Victory Speech, November 4, 2008

"A CASE STUDY IN AUDACIOUS MARKETING"

This is why you won't hear Barack Obama's progressive and educated supporters saying much about the interesting fact that Obama was recently selected by Association of National Advertisers (ANA) as the "Marketer of the Year." According to ANA trade journal Advertising Age two weeks before the presidential election, "Sen. Barack Obama has shown he's already won over the nation's brand builders."

Angus Macaulay, the vice president of Rodale Marketing Solutions, told Advertising Age that Obama's campaign was "something we can all learn from as marketers." AOL "Platform A" President Linda Clalirizio praised Obama for doing "a great job of going from a relative unknown to a household name to being a candidate for president." [2]

Six days after the election, Advertising Age heralded "Brand Obama" as a "case study in audacious marketing." The journal praised Obama's "messaging consistency" and "communications success," placing special emphasis on the Obama campaign's "boldness, that trait that happens to be the most important for anyone trying to build a brand now, in a chaotic time when many will be tempted to shelve innovation and creativity to take u defensive postures."

"And at same time Mr. Obama was building his brand with grand gestures," the journal added, "his campaign demonstrated an understanding of ground-level marketing strategies and tactics, everything from audience segmentation and database management to the creation and maintenance of online communities."[3]

"A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS"

"The result," Advertising Age exults, "was a brand that was big enough to be anything to anyone yet had an intimate-enough feel to inspire advocacy that raised funds at record-breaking, almost obscene levels..."

Quite right. Early in his campaign, Obama pretended to complain that he had become "a blank sheet on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Reflecting on his apparent ability to win approval from people of wildly divergent perspectives, Obama claimed to worry that "everybody's projecting - particularly the way I came in - everybody's projecting their own views onto [me]."[4] The danger, he sensed, was that that some of his fans were going to become disappointed when they found out that he did not in fact represent an indefinite spectrum of viewpoints and interests and actually held positions many of them rejected. A related risk was that people would jump off "Senator Good Vibes'" ship of "Hope" once they realized that his real-world version of "change" and "unity" would mean some difficult decisions, choices, and sacrifices in accord with his underlying commitment to existing domestic and global disparities and institutions.

The irony behind Obama's reflection was that Obama and his media-savvy handlers deliberately and naturally pursued universal appeal in pursuit of victory under America's winner-take all electoral system, where corporate- and media-crafted candidate image tends to trump substantive policy positions and ideological identifications. As Rolling Stone political writer Matt Tabbai noted in a February 2007 article bearing the provocative title "Obama is the Best BS Artist Since Bill Clinton:"

"The Illinois Senator is the ultimate modern media creature...his entire political persona is an ingeniously crafted human cipher, a man without race, ideology, geographic allegiances, or, indeed, sharp edges of any kind. You can't run against him on the issues because you can't even find him on the ideological spectrum. Obama's ‘Man for all seasons' act is so perfect in its particulars that just about anyone can find a bit of himself somewhere in the candidate's background, whether in his genes or his upbringing...his strategy seems to be to appear as a sort of ideological Universalist, one who spends a great deal of rhetorical energy showing that he recognizes the validity of all points of view, and conversely emphasizes that when he does take hard positions on issues, he often does so reluctantly... His political ideal is basically a rehash of the Blair-Clinton ‘third way' deal, an amalgam of Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and the New Deal; he is aiming for the middle of the middle of the middle." [5]

Acting in accord with the longstanding dance of America's Winner Take All politics, the media-savvy Obama Team cultivated his "blank sheet" appeal by tailoring Obama's message in flexible, chameleon-like accord with his own shifting audiences. Claiming to stand above "ideology" and partisan conflict, Obama bashed Wal-Mart and upheld the right to organize unions when talking to labor audiences but extolled free trade," "free markets," and entrepreneurial values when addressing "the business community." He invoked the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement when talking to black audiences but downplayed racial justice when speaking to white farmers and workers. He embraced capitalism's supposed virtues when talking to the rich and powerful but seemed stress its "drawbacks" when addressing the working class and poor. He told liberal and progressive primary voters that they could "joint the movement to end the war [on Iraq]" and shift U.S. policy towards peace and negotiation but made sure to tell The Council on Foreign Relations of his belief in the essential nobility of U.S. war aims and empire and of his desire to advance American global supremacy through gigantic military expenditures and a ready willingness to use force, unilaterally when "necessary," to "protect the American people and their vital interests." [6]

He suggested to progressive Iowa and New Hampshire voters that he was a populist outsider out to change the nation's corrupt, corporate-dominated culture but his campaign was staffed by and linked to Washington and corporate insiders. His current transition team is loaded with Washington political and policy veterans and his cabinet and administration more broadly will be packed with big players from the Bill Clinton regime. [7]

Hillary Clinton was a "polarizing insider" in Obama's campaign rhetoric. The President-Elect is courting her to be the next Secretary of State.

The campaign and candidate's conscious pursuit of "universalist" ideological hermaphroditism was strongly displayed in Obama's book The Audacity of Hope. Released in the fall of 2006, this bestselling marked the unofficial beginning of his presidential candidacy. In Steve Sailer's words, it "show[ed]

his wordsmith's facility at eloquently restating the views of both his liberal supporters and his conservative opponents, leaving implicit the suggestion that all we require to resolve these wearying Washington disputes is to find a man who understands us - a reasonable man, a man very much like, say, Obama - and turn power over to him." [8]

At the same time, the Obama campaign clearly spent a considerable amount of time, money, and energy cultivating their candidate's pure celebrity. It relished and profited from his emergence as a "BaRockstar" - a mass-cultural as well as mass-political persona crafted around the vague and amorphous symbols of "Hope," "Change," and "Unity" to absorb the diverse and often confused aspirations and dreams of a mass constituency containing numerous and often contradictory values and positions.


"NOT BUSH": THE SELLING OF THE PRESIDENT

It worked, to say the least. As mainstream journalist Ryan Lizza recently noted in an interesting New Yorker reflection on "How Obama Won," Obama's media and campaign managers took the "tactical view" that "all that was wrong with the United States could be summarized in one word: Bush." Further:

"The clear alternative, then, was not so much a Democrat or a liberal as it was anyone who could credibly define himself as ‘not Bush.' [Obama's legendary media strategist David] Axelrod had a phrase he often used to describe this approach: America was looking for ‘the remedy, not the replica.' The appeal of this strategy was that, with only minor alterations, it could work in the primaries as well as in the general election, and that, in turn, allowed Obama to finesse the perpetual problem of Presidential politics: having one message to win over the a party's most ardent supporters and another when trying to capture independents and ‘up-for-grabs' voters - the voters who decide a general election." [9]

The key to success is deception and mushiness through mass marketing. Obama's media strategist David Axelrod and Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe performed masterfully well in blazing this path to victory.

The most genuinely accurate thing Obama said in his highly nationalist and propagandistic November 4th acceptance speech was that he owed his victory to Axelrod, Plouffe, and the rest of his top campaign staff. "You made this happen," Obama rightly told them, "and I am forever grateful." [9A]

Obama's handlers sold him as a "new" brand. They brilliantly advertised him as the "not Bush" just like Pepsi once expanded as the "not Coke" or like Burger King was once the up-and-coming "not McDonald's." They did it with the latest and best selling techniques.

"The 2008 Obama presidential run," noted Bruce Dixon in February of 2008,"may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in history." [10] According to the campaign's financial report to the Federal Election Commission. Obama had by then spent $52 million on "media, strategy consultants, image-building, marketing research and telemarketing." As Pam Martens noted in early March of 2008:

"The money has gone to firms like GMMB, whose website says its "goal is to change minds and change hearts, win in the court of public opinion and win votes" using ‘the power of branding - with principles rooted in commercial marketing,' and Elevation Ltd., which targets the Hispanic population and has ‘a combined experience well over 50 years in developing and implementing advertising and marketing solutions for Fortune 500 companies, political candidates, government agencies.' Their client list includes the Department of Homeland Security. There's also the Birmingham, Alabama- based Parker Group which promises: ‘Valid research results are assured given our extensive experience with testing, scripting, skip logic, question rotation and quota control ... In-house list management and maintenance services encompass sophisticated geo-coding, mapping and scrubbing applications.' Is it any wonder America's brains are scrambled?" [11]

Besides contracting with sophisticated big client corporate marketing firms like GMMB and the Parker Group, the Obama operation grew its own considerable internal, sophisticated, and vertically integrated mass market research and sales capacities for identifying and seducing political consumers (voters) susceptible to "brand Obama." When ABC News anchorman Charles Gibson visited Obama's sprawling Chicago office seven days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, he observed the quiet hum of a corporate sales office. "The tone of the campaign headquarters," Gibson noted, was "strikingly serene." He observed "33,000 square feet of downtown Chicago office space and no one is sure exactly how many staff....The 20-somethings in the New Media department," Gibson said, "are responsible for everything from designing merchandise sold on the Web site to blogging to unloading videos and managing chat rooms." By Gibson's account, "the money flows through the computers, a steady infusion of cash in $10, $25, and $50 dollars. Obama's media maven Axlerod told Gibson, "It's strange that a computer terminal can make politics more intimate, but that's what happened." [12]

In Dixon's judgment, however, the Obama campaign's massive investment in selling their candidate was "not a good thing. Marketing," Dixon noted, "is not even distantly related to democracy or civil empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience." [12A]

It's nothing new. Astute commentators since at least the Progressive Age (1890-1914) have noted that campaigns market U.S. candidates like they sell cars, candy, and toothpaste.

But as Lizza suggests, the problem has origins prior to the corporate and mass consumerist age. "By 1840," distinguished American historian Eric Foner has noted, "the mass democratic politics of the Age of Jackson had absorbed the logic of the marketplace. Selling candidates and their images was as important as the positions for which they stood."[13]

The two-party political system that emerged from the U.S. Republic's blueprint does not encourage the development of parties with clear ideological and policy differences or strong relationships between voter choices and citizens' actual positions on key policy issues. It leads rival candidates to blur their policy and ideological distinctions in the quest to win those all-important voters in the middle, focusing instead on personal qualities rather than hard policy and ideological differences. [14]

This harsh reality, combined with the almost complete absence of serious left political choices and furthered by the corporate and visual-imaginary takeover of much of the U.S. electoral process in the 20th century, goes a long way towards explaining why substantive policy issues tend to be badly downplayed in U.S. campaigns. It also explains much of the desperation and myopia that leads many ostensibly progressive voters and activists to back corporate-imperial candidates guaranteed to betray populist and peaceful promises "upon the assumption of power." [15]

CHE GUOBAMA: REBRANDING AMERICA WITH "A CLEAN SLATE"

Before he could be in a position to be sold (brilliantly) on the mass American electoral market, of course, Obama first needed to sell himself to the national political and business elite that controls much of the political action behind the scenes. That sales job did not involve deceptive one- or two-message commercials and slogans. It was about candid, up-clos

e meetings in which the candidate made it clear that he posed no substantive challenge to dominant domestic and imperial structures and doctrines. That earlier marketing project, ably recounted by Ken Silverstein and David Mendell [16], took place in late 2003 and 2004 and made possible the first great rolling out of Brand Obama during the senator's instantly famous keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in late July of 2004.[17] It has continued behind the scenes ever since, with Obama continually reassuring his many big-money sponsors and corporate media enthusiasts that he is not some sort of starry-eyed idealist about to seriously question the interrelated hierarchies and ideologies of corporate-managed state capitalism, empire, and inequality.

The basic Obama message to the nation's ruling class - NOT advertised to the electorate - is that he is safe to concentrated power centers even if occasional populist-sounding slivers make their way into the construction of "Brand Obama." More than that, the campaign's message to the elite has included the promise that Obama will wrap reigning institutions and dogma in fake-progressive rebel's clothing and help repair the damage done to the United States' global public relations image by the vicious and clumsy post-9/11 excesses of the brazenly imperial Cheney-Bush gang.

Consistent with that hope, Advertising Age hails President-Elect Obama for producing "An Instant Overhaul for Tainted Brand America." The journal quotes David Brain, CEO of the global public relations firm Edelman Europe, Middle East and Africa, on how "the election and nomination process is the brand relaunch of the year. Brand USA. It's just fantastic." [18]

Nick Ragone has an interesting resume. He is both "a presidential historian" and the senior VP of client development at the leading global advertising firm Omnicom Group's Ketchum. "We've put a new face on [America] and that face happens to be African-American," Ragone told Advertising Age. "It takes a lot of the hubris and arrogance of the last eight years and starts to put it in the rearview mirror for us." [19]

Rigone might want to review Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty Four on the deletion of unpleasant history - sent "down the memory hole" - by totalitarian communication authorities. "Rearview mirror" is code language for Orwellian revisionism.

Then there's the interesting commentary of Harvard Business School professor John Quelch. Quelch is a former "WWP Group" (a global advertising firm) board member and the co-author of a recent book with an oxymoronic title: "Greater Good: How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy."

According to Welch, echoing Orwell, "The election result zero-bases the image of the United States worldwide. We have a clean slate with which to work," Welch told Advertising Age. "Let us hope the opportunity is not squandered the way it was after 9/11." [20]

According to Carolyn Carter, the London-based president and CEO and Grey Group Europe, Middle East and Africa (creator of the popular teeth-rotting "Coke Zero" ad campaign for Northern Europe), "The last eight years broke faith in Brand America, and people want that faith restored." [21]

Enter the openly imperial Obama, who is "almost like Che Guevera, in a good way," according to Foreign Policy magazine's web editor Blake Hounshell. "He has icon status," Hounshell explains, "with the all the art around the world of his face." The difference, of course, is that Che boldly inspired radical challenges to the American Empire but Obama inspires captivation with the corporate-imperial U.S. and its supposed self-reinvention as a land of progressive democracy and endless possibility. According to Scott Kronick, global marketing firm "Ogilvy PR's" Beijing-based president, Obama's triumph "send a strong message to the world that despite what many people believe and feel...America can be very open, democratic, and progressive."[22]

"EXPECTATION CALIBRATION AND EXPECTATION MANAGEMENT"

It's not all good for the masters of American Empire and Inequality, however. The Obama-based "rebranding of America" in the wake of the long proto-fascistic, arch-plutocratic, and messianic-militarist Cheney-Bush nightmare comes with heightened popular product expectations at home and abroad. The risks and likelihood of disappointment and betrayal are high. Many American and other world citizens can be counted on to take "Brand Obama" and the refurbished "Brand USA" and give them meanings that do not accord very well with the U.S. power elite's agenda. Rising and betrayed expectations are the stuff of actual social revolutions (something rather different than marketing revolutions), as the left historian Barrington Moore once argued. For these and other reasons, Obama will be relying heavily on his marketing and public relations experts to keep the bewildered citizenry's hopes and dreams properly constrained and downsized. Popular thought coordination through mass marketing will be important to the governance period as well as the election phase of the Obama ascendancy. As Obama's early and excessively candid foreign policy advisor and Harvard ally Samantha Power told the power-worshipping public affairs talk-show host Charlie Rose last February, "Expectation calibration and expectation management is essential at home and internationally."[23].

Chilling words but they signify nothing new in the long history of the dark science of "Taking the Risk out of [American] Democracy". [24]

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/19692

You'll have to go to your local library and get issue of Harper's for the entire artiucle but here are the first few pages of Silverstein's article which gives insight to how Brand Obama was launched and who launched it:

Barack Obama Inc.:
The birth of a Washington machine


http://harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

It's remarkable, so much of what we've been talking about over the past few years staring back at us in sharp relief. Ya really don't need tin foil, that shit just gets in the way. It all just falls together, imperialism, the economy, the Obama phenomena.

http://citrapublik.com/Edward_Bernays.jpg

Of all of the scumbag servants of wealth I think I despise these manipulators the most. True, they are only tools, yet their value to their masters is as great as armies and piles of gold.

You'll have to go to your local library and get issue of Harper's for the entire artiucle but here are the first few pages of Silverstein's article which gives insight to how Brand Obama was launched and who launched it:

Barack Obama Inc.:
The birth of a Washington machine


http://harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275


I found the whole article online last night and read it. I will see if I can find the link.

All of our hare-brained crackpot conspiracy theories understated the case.

Back in '03 and '04, Obama was meeting with the Wall Street bag men, taking massive amounts of money from them, and reassuring them that he was their guy. They report that he met with their approval, and that they were convinced that he would do their bidding. We have that from the horse's mouth.

Obama's "Hope" PAC was funneling Wall Street loot into the campaigns of conservative Democrats since then.

The Obama campaign set about on an intentional effort to deceive people, and used an army of psych excerpts to do that. Anti-war people were led to believe he was anti-war, health care advocates were led to believe that he favored an incremental path to universal health care, and on and on.

It is no accident that a cult-like following emerged around Obama. This was intentional. That cult-like following has been useful in smashing up and marginalizing any all who are even vaguely left wing.

I think there are many people, perhaps even here, who have a vague sense that for whatever the faults of the Obama administration, that it is still "better than Bush." Better liars, maybe.

Every single lobbying group for big business and finance is happy. Meanwhile, health care advocates, anti-war people, Labor, teachers, and every other group that worked to get Democrats elected are being betrayed. By what stretch of the imagination is this "better than Bush?"

Keep goin' Mike.

As I've said before and I'll say again Obama is one the most wicked politicians to come into the abyss in many years.

And I'll add to that the fact that the Democratic Party is much more the problem then the Repubs when it comes to seeing the entire economic/ political system with clarity. This is why I spend so much energy attacking the both of 'em.

One thing I will say with no real desire here to argue at length is that I do disagree with the idea that Obama and Co. have "taken over" the Dem Party. They are in fact perfectly fluid and consistent with all that the Dems have ever been. They, Obama Inc., may be a more suavely reactionary group but the Dem party over all has never had the people's interests at the core of their intentions. To suggest that the Dems "have been taken over" is to suggest that at some point they were okay. That too ignores the arc of Empire.

One thing I will say with no real desire here to argue at length is that I do disagree with the idea that Obama and Co. have "taken over" the Dem Party. They are in fact perfectly fluid and consistent with all that the Dems have ever been. They, Obama Inc., may be a more suavely reactionary group but the Dem party over all has never had the people's interests at the core of their intentions. To suggest that the Dems "have been taken over" is to suggest that at some point they were okay. That too ignores the arc of Empire.


I think both are true. That is to say that while the Obama movement is consistent with all that the Dems have ever been, as you say, nevertheless the party has dependent upon the support of groups, such as organized Labor, that are now being driven out. This is significant for only one reason - as more people become aware of the betrayal, the possibilities for serious opposition increase.

These articles are filling in some missing pieces to the puzzle for me. Back right after the Kerry defeat, I talked to some Obama supporters and staffers (though there supposedly was no such thing then) and they were upfront and outspoken about their intentions - eliminate the influence of organized Labor and other left wing groups on the party, and remake the party along moderate Republican lines.

Certainly, had it been widely known that this was their intention, there would have been much more opposition to the Obama movement.

So while the Democratic party has always supported capitalism and empire, there has never been a better opportunity for people to see that clearly.

If the left wing forces within the party were not powerful - or at least seen as a potential threat by the Obama people and their Wall Street clients - there would have been no need for the Obama people to do so much lying, conning and betraying of people, and spend so much tine and effort on smashing them.

There are a whole bunch of folks who have been seriously betrayed. Yes, that was inevitable, yes they should have known better, yes they should not have fallen for the Obama appeal.

I think there are many people, perhaps even here, who have a vague sense that for whatever the faults of the Obama administration, that it is still "better than Bush." Better liars, maybe.

Every single lobbying group for big business and finance is happy. Meanwhile, health care advocates, anti-war people, Labor, teachers, and every other group that worked to get Democrats elected are being betrayed. By what stretch of the imagination is this "better than Bush?"

I'll tell you what I hear from liberals who aren't posting on political message boards - that they are proud to have a "rock star" president (they don't use those words obviously), they think he is respected by world leaders (as opposed to Bush who was an embarrassment), they like that he's taken religion off the table and acknowledges people who are non-believers, and they think he has inherited quite a mess from Bush to clean up.

People who are more interested in certain issues - animal rights, gay rights, education - they are all reeling because they've already seen Obama's handiwork in choosing cabinet members & agency heads completely at odds with what they believe. They are likely folks who are pretty myopic about their own issues.

It is easy to see the concerted effort on DU to bring everyone into mod Republican land - the charge is lead by a bunch of correspondents (who I'm sure are paid for their efforts), and you'll notice they all joined the board within the past 2-3 years. They are attempting to shut down all threads that could be even remotely construed as anti-Obama, and they are relentless.

From Chlamor's post:


To suggest that the Dems "have been taken over" is to suggest that at some point they were okay. That too ignores the arc of Empire.

