Community of Infinite Colour

[GregKasarik]

For a start you don't have a community, that's why you're here.

LOL!

You seriously think that I came here to recruit followers? Is that why you've got your knickers in such an obscene tangle? You think that I've got my beady eyes on your soul? Did you even read the opening post?

You assume much. Baseless assertions? How so? You say you are starting a religeon, a religeon is a cult, you are the leader as you claim, therefore you are a cult leader, or wannabe cult leader more correctly. Cult leader various studies have shown are generally insecure and or psychopathic.

Is this the best you can do? Seriously? Playing semantics, begging the question and a deliberate and dishonest confusion between two separate and distinct meanings of the word "cult" just so you can continue justifying your hate and rage?

Do you actually bother looking things up, or do you just repeat the same garbage across multiple threads because you hate admitting that you got something wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

You write paragraphs of drivel which a sentence would have covered.

Perhaps. But perhaps, despite my continued misgivings, I have done my best to address the points that you've raised. In doing so, I apologise for assuming that you had a modicum of intelligence and my subsequent decision to use big words.

You try to make it about me when the discussion is you, and your cult you are trying to start. Typically deceptive of you from what I have seen here. I judge you on what you write, nothing more. Are we not to question and think for our selves? How is that about anything but the facts? Attempting to character assasinatte people who question is also a typical cult tactic. I'm just informed about your type, not angry at all. Why would I be? I wont be joining dont worry about that. Dont need some self important holier than thou wannabe cult leader telling me what to do lol..

What kind of a Princess are you, that you can spend an entire thread lambasting the character of a complete stranger and then have the temerity to complain that they are attempting to character assassinate you? Please show me a single instance of where I have made any derogatory, or personally insulting remarks about you.

I don't need to say anything about you, or about your character. Everything we need to know pours forth like a torrent whenever you touch the keyboard.

One doesn't need to be Jesus to realise that "Ye shall know them by their fruits".

One other thing I find amusing, if you are this enlightened leader, how come everything you preach is plagerized? Do you have anything original?

 

This is a very serious accusation. It is also a deliberate and blatant lie.

There are over 35,000 words on my website. Please show me any that are plagerised and the document from which you believe them to have been lifted.

And while we are at your continued ongoing lying and misrepresentation, please show me once where I have claimed to be "enlightened". You won't be able to because once again this is simply another of the fevered imaginings that you have imposed upon me, rather than anything that I have ever said.

[mutant]

If this is what happens on a thread where people are sympathetic to the use of Transcendent Compounds, I hate to think of what awaits me in the real world.

hehe, good luck with that!

actually people in this community are really super enlightened, so they don't need any spiritual gurus except Terrence McKenna, And Tim Leary, the two nutheads.

....if stuff get sticky, they can always call a couple of machine elves help

but they don't believe in horoscopes and definately not like cults.

I think bret misunderstood you

[FancyPants]

^^^^ Funny that. Also, machine elves are a standard experience with D, shared by many who have partaken. Greg said he doesn't believe in the sharing of exact same Divine interpretation. Maybe that kind of flies right in the face of what people have seen themselves? Deciding for onesself whether or not they believe in horoscopes/machine elves/reiki/crop circles/etc is so much in the fun of walking the path of life. Even if you don't believe something at point D in the your life, who's to say it won't bring countless hours of entertainment and wonderment at point X? Believing everything you read all at once takes a lot of fun out of researching IMHO.

I wonder if you've gotten off on the wrong foot with some because instead of seeking help from others (such as a community does), you seem to have taken the solo road to come up with The Principles. While I also see in your own ideal (no two Divine Ideal are the exact same via the individual's perspective) that it kind of might be paradoxical or oxymoronic (however you see it?) way to go about striving to better the world. Even if there is only a pretense of asking for others' opinions, the very act of bringing in other minds massively reduces your chances of looking like a potential power-hungry dude with messianic delusions (hell maybe they're not actually delusions?). You may start out without an ego, but if your Principles take off, who do you think will be inexorably risen to lead? Once in the "leading" role for a while even if YOU don't change (which unless you actually ARE an ascended soul regardless of name sent here to better things, you almost certainly will change), your currently with-it friends could get egos themselves, no doubt being risen to first level disciples.

Unless you're preparing yourself as a St John the Baptist?

[Marcel]

I've been reluctant to join in here, because most of this thread seems not so much like a discussion than an enthusiastic and tear-streaked airing of opinions and prejudices, but I feel obliged to jump in at this point and express my thoughts on the issue of “cults” (yes, I'm yet another to do a bit of opinion-mongering here!).

I've been studying cults/New Religious Movements since I was a kid. Initially, my interest was triggered by a personal interest in a few groups occasionally given the label of “cult”, but as my interest in these groups waned, I began reading a lot about the phenomena from a sociological perspective. The first book I read was called Spying in Guruland, by William Shaw. It's no great work of anthropology, and I don't think it pretends to be, but Shaw had an interesting idea. He decided to join a bunch of different New Religious Movements/cults and report on what he found. The conclusion was shocking; contrary to what the mainstream media tells us, cults are seldom Branch Davidian/Jonestown-type brainwashing factories that rob the poor and helpless of their money and free will. The people involved are generally enthusiastic to help others, they're often intelligent and no less humble than the rest of us. The “followers” are rarely zombies held to the compound with threats of sexual abuse and murder. The biggest threat to most cult members is the collapse of community that comes with a movement's demise (this happens very often, and is usually related to nothing more interesting than people's waning enthusiasm and boredom). Shaw's finding's aren't anomalies either. This is the consensus of most psychologists, sociologists, state authorities and academics of comparative literature. Cults/New Religious Movements, in all but a few spectacular examples, are benign influences upon individuals and societies.

After I read Shaw's book, I decided to do the same thing and write about it. I joined a bunch of Mormons and did some of their classes and interviewed a number of American missionaries. I joined the School of Practical Philosophy and met some lovely (if a little over-earnest) people. I was involved with ISKCON (the Hare Krishna group) and learned some lovely things about life. I hung out with Scientologists at their temple in Castlereagh Street (got little more than a whole bunch of great stories and lots of laughs). I mixed it up at Hasidic parties and discussion groups in Bondi. All the while I wrote a zine and reported (often tongue in cheek) on my experiences. It was great fun and the zine had a little following (this was way before the days of blogs). I like to think I was something of a proto-John Safran, but with more heart . And my conclusions were the same as Shaw's and most other contemporary writers on the topic: the majority of cults are not evil. At worst, they're just banal.

