Objectivism and Cults

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 Ways to Build a Cult-Like Following

by JK Ellis

December 28, 2006

Mind Power News

I am linking to this article I just came across to get a discussion going on mind control and cults. Objectivism is often referred to as a cult, or has cult-like qualities, so it is interesting to see exactly where and how Objectivism (and attempts to use it) lines up with traditional views of cults.

We witness sporadic attempts at creating online Objectivist cults (but never calling them that, no siree!) that usually fail miserably after some time. Maybe the guru-wannabes should study some of the ideas in articles like the one above.

In that article, the following topics are given from an NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) perspective for how to create a cult-like following.

1. Initiation vs. Instruction

2. Being Accessible

3. Imply Secret Knowledge

4. Remaining calm as if all-knowing

5. Create a detached involvement as if “you” are in a “higher place”

6. Connect deeply with the individual

7. “Chunk Up” whenever possible

8. Always allude to the mysterious

9. God-Like Confidence

10. Appeal to peoples needs and wants

From that list alone, I can see how and why some attempts at establishing an Objectivist cult failed. (I don't need to mention names, do I? )

Michael

[Rich Engle]

To mention again, a good place to read personal accounts:

www.rickross.com

I particularly enjoyed reading about EST (now Landmark Forum). I had them on me a few years ago, I ended up working at a consulting firm full of them. Yikes!

They always had special sharing moments with each other, and used inside jingo. Even "getting it" had significance.

I think any strong intellectual or spiritual movement can act as a breeding ground for cult behavior. People over-identify to the point of losing their self. Even if the movement in question, say, is all about the self.

There has definitely been some cult of personality activity involving Rand over the years.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I think the correct word is not cult, but the one David Kelley used: tribalism. The easy way to avoid that is to go after and encourage people to explore areas of knowledge and the Objectivist philosophy that are not fully developed. That way, you have to do the thinking and the first hand work to understand the subject. You also gain a first hand authentic respect for great human beings, because you know the kinds of problems they faced and surmounted.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is an extremely important work on brainwashing I read a few years ago:

The Battle for your Mind: Persuasion and Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public Today by Dick Sutphen

Here is an alternate version.

It is a good thing the cultish people (especially the leaders) in Objectivism do not study documents like this. Most of them are pretty terrible at public presentation. Can you imagine them having the competence of a backwoods revival preacher? The misuse of the ideas and peer pressure are enough without the subliminal stuff.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Well, Objectivism sure has the isolation and the jargon, but I used to laugh whenever I saw a video of Leonard Peikoff. He is superb on lecture tape, however. I've heard that Ayn Rand was an effective speaker at the Ford Hall Forum, but I never saw her having the kind of charisma of a Jim Jones, David Koresh or even Warren Jeffs.

Nathaniel Branden had and has that kind of charisma, so I can see that a 1960's Objectivism with Rand's ideas and Branden's charisma could generate a true believer following, but that wasn't what Rand was after and it wasn't what Branden was after either. They were promulgating a set of ideas and they wanted to innovate while still maintaining the integrity of the system. When many of the major pieces of the Objectivist philosophy were in place, the emphasis shifted from innovation to maintaining the integrity of the system.

The struggle now is that orthodox Objectivists are still fighting the battle to maintain the integrity of the system, while others think that Rand's system can stand on its own and concentrate on innovation.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I heard the recording of Peikoff's 1988 talk, Why Should One Act on Principle?, at the Ford Hall Forum and I heard the DIM lectures.

In the first, he practically shouted the whole way through. In the second, he was so laid back that he stretched out sporadic words like a used car salesman. I do not find him to be a forceful public speaker.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I have been invovled in two cult like groups. One was Christian Science. The other sadly was Objectivism. Objectivism was much less dangerous than Christian Science. I now realize that my father not being a Scientist kept the worst effects from me and my siblings. The early NBI days were from what I understand more cult like. In the early years if you missed a lecture you did not always know where the next one would be held. Taped sessions were given in private homes. I think the TOC branch of Objectivism is not cult like at all.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Chris Grieb

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

Well, not having heard those lectures from Peikoff, I can't comment on them. The ones I have heard (a long time ago) were his lectures on Grammar and Objective Communication. I've also heard his Eight Great Plays series. I'm not talking about vocal inflection or things like that. I'm talking about organization of presentation and understanding the context of someone who wants to learn the subject. I don't think he is a forceful public speaker either.

My point is that if orthodox Objectivism were a cult, it would not be a very powerful one. I really do think that most orthodox Objectivists couldn't care less whether you agree with them or not. Orthodox Objectivism has Rand's system coupled with a set of rhetorical techniques designed to protect the integrity of the system.