This is really important, and the more I read the more I agree with it. I guess the issue here is re-educating people because schools are teaching from the empire's point of view. You've got a lot of propoganda to get through to reach people and convince them this is true.

Edited to add: re-thinking my last sentence. It will be hard to convince well-off people who buy into the "american dream" thing that history has been distorted. Average, every day workers, they already know it's garbage. I can remember my grandfather (proud Speed Queen parts shop worker) saying "they're all crooks - they don't care about us". And that was 35 years ago.

I'll tell you what I hear from liberals who aren't posting on political message boards - that they are proud to have a "rock star" president (they don't use those words obviously), they think he is respected by world leaders (as opposed to Bush who was an embarrassment), they like that he's taken religion off the table and acknowledges people who are non-believers, and they think he has inherited quite a mess from Bush to clean up.

No doubt people are identifying with Obama's hip image. How would they feel if they knew that image had been cynically and intentionally created, for the purpose of duping them?


People who are more interested in certain issues - animal rights, gay rights, education - they are all reeling because they've already seen Obama's handiwork in choosing cabinet members & agency heads completely at odds with what they believe. They are likely folks who are pretty myopic about their own issues.

There is an opportunity now for building solidarity.

Those speaking out for Labor are now the latest being portrayed as people whose pet cause is Labor - "Labor" being visualized as some greasy blue collar workers in Detroit with wrenches in their hands, some special interest group. Of course, when we say "Labor" we mean all of us, and 90% of the people in the country.

The whole special interest group and pet cause approach to activism is probably dead now, and that is a good thing. The Obama phenomenon represents the penultimate expression of that, and people are starting to realize that the only practical purpose for having "your cause" approved and on the "progressive" list is so that it can be bumped down and ignored as "not a priority right now," and the only purpose for seeing "your cause" as a cause in the first place is so that it can be marginalized and crushed. As people begin to see that more clearly, they will start finding common cause across the isolation and compartmentalization of cause-driven activism - weekend hobby activities for the relatively upscale that are more about establishing personal identities then actually accomplishing any serious political goals. That is a good thing in my view.

The thing that is wrong about cause activism is that it is always dominated by the upscale few, those who have the resources, time and connections, and they will always be profoundly conservative and sell out the rank and file. We can see this happening everywhere. Over the last 30 years the leadership of organized Labor has become a gentrified and aristocratic class that no longer fights for the rank and file, but rather hob nobs with the "winners" - management and Democratic party big wigs - and sells out the rank and file at every turn "for the greater good" blah blah just like the bullshit excuses we are hearing from Obama now.


Edited to add: re-thinking my last sentence. It will be hard to convince well-off people who buy into the "american dream" thing that history has been distorted. Average, every day workers, they already know it's garbage. I can remember my grandfather (proud Speed Queen parts shop worker) saying "they're all crooks - they don't care about us". And that was 35 years ago.

That tells us that we have a 100-1 advantage in numbers.

Over the last 30 years the leadership of organized Labor has become a gentrified and aristocratic class that no longer fights for the rank and file, but rather hob nobs with the "winners" - management and Democratic party big wigs - and sells out the rank and file at every turn "for the greater good" blah blah just like the bullshit excuses we are hearing from Obama now.

Wow Mike, you hit my union on the head here, makes me sick. NYSUT recently made Social Justice a fourth cornerstone of the union, but when one tries to suggest to them that they take a position not in line they fold. At the recent legislative union conference (I was not there), they refused to consider making a statement on Afghanistan, and use Obama double speak on other issues...(I know I'm breaking things down into causes here)

Causes are useful as fronts for the fight.

There is an opportunity now for building solidarity.

What you say about union leadership goes triple for the main line enviro orgs, at the least. Been reading about about the situation in your current neck of the woods with timber. It's an absolute clusterfuck with the enviros giving away or dismissing every opportunity in typical liberal fashion. There need be no bedrock disagreement between labor and environmental consideration, it all comes down to a considered materialist analysis. The mainline orgs need be shouldered out of the way by people seeking solutions, not making statements.

I just want to thank you for this most fascinating thread! It's been a mind-blowing read. It's not that I didn't sense that there was some serious manipulation going on, I just hadn't seen the details of exactly how it was done all spelled out before.

Pretty damn insidious. The most fiendishly clever part is how they've set up a new divide between the true believers and those who are attempting to alert them to the con. People will fight tooth and nail to resist admitting that they were suckered.

Meanwhile, the Owners will have their way with the ready support of millions of star-struck Obamites as we scramble to build a coherent resistance.

sw

I just want to thank you for this most fascinating thread! It's been a mind-blowing read. It's not that I didn't sense that there was some serious manipulation going on, I just hadn't seen the details of exactly how it was done all spelled out before.

Pretty damn insidious. The most fiendishly clever part is how they've set up a new divide between the true believers and those who are attempting to alert them to the con. People will fight tooth and nail to resist admitting that they were suckered.

Meanwhile, the Owners will have their way with the ready support of millions of star-struck Obamites as we scramble to build a coherent resistance.

sw


There are Obama supporters who think this flatters Obama. He is smart, you see, and he is using a good strategery, and has sharp people around him, and is a winner. "This is how the game is played, and he is just good at playing it." They may express regret that this is the way the game is played.

That has always been an odd thing about the Obama inner circle, and also the volunteers and staffers around the country. They BRAG about what Obama is doing on the one hand, and then turn around and deny it when you object to what they are doing.

The cult was formed intentionally as shock troops against the Left.

The campaign was intentionally designed to appear to be one thing to lull people and sucker them in - kinda sorta left wing like Clinton - while it is actually another thing - Reaganism. Whether or not there is any meaningful distinction to be made between the two is not relevant, nor is this to merely say that in practical effect there is not much difference between the two parties. Many people think that there is a difference - after all, they (and me too) worked for and voted for Democrats. Those people were all intentionally duped.

Now, the inner circle around Obama thinks "what difference does it make? The people are stupid anyway. Everything involves sales and marketing. Everyone is playing the same game. We are just better at it."

That excuses the con job.

Then they say "it isn't right wing or left wing, it is just what needs to be done practically to get things to work. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily support the system the way that it is, but we have to work with it the way it is. You can't do anything that the corporations are against. That is just the way it is, whether we like it or not. We have to work with them. So don't give me all of your 'revolution' far left wing crap, comrade. You can whine on the sidelines of you want, we are actually doing things in the real world. "

That excuses the right wing program.

Meanwhile, the Owners will have their way with the ready support of millions of star-struck Obamites as we scramble to build a coherent resistance.

Exactly. They will also marginalize those on the far right. I'm sure they feel that they can easily insult 10-15% on either side and steamroll right down the middle with their policies.

It's not a bad plan, except for the fact that desperate people do more desperate things & they're not getting a handle on this economy to prevent that. People behave differently when they have nothing to lose. And as I told Mike in another thread, you can't underestimate lunatics with weapons. The far-right may be crazy, but they are also heavily armed.

Meanwhile, the Owners will have their way with the ready support of millions of star-struck Obamites as we scramble to build a coherent resistance.

Exactly. They will also marginalize those on the far right. I'm sure they feel that they can easily insult 10-15% on either side and steamroll right down the middle with their policies.

It's not a bad plan, except for the fact that desperate people do more desperate things & they're not getting a handle on this economy to prevent that. People behave differently when they have nothing to lose. And as I told Mike in another thread, you can't underestimate lunatics with weapons. The far-right may be crazy, but they are also heavily armed.


They are marginalizing and alienating 80% of the people. They are not going down the middle either, they are siding with the "haves."

A lot of people around here are not anti-left. They are opposed to what they see as Seattle do-gooder nanny state upscale arrogant city-slickers. They aren't fringe right wing wackos either, necessarily.

The everyday people around here are ready to either listen to right wing fringe wackos, OR left wing fringe wackos such as myself. They are not going to listen to the city-slickers, from either the "conservative or "liberal" camps.

All things being equal, head-to-head with right wing wackos, I will prevail. But left wing wackos are outnumbered 10-1 and I can never get any allies to get out of their bubble and go out and talk to the people.

And as I told Mike in another thread, you can't underestimate lunatics with weapons. The far-right may be crazy, but they are also heavily armed.

Yes you can discount them. 90% of them are nothing but talk..those pussies with their dumbass anti-government conspiracy theories and boogiemen will stay put exactly where they are..on the sidelines

And as I told Mike in another thread, you can't underestimate lunatics with weapons. The far-right may be crazy, but they are also heavily armed.

Yes you can discount them. 90% of them are nothing but talk..those pussies with their dumbass anti-government conspiracy theories and boogiemen will stay put exactly where they are..on the sidelines


There is one or two out of 10,000 in rural areas who fit that description.

There is one or two out of 10,000 in rural areas who fit that description.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that

And as I told Mike in another thread, you can't underestimate lunatics with weapons. The far-right may be crazy, but they are also heavily armed.

Yes you can discount them. 90% of them are nothing but talk..those pussies with their dumbass anti-government conspiracy theories and boogiemen will stay put exactly where they are..on the sidelines


There is one or two out of 10,000 in rural areas who fit that description.


Wouldn't put the numbers quite so low in these parts, after all, this is SC. Thing that must be remembered is that there's a shitload of other folks around here damn near as well armed as the wackos & probably better shots too. Damn few lefties to be sure but a bunch of people that wouldn't tolerate the kind of nonsense those wackos would put down.

I think Texas may be a lot like SC. You seriously wouldn't believe how many people are armed down here. Of course most of them are not Timothy McVeigh survivalist types, but that sorta makes it scarier. They don't know other media exists - any public place you go into down here plays FOX news and that's it. But that's white texas. I think a big part of our resistance down here may be latino. I'm sort of at a disadvantage not speaking much Spanish.

Well, everyone in rural Michigan is armed.

I think Texas may be a lot like SC. You seriously wouldn't believe how many people are armed down here. Of course most of them are not Timothy McVeigh survivalist types, but that sorta makes it scarier. They don't know other media exists - any public place you go into down here plays FOX news and that's it. But that's white texas. I think a big part of our resistance down here may be latino. I'm sort of at a disadvantage not speaking much Spanish.


Ain't no big deal, these folks just like guns. Most folks just don't want no trouble, the guns are insurance.

The 'gun-grabbers' meme is strong around here tho', I understand that pistol ammo is very hard to come by and priced sky high, 7.62x39 not to be had, mebbe that will slow down the gangbangers, we've been having some shootups lately.

I used to sell guns & ammo, for about 18 years, damn few of those folks scared me.

Guns are good...

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01ewdHc7om8NX/340x.jpg

Big guns are better...

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r273/Bluelew/The_Big_Gun.jpg?t=1239141809

small guns are good too.

http://berlinstories.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/cfac-swissminigun-a-super-tiny-gun-171007.jpg

awwww

normal sized guns can become larger than life, depending on who's pointing them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00241/IanSmith3_385x185_241342q.jpg

Real big gun.
http://www.cnccookbook.com/img/OthersProjects/lahti.jpg
Where'd he get that?

Real big gun.
http://www.cnccookbook.com/img/OthersProjects/lahti.jpg
Where'd he get that?


I think that guy worked on my old chevy once..

These were always my favorites...

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/all_images/Historical/Sov_Artillery/Russian-Ground-Mount-Rocket.jpg

http://www.wio.ru/galgrnd/rocket/katyusha.jpg

http://www.tqnyc.org/2007/NYC073871//battle_images/BERLIN1.jpg

http://www.ww2total.net/worldwar2/weapons-WW2/artillery/self-propelled-guns/allies/soviet/BM-13N_Katyusha/images/loading_Katyushas_Berlin1945-px800.jpg

http://www.wio.ru/galgrnd/rocket/bm31.jpg

Katyusha Rocket Launcher BM-13N
Type: Self-propelled artillery

History: the first self-propelled artillery weapons produced in quantity in the USSR were not guns at all but novel rocket weapons. In June 1938, GAU had authorized the RNII (Jet Scientific Resarch Institute) to develop multiple rocket ground launchers for firing the RS-132 aircraft rocket. A design team under I. Gvay developed a 24-rail launcher firing the modified M-132 rocket over the side of a ZiS-5 lorry. The mounting proved unstable during firing, leading to a second prototype called the MU-1 (Mechanized Assembly-1). This was also a failure, which prompted V.N.Galkovskiy to propose that the rockets be fired longitudinally on the chassis. This lead to the BM-13 Katyusha(Combat Machine for M-13 rockets) which was cornpleted in August 1939. Field tests with a variety of different rocket types were conducted throughout 1940, with the GAU finally approving the vehicle as the BM-13-16 (Combat Vehicle for M-13 rockets with sixteen launch rails), but only 40 were completed before the war started. The new weapon was guarded with the greatest secrecy and at the outbreak of the war a special unit was formed under NKVD direction.



http://www.ww2total.net/worldwar2/weapons-WW2/artillery/self-propelled-guns/allies/soviet/BM-13N_Katyusha/images/Katjusha-disabled-px800.jpg

Shunted off the road and abandoned, this is the most famous of the war rockets: the truck-mounted Katyusha. Because of the distinctive moaning sound the missiles made in night, the Germans dubbed the weapon "Stalin's organ."

The first battery Katyushas went into action near the Orsha railway station on 7 July 1941 and proved an immediate success. The GAU was duly impressed, and ordered production to begin on a crash basis. The rocket launchers were still so highly classified that they received a variety of bogus names such. as Kostikov guns, etc. Eventually they were officially designated Guards Mortars, but the name which stuck was the popular nickname, Katyusha, the diminutive form of the name Katerina, after the Isakovskiy tune of the same name, popular in Russia at the time. The scream of the Katyusha rockets led the Germans to call them Stalin's Organs. Although originally lorry mounted, attempts were made in 1941 to develop other carriages for better cross-country performance. Some BM-13 mounts were mated to the STZ-5 artillery tractor and produced in small numbers. There was also a version mounted on the KV tank, the KV-1K, but this was not produced in any quantity as it wasted a perfectly good heavy tank in a role easily satisfied by a less expensive carriage. In August 1941, a second type of Katyusha rocket was developed, the M-8 82mm rocket which was smaller and had shorter range. These were mounted on lorries as the BM-8-36, or on turretless tank chassis, such as the T-40 and T-60, as the BM-8-24. In 1942, the Soviets developed a version of the M-13 Katyusha rocket with a larger, bulbous warhead, the M-30. Unlike the other two types, the M-30 was not fired from a self-propelled launcher, but from rama (frame) launchers. Self-propelled versions, the BM-31, were not fielded until 1944.

The main attraction of the Katyusha launcher was that it was cheap to manufacture and could be turned out by small factories without the elaborate machine tools needed for conventional tubed artillery. A BM-13 salve dropped 4.35 tons of rocket and high explosive into a 10-acre area in a terrifying 7-10 second strike. Although not so accurate as conventional artillery, this rocket launcher was much more feared by German soldiers than conventional artillery.

By the end of the war, about 10,000 Katyusha launchers had been manufactured, mostly for the Army, but some for the Navy's river flotillas as well. The majority of the Army launchers were self-propelled. The BM-8, BM-13 and BM-31 were all initially mounted on the ZiS-6 truck or its derivatives such as the ZiS-5 and ZiS-5V. In 1942 as Lend-Lease trucks became available, the launchers were mounted on a variety of American, British and Canadian lorries, such as the Chevrolet I 1/2 ton, International K, Ford WOT-8, GMC 2 1/2 ton and Studebaker US6 2 1/2 ton truck. The Lend-Lease types were sometimes distinguished as BM-13S. The superior cross*country performance of the Studebaker US6 led the GAU to standardize this mounting for the BM-13, which was designated BM-13N Katyusha (N -narmalizovanniy: standard). The BM-8 could be mounted on smaller chassis such as the BM-8-8 on the GAZ-67 jeep. However, it was also mounted on larger vehicles with more rails, such as the BM-8-48 on the Studebaker US6. The large BM-31 frame launcher was invariably mounted on larger lorries, first the ZiS-6, but more often on the Studebaker US6. Katyusha launchers were also mounted on armoured trains.

Following the first success of the BM-13 Katyusha battery at Orsha, the Red Army hastened to form new guards mortar units. The initial guards mortar batteries each had seven BM-13, but in July 1941, this was standardized at four launchers per battery. They were usually deployed in support of rifle divisions and initially were kept under NKVD control for security.

Once the Germans Nebelwerfer rocket launchers became commonplace, this control was relaxed. In August 1941, Stalin personally ordered the formation of special guards mortar regiments which were to be kept under the direction of high command reserve (STAVKA-VGK). These consisted of three firing battalions of three batteries each, for a total of 36 BM-13 or BM-8 launchers. At the same time, independent guards mortar battalions were also formed with 36 launchers in three batteries. By the end of 1941, there were 554 launchers in service with 8 regiments, 35 independent battalions and 2 independent batteries. In June 1942 with the arrival of the first M-30 heavy rockers, heavy guards mortar battalions were formed, but these had static, not mobile launchers. They also had three batteries, but each battery had 36 frame launchers while the self-propelled units had only twelve launchers per battery. When the lorry-*mounted BM-31 finally became available in 1944, the motorized heavy guards mortar battalion had only 48 launchers compared to 96 launchers in a static battalion. There were 3,237 launchers manufactured in 1942, bringing total strength up to 57 regiments. Counting the smaller independent battalions, the equivalent of 216 batteries were in service. Of these 23 per cent were M-30 heavy units, 56 per cent were BM-13 units and 21 per cent were the light BM-8 units. In 1943, guards mortar brigades were formed, equipped with static launchers, and later, divisions were formed. By the end of the war, the equivalent of 518 batteries were in service.

Well, that was comprehensive. Sure you're not a closeted war-gamer?

A fine people's weapon, cheap to produce and effective.

Hmmm, why did they call those things 'Stalin's Organs'? ;D

Hey anax where's that picture of the Catholic girl with the fiery expression blowin' off some rounds with the machine gun?

Are we strayin' off topic here? LOL.

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll156/skeeza0814/musicians-ROCK.jpg

Hey anax where's that picture of the Catholic girl with the fiery expression blowin' off some rounds with the machine gun?

Are we strayin' off topic here? LOL.

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll156/skeeza0814/musicians-ROCK.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v174/rednecktexan/minigun.jpg

Well, that was comprehensive. Sure you're not a closeted war-gamer?

A fine people's weapon, cheap to produce and effective.

Hmmm, why did they call those things 'Stalin's Organs'? ;D


As you can see from the photos the Red Army could launch barrages of these rockets at the same time. The things screamed and moaned as they traveled through the air, and when several of them were in the air it sounded like a giant pipe organ chord.

These terrorized the Germans, who otherwise had so many advantages - air superiority, innovative weaponry.

Well, that was comprehensive. Sure you're not a closeted war-gamer?

A fine people's weapon, cheap to produce and effective.

Hmmm, why did they call those things 'Stalin's Organs'? ;D


As you can see from the photos the Red Army could launch barrages of these rockets at the same time. The things screamed and moaned as they traveled through the air, and when several of them were in the air it sounded like a giant pipe organ chord.

These terrorized the Germans, who otherwise had so many advantages - air superiority, innovative weaponry.


Actually I was going for something more salacious. I'll bet those Russian artillerymen knew the usage.

The whole trick with those dodads was using them en masse , firing several regiments of those suckers at a narrow sector of front guaranteed results.

The Vietnamese carried (they weigh about 150 lb.) and used them one at a time, fired from a very simple bipod or tube:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k29/chiangshan3012/122mmrockets.jpg

They made a big hole:

http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/Image37.gif

how did the vietnamese bring down all the bombers.

how did the vietnamese bring down all the bombers.

http://pro.corbis.com/images/U1570594.jpg?size=67&uid=%7BE8C17C41-1F2B-40B6-8022-4DA69D9A504A%7D

how did the vietnamese bring down all the bombers.


BP is right. Mostly heavy caliber machine guns and regular old "small arms fire". Once in a blue moon, they had larger caliber anti-aircraft guns:

http://www.lcompanyranger.com/weapons/37gun2.jpg

Up North, they had thousands of anti-aircraft guns and (rarely) older Surface to Air Missiles:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KezhQ6waZT0/R_4Rz0gveqI/AAAAAAAADcY/FbIuv1SWTdU/s320/guideline.jpg

With this ancient arsenal, they managed to down 2251 Air Force aircraft, 859 Navy aircraft, 463 Marine aircraft, and 302 Army aircraft plus more than 5000 Army helicopters... really.

Yow, wtf, this thread is scary!!! ;)

back to earth in the Hudson Valley, the self-proclaimed red necks (its a badge of honor to call yourself one or be called one here, on the trucks, the hats, the bug catchers) are buying up ammo by the caseload as the governor is proposing id has to be shown to purchase a single bullet...they are saying the ammo is going to be marked so they can trace who has it, also so they can tell who has which gun...