Of course there are "bad" cults and individuals who have terrible, distressing experiences with New Religious Movements. That's unfortunate and those people need our help and love and support. They may even need state intervention in some cases. Malicious groups, cults or otherwise, should not be ignored. But before we send in the SWAT team every time a group of hippies gets together and says a communal prayer, consider this: I have a close friend who grew up in a cult commune in California in the 70s. It was the usual tabloid experience, complete with murder, abduction, distant parents and an ego-maniacal leader. He spent a lot of his adulthood putting the pieces together and currently accepts that it was neither regrettable nor worthless; it was simply his life and it's made the person he is today; a person he's not dissatisfied with. A few others I know who have left the cults that they were raised in, say more or less the same thing. It was their life and it was hard and good and boring and difficult and fun and structurally not that much different from the hegemonic model of society in which the rest of us live.

I find it interesting and somewhat disappointing see such fear-mongering on a forum full of psychonauts. Here's a fun little game: substitute the word “cult” for the word “drugs” and take note of the similarities. We humans have had both for as long as we've been humans. Some of them are bad. Some kill and enslave and destroy families and communities. In many cases, they are neither here nor there, and most who get involved usually lose interest after some time. And there are some that are wonderful, spectacular agents of personal change and spiritual growth. But the similarities don't end there. In the case of both “cults” and “drugs,” the mainstream media lumps all of them together and judges them on the weakest and most malign characteristics of the worst examples. Because some are bad, they are all bad, goes the reasoning. The hate and distrust and disinformation spreads throughout a culture, and even the most open-minded and progressive individuals and institutions can't accept the possibility that they might be some cults/drugs that are not evil, let alone beneficial. They only hear about the bad cases, and conclude there are no good ones. Or if there are good ones, they too should be stopped "just in case". There are many, many similarities and I think that if a psychonaut on this forum can't be open-minded about New Religious Movement/cults, then they can't really expect legislators/parents/politicians/media/etc to be open minded about drugs/psychedelics/entheogens.

I congratulate (and fell sorry for) Greg and his double battle against a society that distrusts psychedelics as much as they hate New Religious Movements. Both are complex phenomena and can potentially offer humanity some beautiful and spectacular examples of that which is great in life.

[FancyPants]

^^^ Sounds like a fascinating read that Spying In Guruland! Good work on walking the talk, Marcel I liken the use and stigma of illicit drugs to many things (namely a tool), but never occurred to me to compare cults to such. Admittedly I know sweet FA about cults in general (besides knowing full well the average media portrayal of anything left of field is always skewed somewhat) so I'm humbled to have been given another direction to steer curiosity towards.

Edited November 29, 2011 by FancyPants

[Bretloth]

LOL!

You seriously think that I came here to recruit followers? Is that why you've got your knickers in such an obscene tangle? You think that I've got my beady eyes on your soul? Did you even read the opening post?

You're not here reqruiting, right. Come off it..

Is this the best you can do? Seriously? Playing semantics, begging the question and a deliberate and dishonest confusion between two separate and distinct meanings of the word "cult" just so you can continue justifying your hate and rage?

Do you actually bother looking things up, or do you just repeat the same garbage across multiple threads because you hate admitting that you got something wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

Actually you trying to distant your cult from the word cult is deceptive. How you can imply hate and rage from typed words without the inflection of body language or tone is beyond me, and more likely an aspertion against my character based upon no evidence.

Perhaps. But perhaps, despite my continued misgivings, I have done my best to address the points that you've raised. In doing so, I apologise for assuming that you had a modicum of intelligence and my subsequent decision to use big words.

I know big words too, just don't pretend to be better than anyone else like you.

What kind of a Princess are you, that you can spend an entire thread lambasting the character of a complete stranger and then have the temerity to complain that they are attempting to character assassinate you? Please show me a single instance of where I have made any derogatory, or personally insulting remarks about you.

Is the leader of a new cults character not applicable to the cult, and discussing it? Never said you insulted me and it's not my fault you where insulted, stop projecting.

I don't need to say anything about you, or about your character. Everything we need to know pours forth like a torrent whenever you touch the keyboard.

One doesn't need to be Jesus to realise that "Ye shall know them by their fruits".

Here we go, that's another cult, get your own sayings. Well, you can check out my garden on this forum. I bet my garden produces far better fruit.

This is a very serious accusation. It is also a deliberate and blatant lie.

There are over 35,000 words on my website. Please show me any that are plagerised and the document from which you believe them to have been lifted.

How about for starters all the principles you spout here, you sure as shit didn't come up with them. Repacking other peoples work and claiming it as your own is disgusting to me, you should be ashamed. I've read all the books you have, you got nothing new. Not even even using drugs is new, that cult in japan with the sarin gasings loved lsd..

And while we are at your continued ongoing lying and misrepresentation, please show me once where I have claimed to be "enlightened". You won't be able to because once again this is simply another of the fevered imaginings that you have imposed upon me, rather than anything that I have ever said.

 

You claimed to be providing an enlightened way, for one to do that they would have to be enlightened, which you are obviously not. You're nothing special, or am I. You've read a bunch of books, had some ecstactic experiences, are most likely deeply insecure and need to build this cult for your own ego's need. No one needs this cult except you it seems.

What follows below are characteristics of a cult leader. These are given so that the reader may understand what to look for in patterns of cult leadership. The text was excerpted from chapter five of Captive Hearts Captive Minds by Madeline Landau Tobias and Janja Lalich pp. 67-79, and is reprinted without permission of the author.

Psychopathy and the Characteristics of a Cult Leader

In general, charismatic personalities are known for their inescapable magnetism, their winning style, the self assurance with which they promote something, a cause, a belief, a product. A charismatic person who offers hope of new beginnings often attracts attention and a following. Over the years we have witnessed the likes of this in Dale Carnegie, Werner Erhard (founder of est, now the Forum), John Hanley (founder of Lifespring), Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi, Shirley MacLaine, John Bradshaw, Marianne Williamson, Ramtha channeler J. Z. Knight, and a rash of Amway "executives," weight loss program promoters and body building gurus.

One dictionary definition of charisma is "a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader or military commander); a special magnetic charm, or appeal." (5) Charisma was studied in depth by the German sociologist Max Weber, who defined it as "an exceptional quality in an individual who, through appearing to possess supernatural, providential or extraordinary powers, succeeds in gathering disciples around him."(6)

Weber's charismatic leader was "a sorcerer with an innovative aura and a personal magnetic gift, [who] promoted a specific doctrine....[and was] concerned with himself rather than involved with others....[He] held an exceptional type of power: it set aside the usage's of normal political life and assumed instead those of demagoguery, dictatorship, or revolution, [which induced] men's whole hearted devotion to the charismatic individual through a blind and fanatical trust and an unrestrained and uncritical faith."(7)

In the case of cults, of course, we know that this induction of whole hearted devotion does not happen spontaneously but is the result of the cult leader's skillful use of thought-reform techniques. Charisma on it's own is not evil and does nor necessarily breed a cult leader. Charisma is, however, a powerful and awesome attribute found in many cult leaders who use it in ways that are both self-serving and destructive to others. The combination of charisma and psychopathy is a Lethal mixture - perhaps it is the very recipe used at the Cookie-cutter Messiah School!

For the cult leader, having charisma is perhaps most useful during the stage of cult formation. It takes a strong-willed and persuasive leader to convince people of a new belief, then gather the newly converted around him as devoted followers. A misinterpretation of the cult leader's personal charisma may also foster his followers' belief in his special or messianic qualities.

So we see that charisma is indeed a desirable trait for someone who wishes to attract a following. However, like beauty, charisma is in the eye of the beholder. Mary, for example, may be completely taken with a particular seminar leader, practically swooning at his every word, while her friend Susie doesn't feel the slightest tingle. Certainly at the time a person is under the sway of charisma the effect is very real. Yet, in reality, charisma does nothing more than create a certain worshipful reaction to an idealized figure in the mind of the one who is smitten.

In the long run, skills of persuasion (which may or may not be charismatic) are more important to the cult leader than charisma - for the power and hold of cults depend on the particular environment shaped by the thought-reform program and control mechanisms, all of which are usually conceptualized and put in place by the leader. Thus it is the psychopathology of the leader, not his charisma, that causes the systematic manipulative abuse and exploitation found in cults.

The Cult Leader as Psychopath

Cultic groups and relationships are formed primarily to meet specific emotional needs of the leader, many of whom suffer from one or another emotional or character disorder. Few, if any, cult leaders subject themselves to the psychological tests or prolonged clinical interviews that allow for an accurate diagnosis. However, researchers and clinicians who have observed these individuals describe them variously as neurotic, psychotic, on a spectrum exhibiting neurotic, sociopathic, and psychotic characteristics, or suffering from a diagnosed personality disorder.

It is not our intent here to make an overarching diagnosis, nor do we intend to imply that all cult leaders or the leaders of any of the groups mentioned here are psychopaths. In reviewing the data, however, we can surmise that there is significant psychological dysfunctioning in some cult leaders and that their behavior demonstrates features rather consistent with the disorder known as psychopathy.

Dr. Robert Hare, one of the world's foremost experts in the field, estimates that there are at least two million psychopaths in North America. He writes, "Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret."

Psychopathy falls within the section on personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is the standard source book used in making psychiatric evaluations and diagnoses. In the draft version of the manual's 4th edition (to be released Spring 1994), this disorder is listed as "personality disorder not otherwise specified/ Cleckley-type psychopath," named after psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley who carried out the first major studies of psychopaths. The combination of personality and behavioral traits that allows for this diagnosis must be evident in the person's history, not simply apparent during a particular episode. That is, psychopathy is a long-term personality disorder. The term psychopath is often used interchangeably with sociopath, or sociopathic personality. Because it is more commonly recognized, we use the term psychopath here.

Personality disorders, as a diagnosis, relate to certain inflexible and maladaptive behaviors and traits that cause a person to have significantly impaired social or occupational functioning. Signs of this are often first manifested in childhood and adolescence, and are expressed through distorted patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself. In simple terms this means that something is amiss, awry, not quite right in the person, and this creates problems in how he or she relates to the rest of the world.

The psychopathic personality is sometimes confused with the "antisocial personality," another disorder; however, the psychopath exhibits more extreme behavior than the antisocial personality. The antisocial personality is identified by a mix of antisocial and criminal behaviors--he is the common criminal. The psychopath, on the other hand, is characterized by a mix of criminal and socially deviant behavior.

Psychopathy is not the same as psychosis either. The latter is characterized by an inability to differentiate what is real from what is imagined boundaries between self and others are lost, and critical thinking is greatly impaired. While generally not psychotic, cult leaders may experience psychotic episodes, which may lead to the destruction of themselves or the group. An extreme example of this is the mass murder-suicide that occurred in November 1978 in Jonestown, Guyana, at the People's Temple led by Jim Jones. On his orders, over 900 men, women, and children perished as Jones deteriorated into what was probably a paranoid psychosis. The psychopathic personality has been well described by Hervey Cleckley in his classic work, The "Mask of Sanity", first published in 1941 and updated and reissued in 1982. Cleckley is perhaps best known for his "The Three Faces of Eve", a book and later a popular movie on multiple personality. Cleckley also gave the world a detailed study of the personality and behavior of the psychopath, listing 16 characteristics to be used in evaluating and treating psychopaths. Cleckley's work greatly influenced 20 years of research carried out by Robert Hare at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. In his work developing reliable and valid procedures for assessing psychopathy, Hare made several revisions in Cleckley's list of traits and finally settled on a 20-item Psychopathy Checklist. Later in this chapter we will use an adaptation of both the Cleckley and Hare checklists to examine the profile of a cult leader.

Neuropsychiatrist Richard M. Restak stated, "At the heart of the diagnosis of psychopathy was the recognition that a person could appear normal and yet close observation would reveal the personality to be irrational or even violent". Indeed, initially most psychopaths appear quite normal. They present themselves to us as charming, interesting, even humble. The majority "don't suffer from delusions, hallucinations, or memory impairment, their contract with reality appears solid." Some, on the other hand, may demonstrate marked paranoia and megalomania. In one clinical study of psychopathic inpatients, the authors wrote "We found that our psychopaths were similar to normals (in the reference group) with regard to their capacity to experience external events as real and with regard to their sense of bodily reality. They generally had good memory, concentration, attention, and language function. They had a high barrier against external, aversive stimulation....In some ways they clearly resemble normal people and can thus 'pass' as reasonably normal or sane. Yet we found them to be extremely primitive in other ways, even more primitive than frankly schizophrenic patients. In some ways their thinking was sane and reasonable, but in others it was psychotically inefficient and/or convoluted."

Another researcher described psychopaths in this way These people are impulsive, unable to tolerate frustration and delay, and have problems with trusting. They take a paranoid position or externalize their emotional experience. They have little ability to form a working alliance and a poor capacity for self-observation. Their anger is frightening. Frequently they take flight. Their relations with others are highly problematic. When close to another person they fear engulfment or fusion or loss of self. At the same time, paradoxically, they desire closeness; frustration of their entitled wishes to be nourished, cared for, and assisted often leads to rage. They are capable of a child's primitive fury enacted with an adult's physical capabilities, and action is always in the offing." Ultimately, "the psychopath must have what he wants, no matter what the cost to those in his way."

The Master Manipulator

Let us look for a moment at how some of this manifests in the cult leader. Cult leaders have an outstanding ability to charm and win over followers. They beguile and seduce. They enter a room and garner all the attention. They command the utmost respect and obedience. These are "individuals whose narcissism is so extreme and grandiose that they exist in a land of splendid isolation in which the creation of the grandiose self takes precedence over legal, moral or interpersonal commitments."