Yow, wtf, this thread is scary!!! ;)

back to earth in the Hudson Valley, the self-proclaimed red necks (its a badge of honor to call yourself one or be called one here, on the trucks, the hats, the bug catchers) are buying up ammo by the caseload as the governor is proposing id has to be shown to purchase a single bullet...they are saying the ammo is going to be marked so they can trace who has it, also so they can tell who has which gun...


All Commies are secret NRA members...

normal sized guns can become larger than life, depending on who's pointing them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00241/IanSmith3_385x185_241342q.jpg


Ian Smith was one big pig...

“I’m pleasantly surprised at the number of people who come to me and say, when you were in the chair, we thought you were too inflexible and unbending; we now see that you were right”, he said in a 2004 interview.

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pix/iandouglassmith.jpg
(looks a little like Dennis Hopper)

Yow, wtf, this thread is scary!!! ;)

back to earth in the Hudson Valley, the self-proclaimed red necks (its a badge of honor to call yourself one or be called one here, on the trucks, the hats, the bug catchers) are buying up ammo by the caseload as the governor is proposing id has to be shown to purchase a single bullet...they are saying the ammo is going to be marked so they can trace who has it, also so they can tell who has which gun...


All Commies are secret NRA members...



Buying tip du jour: yard sales are great places to find ammo!! and closet members of all kinds of subversive orgs. sssshhhh! ;)

Same bullshit happened when Clinton got elected but it's worse this time. I think, last time the ammo shortage only lasted about a month, though it was about 4 months before things returned to normal. It's just a bonanza for the arms mfgs. Talked to a cop yesterday who said that one of the few shops to have anything was fetching $50 a box for .380, robbery, bout 3x normal.

Wonder what the black helicopter guys back in Michigan are saying these days...

Yow, wtf, this thread is scary!!! ;)

back to earth in the Hudson Valley, the self-proclaimed red necks (its a badge of honor to call yourself one or be called one here, on the trucks, the hats, the bug catchers) are buying up ammo by the caseload as the governor is proposing id has to be shown to purchase a single bullet...they are saying the ammo is going to be marked so they can trace who has it, also so they can tell who has which gun...


Yeah, sorry. I had to bring in the artillery and all hell broke loose.

Yow, wtf, this thread is scary!!! ;)

back to earth in the Hudson Valley, the self-proclaimed red necks (its a badge of honor to call yourself one or be called one here, on the trucks, the hats, the bug catchers) are buying up ammo by the caseload as the governor is proposing id has to be shown to purchase a single bullet...they are saying the ammo is going to be marked so they can trace who has it, also so they can tell who has which gun...


Yeah, sorry. I had to bring in the artillery and all hell broke loose.


Bringing in artillery tends to have that effect! :)

Fascinating thread - thanks for posting all this stuff Mike...the level of manipulation is not surprising but the devil sure is in the details. And with my poor understanding of economics in general, I find this new Chicago school of behavioral economics as terrifying as the neolibs...the 'lifestyle choices' bs that Mike's been railing about forever...the people are to blame rather than the forces that have been driving the economy into the shitter for ages...

anyway, good thought-provoking stuff here. And some ammo for some smart-but-fleeced people around here. I'll tell you what - this marketing shit has been successful because I've seen some people sucked into it who I never woulda guessed...some of whom I'll be discussing this with tonight ;)

Speaking of ammo, I will be making my first trip to the gun range later this month. Never shot a gun in my life and figure now's as good a time as any.

http://deandonaldson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/pepsilogo.jpg

The Importance of Brand Naming:

Brand Obama and Brand McCain-a Case Study


Not only was the 2008 pre-election season been a roller-coaster ride emotionally, for both the candidates and the electorate voters, but it's was historic and monumental for two big reasons.

The first is Barack Obama and the second is Sen. Hillary Clinton. Not only is the first time that Americans have picked an African American as a major party candidate, but it's also the first time a woman has ever run for the highest office in the United States.

In terms of how branding crosses all sectors, even human, and how important a brand and staying on target with a brand message (or business tenants/guidelines), this election is the quintessential playbook on how selecting a brand name, ideology, and how to make the two a symbiotic relationship to drive the brand.

This election, in particular, has caught the eye of branding and marketing professionals from both sides of the political aisle, along with a willing and ready media.

In an article entitled "The Brand Called Obama," for Fast Company.com, reporter Ellen McGirt reported the following:

"'Obama and Clinton make an interesting contrast in brands,' says Professor John Quelch, senior associate dean at Harvard Business School and coauthor of Greater Good: How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy. 'Obama communicates that he loves people, and Clinton communicates that she loves policy.' Consider Starbucks, Quelch says. 'People love it for the experience, not for the specifications of the coffee.' Obama, through his inclusive Web site and, yes, his lofty rhetoric, reinforces the notion that everyone is included and that this movement is actually a conversation to which everyone is invited."

From the beginning, the Obama campaign has stuck with branding that evokes a warmer, fuzzier approach that has little to do with policy, but more to do with human emotions and understanding.

"Let's be honest. Barack Obama is not on the verge of clinching the Democratic nomination because of his policy positions--whatever his most evangelical supporters might tell you. If policy was all that mattered this year, Hillary Clinton would've won five or six of the last 11 contests instead of losing them all. When it comes to specifics, there's simply not that much space between the candidates," wrote Andrew Romano, associate editor at Newsweek, in a February, 2008 article entitled, "Expertinent: Why the Obama "Brand" Is Working,"

"But watching Obamamania over the past few weeks, I've become convinced that there's something more subtle at work, too. It's not just the message and the man and the speeches that are swaying Democratic voters--though they are. It's the way the campaign has folded the man and the message and the speeches into a systemic branding effort. Reinforced with a coherent, comprehensive program of fonts, logos, slogans and web design, Obama is the first presidential candidate to be marketed like a high-end consumer brand.* And for folks who don't necessarily need Democratic social programs--upscale voters, young people--I suspect that the novel comfort of that brand affiliation contributes (however subconsciously) to his appeal."

The Obama 'brand' was on-target with operationalizing their brand from the very beginning of his launch into the campaign, so much so, that Sen. Clinton began to emulate the Obama 'brand,' as "Obama" the product outsold her.

http://www.businessnameguide.com/branding-case-study.shtml

Why Brand Obama Is Good for America: Top 10 Reasons



Barack Hussein Obama may be the first president who is actually a brand. So it's rather amazing that he is also one of the most popular brands on the planet. It's spilling over into every aspect of life - and, contrary to the sense of the word "brand" as an advertising gimmick, a commercialization of what should have "deeper" value, it's making things better wherever it goes.

On a business trip to Miami and Orlando, I noticed in the hotel lobby a large group of - maybe Lithuanians? - people, dressed like businesspeople, who spoke some Germano-Russian-sounding language, who were all smiling, enthusiastic, and chanting. Yes, chanting "Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!..."

What was this all about? Or the news article out of Orlando about Obama being a "hit" throughout the Caribbean Islands:


Radio stations across the Caribbean are tuning into U.S. politics, broadcasting rapper and reggae songs celebrating Barack Obama's victory. "Black Man Redemption" by Rapper Tony Rebel, "Yes We Can" by Reggae singer Cocoa Tea and "The Obama Song" by rapper Tyrical are dominating the airwaves in Jamaica. Trinidadians, meanwhile, are enchanted by "Barack the Magnificent," a creation of Calypso legend Mighty Sparrow.Antiguans are singing along with "Barack We Love You," by native calypso singer King Short Shirt.



Followed by a page of letters from local elementary students asking questions directed to the President-Elect. And meanwhile, back in Columbia, the people are "looking forward" to Obama's presidency.

Of course, we know already how excited Africans are for their "native son". Not to mention his unprecedentedly enthusiastic and massive reception in Berlin. But what about China? Hands down - he's an "overwhelming hit" there where last October,

an online poll conducted on China Daily's website by the US embassy, shows Obama enjoys the support of 75 percent among the Chinese.



We know that the name "Obama" tastefully included in any product name is, to borrow a Blogojovitchism, "golden" - spikes sales exponentially. It's just a superlative brand that connotes all that's good about humanity.

What better representation for the United States after years of eroded-to-zilch public image? It's gotten so bad that friends of mine pretend not to be American when at cafes in, say, the Netherlands, so as not to receive dirty looks and bad prices. Even more, the Obama brand incites people to almost-lunatic enthusiasm, joy, hope, action.... good stuff, that.

So, the Top Ten Reasons Why:

1. When you're on the precipice, you need balance. President-elect Obama has balance. Lots of it. Nobody else comes close. And that inspires more balance in others. Weigh the two sides, find a fair solution, be willing to compromise, talk about it, balance your emotions with your mind... Pretty transformative, that! Helps when you're hanging on the edge of an economic, ecological, and otherwise...cliff.

2. Nothing combats depression like inspiration. Obama just walks into a room, and people get inspired. But it's not merely charisma, or oratory. He represents overcoming impossible odds, challenges, achieving the Impossible Dream by hard work and incremental success. He also represents overcoming oppression, a locked-in-steel status quo, a power structure that seems insurmountable, a nasty social attitude in the air, a neocon warmongering mania that nobody can seem to get rid of...and everything you need to get back on your feet in a crisis. Nobody else means "Yes We Can" quite like Obama.

3. He's one of us. He has this amazing ability to identify with Everyman, Everywoman, in Everycountry, while maintaining his American identity. People have this feeling that he understands them, personally. That he cares about them, about what happens to them. He succeeded to have a mass personal relationship with not all, but many on the planet. Maybe it's just lack of pretense, and being down to earth. And something else... je n'sais quoi.

4. When the world is in turmoil, we need someone with an even keel. It's that incredible, unflappable temperament, that pulled Obama through the election process, and that we all hope will pull us through the critical, dangerous days ahead.

5. A brilliant mind: that human gift, and responsibility. Obama has a great mind, and better yet, he actually uses it responsibly. When the challenges get tough, it's not enough to just "get going", as we have seen. It needs a great mind to intelligently work our way through complex issues. No sycophant will do any more. So for Obama to represent the best of the mind does us a world of good. Smart is cool again. Finally.

6. Flexibility, willingness to cooperate. This is essential to building goodwill in world affairs, as well as domestic ones. We've suffered too long through ill will, divisiveness, and "us" vs. "them". The results have been catastrophic. Democracy without cooperation is not democracy. It's a failed state.

7. Obama is a multicultural success story. He blends continents, wildly varying cultures from Kansas to Hawaii to Indonesia, plus of course, Africa, and yet it all somehow works into a very superior "product". He therefore gives us hope that although we are all very different, the common bond is nonetheless intact, and that very diversity contributes toward strength. This is a boon to people against inbreeding, Us v. Them, etc.

8. When we've been sitting on a Ponzi scheme, thinking ourselves rich and powerful, it really helps to find someone with genuine core integrity. Solid ethics. Trustworthiness. Honesty. The high ground. Making good on promises - not just for PR, but just because it's right. Wow, now that's downright refreshing! Barack Obama, from his loving domestic relations with his wife and daughters and other relations, to his making good on promises, to his clean and democratically-run campaign, to his thoughtful, honest relationships with others in government as well as campaigners and those in "Main Street", is the absolute epitome of One Good Man. Not some idealized idol, just a regular guy who works very hard to do things right, and has very high standards.

The net result? Obama made being righteous very, very cool. Bring it on! Which brings us to

9. Pres-elect Obama is just, simply very, very cool. This is an intangible. It's God-given. It's something you either have, or don't have. It may be the "aura" of all of the above. But it's also because he's always working to stay in touch with what's going on around him. He knows technology and uses it. He knows the language, the songs, the music, the culture of everyday Americans. He may not know bowling and country music. But that's OK, because he's cool with what he knows. He goes above and beyond a specific culture, by virtue of his multicultural background added to his being "one of us", added to his cooperative stance, taken to another level by his intelligence. It's everything rolled together in a way that simply ... works.

We're dog tired of things that don't work. And people who make them not work.

10. And at last, Obama resurrects the work ethic. Hard work is part of his success story, and it's not only something that's true, that people can relate to, but it's also very good for the economy. After all, work is how economies are ultimately built - not merely by

investing money, that essentially fake/representative thing, but investing actual work. Instead of encouraging people to spend, we find ourselves inspired to sweat. It's very basic, and being enthusiastic about it makes it far more likely to succeed. After all, what's work without a motive? The profit motive just won't cut it any more.

As we watch the incredible scene of President-elect Barack Obama taking the oath of office, and all that goes with it, no one can help but be amazed at how it all got put together, and how one man came to symbolize so much in one unimaginably critical moment. This is a "brand" that will go down in history in more ways than ten. And that can't help but be good for America, and I hope, the world.

http://thinkbridge.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-superpopular-brand-obama-is-good.html

MMMIIIIKKKKEEE! much as I hate it, where is that puking emoticon????

MMMIIIIKKKKEEE! much as I hate it, where is that puking emoticon????


All right. I am going to start a thread and ask the members.

http://socialistindependent.org/board/index.php?topic=175.msg2431#msg2431

MMMIIIIKKKKEEE! much as I hate it, where is that puking emoticon????


All right. I am going to start a thread and ask the members.


Wow, Mike, I was kidding, I guess I should have used the winkee!! ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2088/puke.gif

People are going to excuse away the revelations about the Obama sales and marketing and branding campaign, seeing this as "smart" by Obama - effectively using the tools to get the job done, and using science-y smart people stuff and being oh so clever and modern and such a winner. They identify with this, it excites them, it validates something for them.

I'm still surprised this dude hasn't sued...

http://mosaicprojects.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/bob-the-builder.jpg

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2088/puke.gif


Thanks squid, I do feel better now...

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2088/puke.gif


Shit... it turns out to be the squid who is "nice". Who woulda thunk it?

Why Brand Obama Is Good for America: Top 10 Reasons

On a business trip to Miami and Orlando, I noticed in the hotel lobby a large group of - maybe Lithuanians? - people, dressed like businesspeople, who spoke some Germano-Russian-sounding language, who were all smiling, enthusiastic, and chanting. Yes, chanting "Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!..."

What was this all about? Or the news article out of Orlando about Obama being a "hit" throughout the Caribbean Islands:

Radio stations across the Caribbean are tuning into U.S. politics, broadcasting rapper and reggae songs celebrating Barack Obama's victory. "Black Man Redemption" by Rapper Tony Rebel, "Yes We Can" by Reggae singer Cocoa Tea and "The Obama Song" by rapper Tyrical are dominating the airwaves in Jamaica. Trinidadians, meanwhile, are enchanted by "Barack the Magnificent," a creation of Calypso legend Mighty Sparrow.Antiguans are singing along with "Barack We Love You," by native calypso singer King Short Shirt.

Followed by a page of letters from local elementary students asking questions directed to the President-Elect. And meanwhile, back in Columbia, the people are "looking forward" to Obama's presidency.

Of course, we know already how excited Africans are for their "native son". Not to mention his unprecedentedly enthusiastic and massive reception in Berlin. But what about China? Hands down - he's an "overwhelming hit" there where last October,

an online poll conducted on China Daily's website by the US embassy, shows Obama enjoys the support of 75 percent among the Chinese.



Bizarrely the Obama love seems to extend to Australian lefties who would never dream of supporting Kevin Rudd, they are every bit as far left as I am but for reasons they just can not quantify they're big Obama fans.

One of the only bookshops I actually buy things from, the Trades Hall Bookshop, has started stocking Obama's crappy fluff books, as a co-op member I've asked if we'd stock a book by Kevin Rudd than praised Reagan and sneered at "socialised medicine" and that was available in every single corporate bookshop in the country but I still can't dislodge the cognitive dissonance.

I can understand why much of the union movement seems fond of him, for the same reason they refuse to see how much the "Labour" party hates actual labor but even amongst my fellow ALP sux travellers who regularly criticise the continuing neo liberal policies of Rudd et al there's this glorifying of Obama.

I simply don't get it.

Why Brand Obama Is Good for America: Top 10 Reasons

On a business trip to Miami and Orlando, I noticed in the hotel lobby a large group of - maybe Lithuanians? - people, dressed like businesspeople, who spoke some Germano-Russian-sounding language, who were all smiling, enthusiastic, and chanting. Yes, chanting "Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!..."

What was this all about? Or the news article out of Orlando about Obama being a "hit" throughout the Caribbean Islands:

Radio stations across the Caribbean are tuning into U.S. politics, broadcasting rapper and reggae songs celebrating Barack Obama's victory. "Black Man Redemption" by Rapper Tony Rebel, "Yes We Can" by Reggae singer Cocoa Tea and "The Obama Song" by rapper Tyrical are dominating the airwaves in Jamaica. Trinidadians, meanwhile, are enchanted by "Barack the Magnificent," a creation of Calypso legend Mighty Sparrow.Antiguans are singing along with "Barack We Love You," by native calypso singer King Short Shirt.

Followed by a page of letters from local elementary students asking questions directed to the President-Elect. And meanwhile, back in Columbia, the people are "looking forward" to Obama's presidency.

Of course, we know already how excited Africans are for their "native son". Not to mention his unprecedentedly enthusiastic and massive reception in Berlin. But what about China? Hands down - he's an "overwhelming hit" there where last October,

an online poll conducted on China Daily's website by the US embassy, shows Obama enjoys the support of 75 percent among the Chinese.



Bizarrely the Obama love seems to extend to Australian lefties who would never dream of supporting Kevin Rudd, they are every bit as far left as I am but for reasons they just can not quantify they're big Obama fans.

One of the only bookshops I actually buy things from, the Trades Hall Bookshop, has started stocking Obama's crappy fluff books, as a co-op member I've asked if we'd stock a book by Kevin Rudd than praised Reagan and sneered at "socialised medicine" and that was available in every single corporate bookshop in the country but I still can't dislodge the cognitive dissonance.

I can understand why much of the union movement seems fond of him, for the same reason they refuse to see how much the "Labour" party hates actual labor but even amongst my fellow ALP sux travellers who regularly criticise the continuing neo liberal policies of Rudd et al there's this glorifying of Obama.

I simply don't get it.


Well Djinn, the bush fatigue is strong, fancy-pants propaganda aside it's probably half the reason Obama got elected. He was pretty well hated in your neck of the woods, yes? Left criticism is still pretty muted(but we're working on it!) and I imagine your folks are not as familiar with the rogues gallery that he has appointed. Know them by their acts, as things proceed I expect your comrades will catch on. I think that Pakistan and toothless climate policy will make things clearer, sooner rather than later.

Well Djinn, the bush fatigue is strong, fancy-pants propaganda aside it's probably half the reason Obama got elected. He was pretty well hated in your neck of the woods, yes? Left criticism is still pretty muted(but we're working on it!) and I imagine your folks are not as familiar with the rogues gallery that he has appointed. Know them by their acts, as things proceed I expect your comrades will catch on. I think that Pakistan and toothless climate policy will make things clearer, sooner rather than later.


I'm doing my best, I have managed to point a few people to information that has surprised them because they simply believed the change thing (and yes there's a strong 'well at least it aint Bush' feeling) Mostly on Israel (because like most of the rest of the world, advocating for Palestinian statehood doesn't make you a rabid terrorist supporter here much to the annoyance of the ALP right) but it's hard going asking people to read and base their opinions on facts rather than some vague notion of hope and change and assumptions that Obama's campaign made no effort to correct.

Good fucking grief.

Check this out - Obama is still fund-raising as though he were still campaigning. Here is a mass email that just went out to the true believers.


Subject: Calls for failure

Dear (supporter)'s name,

It makes you wonder whether they see the same thing we do.

Advocates for the status quo are calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle. They're playing the same old political games and offering the same failed policies at a time of crisis.

In the coming days, opponents will do everything they can to destroy the President's proposed budget, a bold plan to help fix our broken economy and healthcare system and finally make energy and education the priority we all know they must be.

The change we need won't come without a fight -- no meaningful change ever does. Just like in the campaign, Barack Obama can't win without you by his side. Town by town, block by block, this grassroots movement is organizing and uniting Americans behind the President's plan.

But to finish what we started, we need resources.

Will you join the fight? Before Monday, April 13th, make a donation of $25 or more to help President Obama turn this country around.

("DONATE NOW" button)

We know that Washington won't change overnight. It'll take time, commitment, and money, but this grassroots movement can make change a reality -- affordable health care, a clean energy economy, and quality education for all. We know we are asking a lot from you -- but the stakes couldn't be higher.

It's why we worked so hard to elect President Obama, and he's counting on us to follow through. Today, you can make a difference.