Paranoia may be evident in simple or elaborate delusions of persecution. Highly suspicious, they may feel conspired against, spied upon or cheated, or maligned by a person, group, or governmental agency. Any real or suspected unfavorable reaction may be interpreted as a deliberate attack upon them or the group. (Considering the criminal nature of some groups and the and social behavior of others, some of these fears may have more of a basis in reality than delusion!) Harder to evaluate, of course, is whether these leaders' belief in their magical powers, omnipotence, and connection to God (or whatever higher power or belief system they are espousing) is delusional or simply part of the con. Megalomania--the belief that one is able or entitled to rule the world--is equally hard to evaluate without psychological testing of the individual, although numerous cult leaders state quite readily that their goal is to rule the world. In any case, beneath the surface gloss of intelligence, charm, and professed humility seethes an inner world of rage, depression, and fear.

Two writers on the subject used the label 'Trust Bandit' to describe the psychopathic personality. Trust Bandit is indeed an apt description of this thief of our hearts, souls, minds, bodies, and pocketbooks. Since a significant percentage of current and former cult members have been in more than one cultic group or relationship, learning to recognize the personality style of the Trust Bandit can be a useful antidote to further abuse.

The Profile of a Psychopath

In reading the profile, bear in mind the three characteristics that Robert Lifton sees as common to a cultic situation

1. A charismatic leader who...increasingly becomes the object of worship

2. A series of processes that can be associated with "coercive persuasion" or "thought reform"

3. The tendency toward manipulation from above...with exploitation-economic, sexual, or other--of often genuine seekers who bring idealism from below

Based on the psychopathy checklists of Hervey Cleckley and Robert Hare, we now explore certain traits that are particularly pertinent to cult leaders. The fifteen characteristics outlined below list features commonly found in those who become perpetrators of psychological and physical abuse. In the discussion we use the nomenclature "psychopath" and "cult leader" interchangeably. To illustrate these points, a case study of Branch Davidian cult leader David Koresh follows this section.

We are not suggesting that all cult leaders are psychopaths but rather that they may exhibit many of the behavioral characteristics of one. We are also not proposing that you use this checklist to make a diagnosis, which is something only a trained professional can do. We present the checklist as a tool to help you label and demystify traits you may have noticed in your leader.

1.Glibness/Superficial charm

Glibness is a hallmark of psychopaths. They are able to use language effortlessly to beguile, confuse, and convince. They are captivating storytellers. They exude self-confidence and are able to spin a web that intrigues others and pulls them into the psychopath's life. Most of all, they are persuasive. Frequently they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or disarm them emotionally.

2.Manipulative and Conning

Cult leaders do not recognize the individuality or rights of others, which makes all self-serving behaviors permissible. The hallmark of the psychopath is the psychopathic maneuver; which is essentially interpersonal manipulation "based on charm. The manipulator appears to be helpful, charming, even ingratiating or seductive, but is covertly hostile, domineering....[The victim] is perceived as an aggressor, competitor, or merely as an instrument to be used....The manipulation inevitably becomes the end-all and is no longer qualified by the reality principle." In other words, there are no checks on the psychopath's behavior--anything goes. The Psychopath divides the world into suckers, sinners, and himself. He discharges powerful feelings of terror and rage by dominating and humiliating his victims. He is particularly successful when, through an overlay of charm, he makes an ally of his victim--a process sometimes described as emotional vampirism or emotional terrorism. Examples of this type of manipulation are plentiful in the literature of Jonestown and other cultic groups. It is especially prevalent in the one-on-one cultic relationship, where there is direct involvement with the manipulator.

3. Grandiose Sense of Self

The cult leader enjoys tremendous feelings of entitlement. He believes everything is owed to him as a right. Preoccupied with his own fantasies, he must always be the center of attention. He presents himself as the "Ultimate One" enlightened, a vehicle of God, a genius, the leader of humankind, and sometimes even the most humble of humble. He has an insatiable need for adulation and attendance. His grandiosity may also be a defense against inner emptiness, depression, and a sense of insignificance. Paranoia often accompanies the grandiosity, reinforcing the isolation of the group and the need for protection against a perceived hostile environment. In this way, he creates an us-versus-them mentality.

4.Pathological Lying

Psychopaths lie coolly and easily, even when it is obvious they are being untruthful. It is almost impossible for them to be consistently truthful about either a major or minor issue. They lie for no apparent reason, even when it would seem easier and safer to tell the truth. This is sometimes called "crazy lying." Confronting their lies may provoke an unpredictably incense rage or simply a Buddha-like smile.

Another form of lying common among cult leaders is known as pseudologica fantastica, an extension of pathological lying. Leaders tend to create a complex belief system, often about their own powers and abilities, in which they themselves sometimes get caught up. "It is often difficult to determine whether the lies are an actual delusional distortion of reality or are expressed with the conscious or unconscious intent to deceive. These manipulators are rarely original thinkers. Plagiarists and thieves, they seldom credit the true originators of ideas, often co-opting authorship. They are extremely convincing, forceful in the expression of their views, and talented at passing lie detector tests. For them, objective truth does not exist. The only "truth" is whatever will best achieve the outcome that meets their needs. This type of opportunism is very difficult to understand for those who are not psychopaths. For this reason, followers are more apt to invent or go along with all kinds of explanations and rationales for apparent inconsistencies in behavior "I know my guru must have had a good reason for doing this." "He did it because he loves me even though it hurts."

5. Lack of Remorse, Shame, or Guilt

At the core of the psychopath is a deep-seated rage which is split off (i.e, psychologically separated from the rest of the self) and repressed. Some researchers theorize that this is caused by feeling abandoned in infancy or early childhood. Whatever the emotional or psychological source, psychopaths see those around them as objects, targets, or opportunities, not as people. They do not have friends, they have victims and accomplices-and the latter frequently end as victims. For psychopaths, the ends always justify the means. Thus there is no place for feelings of remorse, shame, or guilt. Cult leaders feel justified in all their actions since they consider themselves the ultimate moral arbiter. Nothing gets in their way.

6. Shallow Emotions

While they may display outbursts of emotion, more often than not they are putting on a calculated response to obtain a certain result. They rarely reveal a range of emotions, and what is seen is superficial at best, pretended at worst. Positive feelings of warmth, joy, love, and compassion are more feigned than experienced. They are unmoved by things that would upset the normal person, while outraged by insignificant matters. They are bystanders to the emotional life of others, perhaps envious and scornful of feelings they cannot have or understand. In the end, psychopaths are cold, with shallow emotions, living in a dark world of their own.

Hiding behind the "mask of sanity," the cult leader exposes feelings only insofar as they serve an ulterior motive. He can witness or order acts of utter brutality without experiencing a shred of emotion. He casts himself in a role of total control, which he plays to the hilt. What is most promised in cults--peace, joy, enlightenment, love, and security are goals that are forever out of reach of the leader, and thus also the followers. Since the leader is not genuine, neither are his promises

7. Incapacity for Love

As the "living embodiment of God's love," the leader is tragically flawed in being unable to either give or receive love. Love substitutes are given instead. A typical example might be the guru's claim that his illness or misfortune (otherwise inconsistent with his enlightened state) is caused by the depth of his compassion for his followers, whereby he takes on their negative karma. Not only are devotees supposed to accept this as proof of his love but also are expected to feel guilt for their failings! It becomes impossible for members to disprove this claim once they have accepted the beliefs of the group.

The leader's tremendous need to be loved is accompanyied by an equally strong disbelief in the love offered him by his followers; hence, the often unspeakably cruel and harsh testing of his devotees. Unconditional surrender is an absolute requirement. In one cult, for example, the mother of two small children was made to tell them nightly that she loved her leader more than them. Later, as a test of her devotion, she was asked to give up custody of her children in order to be allowed to stay with her leader. The guru's love is never tested; it must be accepted at face value.

8. Need for Stimulation

Thrill-seeking behaviors, often skirting the letter or spirit of the law, are common among psychopaths. Such behavior is sometimes justified as preparation for martyrdom "I know I don't have long to live; therefore my time on this earth must be lived to the fullest." "Surely even I am entitled to have fun or sin a little." This type of behavior becomes more frequent as the leader deteriorates emotionally and psychologically--a common occurrence.

Cult leaders live on the edge, constantly testing the beliefs of their followers, often with increasingly bizarre behaviors, punishments, and rules. Other mechanisms of stimulation come in the form of unexpected, seemingly spontaneous outbursts, which usually take the form of verbal abuse and sometimes physical punishment. The psychopath has a cool indifference to things around him, yet his icy coldness can quicky turn into rage, vented on those around him.

9. Callousness/lack of empathy

Psychopaths readily take advantage of others, expressing utter contempt for anyone else's feelings. Someone in distress is not important to them. Although intelligent, perceptive, and quite good at sizing people up, they make no real connections with others. They use their "people skills" to exploit, abuse, and wield power.

Psychopaths are unable to empathize with the pain of their victims. Meanwhile, part of the victims' denial system is the inability to believe that someone they love so much could consciously and callously hurt them. It therefore becomes easier to rationalize the leader's behavior as necessary for the general or individual "good." The alternative for the devotee would be to face the sudden and overwhelming awareness of being victimized, deceived, used. Such a realization would wound the person's deepest sense of self, so as a means of self-protection the person denies the abuse. When and if the devotee becomes aware of the exploitation, it feels as though a tremendous evil has been done, a spiritual rape.

10 . Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature

Like small children, many psychopaths have difficulty regulating their emotions. Adults who have temper tantrums are frightening to be around. Rage and abuse, alternating with token expressions of love and approval, produce an addictive cycle for both abuser and abused, as well as create a sense of hopelessness in the latter. This dynamic has also been recognized in relation to domestic abuse and the battering of women. The cult leader acts out with some regularity--often privately, sometimes publicly--usually to the embarrassment and dismay of his followers and other observers. He may act out sexually, aggressively, or criminally, frequently with rage. Who could possibly control someone who believes himself to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and entitled to every wish, someone who has no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for the impact on those around him? Generally this aberrant behavior is a well-kept secret, known only to a few disciples. The others only see perfection. These tendencies are related to the psychopath's need for stimulation and inability to tolerate frustration, anxiety, and depression. Often a leader's inconsistent behavior needs to be rationalized by either the leader or the follower in order to maintain internal consistency. It is often regarded as divinely inspired and further separates the empowered from the powerless.

11. Early Behavior Problems/juvenile delinquency

Psychopaths frequently have a history of behavioral and academic difficulties. They often "get by" academically, conning other students and teachers. Encounters with juvenile authorities are frequent. Equally prevalent are difficulties in peer relationships and developing and keeping friends, marked control problems, and other aberrant behaviors such as stealing, fire setting, and cruelty to others.

12. Irresponsibility/Unreliability

Not concerned about the consequences of their behavior, psychopaths leave behind them the wreckage of others' lives and dreams. They may be totally oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they inflict on others, something which they regard as neither their problem nor their responsibility.

Psychopaths rarely accept blame for their failures or mistakes. Scape goating is common, blaming followers, those outside the group, a member's family, the government, Satan--anyone and everyone but the leader. The blaming may follow a ritualized procedure such as a trial, "hot seat" denunciation, or public confession (either one-on-one or in front of the group). Blame is a powerful reinforcer of passivity and obedience, producing guilt, shame, terror, and conformity in the followers.

13. Promiscuous Sexual behavior/infidelity

Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, polygamy, rape, and sexual acting out of all sorts are frequently practiced by cult leaders. Conversely, there is often stringent sexual control of the followers through such tactics as enforced celibacy, arranged marriages, forced breakups and divorces, removal of children from their parents, forced abortions or mandated births. For psychopaths, sex is primarily a control and power issue.

Along with this behavior comes vast irresponsibility not only for the followers' emotions but also for their lives. In one cult, for example, multiple sexual relations were encouraged even while one of the top leaders was known to be HIV positive. This kind of negligence toward others is not uncommon in the psychopath's world.

Marital fidelity is rare in the psychopath's life. There are usually countless reports of extramarital affairs and sexual predation upon adult and child members of both sexes. The sexual behavior of the leader may be kept hidden from all but the inner circle or may be part of accepted group sexual practices. In any case, due to the power imbalance between leader and followers, sexual contact is never truly consensual and is likely to have damaging consequences for the follower.

14. Lack of realistic life plan/parasitic lifestyle

The psychopath tends to move around a lot, making countless efforts at "starting over while seeking out Fertile new ground to exploit. One day he may appear as a rock musician, the next a messiah; one day a used car salesman, the next the founder of a mass self-transformation program; one day a college professor, the next the new "Lenin" bringing revolution to America.

The flip side of this erratic life planning is the all-encompassing promise for the future that the cult leader makes to his followers. Many groups claim as their goal world domination or salvation at the Apocalypse. The leader is the first to proclaim the utopian nature of the group, which is usually simply another justification for irrational behavior and stringent controls.

The leader's sense of entitlement is often demonstrated by the contrast between his luxurious lifestyle and the impoverishment of his followers. Most cult leaders arc supported by gifts and donations from their followers, who may be pressured to turn over much of their income and worldly possessions to the group. Slavery, enforced prostitution, and a variety of illegal acts for the benefit of the leader are common in a cult milieu. This type of exploitation aptly demonstrates Lifton's third point of idealization from below and exploitation from above.

Psychopaths also tend to be preoccupied with their own health while remaining totally indifferent to the suffering of others. They may complain of being "burned out" due to the burden of "caring for" their followers, sometimes stating they do not have long to live, instilling fear and guilt in their devotees and encouraging further servitude. they are highly sensitive to their own pain and tend to be hypochondriacs, which often conflicts with their public image of superhuman self-control and healing abilities.