Jo Ann from Charlotte, NC, has joined thousands of other supporters this week to support this movement and reject the same old politics:

I am a sixty-two year old woman on disability. I followed the election closely and did what I could to get Obama elected. Since he was inaugurated, I have watched in awe to see how much has already been accomplished. I live in Charlotte, NC where the unemployment rates are double digits and going up. My youngest son was out of work for 8 months because the company he worked for went out of business. So many workers and families are losing jobs and homes. There's so much more to be done, but this budget has to be passed and the programs have to be put into practice before things start to recover. That's why I support President Obama and his plans.


Americans like Jo Ann deserve better than the kind of divisive politics we've seen year after year. They deserve a truthful debate about real issues and a budget that will turn this economy around so that they can turn their lives around.

We need to seize this crucial moment to help pass this budget and invest in the one thing that can make President Obama's promises of change a reality -- the movement you built.

Before the Monday deadline, strengthen this movement. Make a donation of $25 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/fightattacks

Thank you for all that you do,

David Plouffe

These people must be stopped.

Then

Glenn Greenwald: "Here is what Obama said on the floor of the Senate in September, 2006 when he argued in favor of an amendment to the Military Commissions Act that would have restored habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. I defy anyone to read this and reconcile what he said then to what he is doing now."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index.html


Then:

The bottom line is this: Current procedures under the CSRT are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence.

I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. . . . But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.

This is not just an entirely fictional scenario, by the way. We have already had reports by the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo should not have been there. As one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal:

"Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks."

We all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria--through a rendition agreement--tortured, only to find out later it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. . . .

This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person. . . .

But what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes. By giving suspects a chance--even one chance--to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

In Sunday's New York Times, it was reported that previous drafts of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, a report of 16 different Government intelligence agencies, describe "actions by the United States Government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay."

This is not just unhelpful in our fight against terror, it is unnecessary. We don't need to imprison innocent people to win this war. For people who are guilty, we have the procedures in place to lock them up. That is who we are as a people. We do things right, and we do things fair.

Two days ago, every Member of this body received a letter, signed by 35 U.S. diplomats, many of whom served under Republican Presidents. They urged us to reconsider eliminating the rights of habeas corpus from this bill, saying:

"To deny habeas corpus to our detainees can be seen as a prescription for how the captured members of our own military, diplomatic, and NGO personnel stationed abroad may be treated. ..... The Congress has every duty to insure their protection, and to avoid anything which will be taken as a justification, even by the most disturbed minds, that arbitrary arrest is the acceptable norm of the day in the relations between nations, and that judicial inquiry is an antique, trivial and dispensable luxury."

The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future--our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the "great writ" -- a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years.

Mr. President, this should not be a difficult vote. I hope we pass this amendment because I think it is the only way to make sure this underlying bill preserves all the great traditions of our legal system and our way of life.

I yield the floor.

http://obamaspeeches.com/091-Floor-Statement-on-the-Habeas-Corpus-Amendment-Obama-Speech.htm

Now


Now:

Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling

By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: April 10, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11bagram.html?_r=1

Hey anax where's that picture of the Catholic girl with the fiery expression blowin' off some rounds with the machine gun?

Are we strayin' off topic here? LOL.

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll156/skeeza0814/musicians-ROCK.jpg


Hey, Chlams...

I thought you might be able to use this one too.

Same gun; different gunner.
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/yoeth/pandas-need-guns.jpg

Good fucking grief.

Check this out - Obama is still fund-raising as though he were still campaigning. ...


Yep, he sure is. And he still has his loyal followers going door-to-door. I live in a very walk-able part of town, near downtown, and apparently a popular place for college painters and other assorted salespeople to drum up business. It's been getting more frequent and irritating, to the point that I recently put a "No Solicitors" sign on my door (does this make me an asshole? A grumpy old man? Meh.) So when my doorbell rang Saturday afternoon I naturally assumed it was a neighbor or a friend stopping by...silly me. It was a woman with an Obama t-shirt and several large Obama pins, and an Obama hat to boot! Oh, and a big bright smile of someone who is doing good in the world!

Lady: Hi! We're going door to door to get support for President Obama's healthcare plan!

Monkey: I don't support his health-care plan

Lady: (shocked) Oh?

Monkey: We need single-payer health care and the insurance companies need to be kept out of it entirely.

Lady: We are on the same side!

Monkey: (Interrupting) No, we are not.

(Door shut firmly in her astonished face)

I almost wish I had taken a different tone and asked her whether or not she knew she was part of the greatest and most manipulative political advertising campaign in history. I suppose there are many ways I could have made it more productive. Oh well, too late now. I don't think she'll be coming back.

Good fucking grief.

Check this out - Obama is still fund-raising as though he were still campaigning. ...


Yep, he sure is. And he still has his loyal followers going door-to-door. I live in a very walk-able part of town, near downtown, and apparently a popular place for college painters and other assorted salespeople to drum up business. It's been getting more frequent and irritating, to the point that I recently put a "No Solicitors" sign on my door (does this make me an asshole? A grumpy old man? Meh.) So when my doorbell rang Saturday afternoon I naturally assumed it was a neighbor or a friend stopping by...silly me. It was a woman with an Obama t-shirt and several large Obama pins, and an Obama hat to boot! Oh, and a big bright smile of someone who is doing good in the world!

Lady: Hi! We're going door to door to get support for President Obama's healthcare plan!

Monkey: I don't support his health-care plan

Lady: (shocked) Oh?

Monkey: We need single-payer health care and the insurance companies need to be kept out of it entirely.

Lady: We are on the same side!

Monkey: (Interrupting) No, we are not.

(Door shut firmly in her astonished face)

I almost wish I had taken a different tone and asked her whether or not she knew she was part of the greatest and most manipulative political advertising campaign in history. I suppose there are many ways I could have made it more productive. Oh well, too late now. I don't think she'll be coming back.



Hmmm, they must be getting nervous about the number of single payer supporters there are to be sending out the troops like this; fight grass roots with astro turf??

One young "believer" I happen to know (she's in her 20's, blue-collar girl) campaigned for Obama and was so excited when he won. We normally don't talk much about politics, but this is what she has to say about him today: "I want my vote back from Obama. He said he would get a shelter/rescue dog. ASSHAT! With the bad economy there are many pure bred and hypo-allergenic dogs available. When you buy a dog from a breeder you are keeping them in business while 2 million dogs are put to sleep in a year because they can't find a home. Next week he'll be hanging out with bat shit crazy Palin- shooting wolves out of helicopters for fun."

There is no real evidence that behavioral psychology works very well, if at all. The only scientific (quasi) manifestation from this school of psychology are "case studies" that are quite rigorous and applied typically to developmentally disabled children and adults. In this context it works. Larger scale behavioral studies are a big flop. In fact, behavior modification is a big fat zero when it comes to groups.

There's a lot of talk and theory. It can all seem to fit together. But the only success these guys are having with behaviorism is the success that's incorrectly attributed to their efforts because most people were sick and tired of Bush, in the extreme.

We're building a nice consensus on issues, pragmatic when it needs to be ideological but, most importantly, opposed to the cult of personality.

Didn't anyone notice that in Great Britain, tens of thousands protested Obama's presence along with the other free loaders, the G-20. Those demonstrations were aimed at the lead G-20 guy, Obama.

The reporting here treated the demonstrations as a distinct phenomena. The reporting emphasized Obama and the queen of England and all that "rot." This was censorship as to the true meaning and object of the demonstrations and misinformation as to the significance of Ms. queen and her proclivities. That's old fashioned information control.

So you want Sunstein and others engaged in behavioral programming. It's a wast of their time and that's a good thing.

There is no real evidence that behavioral psychology works very well, if at all. The only scientific (quasi) manifestation from this school of psychology are "case studies" that are quite rigorous and applied typically to developmentally disabled children and adults. In this context it works. Larger scale behavioral studies are a big flop. In fact, behavior modification is a big fat zero when it comes to groups.

There's a lot of talk and theory. It can all seem to fit together. But the only success these guys are having with behaviorism is the success that's incorrectly attributed to their efforts because most people were sick and tired of Bush, in the extreme.

We're building a nice consensus on issues, pragmatic when it needs to be ideological but, most importantly, opposed to the cult of personality.

Didn't anyone notice that in Great Britain, tens of thousands protested Obama's presence along with the other free loaders, the G-20. Those demonstrations were aimed at the lead G-20 guy, Obama.

The reporting here treated the demonstrations as a distinct phenomena. The reporting emphasized Obama and the queen of England and all that "rot." This was censorship as to the true meaning and object of the demonstrations and misinformation as to the significance of Ms. queen and her proclivities. That's old fashioned information control.

So you want Sunstein and others engaged in behavioral programming. It's a wast of their time and that's a good thing.


Love the typo in your title...

I've always thought that what you say here is true on the face of it. It doesn't keep them from trying, though. Can you point to a paper or article that is an objective refutation of this jive, or is it a body of accumulated evidence?

There is no real evidence that behavioral psychology works very well, if at all. The only scientific (quasi) manifestation from this school of psychology are "case studies" that are quite rigorous and applied typically to developmentally disabled children and adults. In this context it works. Larger scale behavioral studies are a big flop. In fact, behavior modification is a big fat zero when it comes to groups.

There's a lot of talk and theory. It can all seem to fit together. But the only success these guys are having with behaviorism is the success that's incorrectly attributed to their efforts because most people were sick and tired of Bush, in the extreme.

We're building a nice consensus on issues, pragmatic when it needs to be ideological but, most importantly, opposed to the cult of personality.

Didn't anyone notice that in Great Britain, tens of thousands protested Obama's presence along with the other free loaders, the G-20. Those demonstrations were aimed at the lead G-20 guy, Obama.

The reporting here treated the demonstrations as a distinct phenomena. The reporting emphasized Obama and the queen of England and all that "rot." This was censorship as to the true meaning and object of the demonstrations and misinformation as to the significance of Ms. queen and her proclivities. That's old fashioned information control.

So you want Sunstein and others engaged in behavioral programming. It's a wast of their time and that's a good thing.


Love the typo in your title...

I've always thought that what you say here is true on the face of it. It doesn't keep them from trying, though. Can you point to a paper or article that is an objective refutation of this jive, or is it a body of accumulated evidence?



Auto is money when it comes to making inadvertent but brilliant typos

Was wondering the same thing re: refutation, although I guess Lenin kind of already weighed in on this stuff..(lol)

If it doesn't work why do they do it? Not saying they're all that smart but they're smart enough to be where they are, for now. It's just advertising and they sure throw a lot of bucks at that remedy for overproduction.

Always figured it was a percentage game, cast a wide net and catch just enough...., in politic ya don't even need promote a positive image, sowing doubt and confusion is easier and does the job.

Think they've jumped the shark with Obama, not left enough of a transition period between what ya see and what ya get, too much contrast, mebbe arrogance and mebbe perceived necessity. Time will tell.

If it doesn't work why do they do it? Not saying they're all that smart but they're smart enough to be where they are, for now. It's just advertising and they sure throw a lot of bucks at that remedy for overproduction.

Always figured it was a percentage game, cast a wide net and catch just enough...., in politic ya don't even need promote a positive image, sowing doubt and confusion is easier and does the job.

Think they've jumped the shark with Obama, not left enough of a transition period between what ya see and what ya get, too much contrast, mebbe arrogance and mebbe perceived necessity. Time will tell.


I think it is a matter of degrees. There is a very broad turf between, "Marketing works", which it clearly does, and "mass hypnosis doesn't work" (at least not for long). There is also the aspect in Mikes's original posts that it underlines their cynicism, whether it "works" longterm or not.

Also, there is the "electoral factor" - "it" has to work for one day... This last is a huge criticism of "electoral systems" and particularly of the the ability to focus an ocean of cash at a very small and discrete target.

Love the typo in your title...



me too, I won't change it...

It isn't about behavioral psychology (whatever that is anyway) and whether or not behavioral psychology "works."

It is about lying. Calling it "behavioral psychology" just makes it sound nicer.

Well I killed the thread lol. OK, OK, it IS about behavioral psychology.

Working on the connections between the human potential movement - Est, Landmark, The Forum, Mind Dynamics, et al - and the Obama crew now. Looks promising so far.

All along there was something vaguely familiar to me about the way Obama speaks, and the way his followers talk and behave. It finally came to me - he talks like an Est seminar leader (Werner Erhard's program) and his followers act like the groupies from that organization. Watching a video of Tom Cruise caused the light to go on for me - he is talking just like Obama followers - absolutely certain, but absolutely certain about nothing. If you are "right" about nothing, then reality can never interfere with you being right.

Have a couple of people working on it. Discovering that Obama organizers are not just like Landmark leaders, they actually are Landmark leaders. (Landmark was once called "the Forum" and before that "Est," and has its roots in Mind Dynamics and Scientology.)

More to come...

Mike are the groups (other than scientology) you mention internet based or do they have actual real-life followers? I've never heard of Est or Mind Dynamics but if they are what they sound like, I'm not at all surprised

Mike are the groups (other than scientology) you mention internet based or do they have actual real-life followers? I've never heard of Est or Mind Dynamics but if they are what they sound like, I'm not at all surprised


Tens of thousands of real life followers.


Mind Dynamics, founded by Alexander Everett, was the major forerunnner of the Large Group Awareness Trainings. Although it was only in existence for a few years, it has certainly sparked an entire industry of similar trainings.

Alexander Everett was from England and arrived in America in 1962 and went to Missouri. "Deciding that the Unity ministry was not his calling, he (Alexander Everett) left Missouri in 1963 and went to Fort Worth, Texas, where he had been invited to help establish a private boarding school. He remained in Texas for seven years. In Texas, he not only helped set up the Fort Worth Country Day School but more importantly, completed the work that led to the founding in 1968 of Mind Dynamics, the experiential human potential training organization that was to become the forerunner of est, Lifespring, Actualizations, and several other human potential training organizations that flourished in the 1970s and continue to do so in the 80s.

Alexander states that Mind Dynamics grew out of the various paths of spiritual and personal growth that he had been exploring since leaving England. He lists, as the primary influences, Edgar Cayce's work, Theosophy, Rosicrucianism, Egyptology, Silva Mind Control, and, of course, Unity. He knew when he put the Mind Dynamics course together that, primarily, he wanted to develop a training that dealt with the workings of the mind, and secondly, since we live in the Aquarian Age, a mind sign, that he wanted to have the word "mind" in the organization's name.

The four-day trainings, which were largely experiential, caught on rapidly--not in Texas, where they were first offered, but in California, where Alexander was soon being invited to present them. As a result the headquarters of Mind Dynamics was moved to San Francisco in 1970. Interest in the course, however, was not restricted to California. During the four remaining years of the organization's existence, the course was taught throughout the United States and in Europe and Australia.

Looking back upon it, Alexander feels that the organizations expanded too quickly. It grew larger than he had originally intended, and was soon being controlled by the dynamic, young staff that he had recruited. Alexander brought in as trainers young men who were soon to become leaders in the human potential movement that spread throughout California in the 1970s and, later, across the country."

Mind Dynamics was a success and attracted William Penn Patrick's attention. He had a pyramid sales organization called Holiday Magic, which sold cosmetics. He also had a training organization known as Leadership Dynamics. He bought Everett's training in 1970 intending to use it as an additional training vehicle for his distributors. While Mind Dynamics was a non-confrontational course in self-hypnosis like the Silva Method, the Leadership Dynamics program was a hard hitting group encounter. The influences of both trainings are found in the training organizations which followed.

William Penn Patrick's Leadership Dynamics training organization went out of control in its methods according to a book called "The Pit, a group encounter defiled" by Gene Church (out of print). The resulting lawsuits pretty much shut down Leadership Dynamics as well as Mind Dynamics. The Holiday Magic MLM was busted as a pyramid scheme. Penn Patrick died when he crashed his F-86 Sabre at an airshow in Sacramento.

When Leadership Dynamics and Mind Dynamics shut down, some of the instructors went out on their own.

* Four of them [Bob White, Randy Revell, Charlene Afremow, John Hanley] founded Lifespring in 1974 and developed the Lifespring training with psychologist John Enright.
* Another, Werner Erhard, founded est in 1971 which evolved into The Forum.
* Bob White left Lifespring, went to Japan, and started a training organization there called Life Dynamics.
* Randy Revell left Lifespring and founded the Context Trainings.
* Charlene Afremow joined Erhard's organization as a trainer. She later left in a dispute , returned to Lifespring, then returned to Landmark and is now leading Forums..
* Howard Nease founded Personal Dynamics.
* Jim Quinn founded Lifestream
* Thomas Willhite founded PSI World Seminars
* Stewart Emery worked for est and later founded Actualizations
* William Penn Patrick's training organization recovered and is known today as Leadership Dynamics.

Werner Erhard, Scientology, Est and Landmark


The first est course happened at the Jack Tar Hotel in San Francisco, California in October 1971. Within a year, trainings were being held in New York City, and other major cities in the US followed soon after. By 1979 est had expanded to Europe and other parts of the world. The popularity of est peaked in 1981, then enrollment for the various courses began to decline. The last est Training was held in December 1984 in San Francisco; in its place came a newly developed course called 'The Forum,' which began in January 1985. The est Training presented several concepts, most notably the concept of transformation and taking responsibility for one's life. The actual teaching, called "the technology of transformation," emphasizes the value of integrity.[2] 'est, Inc.' evolved into 'est, an Educational Corporation', and eventually into 'Werner Erhard & Associates'. WE&A purchased the assets of est in 1981


In the late 1960s, Erhard studied Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard became a significant influence. Scientologists to this day accuse Erhard of having stolen his main ideas for est from Hubbard. We do know that when Erhard set up est he considered making it a non-profit, as Hubbard had done with dianetics and the Church of Scientology. But Erhard decided to incorporate as an educational firm for profit in a broad market.

Erhard and his supporters accuse Scientology of being behind various attempts to discredit Erhard, including hounding by the IRS and accusations of incest by his children. Erhard won a lawsuit against the IRS and the incest accusations were recanted. Erhard has claimed he has good evidence that Scientologists made a strong and concerted effort to destroy him.


It is estimated that some 700,000 people did the training before the seminars were halted in 1984, when Erhard packed up and left the country [Faltermayer]. There must have been a lot of satisfied customers to rack up that kind of participation over little more than a decade. He sold the est "technology" to some followers who established Landmark Forum in 1985. Erhard's brother, Harry Rosenberg, heads Landmark Education Corp. (LEC), which does some $50 million a year in business and has attracted some 300,000 participants. LEC is headquartered in San Francisco, as was est, and has 42 offices in 11 countries. Apparently, however, Erhard is not involved in the operation of LEC.

http://www.skepdic.com/est.html

a while back, maybe 6 months or so, I read up on one of the (putative) founding fathers of the "New Age" movement, Walter Russell. New Age seems to be a catchall for a number of "movements" and his connection is that he invoked the term New Age in the 40s (give or take, I'm foggy on the exact timeline) before anyone else (note that I started out with the word 'putative')

While his "followers" -- modernday cranks and crackpots who've made some psycho-mystical "discovery" in Quantum Physics or some shit -- hail him as a "Tesla-like genius 100 years ahead of his time", he appears to have actually been a (fourth-rate) huckster who was handy with the pen when it came to grandiosity dressed up with "learnedness"

I just checked to see if he had a Wikipedia entry, and it says that Walter Cronkite hailed him as "the DaVinici of our time" when he passed. Musta been a slow news night..

Werner Erhard's movement was enormous at one time - close to a million "graduates" about to change the world and bring "hope" and "change" and "belief" to the unwashed masses. Everything we hear from Obama cultists is right out of the Est recruitment handbook. Landmark, which grew from that is more low key and slick and mainstream and has avoided much of the controversy surrounding Erhard's activities, but the "philosophy" is the same. The Est "tech" - a grab bag of manipulative sales techniques and pseudo-Eastern religion, was "sold' to Erhard's brother and Est was re-organized as Landmark when legal heat was coming down on Erhard. He makes royalty income from Landmark's business activities - mostly "seminars" which are large scale group encounter sessions.

Landmark astroturf featuring Obama

Yes, you can! 10 things we can learn from Obama

He is the face of change. His slogan “Yes we can!” inspired millions of people not only in the United States, but in Canada as well. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama – a virtual unknown barely two years ago – seals his place in history when he is sworn in as President of the United States, the first African-American incumbent of the White House.

Obama’s realization of an unlikely dream is, to no small degree, rooted in his ability to lift a nation; to not just outline his vision but inspire his audience to join the journey that would take them there. Few people are blessed with Obama’s compelling oratorial skills and his motivational abilities. What is it that makes him special, and is there something that lesser mortals can learn from him? We put the question to five people with proven leadership and speaking skills, who distilled for us 10 key points that each of us can emulate:

1. Be authentic: The hallmark of a leader is their ability to connect to their followers. Barack Obama is masterful in his ability to come across as being very real and empathetic. From the tone of his voice to his body language to his rhetoric, he demonstrates a very authentic and engaging style. In this age of many leaders who don’t walk the talk, Obama reflects a particularly genuine style. - Robin Sharma, author of The Greatness Guide and The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari.