According to them, the illnesses they don't get are due to their powers, while the ones they do get are caused by their "compassion" in taking on their disciples' karma or solving the group's problems. This of course is another guru trick.

15. Criminal or entrepreneurial versatility

Cult leaders change their image and that of the group as needed to avoid prosecution and litigation, to increase income, and to recruit a range of members. Cult leaders have an innate ability to attract followers who have the skills and connections that the leaders lack. The longevity of the group is dependent on the willingness of leadership to adapt as needed and preserve the group. Frequently, when illegal or immoral activities are exposed to the public, the cult leader will relocate, sometimes taking followers with him. He will keep a low profile, only to resurface later with a new name, a new front group, and perhaps a new twist on the scam.

5. Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. "charisma"

6. Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (Boston, Beacon Press 1963)

7. Schiffer

But you're different from all the others right lol..

Edited November 29, 2011 by Bretloth

[Dolos]

Well said Marcel....

[dworx]

abandoned

Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx

[dworx]

abandoned

Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx

[Dolos]

[quote name='Bretloth' timestamp='1322530698' post='335245

But you're different from all the others right lol..

 

What are you going to do if Greg says YES? I like what he has to say and I'm comfortable with it. I'm pleased he posted here ..We need more people in this world like Greg. If you don't like what he has to say stop reading it. It is your choice...Anyone would think he is a climate change sceptic the way he is being attacked...I hate to see others trying to silence another's opinion..What are you scared of?

Cult leader/politician...they all sounded the same to me.

[mutant]

Also, machine elves are a standard experience with D, shared by many who have partaken. Greg said he doesn't believe in the sharing of exact same Divine interpretation.

That is actually an indication that Greg knows what he is talking about, which is something that is not underlined as often it should, and it's probably something most, incl. agnostics and atheists haven't realised: each religious experience is unique and personal.

And, IMO, elves are experienced mostly because those who experience them have read about them and McKenna followers. Like I usually say, we have to know who experiences what, in order to understand why.

[Rabaelthazar]

Who's the serial negger?

[GregKasarik]

^^^^ Funny that. Also, machine elves are a standard experience with D, shared by many who have partaken. Greg said he doesn't believe in the sharing of exact same Divine interpretation. Maybe that kind of flies right in the face of what people have seen themselves? Deciding for onesself whether or not they believe in horoscopes/machine elves/reiki/crop circles/etc is so much in the fun of walking the path of life. Even if you don't believe something at point D in the your life, who's to say it won't bring countless hours of entertainment and wonderment at point X? Believing everything you read all at once takes a lot of fun out of researching IMHO.

I heartily agree that there are hours of entertainment to be found in exploring the Infiniverse and walking the path of life. Why else would we be here?

I don't deny that there are shared components inherent to many spiritual experiences, but as was pointed out, the machine elves are a part of the folklore introduced by Terrance McKenna, but I seriously doubt that your machine elves are my machine elves and that neither of them are McKenna's. The point here is that the term "machine elf" has become a term for a category of experience, rather than a specific experience. While there may be similarities between them, they aren't identical and even if they were, how could we know?

The point is that in order to adequately communicate to another person about the machine elves, we need a language and shared experience that simply don't exist and any attempts to do so using normal language will be unsuccessful on anything but the most basic level. So it is not so much that there can never be shared experience, but that we can never share the experience.

The point of the Spiritual Principle isn't to say that it is pointless to ever try to communicate spiritual experience, but rather to say that despite your best efforts, you will never succeed. There is no real point in insisting that everyone follow your path, because if it is a genuine spiritual path, nobody else will be able to really understand what you mean when you do try to explain it to others.

I wonder if you've gotten off on the wrong foot with some because instead of seeking help from others (such as a community does), you seem to have taken the solo road to come up with The Principles.

This particular philosophy is the culmination of over thirty years of contemplation and experience of the Divine and an innumerable number of conversations along the way.

I don't think that my taking the solo road has anything to do with the antagonism that I have experienced from some people here. The fact is that the attack dogs haven't bothered to read the content on my site, or if they have, they haven't bothered to discuss, or critique anything within their replies.

I do discuss my ideas with others and a number of the Principles have emerged in this way. Many of my ideas and inspirations have been discovered during intense bouts of Socratic Meditation, and this kind of deep, intense thought is, like any meditative practice, very much a solo affair. A number of the Principles, such as the Uncertainty, Divine and Omniscience Principle, are logical truths, even as they are deep spiritual insights. They remain true, irrespective of the input of others.

Some of the Principles, such as the Ethical Principle and the Principle of Life have no basis in philosophical logic, but instead reflect a particular understanding of ethics and psychology.

While I also see in your own ideal (no two Divine Ideal are the exact same via the individual's perspective) that it kind of might be paradoxical or oxymoronic (however you see it?) way to go about striving to better the world. Even if there is only a pretense of asking for others' opinions, the very act of bringing in other minds massively reduces your chances of looking like a potential power-hungry dude with messianic delusions (hell maybe they're not actually delusions?). You may start out without an ego, but if your Principles take off, who do you think will be inexorably risen to lead? Once in the "leading" role for a while even if YOU don't change (which unless you actually ARE an ascended soul regardless of name sent here to better things, you almost certainly will change), your currently with-it friends could get egos themselves, no doubt being risen to first level disciples.

Unless you're preparing yourself as a St John the Baptist?

 

I don't actually believe in "ascended souls", as it seems to me that half the fun of life is figuring it out for yourself and having these super souls around would just make things too easy.

I don't think that I've ever said that ego might not be a problem. I'm human, so there are no guarantees. All I can do is to try to put in safeguards to curtail foreseeable risks. But success and its impacts on ego would be an issue, irrespective of what domain of activity I was working in.

And no, I certainly don't feel like having my head served up on a platter...

[GregKasarik]

I've been reluctant to join in here, because most of this thread seems not so much like a discussion than an enthusiastic and tear-streaked airing of opinions and prejudices, but I feel obliged to jump in at this point and express my thoughts on the issue of “cults” (yes, I'm yet another to do a bit of opinion-mongering here!).

Thank you very much for that insightful post. I am fascinated by your decision to actually go and spend time with some of these groups, particularly the Hare Krishas, Scientologists and Mormons. It is a shame that you didn't write a book about your experiences.

I've read a couple of book reviews on Spying in Guruland and it appears to be something I should grab hold of. It is interesting that his findings largely contradict the received wisdom.

I congratulate (and fell sorry for) Greg and his double battle against a society that distrusts psychedelics as much as they hate New Religious Movements. Both are complex phenomena and can potentially offer humanity some beautiful and spectacular examples of that which is great in life.

 

Thanks for the encouragement. It is nice to know that someone who has actually looked into the issues is prepared to give me the benefit of the doubt.

I was intrigued by your comparison of "cult" to "drug" as a word that has reflexively negative meanings for so many people. It is quite a compelling juxtaposition and one which rings true, even though I wouldn't have considered it up until this point.

To be honest, this whole "cult" thing has me completely baffled and quite blind sided. It is totally unexpected and puzzling.

[GregKasarik]

Note to self. Stop feeding the trolls.

They vomit bile...

How about for starters all the principles you spout here, you sure as shit didn't come up with them. Repacking other peoples work and claiming it as your own is disgusting to me, you should be ashamed. I've read all the books you have, you got nothing new. Not even even using drugs is new, that cult in japan with the sarin gasings loved lsd..

 

I honestly don't know how you don't squirm with embarrassment when you re-read your own posts.

You accused me of plagerism, which was of course a complete lie. Now, having been caught in the lie, rather than admit that I haven't plagerised anything, you just modify your claim to say that I am unoriginal.

That I can live with, even though you are largely wrong in that claim as well. Do you know how long people have been contemplating the Divine? How likely is it that after 6,000 years, I would happen to come up with a genuinely new spiritual insight? Damn near impossible I would suggest.

Even Isaac Newton famously said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Many of my ideas, even if they have been thought of by others previously, are the result of my own reasoning, meditation and experience. In particular, the "Divine Principle" is completely new and something that you won't find floating around in philosophy. I've run it past quite a number of professional academic philosophers and each of them have indicated that it was the first time that they had seen the joining of those particular dots.

A couple also commented that they thought it was a brilliant conceptualisation.

In any case, given that you obviously haven't read anything on my website (if you had, you would have surely quoted here) and appear to be philosophically and theologically illiterate, I really couldn't care less if you think my ideas to be unoriginal. Your antics are more akin to my dog providing literary critique of Shakespeare than a coherent rebuttal, or analysis of anything that I have ever said.

You claimed to be providing an enlightened way, for one to do that they would have to be enlightened, which you are obviously not. You're nothing special, or am I.

Ah, yes. The other thing to do when caught in a lie is to simply repeat it over and over again. I haven't claimed to be providing an "enlightened way", but by now it is obvious that truth isn't a concept that you are familiar with.

So, as I don't claim to be providing an "enlightened way", I wouldn't have to actually be enlightened, now would I? In any case, I know that I am not "enlightened" and wouldn't claim that I was.

And yes, you certainly aren't anything special.

You've read a bunch of books, had some ecstactic experiences, are most likely deeply insecure and need to build this cult for your own ego's need. No one needs this cult except you it seems.

I knew it wouldn't be long before the vomit arrived. And don't think nobody noticed that you couldn't provide any evidence of my supposed attempts to assassinate your character. You are doing a wonderful job all by yourself.

Seems that the only one who needs this "cult" is you. You don't seem to be able to shut up about it and are obviously too fixated on it to let go of the idea, despite the fact that it flies in the face of all possible evidence and hinges on a deliberate misunderstanding of the word "cult"

Or maybe you really are that stupid?

But on with the show...

What follows below are characteristics of a cult leader. These are given so that the reader may understand what to look for in patterns of cult leadership. The text was excerpted from chapter five of Captive Hearts Captive Minds by Madeline Landau Tobias and Janja Lalich pp. 67-79, and is reprinted without permission of the author.

I suppose the irony of you plagerising the work of someone else was completely lost on you. It is entertaining to watch you make such a fool of yourself like this, and it serves the useful purpose of illustratiing just how fundamentally lazy you really are. Seriously, who just dumps a bunch of text into a thread like this? How hard could it be to selectively quote the relevant bits in the context of your argument?

Oh, that's right. You have begging the question and bluster, not an argument.

Of course none of this applies to me. The book specifically refers to a particular kind of organisation, which is engaged in "a coordinated program of coercive influence and behavior control", and this is crucial to their definition of whether an organisation is a "cult".

It is particularly dishonest for you to fail to include this part of the text (which can be found in chapter one in case you were too lazy to read the whole book). Obviously, ignoring the authors' definition of a cult was necessary for your lie to seem reasonable, because otherwise you'd have twigged everyone to the fact that your claims about me are completely and demonstrably false.

So, this preponderance of pilfered verbiage would only be relevant if you could demonstrate that I am engaged in "a coordinated program of coercive influence and behavior control". If you can, then please post your evidence here.

If you are having trouble with the concept of evidence, maybe you should read the "Reality Principle". Science is Truth, you know...

Few, if any, cult leaders subject themselves to the psychological tests or prolonged clinical interviews that allow for an accurate diagnosis.

But you're different from all the others right lol..

 

Well yes, I am.

In fact, I can put you out of your misery right now, by the simple expedient of posting a copy of my psychological profile as determined by the long version of the The IPIP-NEO, which is based on the Five Factor model of personality. The IPI-NEO can be found here: http://www.personalitytest.net/ipip/ipipneo1.htm

My own profile, completed at the beginning of 2009, can be found here:http://www.kasarik.com/personality.php.

In addition, I also have personality testing, which was done by the Army over a decade ago (both the CAQ and Neo-Pir) that is in concordance with these results.

Of specific note, I would highlight the following from the report:

"Your high level of Agreeableness indicates a strong interest in others' needs and well-being. You are pleasant, sympathetic, and cooperative".

"Your score on Neuroticism is low, indicating that you are exceptionally calm, composed and unflappable. You do not react with intense emotions, even to situations that most people would describe as stressful".

This personality report should put paid to your completely speculative (and dare I say, slanderous) claims about my supposedly sociopathic, neurotic and insecure psychological state. Of course, given that pesky things like facts and evidence haven't deterred your onslaught up till now, I don't suppose that they will again.

Given that obfuscation is an integral component of your communicative repertoire, I can see you slithering back and claiming that I rigged this report, or that it isn't mine, or any one of a thousand other silly reasons to keep on asserting that I am a beastly, damnable, and pernicious cult leader, sans cult. Given this tragic recognition that the best predictor of future malevolence is past malevolence, I am more than happy to complete any appropriately peer reviewed psychological measure if conducted under appropriate conditions and by a suitably qualified specialist. Obviously, I would expect you to pay for it, but I don't think that this is too much to ask, given that it is your your own febrile delusions that have your knickers that are twisted out of shape and totally derailed the original intent of this thread, which was to place my ideas up for discussion.

[drugo]

You find my musings on the nature of things to be "patronising", but see no problem with asserting that I am most likely "unbalanced and grandiose and no doubt authoritarian and narcissistic".

You'll excuse me if I don't aspire to be you.

 

These dialogical ploys on 'patronising' as projective identification are old-hat and here serve only to blind yourself of criticism.