2. Inspire: Obama is a beacon of hope in a world where many people are confused. The best leaders have this ability to show their followers a clear mountaintop and then galvanize them at an emotional level so they walk towards it. Obama has this ability and inspires his followers to reach for the best within them and then join him in the building of a better world. - Robin Sharma, www.robinsharma.com.

3. Keep it simple: Obama communicates eloquently, powerfully and passionately without ever getting tricky. His words are not of the high-brow, complicated, intellectual variety. Instead of impressing he is more focused on conveying, communicating, and paradoxically, becomes seen as impressive. Simple words, simple phrases, simple message; easily understood and calmly conveyed. - Ray Pons, keynote speaker, author and founder of The Growth Coach.

4. Maintain rhythm: Obama speaks at an even tempo and measured pace. He has a smooth rhythm allowing the words to flow. Some speakers can seem to be in a rush to finish and will often get tongue tied creating unwanted tension. Pace the message. Allow yourself to pause - it lets the message sink in and gives the audience time to savour what has gone (they can, and often will, applaud). - Ray Pons, www.raypons.com

5. Be positive: Obama uses positive, powerful words in all his messages. This is exemplified in his “Yes We Can” YouTube video, viewed by more than 2.2 million people. He encourages the crowd to believe in change and not to be fearful of it. He promotes opportunity and prosperity through words like “healing the nation” and “repairing this world”. He empowers the audience with the mantra: ”Yes we can!” - Mary Fenuta is CEO of Passionately Inspired Solutions Inc.

6. Respect the listener: Barack Obama praises and respects his audience, and makes them understand that He cannot change history, but “We” can. He builds hope in the hearts of the nation by reinforcing and uplifting the human spirit and insists that “uniting as one” is the ultimate answer to bring about change that works. - Mary Fenuta, www.PassionatelyInspiredSolutions.com.

7. Show credibility: When Obama speaks, it seems as if he is doing so without a script, and from the heart. It is likely that every word leaving his mouth was strategic, practised and deliberate, and yet everything he said was believable. His communication of his vision was clear, he seemed knowledgeable, his opinions were backed by verifiable facts and figures. - Maureen Bogoroch-Ditkofsky, author and leadership speaker.

8. Stay in control: Obama is able to demonstrate unflappability even while under fire. By not losing nerve and never losing his cool, he was able to instil confidence. To me, what was quite inspiring was his ability to appear to be in control, to take charge and make tough decisions and yet to exhibit humanity at the same time. - Maureen Bogoroch-Ditkofsky, www.2golead.com.

9. Remain humble: Barack Obama’s humility shows up in his eagerness to embrace others’ viewpoints. He actively seeks counsel from others, and doesn’t try to pretend he knows everything. He is open to new viewpoints. - Randy Park, author of Thinking for Results and The Prediction Trap.

10. Look to the future: Obama looks to the future not with the idea of predicting or controlling it, but with the goal of understanding it and preparing for it. The difference is that he takes in information that might be contrary to his initial assessment. - Randy Park, www.thinkingforresults.com.

http://www.confidencebound.ca/content/view/95/34/

More Landmark on Obama...

How To Create Change and Foster Hope Like Barack Obama

Article written by Marina Tsipenyuk.

http://www.alexshalman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/barack_obama.jpg

When Barack Obama was pronounced the winner of the 2008 presidential election, the world was energized with a new spirit of hope. Now, right at the dawn of inauguration day, we are seeking Obama in Spiderman comics and companies like are Pepsi modeling after Obama’s marketing campaign. It is the first time in my life that I have seen a political figure become such a celebrity!

There is no question that 2008 had been a revolutionary year in American politics. For the first time in this country’s existence we will see a black man, who won the election by a popular landslide, be the president of the most powerful country on earth. Judging by the extreme enthusiasm, America was clearly ready for this. And regardless of conflicting views on Obama’s liberalism, it is evident that this man is a great orator with an amazing ability to connect to listeners. His resume, too, is outstanding, boasting of experience and accomplishment in academia, writing, foreign affairs, civil rights, environmental awareness…etc. He is young, captivating, moral, and inherently motivating. Obama is the new face of America.


Americans… still believe in an America where anything’s possible - they just don’t think their leaders do. ~Barack Obama

9 Ways That ‘Yes We Can!’ Like Barack Obama

1. Change By Us, For Us and Now

Why not us? Why not today? Why not now? Obama believes that those who seek change must be the initiators.


Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.~Barack Obama

As we know, try all we may, we cannot change anyone but ourselves. This is the same with situations. Only we can act to change our circumstances. Procrastinating action with excuses is easy. If we desire to accomplish something great, then we must have a vision, and be that vision.

2. Constant and Never Ending Improvement

Although Obama recognizes how hard others have worked for this country, he believes that there is much more to improve. There is never an end to improvement.


It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get to where we are today, but we have just begun. Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today.~Barack Obama

No matter how good times may be, we can always aspire for an even better tomorrow. A black man will be president, but that does not mean that there is an end to racism. Jay-Z said “Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther King could walk. Martin Luther King walked so Obama could run. Obama ran so we can all fly.”, but even flying is a means to something bigger.

3. Rational Measures

Personal development aficionados sometimes plunge into action. We attempt to tackle happiness, jump out of our comfort zones, and wage magnificent wars against a slew of vengeful carbohydrates. And although extremes can be great, we must also make sure that our goals are well planned and rational.


I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.~Barack Obama

When a nation chooses to declare a war, Obama believes that this war should be well justified, as war can have huge implications on the nation and its citizens. As the Bush administration was declaring war on Iraq, which had soon become one of the most unpopular wars in history, Obama was pushing for anti-war rallies in his home state of Illinois. So what happened to the so-called weapons of mass destruction? We have not found any. We are now merely moderating someone else’s civil war.

4. Possibility

America is a nation where any person, regardless of where they came from could freely practice religion, politics, trade, and love.


My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or blessed, believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. ~Barack Obama

As Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union, my parents came to America to start a new life full of possibilities. In Kiev where my parents lived, no matter their merit, they could not attend good Universities. “Jew” was like a scar written on their passports. America has always been the land of opportunity, and it is very encouraging that a politician can so openly relate to this, himself.

5. Future Forecasts for Today’s Efforts

Obama recognizes that nothing comes from nothing, that we must win small battles today in order to prevent greater problems in the future.


Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. ~Barack Obama

Any business owner or investor knows that it is extremely important to anticipate impending change before taking on projects. Bill Gates did not believe that the internet would become as ginormous an information medium as it has and had significantly lost on this bet. Owners of Blockbuster franchises may not have seen Netflix and HBO on demand revolutionizing where people get their movies. The government had not foreseen a global recession. Obama may have a lot on his hands right now, but he will work on it today for a better tomorrow.

6. Not taking Yourself Too Seriously

I kind of figured that anyone about to run a country would feel pretty important, but this “skinny guy from the South Side of Chicago with the funny name” was pleasantly surprised when he realized he was on high demand.


The fact that my 15 minutes of fame has extended a little longer than 15 minutes is somewhat surprising to me and completely baffling to my wife.~Barack Obama

When we take ourselves too seriously we are susceptible to a lot of insult. What I mean is that we perceive more as insult when, otherwise, it would be taken as light-hearted comments. When we take ourselves too seriously, we may also get more discouraged in the face of hardship because we would get hung up on our mistakes instead of coming up with solutions to the problem. Therefore, be conscious of what you worry about. Make sure it is worth it.

7. Unity

Obama focuses on what unites America and Americans, rather than their differences. The following was an excerpt from a speech that he delivered at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.


There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America - there’s the United States of America. ~Barack Obama

While this may not have always been a reality in America, and some of our forefathers wouldn’t necessarily agree, it is our ideal vision of America, and the dream that is slowly becoming a reality.

8. Perfection

We do not need to be inherently perfect in order to perfect ourselves every day.


We need to internalize this idea of excellence. Not many folks spend a lot of time trying to be excellent. ~Barack Obama

As someone who has spent so much time on improving herself, it is a marvel

to me how so many people are completely okay with being mediocre. Mediocrity does not save people from hunger. It does not cure diseases and it does not write glorious symphonies. We must internalize excellence and make it a part of our identity.

9. Ambition

If there is one great opportunity for people today it is an abundance of resources. Before the internet, people had excuses when they had no way to find something out. Today, not only can we find answers to almost all of our questions, but we can expose ourselves to millions of people who are looking to build knowledge, skills, and social networks. Today, we have no excuse for why we can’t do something. This also means that we can take on social responsibility. The problem is that many people don’t have the drive to balance the available information.


Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential. ~Barack Obama

People can only tackle greatness when they set high standards for themselves and their lives.

Now, I ask you, what do you admire about Barack Obama and what can we learn from that?

Article written by Marina Tsipenyuk, a conscious thinker, singer, writer, and straight A student at Rutgers Business School for Finance.

http://www.alexshalman.com/2009/01/20/how-to-create-change-and-foster-hope-like-barack-obama/

Next - infiltration of the Democratic party by Landmark, and Landmark Obama staffers. Also, there are threads at DU with Landmark people defending the organization.

Somehow the zealousness, the need to ex-communicate people and why some are and some are not banished, the religious true-believer fervor. the hope and change and believe jargon could never fully be explained by partisan loyalty or even the marketing campaign.

All of the people who have been antagonizing us, banning us, talk exactly life Landmark graduates - it is unmistakable if you have been around it at all. Took a while for me to connect the dots. Those under the most attack and banned are those questioning - wittingly or unwittingly - the Landmark spiritual tenets.

Is this deju vu or somethin'?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-odasso/my-landmark-experience_b_105502.html

Is there any way that we can track who are Landmark affiliated? It would be interesting , but the only folks that would get really riled up would be the Religious Right, this kind of crap is so mainstream now. I suspect that there may be something of a generational thing going on, maybe it's just experience or maybe it was that we were coming up the same time this bullshit was gaining traction, it gives me the willies. The Moonies really gave me the willies, and I reciprocated, it really ain't that different.

Is this deju vu or somethin'?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-odasso/my-landmark-experience_b_105502.html

Is there any way that we can track who are Landmark affiliated? It would be interesting , but the only folks that would get really riled up would be the Religious Right, this kind of crap is so mainstream now. I suspect that there may be something of a generational thing going on, maybe it's just experience or maybe it was that we were coming up the same time this bullshit was gaining traction, it gives me the willies. The Moonies really gave me the willies, and I reciprocated, it really ain't that different.



Starry Messenger from DU is working on that connection. Our biggest antagonists at DU and elsewhere, it turns out, are Landmark people. The Obamabots are using the same buzz phrases, the same debate tactics that Landmark teaches people.

Identifying, isolating and discrediting "suppressives" with gang attacks and techniques for breaking people down or using insinuations to smear them - any who are critical of the belief system - was started by Scientology, and all of the spin-off groups do similar things. Heretics must be destroyed. That explains the bizarre behavior of the Obamabots.

Interesting stuff. My masters degree is in human resources development (training - not the management side) and we talked about consulting groups like "Future Search" but I've never come across these folks. I checked their website & they do corporate consulting, but I wonder if the academics are keeping their distance. My program was small, but top 10 in the field, so it surprises me that we didn't talk about them if they are such gurus.

Is this deju vu or somethin'?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-odasso/my-landmark-experience_b_105502.html

Is there any way that we can track who are Landmark affiliated? It would be interesting , but the only folks that would get really riled up would be the Religious Right, this kind of crap is so mainstream now. I suspect that there may be something of a generational thing going on, maybe it's just experience or maybe it was that we were coming up the same time this bullshit was gaining traction, it gives me the willies. The Moonies really gave me the willies, and I reciprocated, it really ain't that different.



Starry Messenger from DU is working on that connection. Our biggest antagonists at DU and elsewhere, it turns out, are Landmark people. The Obamabots are using the same buzz phrases, the same debate tactics that Landmark teaches people.

Identifying, isolating and discrediting "suppressives" with gang attacks and techniques for breaking people down or using insinuations to smear them - any who are critical of the belief system - was started by Scientology, and all of the spin-off groups do similar things. Heretics must be destroyed. That explains the bizarre behavior of the Obamabots.


Just for the fuck of it, the direct approach:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5677889

Interesting stuff. My masters degree is in human resources development (training - not the management side) and we talked about consulting groups like "Future Search" but I've never come across these folks. I checked their website & they do corporate consulting, but I wonder if the academics are keeping their distance. My program was small, but top 10 in the field, so it surprises me that we didn't talk about them if they are such gurus.


Academics are most definitely keeping their distance. Will post some things about that. Corporations are starching to keep their distance as well, because there have been some lawsuits about this. Employees have been disciplined or fired for refusing to participate in "sales seminars" put on by Landmark. The employees argued that Landmark was religion, not business (it is) and that they should not be forced to attend religious services.

Another interesting thing is how this Landmark ideology drives politics to the right, in a stealth way. Under the vague umbrella of "change" and "hope" - Obama got those ideas from Landmark, change and hope for the sake of change and hope - the status quo is defended and promoted. If we are not wealthy, it is because we are not enlightened. Will post some commentary about that, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1024174

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6332064#6332655

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3716797#3717003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5742007#5742185

Landmark people attacking Yardwork -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8054381#8054742

Number 23 and Hamden Rice have defended Landmark.

Just for the fuck of it, the direct approach:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5677889


We should play innocent and see what we can learn.

This is a good description of the actual "training" seminars.


An excerpt from "The Politics of Transformation: Recruitment - Indoctrination Processes in a Mass Marathon Psychology Organization"

Published by St. Martin's Press 1993
By Philip Cushman, Ph.D.

Description of the Behavioral Structure of the Training

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing44.html

This section of the results chapter presents a linear, behavioral description of the structure of the Initial Training. This task is undertaken because, in a restrictive milieu, the milieu is the single most influential element in the field. Therefore, it is imperative that the structure of the training be described in detail.

In the case of mass marathon psychology organizations, the milieu is primarily composed of the behavioral structure the controlling organization imposes on the participants. The participants' experience depends in large part upon what the organization encourages, instructs, or coerces them to do. These structured manipulations are embodied in the events of the training (i.e., lectures, discussions, interpersonal exercises, or hypnotic inductions). The events are introduced, monitored, and managed from beginning to end by the trainer and his staff. He, in turn, appears to follow an extensive script, which guides the staff and the trainer in both the large agenda (e.g., the order and content of the events) and the small details (e.g., the correct song to play over the sound system or the proper deployment of the staff during a specific event). The carefully controlled structure evokes certain responses in participants, which then, in turn, are treated by the trainer as indicators of the participants' states of mind. He will therefore alter his behavior and the structure of the exercise accordingly. These changes will then make a further impact on the participants, and they will indicate the significance of the impact by their responses and so on.

Therefore, the entire recruitment-indoctrination process cannot be understood without a detailed description of the behavioral structure of the training. Research Question One has been developed in order to aid in the collection of the data. It states:

What does the Vitality Initial Training consist of, step by step? -What does the trainer say and do? What do the staff members say and do? --What environmental controls are used and what is their effect upon the participants (e.g. behavioral rules such as talking, eating and bathroom "privileges," the strategic use of music and lighting, social rewards and punishments. etc.) These data were collected through interviews with three Vitality graduates (see Appendix A. "Interview Guide A: Behavioral Structure of the Training"). Occasionally, when available and applicable, data collected from the 15 "experience'' subjects were used as an adjunct to data from the "behavior" subjects. When used in this way the data from "experience" subjects were always clearly distinguished from that of the "behavior" subjects.

From Abracadabra to Zombies

A large group awareness training (LGAT) program is a personal development training program in which dozens to hundreds of people are given several hours to several days of intense instruction aimed at helping participants begin to discover what is hindering them from achieving their full potential and living more satisfied lives. LGAT or self-help programs have also been developed for corporations and public agencies, where the focus is on improving management skills, conflict resolution, general institutional strengthening, and dealing with the eternal problem of employees who drink too much or use too many drugs.

LGAT gurus claim to know how to help people become more creative, intelligent, healthy, and rich. They focus primarily on the role interpersonal communication plays in self-esteem and in defining our relationships with others.

LGAT gurus claim to know why their participants are not happy or why they are not living fulfilled lives. They assume everyone is being hindered by the same things and that one approach will suit all. Some LGAT gurus use public television and books as their vehicles. Others give seminars in hotel ballrooms. Some use infomercials and peddle books and tapes to the masses to help get them on the path to self-realization and success.

The U.S. Army might think it takes a few years to "become all that you can be," but the gurus of self-help think it can be done in a few hours or days. These gurus might all take the one-size-fits-all cookie cutter approach to self-help, but the founders of such programs as est, Landmark Forum, neuro-linguistic programming, Tony Robbins seminars, etc., use their own unique cookie cutters.

Though some advocate visualization, self-hypnosis, and other techniques for achieving self-realization, most LGAT programs focus on communication skills and the effect of language on thought and behavior. Those running the programs must excel in those skills. The trainers are motivators. They must use their powerful communication skills to persuade others to believe that (a) they (the trainers) know something valuable about fulfilling one's potential; (b) the valuable knowledge can be transmitted to the participant in a short time; (c) the trainee can expect to reap tangible, even if subjective, benefits in a short time (such as improved relationships with others or feeling better about oneself); and (d) the trainee has only experienced a small taste of the wonderful pleasure and fulfillment that awaits those who sign up for advanced training. In short, the trainers are not just teachers; they are sellers. Their main job is to motivate participants to buy more services, i.e., sign up for more courses. The fact that trainers are unlikely to do any follow-up on their trainees, except to try to persuade them to take more courses, indicates that their main interest is not in helping people lead more fulfilling lives. The trainers have a sales job to do. They are paid commissions for the number of people they recruit and train, not for the number of people they truly help. It is not in their interest to do follow-up studies on their trainees. It is in their interest to do follow-up recruiting calls.

A short amount of reflection should make it apparent that the gurus of personal development training are like those infomercial stars who promise to share with you their secrets on how to make millions of dollars by taking out classified ads or by buying repossessed properties. The real money is not in taking out classified ads or buying repossessions; otherwise, that is what the infomercial star would be doing instead of making infomercials. The real money is in selling the idea to others. If the trainers who work for Tony Robbins or Landmark Forum could realize their true potential in a meaningful, lucrative way, would they take a sales commission job? Would they work for a guru for a relatively small sum of money, while investing a rather extensive amount of time in the hopes of some sort of breakthrough? No. If they want to reach their own true potential they must break away and start their own personal training program. Which is exactly what many of them do.

Personal training programs are likely to be successful, however, if only because (a) the participants are strongly motivated toward self-improvement and (b) the trainers force participants to reflect on themselves, their lives and their relationships. Such motivation and reflection will result in either perceived insights or renewed effort to gain such insights. Being surrounded by many others in search of the Promised Land serves to energize participants and to give them hope. Ultimately, the main product being sold by human potential gurus is hope itself. It should be obvious that in itself this is not a bad thing. We all need hope. Without hope, there is no point in making plans for the future. Without hope, there is no point in working on a relationship or setting goals. Thus, insofar as participation in Large Group Awareness Training increases one's hope for finding one's way and for achieving one's goals, it is good. Even false hope may be better than no hope at all.

Since fear is a major obstacle to hope, the human potential trainers must help participants overcome those fears which hinder development. For example, there can be no hope of achieving a goal if the fear of failure is so strong that one avoids setting goals in order to avoid failing. After all, if you don't try something, you can't fail at it. Likewise, no troubled relationship can improve if one fears rejection by the other to such a degree that one will not even try to heal the wounds. One must overcome fears of failure, rejection, ridicule, humiliation, etc., if one is to have any hope of achieving a very meaningful existence as a human being. One is powerless to achieve anything if one is paralyzed by fear. Empowerment to achieve requires empowerment to overcome one's fears and thereby gives one hope. The most direct way to empower someone would be to convince them that if what they most fear were to happen not only would nothing be worse than it already is, but most likely things would be even better than they are. Another way is to convince people that their own beliefs are hindrances to success and that they can replace those beliefs at will.