Some obvious narcissistic motifs in your story include the website of your religion being your own name, seeing yourself as some great prophet of eternity, when stating for example,

someone such as myself (or Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha)

and, of course, creating a thick and complex religious ideology on your own for people to adopt without input from or co-designing with those people points to a grand and some might say messiah complex

and self-inflation is never far from authoritarian modes of being. For instance, the "myself" in the quote above works to suck-up any available authority that these religious figures (JC, Mohammad, Buddha) may have in the imagination of potential disciples --- thus displaying covert forms of domination, that eventually come to be couched in the name of 'religious freedom '

quote from CIC website "the Uncertainty Principle is the foundation upon which all of the other Principles are erected."

In regards to the general flavour of the movement, I'm not sure if obsessing on uncertainty is necessarily a virtuous or stable core religious doctrine for people to adopt. It seems more geared to the methodological postulates of the sciences (cogito) than for relating to things such as gods, spirits, angels, immortality and eternity. Genuine reasons why many people turn to religion include to find solutions for, and solace from, uncertainty and crisis, such as in prayer or indigenous nature-crisis rituals or magic or divination.

Obsessing on uncertainty is a sure-fire way to dislocate or banish certain belief and value forms. And, of course, community cannot sustain itself without forms of ‘certainty’ or predictability. Thus whose beliefs and values will more than likely fill the gaps of uncertainty but the charismatic leader who established the system and knows it better than anyone and, more to the point, who has so much personal energy and belief invested in the social experiment.

[GregKasarik]

This was a very interesting thread, even if it was derailed by some people who sought to attack me personally, rather than the Principles.

I don't really see any point in continuing to rehash the same discussion forever, so I would like to thank everyone for participating (yes even those who are detractors), because you have each added valuable perspectives that I will need to consider moving forward. There have been some valid criticisms and if nothing else, I can see that the whole "cult" thing is something that I will encounter and this has been valuable preparation.

Intriguingly, I discovered at EGA that this thread has been viewed by many people who did not post despite having strong opinions about the conversation. I would like to thank those people who approached me and shared their views and perspective, as it allowed me to get a better picture of community sentiment.

Thanks again.

Greg

[Sheather]

Yeah, the thread link suggests there have been many, many viewers.

66 Replies

1,332 Views

About 200 views per post...

[FancyPants]

Are you role playing a cult leader, Greg?

Interests:

Mysticism, Philosophy, Theology, Psychology, science in general, history, reading, role playing. In fact most things that have nothing to do with popular culture.

Edited December 11, 2011 by FancyPants

[GregKasarik]

Are you role playing a cult leader, Greg?

 

LOL!

Wheels within wheels, within wheels in an infinite progression within which we are forever lost...

[whitewind]

I must say Marcel, your post surprised me. I was brought up in a cult, and I would say it was anything but benign. Sure, they thought they were doing the right thing, and had good intentions at heart, but the strictness and the insularity is what caused the problems. There was no flexibility, no understanding, no tolerance, latent aggression, fear, and cover-ups of some extremely unpleasant behaviour wrought by adults upon children.

As an adult, joining these groups and participating in group meetings may well have been banal, to have your entire childhood destroyed through unhappiness because you think differently to everyone around you is quite something else.

I was lucky to find psychedelics, as they were the thing that inspired my freedom. But to turn the psychedelic experience around and try to religionise it, that's the kind of idea that makes me quite upset.

When I started reading this post, my eye had been caught by the name of this new community, the community of infinite colour. What a beautiful name. Further down, it became the community of infinite light, even more beautiful. But in reality, we are creating divisions by the use of such descriptors. There are those of us with the light, or of the colours. Then there are those of us who aren't. Referred to as "them", or "they". In reality, we are the community. The whole. The one. And our experiences, while different, all refer to the same.

And Greg, please try to understand the nature of division. Already you have divided the community in to two, one group who like your principles, and the other who dislike the idea of organised religion. It is such divisions that then give rise to prejudice, insularity, fear and intolerance.

[SunChaser]

I congratulate (and fell sorry for) Greg and his double battle against a society that distrusts psychedelics as much as they hate New Religious Movements. Both are complex phenomena and can potentially offer humanity some beautiful and spectacular examples of that which is great in life.

 

Yeah Marcel, I understand what your trying to say about how you spent time with some of these religions or cults (the only difference between a religion and a cult, is that one is mainstream and the other is not) and how you found them to be good people who didn't try to control the minds of there followers with fear and guilt. Although I do have a certain amount of respect for how you carried out this practical exercise, I still find your conclusion incredibly naive.

Firstly, your clearly a fairly intelligent individual approaching these people for the purpose of an experiment. It's a completely different situation for individuals who are actually looking for meaning and are easily manipulated.

Also, who do you think had the most realistic perspective of Nazi Germany in the 1930's. Was it the German citizens, who were living a high quality of life, because of that government and were constantly been feed propaganda about there superiority? Or was it the people who didn't even live in Germany who could actually see what the Nazi party was about from an outsiders prospective?

Religion (just like the theory of white supremacy), inhibits peace and segregates the human race. It's nothing but a weight on humans attempting to gain a higher enlightenment and you usually have to be an outsider to realize it. 

For example, my mum just told me the other day how she got told off by her pastor for letting my 14 year old brother watch the rocky horror show. I mean come on! This is just an everyday seventh day Adventist church, not some underground cult.

Or like how my parents joined a baptist church when I was a kid. My old man is fairly intelligent and probably also psychotic, so started telling everyone he kept seeing angels and bright lights and shit. He was there for considered special (or chosen by god) by the other followers of the church. So when it came out that my dad was going to the girls (that my parents were foster carrying for) room every night to apparently 'pray' for them, but was actually sexually abusing a 11 year old girl, the whole church basically defended my dad and told mum she just had to deal with it. My mum was then disowned from the church for leaving my dad, well the church gave full support for my poor old dad who's evil wife had left him. What he'd done didn't matter, since god had chosen him for a purpose. 

This is a 'very' moderate story compared to the messed up shit that goes on in these places everyday. On the surface of it all, you'll just usually see kind hearted people who lookout for each other, with there happy & healthy families. 

But underneath the satisfied faces and apparently benign beliefs, theres always some real dark shit going down and the more secret the group, the darker that reality will be.

I haven't even mentioned the bigger issue of how churches use the souls they have harvested to force there beliefs onto non believers, by leaning on the government and telling there followers who to vote for.  

I mean even modern day surgery used to be illegal because of petty religious beliefs, which has obviously hindered our current day understanding of human biology.

Religion is primitive and creates ideology, hate, segregation and complete ignorance. Just like any other religion, gregs idea would be beneficial to a few at the expense of many. 

Peace

[dworx]

abandoned

Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx

[SunChaser]

What do you think the difference between a religious group and a cult actually is dworx?

Peace

Edited December 16, 2011 by jabez

[dworx]

abandoned

Edited April 4, 2013 by dworx