No one knew this better than Leo Buscaglia, one of the more successful LGAT gurus of the 1970s and 1980s. He used books, lectures and public television programs to promote the idea that the key to everything is love. He popularized notions that Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell and B. F. Skinner had written about, e.g., the psychological power of loving those you fear. "Love your enemies," he would say. "It'll kill them!" Your enemy doesn't have to be another person, however. Your own fears can be your enemies. Embrace your fears, it'll kill them. If your relationship fails, what is the worst that can happen? The relationship ends. You can dwell on it, crawl into yourself, withdraw, surrender. Or you can learn from it, grow, develop, be prepared for a better relationship in the future. It's up to you. As the Stoics said: know what's in your power and what is not. Don't try to change what is not in your power to change. You can't control what others say or do, but you can control your attitude, your emotional response, to what they say or do. In short, if you don't try, you can't succeed. If you try and fail, you can still succeed. It's up to you. It is up to the human potential guru or trainer to convince you of this.

Self-growth programs such as est, Landmark Forum, neuro-linguistic programming (and even cults like Scientology) can point to many "successes." They can demonstrate that their programs "work.&

quot; They can bring forth to testify on their behalf hundreds, if not thousands, of satisfied customers, many of them famous celebrities such as John Denver, John Travolta, Yoko Ono, Cher, Valerie Harper and others. Many people apparently find that their lives are better after they get involved in est, NLP, Landmark Forum, or Scientology. Those of us who have been trained to study philosophy and psychology, who have a deep sense of the nature of speculation and empirical research, are able to recognize the pseudoscientific nature of such programs. We know that testimonials do not validate a self-help program. We know that there is significant post hoc reasoning by both gurus and their followers. We are aware of the role of subjective validation, confirmation bias, wishful thinking, the regressive fallacy, and communal reinforcement in the success of such programs. We know there is little or no research done by the promoters of these programs to (a) test causal claims that might establish some degree of effectiveness to their methods; (b) establish clear criteria for what counts as "successful" training; (c) keep records of "failures" or those who feel ripped off or harmed by the program. We also know that repeat business is what keeps these programs thriving, though the irony of this fact seems lost on those who keep taking one more course for good measure.

Nevertheless, despite the lack of proof that these programs work the way their advocates claim, and despite the fact that many trainers are overly zealous in their recruitment of participants in seminars and advanced seminars, many participants feel they benefit greatly from such programs. However, research has shown that the feelings of having benefited greatly from participation in an LGAT do not correspond to beneficial changes in behavior (Michael Langone, "Large Group Awareness Training Programs," Cult Observer, v. 15, n. 1, 1998). Also, many of those who feel they have benefited do not understand that others may not feel they benefit at all from such programs. To their healthy friends and family members, the zealot may appear to have been brainwashed. Their enthusiasm seems unnatural and disproportionate. If they were unbalanced before taking the program, they may appear to have gone beyond "breakthrough" into "breakdown."

http://www.skepdic.com/lgsap.html

Intruding into the Workplace

An excerpt from the book Cults In Our Midst

by Dr. Margaret Singer

Copyright 1995 by Margaret Singer.
Published by Jossey-Bass Publishers

There are many advancement programs, workshops, seminars, and training sessions currently utilized by companies and corporations in the United States and elsewhere that are legitimate in their intentions and often effective in their outcomes. Some of these programs have incorporated new ideas and new ways of thinking, which is why, on occasion, they are referred to as New Age training programs. This in itself does not make them harmful or of evil intent. Yet, a small but significant portion of these programs are not what they appear to be. In some cases, they are fronts for cults or other organizations using thought-reform processes that can cause considerable psychological harm and turmoil and can even precipitate psychoses in some employees without delivering any increased skill, productivity, profit, or other purported benefit.

Several years ago, the executive vice president of the American Society for Training and Development estimated that $150 million was being spent annually by U.S. businesses on suspicious training programs. This may not seem like a lot compared to the billions of dollars spent overall in this country on motivational training, but when we consider the loss of time as well as money on programs that produce no positive job related effect and merely seek to sell more and more seminars, when we realize the distress caused to employees who are unprepared for the emotional and psychological duress of some of the sessions, when we realize the intrusion into personal beliefs perpetrated by those programs that misrepresent themselves, then we see a trend of impact on everyday life that cannot be ignored.

Certain programs introduced into industrial and office settings have been causing particular criticism and alarm. Sold under the guise of management and communication courses, these programs are frequently purported in advertisements and word-of-mouth sales to be able to "motivate" and even "transform" employees. The details of what motivation and transformation involve are usually left vague but cryptically promising.

There are three primary reasons for discussing such programs in this book. The first is to reiterate the ever-present need to evaluate the premises beneath the various offerings that are made to us daily. We must always ask ourselves, Who is this person offering me some new cure-all, some religious, political, social, psychological, health-related, or other life pathway that he wants me to purchase and follow?

The second reason is to bring attention to the fact that certain training programs use the same types of intense influence techniques that are identical with cults. Also, many of these programs are actually recruiting venues for certain cults. Cults have put on three-piece suits and come directly into the workplace, disguised as self-improvement management courses.

The third reason is that the philosophy of life espoused in many of these programs falls within the realm of religious issues and personal belief systems, an important matter for many people. Underneath some New Age offerings there sometimes lies a philosophical and spiritual cosmology, a theory on the nature and principles of the universe. New Age cosmology generally views reality as one unitary organic whole with no independent parts, and this cosmology constitutes a belief system or religion that, at root, differs from, say, Christianity or Judaism.

A 1992 Gallup Poll reveals that more and more Americans -now 58 percent- consider religion to be "very important" in their lives. According to the Gallup organization's 1992-93 report "Religion in America," 89 percent of Americans single out a religious preference, with 82 percent reporting that they are Christian, and 2 percent, Jewish. Two-tenths of 1 percent are Muslim, while one tenth of 1 percent hold Hindu beliefs.

In legal cases brought before U.S. courts by employees who were made to attend training programs of various kinds, the employees noticed that there were "religious" differences between their own beliefs, which are constitutionally protected, and the cosmology or philosophy put forth by these training programs. These citizens were the first to alert the public to this encroachment on our freedom in the workplace.

Clarification of New Age

Since I refer on occasion to New Age programs or groups, I feel that a clarification of my use of the term is necessary to avoid misunderstandings. This is not a book critiquing New Age philosophy. But I do call attention to what I think of as the dark side of New Age thinking, to show how some so-called New Age techniques and ideas are in some instances used to exploit people and include them to join cults. Countless theories, activities, practices, and events are included in the broadest definitions of New Age. For example, discussions of New Age thinking can range from interests in acupuncture, crystals, tarot cards, channeling, meditation, alternative health care, special diets, wavy music, health-food restaurants, and a variety of self-actualization books and programs to specific theological critiques of the reasoning underlying certain New Age beliefs—such as the central theme that "all is one"—and to thoughtful philosophical critiques of what such thinking is bringing into the educational, medical, and religious arenas.

Many persons today dabble in such New Age ventures as going to holistic health practitioners, engaging in supposed native practices, attending inspirational lectures, going on wilderness treks, and collecting crystals. Many aspects of the New Age can be entertaining, beneficial, and informative, as long as people don't get caught up with someone using these ventures to entrap them into a thought-reform group or a cult or to psychologically coerce them into turning over their lives to a leader who is exploiting them personally or financially.

How does this relate to the business world?

Many people of goodwill, with a desire to improve the lot of humankind, have explored and continue to explore how our thinking influences how we conceptualize the world. There has been an effort, under the New Age umbrella, to introduce the notion that the thought models we use now widely called paradigms should be examined to see if advances can come from our taking new vantage points from which to look at both our daily life and our world of work. Unfortunately, much of the writing and discussion about New Age ideas is put into esoteric, hard-to-follow language, which has made it possible for con artists and cult leaders to latch onto the phrases and concepts for their own purposes.

I often think of Ludwig Wittgenstein's statement from his well known Tractatus Logico Philosophicus: "Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly." Many manipulators and cult leaders have used New Age ideas and phrases to imply that they have secret knowledge, something new and wonderful to offer. They use such terminology as

"Achieving ultimate reality."

"Death is the final stage of growth."

"Your beliefs are what stand in your way."

"Transformation through psychotechnologies."

"Myths must be eliminated before new consciousness is achieved."

Exploiters prosper by exploiting ignorance, fear, and guilt to manipulate us. In that vein, they have appropriated some of the notions of New Age thinking and used them as leverage in their self-serving ventures. The very notion of &q

uot;new paradigms," for example sounds both scientific and esoteric, even mysterious. New Age language can be baffling while also implying that the speaker has specific knowledge: the answers, the lore of the ancients, or the one path to transformation, specifically, in the case of this chapter, transformed and improved cooperation and productivity in the workplace.

A Clash in the Workplace

How many reading this book recall attending a large group awareness training, either on your own or at the behest of employers or friends, where you repeatedly heard the trainer or so-called facilitator shout at attendees that what was getting in their way was their "beliefs"? Without being told what was happening, you were being taught a new belief system about the universe.

People do have the right to try to persuade others to think as they do. But participants should know ahead of time when a program teaches a new belief system, and they should be able to choose whether or not to participate. The majority of complaints about this kind of training have centered around the fact that employees weren't informed either about the intensity of the psychological attacks that would be made upon them as individuals or about any underlying belief system or philosophy being taught. And the biggest concern always remained that the training "had no real application to my job!"

The criticisms come from many parts of the country and from employees in a variety of work situations. The most frequent criticisms are that certain programs make concerted attacks on employees' moral and ethical values and spiritual beliefs. Claims have been made that these training programs seek not only to convert employees to accept specific spiritual philosophies but also to recruit employees to cults. Among the recruitment programs are those that lack any markedly visible spiritual content but that are used to get into business, educational, and industrial settings, at the company's or the government's expense, where large numbers of people can be contacted. Once their foot is in the door, cultic groups will attempt to get as many employees as possible who take the first course to join the cult. Cult leaders and trainers assess individual participants in their seminars as potential recruits, already partially converted.

Cultic programs that tend to be purely commercial ventures generally aim at selling more and more courses. Again, persons met through the program are regarded as potential buyers and as links to a whole company. Shortly after taking one course, individuals are contacted by agents of the training program to purchase additional courses and to get their companies to send more employees to the introductory seminar.

All these programs raise several general areas of concern:

* They are religious and philosophical in nature and thus don't belong in the workplace.
* They use thought-reform techniques and methods of psychological coercion and can cause psychological breakdowns.
* They produce social friction in the place of business.

I have mentioned that those for whom religion or a personal belief system is an issue are deeply offended by having what is essentially another religious belief foisted upon them under the guise of job betterment. Also a plethora of allegations has been raised, some in civil suits, pointing out that individuals have suffered mental breakdowns and psychological harm as a result of participating in certain training programs.

In addition, negative social consequences in the workplace have arisen from these programs. In certain workplaces, you find an in-group and a group of outsiders. The insiders are those who have attended the program and, through compliance and adherence, have taken on the jargon taught in the seminars. They act in unison with others who have bought into the content of the program and go with the flow.

Moreover, there are inherent inequalities in any job situation. The power and influence that owners, supervisors, and superiors hold by their very roles is greater than that of workers of lower rank. Roles bestow power, and power determines the direction of the flow of influence. Few will quibble with the view that those at the top of the hierarchy have the power to see that their directives are carried out. In other words, if your boss sends you to a seminar, you go.

Thus, the workplace has become an arena where several social and psychological phenomena are converging. The New Age movement, business's desire to compete in the world marketplace, and our nation's propensity to believe in self-improvement are intermingling in our corporations. This situation is further complicated by the intrusion of certain cults and thought-reform groups that take advantage of this milieu.

Violation of Civil Rights

As a result of the prevalence of programs that are not what they appear on the surface, a number of complaints have been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by employees who describe how the course content violated their rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Such programs were addressed by the EEOC in its 1988 policy statement, issued to employers as a warning. The statement reads in part:

Employers are increasingly making use of training programs designed to improve employee motivation, cooperation, or productivity through the use of various so-called "new age" techniques. For example, a large utility company requires its employees to attend seminars based on the teachings of a mystic, George Gurdjieff.... Another corporation provides its employees with workshops in stress management using so called "faith healers" who read the "auras" of employees and contact the body's "fields of energy" to improve the health of its employees.... The programs utilize a wide variety of techniques: meditation, guided visualization, self-hypnosis, therapeutic touch, biofeedback, yoga, walking on fire, and inducing altered states of consciousness....

Although the courts and the Commission have not addressed the particular conflicts raised by the "new age" training programs, this issue can be resolved under the traditional Title VII [Civil Rights Act of 1964] theory of religious accommodation.

Thus, the EEOC clearly regarded these matters as religious accommodation issues between employers and employees, to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Several training programs around the country use programs called ropes courses, in which participants (often employees sent by their companies) climb high onto a platform, up a tree, or onto a promontory. There, they are strapped into a safety harness and given a hand strap to hold as they zip down and across a chasm or open space. Persons with fears of high places reportedly suffer great anxiety but feel compelled to participate in front of the other employees and managers at the program.

One of the most spectacular rope lines is said to be at the Wilson Learning Corporation in New Mexico. Employees attending the course launch themselves off a cliff, hanging onto a pulley that races down a zip line stretching to the other side of the Pecos River. While the person is zipping to the bottom, other attendees jump up and down, yelling, "Hug, hug, hug," and welcome the person. Most of these programs encourage much hugging and "sharing" personal histories during certain sessions.

Some of the other procedures used in certain of the large group awareness training (LGAT) programs and their offshoots contain processes to humiliate people (they resemble fraternity hazing events). The only rationale that I can conjure up for these is to imagine that someone thought that humiliating people would get them over their shyness, which is not true. Nor can I see a correlation to work or anyt

hing that might be remotely helpful to employees in exercises that have an obese woman don a bikini and go out on the street singing and trying to get a band of men to follow her, as one woman reported, or that have people cross-dress and act out caricatured opposite-sex roles, as others have reported.

In the nineties, we're even seeing a renewed interest in firewalking. One of my colleagues recently observed that "firewalking is sweeping the oil fields in Canada." Employees are sent to these programs (imported from the United States) and are told they will be able to traverse pits of hot coals without being burnt as long as they think properly. They are told that after firewalking, no job will look difficult.

Such programs seem designed more to get participants emotionally pumped up, suspending their judgment and following the orders of the "trainers," than to impart anything connected with job performance, communication skills, and profit margins. Many programs are described as simply providing "unforgettable experiences." And no one asks what you really learned and thought about the event or whether it had any useful application back at the office or factory. Yet the promoters claim these exercises produce "openness and confidence."

Having observed a number of LGATs and having interviewed many persons who attended variants of these programs as part of their work assignments, I am astonished at the gross childishness and unkindness of humiliating anyone under the guise of education, experiential learning, or the claim that participation in such travesties enhances work performance. Nor do all participants find sessions of "sharing" personal details helpful. Because of the popularity of training programs and seminars, countless employees are sent to courses thinking that they are going to learn management techniques or specific job-related skills. Instead, they find themselves in high-confrontation, psychologically intense programs that are supposedly going to transform them—not just train them but literally make them over into a new breed.

Many employees realize that certain managers and bosses either are desperate to improve production or are captivated by the promises made by the sellers of these programs. These managers and employers don't want to hear that the programs are less than welcome. Often, frank evaluations are produced only with the aid of an outside agency and a promise of anonymity to informants, as was done by the California Public Utility Commission when it investigated the Pacific Bell Krone program, which is described later in this chapter.

In some cases, there is no training program per se but simply outright pressure to join the background organization. For example, a $30,000 settlement with ILWHA American Corporation was reached in December 1989 after charges by a former employee of True Nature Health Food Store, a subsidiary of ILWHA, that he was pressured to join the Reverend Moon's Unification Church. The Illinois Department of Human Rights had found substantial evidence of a civil rights violation by True Nature, ILWHA, and the Unification Church. Several former employees of True Nature reported they were told that unless they agreed to join the Unification Church of America within two years of beginning employment at True Nature they would lose their jobs. They said that during their employment they were sent on religious retreats and to church-connected stores in other states.

Besides making complaints to the EEOC, many employees have filed civil suits objecting to training program content or related pressures at the workplace. Some lost their jobs by objecting. Other employees have suffered psychological decompensation as a consequence of what occurred in the training programs; still others have complied and gone along with the programs, even saying they enjoyed them.

What Goes On in an LGAT?

On federal court orders, I have attended six large group awareness training sessions (sponsored by est, the Forum, Lifespring, and PSI World) and have interviewed dozens of persons who have attended these and such other programs as Silva Mind Control, Actualizations, and Direct Centering, as well as the myriad of other programs now available, some started by former employees and even, on occasion, attendees of the larger well-known LGATs. I have studied the training manuals and videos used to train trainers and have interviewed a number of trainers.

I have also served as an expert witness for various persons who sued corporations selling this training. These persons, or their survivors, alleged in civil suits that they had been harmed by particular programs. Therefore, the lawyers in these cases asked the court to order the corporations to permit me and another expert to attend the relevant programs as observers, sitting in the back of the large hotel ballrooms or other facilities where the training takes place. Because most of these programs are made up of highly scripted, standardized procedures, seeing one unfold gives a good picture of the processes and the attitudes of the trainers, as well as some experience of the group process that occurs when 250 to 300 people are being psychologically and emotionally aroused into becoming, on occasion, sobbing masses on the floor.

The other expert and I needed to view and study the training the plaintiff had attended and form an opinion whether any connection existed between the conduct and content of the training and the alleged damages. These damages ranged from death by drowning and suicide to both brief and prolonged stays in mental hospitals. I have kept track of the individuals involved in the nearly sixty legal cases in which I was a consultant. Some of them have gotten their lives going again, although with the fearful recall of what it was like to completely lose mental and emotional control. A few are still hospitalized as long as ten years after their breakdowns during or immediately after the training.

LGAT programs tend to last at least four days and usually five. They are described as seminars and sound very much like special college courses. The highly confrontational and psychological aspects generally are not mentioned beforehand. Nor it is mentioned that a whole new theory of how the world works will be inculcated in attendees.

The program trainers and leaders typically get agreement from participants that they will not tell anyone about the processes thc occur. To do so "will spoil it for your friends, family, co-workers when they take the course. Tell them what you got out of it," trainers advise. This means be vague about the actual content and provide glowing endorsements telling others that the training turned your life around, but do not tell them how emotional, dramatic confrontational, and unnerving the sessions can be for some people. Because of this promise, consumers who buy and attend these seminars do so without information about how psychologically. socially, and sometimes physically stressing the event can be.

The following outline description is a composite of what goes on in the course of many LGAT sessions. Based on my attendance at several LGATs, consultations with former attendees and trainers, and my research, it also reflects my professional interpretations.

Day One

Day one is usua11y devoted to demonstrating the leader's absolute authority. The leader, often called a facilitator or trainer, immediately takes control of the setting with a demeanor that suggests he is a powerful, in-charge person and no one is to challenge what he says "This program works," the trainer proclaims. "It's all up to you to obey and get the maximum benefits." He remains totally in charge, acts knowledgeable, and is practiced in verbal skills, so that he never loses an encounter. Anyone who challenges the trainer will be humiliated and verbally mashed.

New customers ar

e unaware that most LGATs allow or even encourage those who have taken the training before to reattend. These people serve as a claque or modeling section. They clap, speak the same jargon as the leader, make endorsing statements, and are models for the new customers to pattem themselves after. Because the retumers talk the talk and walk the walk, they get good responses from the trainer when they make comments. New customers begin to pattern their language and demeanor after the behavior of these others who, they notice, receive praise for using certain language or revealing personal material. The leader trains the group to clap after every sharing, no matter how inane, off target, or incoherent it is. For many, it is heady stuff to have a couple of hundred people clap when they speak a bit to the group. At the same time, new customers also see how the trainer berates and decimates opponents.

Day Two

Day two focuses on instilling the new philosophy the LGAT is teaching. The well-known LGATs claim that you have caused everything that ever happened to you, from choosing your parents to breaking your leg, from getting yourself jilted to having been molested by your stepfather as a child. Trainers use the terms accountable and responsible, but not with their ordinary meaning. Trainers mean that you will, if you "get it," start to make your choices patterned after the way the organization advocates. They create guilt and fear in you that you have caused all the bad things that have happened in your life. "Your life is not working!" the trainer or leader yells, while he implies his is. If you just "get it," you'll be able to "make your life work." What they teach about how to get your life to work is that there is a magical thinking that allows you to create whatever you want. You are told that you can create parking spaces, money to buy the next courses, and so on. Since creativity is in, you create just by thinking.

Day Three

Day three is usually devoted to exercises, often trance-inducing guided imagery, in which attendees are urged to recall all the disappointments of life since early childhood. Exercises about your mother and father, the promises you've broken, and the promises to you that others have broken—all the sad memories of your life up to now are brought forth. By the end of the third day, participants have been opened up psychologically.

Day Four

Day four is one in which much group sharing occurs, and the leader begins to change from the stern, domineering taskmaster into a seductive, charming, loving daddy or mommy who wants you to buy the next courses. Legal cases have revealed that trainers' promotions and even their very jobs hinge on how many of those in the first course they lure into purchasing the next courses.

Day Five

Day five is one of lightness; there is dancing after rest room and lunch breaks. Much effort is put into getting you to sign up for the next and more expensive course. All participants are told to come back for a posttraining meeting with the company staff, where again a great effort will be made to sell subsequent courses. At the end of the day, a surprise is staged, with friends and family unexpectedly appearing to congratulate "the graduate."

The Impact

What can be upsetting to certain people in such LGAT sessions is that, in these four or five intense, exhausting days, they become flooded with more emotion and conflict than they can handle all at once. Up until this time, they've handled their lives in their own way, but at these training sessions they've had to look at their entire past, in a brief but enforced way. This is quite different from psychotherapy, for instance, where the therapist and the patient progress more slowly in order to allow the patient to deal with whatever she or he wants or needs to at a manageable pace.

If they had known ahead of time the intensity and psychological depth of some of these exercises, many have told me, they never would have bought or gone to the training. They had no true idea of the intensity of the situation, the effects of group pressure, or the personal fatigue that comes from LGAT sessions, and they simply expected an ordinary educational experience. Even though printed statements are now given out to participants by several of the LGATs and training programs, it is my opinion that these statements don't meet the criterion of truly giving the consumer full information about the intensity that will be experienced and about the potential surfacing of extremely personal past material. In California, for example, where residents have seventy-two hours to decide not to make purchases elicited by high pressure, people have more protection from door-to-door magazine salespersons than they do from being taken in and pressured by cults and recruiters for LGATs.

I have included LGATs in this book because they represent forms of coordinated programs of intense persuasion and group pressure. I am not discussing here the many excellent skill-training, educational, and motivational programs that are used in business and industry for practical results. But apart from those programs, there are many training schemes that employ thought-reform processes that can harm employees and engender lawsuits for employers. They are a modern-day, corporate version of social and psychological influence techniques that make people deployable without their knowledge or consent—precisely my objection to cults.

Development of a New Age Training Program: A Case Example

One personal development program quite popular with educated professionals was Insight Seminars. Some defectors from the organization have charged that Insight was used to recruit members to the background organization, the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness (MSIA). The founder of Insight and head of MSIA is John Roger Hinkins (although he rarely uses his last name), and his story is an interesting one.

Hinkins graduated with a degree in psychology from the University of Utah in 1958. Subsequent to a postoperative coma in 1963, he claims he awoke to say he felt there were two people within him: a "new" John and the "old" Roger. For a while, J-R, as he called himself, sold his spiritual insights for three-dollar love offerings. Then he studied Eckankar, a New Age spiritual system, and declared himself the "holder" of the Mystical Traveler Consciousness fighting the Red Monk (the devil). He is said to have considered himself in line with Jesus, Moses, Noah, and the like. Blending the old and the new, J-R created MSIA and gained quite a following. By the early 1970s, he was teaching seminars four nights a week.

Later in the same decade, some of his devotees convinced him to adapt Lifespring training to MSIA's needs. (Lifespring has been one of the more popular LGATs since the early to mid 1970s, along with est and Actualizations. ) Working with a person who had been key in the development of Lifespring, J-R inaugurated his Insight training seminar with 120 MSIA ministers, who spread it first to MSIA's own church cells then to public seminars. J-R is reported to have called Insight both his "ministry" and his "money machine."

The seminars were a cross between a motivational course and an intense group encounter session. They eventually became an orgy of self-exploration, full-body hugs, and love letters to oneself. Guilt was purged, fantasy was indulged, and love was in the air. One exercise, the "Cocktail Party," has been described as a mass primal scream session in which people shout blunt, honest expressions at one another for about two hours nonstop, while assistants hand out vomit bags and exhort participants to keep going. The session evolves into a "rebirthing" process, with peaceful guided imagery and calming music. Then participants

act out their most anxiety-producing fantasies in front of each other. This is followed by "cradling," meant to let participants know that their new "family" loves them unconditionally, despite their revelations of deep personal vulnerabilities. Lights dim and certain individuals are hoisted in the air and gently rocked to heavenly music, with everyone else beaming angelically into their eyes.

Afterward, participants have attested to feeling "awesome" and experiencing an emotional high that lasted for days. Some say they had to use special "grounding" procedures just to carry on with normal life after this "transcending" experience. At some point, a "Gift of Giving" session was added to the five-day Insight seminar. During this session, it has been reported, some people were so euphoric they made out checks for $10,000 to the group. Numerous Insight graduates were said to have been recruited to MSIA, although the link between Insight and MSIA was not generally known to seminar attendees.

In 1983, allegations of sexual abuse surfaced from two top aides. Some staffers said J-R used his spiritual authority to seduce them. According to reports, J-R discouraged marriage and ordered his personal staff to abstain from sex; but former devotees said that they were forced to engage in sex with J-R to maintain a "smooth relationship with the Traveler." Hinkins denied these allegations and no legal or law enforcement actions resulted. Because of these charges and other negative publicity, however, many devotees and Insight trainees became disillusioned and quit. Some described the period afterward as a "spiritual shattering," and in some cases, it took years for these former followers to patch up their psyches. Meanwhile, some staffers have remained loyal, continuing the Insight seminars.

A recent annual brochure from the Insight Consulting Group (ICG) claims that over fifty thousand people have participated with Insight, and boasts worldwide expansion, noting seminar locations in twelve U.S. cities and London, Sydney, Toronto, and Vancouver. The partial list of clients includes Abbott Labs, Beth Israel Hospital, Campbell Soup, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, NBC, Pillsbury, Rockwell, the Social Security Administration, UCLA Graduate School of Management, and the United States Navy, and "a host of small and medium-sized companies." As recently as 1990, J-R's book, Life 101, was on the New York Times best-seller list.

Problems with Being "Transformed" at Work

The following cases illustrate some of what has happened when employers sent employees to certain training programs. In part of these cases, the employees sought redress because they felt they had been coerced by their employers to attend and/or had been harmed by the programs.

Aside from complaining that they were being put through programs tantamount to a forced religious conversion, employees also objected to specific techniques being used: meditation, neurolinguistic programming, biofeedback, self-hypnosis, bizarre relaxation techniques, mind control, body touching, yoga, trance inductions, visualization, and in some cases, intense confrontational sessions akin to the "attack" therapy methods that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. Using intense psychological techniques some of these programs "induce ordinary people to suspend their judgment, surrender themselves to their instructors, and even adopt new fundamental beliefs." Trainers using confrontational techniques create a sense of powerlessness in the seminar attendees. Once this sense is achieved, it becomes a lot easier to erase old patterns of thinking and behavior.

From a tire factory in Albany, Georgia, to a car dealership in Tacoma, Washington, workers began to put up resistance to the imposition of religious values and the intense influence techniques used in the workplace training programs.

Management Courses and Worker Responses

Sterling Management Systems, a consulting firm in Glendale, California, offers programs to dentists, chiropractors, optometrists, osteopaths, veterinarians, and other medical professionals to teach them how to expand their practices and increase their income. Sterling claims to be a secular organization, but one lawsuit filed by three dentists alleged that a $17,000 seminar turned out to be a weeklong "Scientology workshop" aimed at recruiting them into the church. One of the dentists alone said he spent $65,000 in less than six months on the Sterling course and further Scientology counseling.

A promotional brochure asserts that in a single quarter 109 Sterling Management clients "went Clear at Orange County Org" (group jargon that indicates they went through Scientology courses). And a review of a dozen brochures, mailings, and flyers put out by Sterling shows a clear link to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, but none makes mention of the Church of Scientology. Sterling representatives assert that the training is nonreligious. A lawyer for Sterling has stated that they have secularized the teachings of the church.

In October 1993, the Nassau County (New York) Commission on Human Rights made a determination that promises to protect large numbers of employees against potential religious discrimination in the workplace arising out of such seminars. The commission found "probable cause" in the case of two employees of a physical therapy firm who were discharged by their employer for refusing to take training courses given by Sterling Management Systems. The attorney for the complainants regarded the commission's ruling as a "ground-breaking precedent . . . greatly advancing the protection of employees' rights throughout the country to resist religious indoctrination and solicitation of membership in another church."

Here are three additional examples of companies affected by this issue.

Applied Materials. In September 1992, Applied Materials, a California computer chip manufacturer, settled out of court for an estimated $600,000 with three former employees who alleged that they were driven out of the company after they complained about courses given on the job by Applied Scholastics, a management consulting group basing its work on Hubbard's writings. In 1989, Applied Scholastics listed General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, and the United States Army as some of its clients.

Applied Materials admitted it had "lacked sensitivity with regard to the controversial nature of L. Ron Hubbard." A legal affairs writer commented that the case "is a typical one in a growing number of EEOC complaints and lawsuits throughout the nation over a host of management training programs linked to a host of religious sects."

Cocolat. In 1991, an investment firm owned by Joel Feshbach, an acknowledged Scientologist, purchased Cocolat, a West Coast candy company that was having some financial troubles. Then, in early 1993, thirteen management and administrative employees told local newspapers that they had quit their jobs at Cocolat because their employer was using management techniques based on the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. The company reportedly fired an additional six managers after they had resisted the company's management philosophy. Feshbach denies ever having pushed Scientology onto Cocolat employees, but once again claims of religious harassment were filed with the EEOC by employees.

Former Cocolat employees said that references to Hubbard and his terminology had begun to pervade the company training and in-house communications. They said outside consultants brought in Hubbard's philosophy, complete with workbooks, saying they were going to make the employees' lives better. One former store manager said, "It was like Scientology came in disguised as a management course. All the red lights went off for me. I felt like I was be

ing brainwashed or something." In April 1993, the popular chocolate maker announced a reorganization and the closing of its entire San Francisco Bay Area retail chain.

Stryker Systems. According to a 1990 lawsuit filed against this California software company, employees claim they were ordered to read and complete written exercises in the books Introduction to Scientology Ethics and Personal Integrity. The plaintiffs, who were allegedly fired for refusing to adopt the Scientology practice of "writing up their overts and withholds" (meaning confessing bad thoughts and actions), won an undisclosed settlement. The company acknowledged no wrongdoing.

The Forum and Transformational Technologies

Around 1971, Werner Erhard established est (Erhard Seminars Training), which in 1985 reemerged as the Forum. Although Erhard sold his interest in the Forum a number of years ago, the program is still being offered. A recent promotional brochure describes the Forum as "a lasting breakthrough," its method a "challenging, rigorous inquiry." It says that "the actual breakthrough of the Forum is generated by the participants themselves, as they individually come to grips with their own profound possibility of being."

Like other training programs, the Forum is sold worldwide. For example, the public sector in Great Britain was targeted by Landmark Education International offering the Forum course. After the director of education in Britain's largest municipality attended an introductory session, he warned his staff that Landmark was working through the city councilors, getting those who had taken the initial course to recruit more participants. In another region, at least one former employee filed a lawsuit against her employer, claiming that she suffered a nervous breakdown as a result of a four day course.

Transformational Technologies, or TransTech, a 1984 offshoot of est and now of the Forum, describes itself in a brochure as "a network of independent professional management consulting firms . .bringing about a breakthrough in the field of organization and management" and "creating a formal method of inquiry.... As our name suggests, we use and transfer a technology which produces a qualitative shift for clients."

This TransTech brochure is a high-end example of the personal transformation trend gone corporate. The talk here is of performance, productivity, and proactive behavior; and organizational culture, accountability, and teamwork are the subjects of this training program. The brochure tells us that breakdowns are necessary for breakthroughs: "Through a carefully designed process of questioning," participants can begin to look into what "is really possible at work.... In the process of this examination, people recognize all breakdowns as interpretations. As a result, people are empowered with respect to breakdowns and are able to consider new pathways of resolution."

"Rigorous action-inquiry," as the brochure calls it, is "a well designed inquiry [that] reveals the deeper structure of thinking and perception that shape the way people act." But does it belong in the workplace?

With a network of affiliates in thirty-eight U.S. cities, as well as in Sweden, the West Indies, and Canada, Transformational Technologies says it wants to work with companies who want to "produce changes at a very basic level." According to the brochure, they have already worked with AT&T, Eli Lilly, Ford Motor, Gannett Publications, GE, General Foods, Home Box Office, Lutheran Church of America, McDonald's, Monsanto, Procter & Gamble, RCA, Scott Paper, Syntex, Touche Ross, TRW Systems, Westinghouse, and six departments of the U.S. govemment.

Erhard franchised Transformational Technologies shortly after its founding in 1984. Two years later, he licensed fifty-eight small consulting firms for a fee of $20,000 each and 8 percent of the gross; within another year the total was up to seventy afffiliates. By 1987, these companies had sold these techniques to Allstate, Sears, General Dynamics, the Federal Aviation Administration, IBM, Boeing Aerospace, Lockheed, and dozens of Fortune 500 companies. Even NASA was reported to have paid $45,000 for a group of managers to go through three sessions led by Erhard himself.

Here is what has happened at two companies using these programs.

Ohio Children Services Agency. The Forum gained notoriety in Franklin County, Ohio, when staff members at the Ohio Children Services Agency complained about being encouraged to attend three-day sessions that some considered "cultlike." In this incident, the agency's executive director had previously participated in a Forum seminar, and since that time had sent twenty of her managers to similar sessions at a cost to Ohio taxpayers of $4,800. Although some who took the seminars called it a "profound experience," others complained of pressure to take the course and onthe job discrimination against them if they didn't. Because of the feedback and the controversy, the agency stopped sending staff to the sessions.

DeKalb Farmers Market. Possibly one of the most celebrated cases related to workers' rights concluded with an out-of-court settlement reached between the DeKalb Farmers Market and eight former employees who were allegedly fired or forced to resign for refusing to participate in Forum sessions, in this instance allegedly led by a Miami-based consulting firm said to be affiliated with Transformational Technologies. The consulting firm denied involvement in the courses named in the suit; the DeKalb Market denied the allegations; and the Forum, not named in the suit, said it would never sanction coercing people to participate in its programs.

The plaintiffs said that the training program's espousal of the supremacy of man violated their belief in the primacy of God or other higher beings. The lawsuit contended that supervisors who declined to participate and to recruit their employees were harassed, humiliated, and interrogated. The lawyer handling the case for the employees said the case had "made employers come to grips with the legitimate boundaries of employee training."

Dong Shik Kim, one of the plaintiffs, worked at the DeKalb Farmers Market, a large produce market near Atlanta, Georgia. When his boss asked him to attend a special training seminar, Kim thought it would help him learn to increase sales and improve morale among fellow employees. Kim reported that the training sessions lasted as long as fifteen hours and became a nightmare. The outside consultants who ran the program "bullied employees into tearful confessions about intimate and heart-wrenching episodes in their lives." Kim said, "The sessions put people into a hibernating state. They ask for total loyalty. It's like brainwashing."

Faced with staying in the program or losing his job, Kim quit. He and seven others sued the DeKalb Farmers Market and the consulting firm, claiming they were forced out of their jobs for objecting to a "new age quasi-religious cult."
Jumping on the Bandwagon

Werner Erhard's thinking, as put forth in est, the Forum, and Transformational Technologies, was, in fact, the inspiration for many of the training programs that became popular in the eighties. In a sense, these programs were successful at injecting into the corporate world a fascination with New Age thinking that remains present to this day. Lifespring, Actualizations, MSIA/Insight, PSI World, and the many affiliates of Transformational Technologies, among others, all incorporate techniques modeled after those introduced by Erhard.
Krone Training at Pacific Bell

One of the most notorious New Age employee programs espousing "leadership development" was instituted at Pacific Bell after its divestiture from AT&T. Pacific Be

ll brought in a program directed by consultant Charles Krone that was based on the philosophy of G. I. Gurdjieff, causing Jacob Needleman, a San Francisco State University philosophy professor, to comment, "I'm a bit amazed to see [Gurdjieff1 being used [in business] because it is one of the most uncompromising spiritual teachings I know of."

The program attempted to change employees' thought patterns by changing the words they use—for example, a "goal" was to be called an "end-state vision." Employee complaints, exposure in the local newspapers, and a study instituted by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) put an end to the program. Outside evaluators who went in at the PUC's request reported that they found some positive features, but "unfortunately these benefits are heavily outweighed by strongly negative influences." The influences listed included fear, intimidation and mistrust, decreased productivity, wasted time, a split in the culture, introduction of obscure language and phrases, and a loss of morale.

Pacific Bell had spent $50.6 million on the program in two years, and would have spent an additional $135.6 million to send all 67,000 Pacific Bell employees through the program. The PUC disallowed recovery from ratepayers of half the expenditures actually made.

PSI World

Another out-of-court settlement was reached in a case that involved PSI World, a consulting group based in San Rafael, Califomia. The plaintiff claimed that he was impaired after having his emotions manipulated in a five-day PSI World training program and that this caused him later to lose control of his car, crash, and get hurt. He said he was physically and mentally exhausted after what he described as emotional ten-hour sessions in which participants were asked to act out mostly negative situations. He also went without sleep on two nights in order to complete homework assignments. "There was no clock and no one was allowed to wear watches," he said. "We were going long periods of time without eating and without breaks."

While PSI World admitted no guilt, and its lawyer said there was no merit to the claims, PSI World was reported to have paid a six-figure settlement to have the case dismissed.

Lifespring

"Jane" took two Lifespring training programs in the late 1980s. Lifespring's philosophy maintains that people are to "take a stand" to be responsible for whatever happens to them. By the end of the Level-I training, Jane had begun to accept this idea. During the Level-II program, Jane was required to reveal a brutal knife-point rape that happened three years earlier, when she was sixteen. Jane had never before discussed the rape except in a few counseling sessions immediately afterward. Neither her culture nor her family had treated the rape as a dishonor, since she had done nothing wrong. She felt her family had supported her right to continue to regard herself as a virgin. For three years, she functioned well, both psychologically and at school.

During the training, Jane was urged to release emotions associated with the rape. She forced herself to express anger and to describe the experience publicly. In a subsequent exercise, she was urged to express the emotion she felt toward her father who had died shortly after her birth. In response to this exercise, Jane began assaulting herself and chewing on a styrofoam bat used in the training. Nevertheless, she was allowed to continue the program.

Later, the trainer instructed Jane to role-play a $10,000-a-night prostitute. She believed the assignment had special meaning because of what she'd been led to reveal about the rape. She was further upset, perceiving herself as having been singled out for special humiliation. Although she had no history of psychiatric illness prior to the Lifespring training, afterward Jane underwent a period of growing depression that culminated in multiple suicide attempts. She was hospitalized for three years and remains on medication. Jane sued Lifespring, and the case was settled for a large amount.

Psychological Casualties

As we have seen, coercive psychological influence may be operating in the workplace at the time an employee is assigned to attend certain training programs, and/or it may occur in the actual training program. Consequently, the psychological ramifications of some training programs have led to employees' filing legal suits. Some of these suits were described in the previous section, and three additional cases are described here.

Psychological Breakdown

"Gerald" a forty-year-old man, applied for a job as a store manager. The owner told Gerald he would hire him only if Gerald purchased and attended a specific large group awareness training. The owner, who had become a devotee of the group, abides by the group's policy of not revealing what the training is about. Thus he failed to describe to Gerald its philosophy, the extremely emotional and confrontational quality of the program, or how psychologically upsetting the procedures can be for some attendees.

Because taking the course was a prerequisite to employment, Gerald assumed it would be a skills-training, job-related program, and purchased it at a price he could ill afford. Once the five-day program began, he realized he was in an emotionally intense, high confrontation, encounter-group situation. It appeared to him puzzlingly unrelated to managing a small store. The content was an amalgam of New Age philosophy, guided imagery, personal confessions, and confrontational attacks by the trainers. Gerald had never seen people break down emotionally to the extent that he saw in these sessions. His anxiety mounted by the hour, much of it growing out of the conflicts he was feeling between his religious beliefs and the New Age philosophy he was hearing in the training. Adding to this stress was his fear that he would not be hired unless he completed the program. He felt himself coming apart psychologically and asked to be excused, but the leaders of the program insisted he remain. By the fourth day, he was in a mental hospital experiencing a brief reactive psychosis. Gerald had no prior history of mental illness and nothing related to such illness in his family history.

Psychological Deterioration

"Joyce" was a top marketing executive in her firm. Her supervisor told her she would get ahead only if she attended the New Age training program that he urged her to take. She thought it was a skills-training, job-related program but instead came upon the same stresses experienced by Gerald. Joyce found the psychological and social coercion so intense that she has no remembrance of just when she deteriorated, but she was admitted to a psychiatric ward with almost continuous panic attacks. As time passed, she developed numerous and incapacitating phobias and became house-bound and unemployed or underemployed for more than three years. She had no prior history of mental disorder nor was there any in her family.

Intense Psychological Stress

A dozen female technical employees of the same minority ethnic background were sent to a seminar after being told that success there would determine who would be promoted in the corporation. The course was run by a Caucasian male who had been a security guard before becoming a seminar trainer. None of the women could link the seminar with on-the-job demands either during or after the training. However, each suffered greatly during the program because of the humiliation and degradation heaped upon each of them by the trainer.

The trainer ran the program in the manner of an attack therapy group. He had no appreciation of the women's ethnic values and, in fact, seemed particularly insensitive to their ethnicity. Additionally, he apparently had no awareness or concern about the impact of the intense

psychological techniques he was using. He was described as a rude, confrontational, and menacing figure. He called the women to the front of the room and had them stand on a table while he criticized their bodies and their clothing and taunted them for their conformity and cultural ways.

The psychological coercion was intense, the humiliation great, and the fallout was that each of the attendees suffered marked psychological stress, most resigning from their jobs within a relatively short time after the seminar. One woman suffered an enduring major depression, requiring medication and psychotherapy, and took her case to legal hearings and subsequent settlement.

Buyer Beware, Thought-Reform Processes at Work

Because of my involvement in psychological and medical research over the past fifty years, I have worked in a variety of hospitals, clinics, and universities. For more than fifteen years, I have served on the Kaiser Permanente Medical Institutional Review Board, evaluating and reviewing informed-consent procedures for all research involving humans that is performed under the auspices of the Kaiser Permanente system. I sat on the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine Committee to survey the effects of mustard gas and lewisite after a government testing program was revealed in which sixty thousand World War II military personnel were exposed to those gases without their consent. Data from this testing had not been made public until 1991. So I have been sensitized to fighting for and sustaining the laws that protect human rights in biomedical and behavioral research.

The combination of these review responsibilities and my professional work with cult survivors has given me an avid appreciation for the need to protect and uphold the practice of informed consent. I am dedicated to individuals' having informed consent over their lives, their choices, and their beliefs, and I believe that employees have the right to know what they are being made to attend. This perhaps has made me particularly aware of how deceptive many training programs are.

Thus I call attention here, as I did earlier in describing cult recruitment, to the uninformed state in which many employees and individuals are sent or go on their own to various training programs and work related or self-mprovement seminars. They leam what the program is about only after it becomes diffficult to leave it. The primary barrier to leaving, of course, is that they might lose their jobs by offending the boss who sent them to the program and perhaps seems enamored of it. Yet in the examples just given, we can sense the devastation that can be wrought when employees are made to attend training programs that are not the excellent ones that exist for skills training and job-related behavior but instead are meant to "transform" (and in some cases recruit) employees for less than noble purposes.

Religious issues aside, the pronounced psychological nature of many of the exercises within many of these programs is of concern. We cannot deny the fact that they grew out of the highly confrontational group therapy techniques introduced by the encounter, sensitivity, and large group awareness training movements. And in many ways, these psychological techniques are little different from the influence processes used in today's cults to achieve attitudinal change. This is apparent in the psychological and behavioral effects produced, and in the appearance of a certain number of psychological casualties during and after participation in some of these training programs.

A further result is that the majority of participants experience varying degrees of alienation and instability because they are urged to give up old norms, goals, and ideals. They also suffer a type of culture shock as they try to reconcile pretraining values with what they learn in the training and with the realities of their posttraining existence. Importantly, a certain number of participants will be seriously harmed as these stresses precipitate a handful of psychological conditions, such as brief psychotic episodes, posttraumatic stress disorder syndrome, a variety of dissociative disorders, relaxation-induced anxiety, and other miscellaneous reactions including phobias, cognitive difficulties, and stress-related illnesses.

In light of such consequences, the fact that most of these programs do not provide the skills training they advertise is the least of their problems. Unfortunately, the decision to buy a training scheme is often made on an emotional rather than a rational basis by an executive who is still high on his own introductory experience of the training.

While some people decry the number of legal suits filed yearly in the United States, it appears that it has been the recent legal cases filed by employees and EEOC rulings that have given employees the hope that they have some leverage over the types of training programs they can be sent to. The hue and cry has not been over employees' finding themselves at authentic skills-training programs, but over their finding themselves at programs that impinged on their religious or personal beliefs and that did not train them for their jobs but that attacked and decimated their personalities and very selves.

In short, lack of informed consent, use of hidden agendas, and use of various forms of coercion characterize the criticisms of both cults and certain modem-day training programs among those who have experienced them. Buyer, beware.

Mass Marathon Trainings

An excerpt from "The Politics of Transformation: Recruitment - Indoctrination Processes in a Mass Marathon Psychology Organization"

Published by St. Martin's Press 1993
By Philip Cushman, Ph.D.


Mass marathon training is usually based on the belief that it is a universal truth that all human beings will have problems in life until they develop deep cathartic psychological insight, experience completely their every feeling, and live only in the present moment (see Brewer, 1975; Bry, 1976; Rhinehart, 1976). According to this ideology all defenses are bad and must be destroyed. They shape their group exercises in order to uncover and intensify the participants' underlying conflicts and deficits. Everyone must be exposed to these exercises; there are no exceptions. When all defenses are destroyed, they claim there is literally no limit to what each individual can accomplish.

Yet there is research that contradicts this universal claim. Applebaum (1976) reported on the results of the Psychotherapy Research Project of the Henninger Foundation, which attempted to better understand the effects of psychological insight in the treatment of patients who had ego-function difficulties and severe characterological problems. After insight-oriented treatment. a substantial number of patients were found to have changed for the worse. The data confirmed that the "screened-off aspects of one's self" are hidden for a reason; for some types of people the conflicts that necessitated the screening off should remain hidden. Psychology, Applebaum argued, has to recognize the factors, which impinge upon whether, when, how much, and what kind of insight a particular person in particular circumstances should be helped to achieve. We need to know . . . the patient's capacities in order to design the best amount, kind, and timing of insight. (1976, pp. 205-206)

The data demonstrated Applebaum's contention that differential diagnosis and a differential treatment plan is crucial in effective psychotherapy. This conclusion challenges the universal and absolutist claims of insight oriented mass marathon groups. Applebaum warned that

· "Until we give up the pipe dream of insight as a universal good or a universal bad, we and our patients will, at times, be injured by its dangerous edge." (1976. p. 206)

Just as Applebaum criticized those who considered the indiscriminate use of insight a universal therapeutic panaceas so too did Hampden-Turner (1976) attack those who treat human growth like a consumer product, indiscriminately applying certain techniques to every customer who appears with a blank check. He vigorously disagreed with the ethics of

· "The pop supermarket, the idea that you can purchase a "peak" here and a "high" there, and go psycho-shopping for prepackaged experiences…in fact human growth is not like a product at all, and we vitiate it utterly by pandering to the consumer ethos." (1976, p. 3)

His critique focused particularly upon the highly structured, authoritarian, insight-oriented marathon workshops. Some aspects of humanistic psychology, he argued, seem

· "…to have almost forgotten that our most precious human values are achieved by indirection as opposed to the means ends rationality of industrial production. . . I seriously question any high that has been programmed in advance." (1976, pp. 1-2)

He voiced his disagreement with psychological ideologies that discount or deny the significance of the sociohistorical and economic realities of the situation in which the client lives. These ideologies instead argue for the grandiose delusion of the ultimate limitlessness of the individual. To the organizations that teach this ideology he posed a provoking question:

· "If we are not aware of what the economy does to us, are we self aware at all? Any genuine search for truth must remind us of the things we cannot change." (1576, P. 3)


In this way Hampden-Turner raised an issue that Sampson (1981) expanded upon. Sampson criticized cognitive psychology (the single most prominent aspect of the ideology of many mass marathon organizations) for its "subjectivist reduction." By this he meant the regressive tendency to discount the nonsubjective world by considering it to be either a hallucination or subject to the total control of the individual. According to some mass marathon organizations, human fetuses choose their parents, female victims choose to be raped, and Vietnamese children chose to be bombed. The regressive aspects of this ideology seem to be readily apparent.

Sampson demonstrated how a regressive psychological doctrine can impact on political activity. He argued that an ideology both accurately expresses the "zeitgeist" of the era and may also inaccurately distort the facts in order to serve the ruling elite. He explained how cognitivism as an ideology serves the status quo of power and privilege in American society by teaching individuals to reinterpret their internal response to a painful experience rather than to work at rearranging the external situation so that it could better facilitate personal and communal well being.

"Cognitivism as an ideology serves the status quo of power and privilege in American society by teaching individuals to reinterpret their internal response to a painful experience rather than to work at rearranging the external situation so that it could better facilitate personal and communal well being."

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing9.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3716797#3717003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x5742007#5742185

Landmark people attacking Yardwork -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8054381#8054742

Number 23 and Hamden Rice have defended Landmark.



"not for the mentally instable"

What a set piece.

Next question, could there be any connection between this 'movement' and the business/libertarian support structure? The more I think about it the more it seems likely.

For months I have been saying "they are like a cult." Come to find out they ARE a cult.

Here is a list of characteristics and associated symptoms of Landmark. The similarities to the Obama cult are striking, I think.


Closed system, a protective cocoon to shelter the family

As training expands graduates become trainers- it is kept in the 'family'. Junior staff gain vicarious power through allegiance with founders/directors. Further training for staff is in-house, outside influence is minimised and the 'group-think' built.

We see the closed system at work at DU.


Enmeshment & Incest

Outside trainers are devalued or brought in on the periphery so that they do not create dissonance or confusion for students.

Outside voices are "thrown under the bus" and viciously attacked if they introduce dissonance.


Outside world filtered out

No boundaries between trainers and therapists.

There is a tremendous amount of confusion right now at DU as to who does and who does not speak for management.


Outside influences are discouraged

Therapists are graduates of the training and participate in the training and assessment of students. The students do not have a 'safe' space outside of the organisation to 'think' or voice disquiet/dissatisfaction

People leave DU and form new sites, but those sites then become off-limits for linking, or else the people or information from those sites is discredited - "PUMAs, Naderites, socialists, conspiracy theorists..."


Group conformity

Screening off of the 'wrong sort of person' through initial selection procedure.


Ideology at variance with cultural norm. Security provided through belonging to distinct group

Group norms governed by implicit rules. Mysteriousness of process disempowers newcomers until they 'get it' or have been 'got'. The trainers skill is a manipulation. Deviants humiliated in the group or assessed as unsuitable.

We see allusions to the mysterious process, and hear people talk about "getting it" in reference to Obama. Deviants are humiliated.


Fear of disapproval of leader Punitive measures

Authority to give or withhold professional recognition gives trainers great power - moving the goal posts.

At DU, banning is the threatened punishment.


Belief in the 'TRUTH' of what is being taught without checking against experience

Subjective assessment by trainers creates dangers of negative and positive counter-transference e.g. favourites. Arbitrary judgments mean students can not self-assess and lose confidence in their own experience. They become alienated and dependent.

There is the group pathology at DU in a nutshell.


Idealisation

Powerfully transforming experiences lead newcomers to idealise trainers.


Charismatic leadership offers the promise of fulfilling needs. Sexual acting out.

Therapeutic work evokes the inner child and leads to projection and transference onto trainers. If trainers do not acknowledge this unconscious reality, it gets played out through their unconscious fantasies of power and healing - the charlatan.

This is pretty clearly happening around Obama.


High expectations can trap leader into inflated role of supplying unmet dependency. Leader denies their own limitation and becomes inflated.

Students can not afford the risk of negative parental projection with their professional investment at stake, so splitting off negative feelings or denying them. Founders/directors may not have been thoroughly trained themselves and avoids testing from outside authority.

This is what is happening with Skinner, possibly, and is a danger with Obama as well.


Scapegoating

Dissenters who are not silenced are expelled carrying the split-off feelings, the shit, with them.

"Keep it up and we will ban you."


Coheres group around the exclusion of what is 'bad'. Fear in the group of being labelled 'bad'

Resistance to group norms is labeled pathological, defensive, unprofessional and student is expected to 'work through' their deviance. Individual group members who do not 'shape up' are picked on by the trainer and group forces may be used to break down defences . This lack of respect often rationalised as necessary therapeutically.

"How dare you call me a bigot" or a conservative, or a cult follower we hear people squeal.

And dissenters are most definitely labeled pathological, defensive, as well as "negative" and "destructive" and "disloyal," with the implication that some mental derangement or personal problems of the dissenter is causing them to dissent.


Charismatic mission

Mission of the organisation often identified with charismatic persona of founders/directors.

Ya think?


The vision of the leader has a transpersonal perspective that is inspirational. It connects with the hopes and dreams of the follower. It offers a promise for which sacrifices have to be made.

The cost of carrying these projections may lead founders/directors into denying their own human needs and thereby creating an atmosphere that is anti-feminine and not nourishing but which focuses on striving. How can you put your own selfish needs first when the planet, society, new project, or accreditation meetings call? Exploitation of junior staff to work for nothing is rationalised as part of further training or of students to do menial 'community' tasks not connected to their training e.g. cooking & washing for organisation.


The dream of a paradise restored - a strong pull for those who feel lost

The promise may pull on the students unmet needs of their inner child - the 'Orphan' hopes to have found home - but this may be a regressive move.

More here...

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing31.html

Next question, could there be any connection between this 'movement' and the business/libertarian support structure? The more I think about it the more it seems likely.


I think there is a connection between the Scientology and the Landmark organizations and ideas, and a previous generation of mind control cults - Napoleon Hill, Maxwell Maltz (sp?) and even Dale Carnegie, and a connection between them and libertarianism.

I know that in the 80's there was a lot of overlap between Amway, the new religious right, and Landmark.

It is really all just variations on a couple of old themes - the snake oil salesman and the tent revival preacher, combined with striving for material wealth - "thar's gold in them thar hills" and the "streets paved with gold" idea immigrants had about Aaaaaa-maaaaair-eee-kah.

The alienation and isolation of people in American society, going back to colonial, pioneer and frontier days, makes for a large pool of potential marks and rubes to prey on.

Assimilation has always been critical to success, or even survival for immigrants, and that means break down of family, village and cultural ties. This makes people vulnerable to cults like the Obama movement.

The Obama movement, and Landmark, have both done best on the west coast, where people are the most rootless and alienated, and in the suburbs.

http://www.ithacatimes.com/SiteImages/Article/9169a.jpg
David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s chief campaign manager, speaks during Cornell’s convocation ceremonies Saturday. (Photo Provided)

Obama aide advocates hard work, family

Ryan Miga

Live out the traditional American Dream.

That was the message from David Plouffe, chief campaign manager for Barack Obama's historic 2008 presidential bid, when he addressed thousands of graduates and their families at Cornell University's convocation ceremony Saturday.

He urged graduates to live out the traditional American Dream: to work hard and be dedicated to a profession, to make time for family, and to restore the country's standing in the world.

"Few generations in America's history have been called like yours," said Plouffe. "The future will not be handed to you; in some ways, we are not even on the right trajectory. Sorry to say it: Starting today, it is your responsibility to fix it - to restore our continued greatness."

In spite of his well-documented reputation as the (formerly) "unsung hero" of the Obama campaign, Plouffe sought to steer the message of his speech away from politics, choosing instead to focus his remarks on non-partisan truisms.

"I was just the campaign manager for what is widely considered the best-run presidential race in American Political history," said Plouffe. "We made history... but as I evaluate my life now and since I left college, the real scorecard that matters is not how many electoral votes we won or my other electoral triumphs: It is my relationship with my family and friends during those years."

Before serving as Obama's campaign manager, Plouffe managed several other congressional and presidential campaigns, as well as raising a record $95 million as the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Plouffe attended the University of Delaware for three years before dropping out in 1988 to work for Senator Tom Harkin's 1990 reelection campaign in Iowa.

"I am not a likely candidate to be speaking with you today," said Plouffe. "I am a state schooler who... did not even graduate, supposing to give Ivy Leaguers - who have doubtless learned far more than I ever did at their age - wisdom and advice."

In a press conference before the ceremony, Plouffe expressed a great deal of optimism in the graduating class's generation.

"One thing I learned in our campaign [for Obama's presidency] was that this generation of young people and Americans need not wait 20 or 25 before they take the stage: They are ready to lead right now," said Plouffe. "They helped to determine the course of history in our campaign, but I think they can determine the course of history - in large ways and small - right away.

"Barack Obama would not be the 44th president without people under 30," he added. "We had 5,000 people working in our campaign, and probably 95% of them were under 25 [years old]... one thing that's never been properly appreciated is how many people - parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles - supported Barack Obama because their children spoke so passionately about him. I think millions of people... voted for [Obama] for that reason alone."

Plouffe also credited the under-25 demographic for inspiring the Obama campaign's innovative use of digital tools such as Facebook and Twitter. Plouffe believes that the social-networking strategy inspired by the campaign's college-age supporters has established a precedent for the future of politics.

"It's a very powerful thing, and my guess is that as the years progress, it'll get even more so. A lot of our activity was actually done off-line... but the way [supporters] came into the campaign first was through the Internet and our social networking site; the way they organized themselves in communities was that way; the way we built crowds for events was that way, so it was a powerful, powerful tool."

Overall, Plouffe encouraged Cornell's outgoing class to work hard and to contribute something lasting and meaningful to their society.

"We [in the Obama campaign] authored our own chapter in history, and what I perhaps will treasure most - and I hope you all have the experience once in your life - is the chance to be your best self... so you will feel that when it mattered most, you rose to heights you were not sure you could, and created your own canvas that will hold the colors and patterns of the history you helped compose," he said. "That has nothing to do with politics; it simply has to do with the miracle of our country and our humanity: The ability to surprise, reinvent, and chart new and unexpected courses in human history... I cannot wait to witness your achievements."

http://www.ithacatimes.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=9169&SectionID=16&SubSectionID=83&S=1

ASK Public Strategies

ASK Public Strategies is a business run by Barack Obama's chief campaign strategist David Axelrod from the same office as Axelrod's AKP&D Message & Media firm. ASK Public Strategies "discreetly plots strategy and advertising campaigns for corporate clients," reported BusinessWeek. Axelrod's ASK partners are John Kupper and Eric Sedler, the latter previously of AT&T and Edelman. [1]

ASK is known for creating front groups. Chicago Alder Brendan Reilly called ASK "the gold standard in Astroturf organizing." In 2005, as ComEd was "preparing to ask [Illinois] state regulators for higher electricity prices," ASK advised the company to form "Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity." The front group, which described itself as "a coalition of individuals, businesses and organizations," funded ads that warned of blackouts unless rates were raised. Around the same time, ASK helped Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden, oppose the New York Jets's plans to build a new stadium in Manhattan. Cablevision formed the "New York Association for Better Choices," and ran anti-stadium ads in its name. ASK's other work includes helping AT&T with municipal broadband referenda. [1]

The firm's website says it specializes in "providing campaign management, communications strategy and advertising to private sector and nonprofit organizations seeking to influence stakeholder opinion." [2] The three partners do all the firm's work, according to the website: "Each partner takes a lead role in serving clients. We don’t have any junior staff do work for our clients." [3]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ASK_Public_Strategies

The Secret Side of David Axelrod
The Obama campaign's chief strategist is a master of "Astroturfing" and has a second firm that shapes public opinion for corporations

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080314_121054.htm

Bumping

Bumping


good to bump, thanks.

Bumping

Pretty fascinating to watch the whole Obama phenomenon unfold.

Wow Mike, this was a great thread.

I can remember how much hope so many people felt (and I felt) when Obama was elected. For many (most?) of his supporters, that hope is gone, replaced by shock, disappointment, confusion, and anger.

Now the right-wing Obama cultists attack those of us who supported him and no longer support him with their despicable "you should have listened to him during the campaign, he's doing everything he said he was gonna do" meme.

On every single promise he's made, Obama has caved. No, that's not the right word-he never had any intention of carrying out his promises to the people. He made his deals with Wall Street well before he was elected.

You are on to something, I think, when you say that the ruling class is replacing the Republican Party with the Democratic Party as the right-wing party in America. The Republican brand name was destroyed or badly damaged by Bush; the Democratic brand name is alive and well, however.

The Republicans are there only because it gives people the illusion of choice between two parties. We have a one-party fascist state. I remember Obama campaigning on "personal responsibility," "good choices," and "hard work." I didn't understand it at the time, but he was blaming the working people, the poor people, using coded language.

Do you think that after FDR was forced to institute reforms in the Depression era, after the leftist movement, and after WW2, when the advent of suburbia created the "middle class" (whatever that means), that the leftist movement was smashed for years so when the time came to institute fascism, there would be little opposition? I think Reagan's election in 1980 was a major turning point, that was the beginning of the fascist state, and that was when there would be no turning back.