Jim

Edited December 28, 2006 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Dragonfly]

Well, I tried to listen to the DIM series, but I couldn't finish it, listening to it was a real chore. His presentation is horrible, much shouting (with that horrible nasal voice!) and emphasis on every second word, but also much hesitating and stammering as if he's lost the thread of his argument. In the long run this becomes very boring and tiring. I immediately detected obvious errors which no one else in the audience seemed to observe, and which he corrected only in a later lecture. The most interesting lecture is no 6, which is presented together with Harriman, while they make big fools of themselves; some parts are really priceless, so I saved them on disk to write them out. But in the long run his lectures become completely predictable (as it becomes obvious where he will put his D, M and I labels) and therefore boring, so after a few more lectures I gave up. I really can't understand the enthusiasm for Peikoff's lectures if they are of the same quality of his DIM series, which is really bad.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Jim,

I intuitively like the distinction you make between "cult" and "tribalism". Would you mind elaborating further?

That Rand tended to behave in ways that held herself as the highest authority in matters metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political, and aesthetic, leads me to think more in terms of a cult or tribe. That she wrote of the individual as being the highest ethical and political value and the individual's sovereign judgement as being the highest epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical authority, leads me to think she is anti-tribal and anti-cult. She was pro-individualism and anti-social metaphysics. Is it just that she was against the conscious participation and manipulation of the subjective/social realm that she produced a social system of tribalism rather than a cult? All her participation and manipulation of the subjective/social realm was subconscious because she consciously disowned such processes in her own mind. This means that it operated according to different principles than her consciously determined philosophical principles but not according to the principles of a cult.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Orthodox Objectivism has Rand's system coupled with a set of rhetorical techniques designed to protect the integrity of the system.

Jim,

This part confuses me because some of the rhetorical devices I have seen used not only do not protect the integrity of the system, they undermine it. (See Peikoff's injunction to vote Democrat on pain of being judged as misunderstanding the philosophy, for example, and there are many, many others I could cite.)

Michael

[Rich Engle]

At least tribalism has a certain purity to it.

In cults, one way or another; before the day is over: In cults, you will find con artists. Grifters.

But there doesn't have to be a "cult." The thing is that if you have something that might resemble one, the grifters and connies will come. Worse yet are the organically grown ones.

There's nothing worse than a shining new believer.

People that contribute to this thing that we talk about, these "cults," contribute as professionals (leaders, not followers) are either true and good, or not. If not, they are grifters.

rde

Hello, sucker

[sjw]

I think any system that claims to be complete and correct is going to engender cultishness. "I agree with Rand except on patents." "Oh, well you're not a True Objectivist then. Rand would not have wanted you." On that worldview, Objectivism is pointless. And that was the one Rand set forth--those were *her* terms, not ARI's or Peikoff's. She didn't want anyone calling themselves "Objectivist" except those that adhered to most of what she said.

I don't call myself "Objectivist" anymore, I'm a "rational individualist". It's true that I agree with Rand on most things she said, but I do it on my terms not hers. I think normally, we call our systems by the names of the originators or the names they preferred as a token of respect. I would do that myself since my worldview mostly fits with hers, except Rand did not want the token. She wanted conformity. So be it.

I have also come to think that any Objectivist movement is quite peripheral to what our real purpose as rational individualists living in a collectivist world should be. I couldn't care less if my neighbor is Objectivist. What I need is for them to keep their hands off my stuff (and are in favor of governments that do the same). I'd also like it if they are productive, but that's optional as long as they respect my rights. As the founding of the United States proves, you do not need everyone to adhere to the same systematic philosophy to make a great new political system. Objectivism can be integral to engineering change toward a better government, but it doesn't mean that all consumers need to themselves be Objectivist.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think any system that claims to be complete and correct is going to engender cultishness. "I agree with Rand except on patents." "Oh, well you're not a True Objectivist then. Rand would not have wanted you." On that worldview, Objectivism is pointless.

On Robert Bidinotto's blog discussion of the Tracinski issue, there were a couple comments I was especially struck by. One was by you, of which in a moment. The other was by someone named Steve Martinovich. On 12/19/06, he said:

"I suppose by writing this I may lose the privilege of running ARI essays on Enter Stage Right but this inability to deal with differences of opinion within the mainline Objectivist movement only splinters and weakens it. Has the quest for intellectual purity ever actually produced it?"

He's dead-center on target in asking: Has the quest for intellectual purity ever actually produced it? The answer is a resounding No. The quest is in vain.

And that was the one Rand set forth--those were *her* terms, not ARI's or Peikoff's. She didn't want anyone calling themselves "Objectivist" except those that adhered to most of what she said.

I don't call myself "Objectivist" anymore, I'm a "rational individualist". It's true that I agree with Rand on most things she said, but I do it on my terms not hers. I think normally, we call our systems by the names of the originators or the names they preferred as a token of respect. I would do that myself since my worldview mostly fits with hers, except Rand did not want the token. She wanted conformity. So be it.

The other post I was particularly struck by was yours in which you said that you'd started to call yourself a "rational individualist." I think that that's a very good solution to the dilemma posed to people who are in substantial agreement with Rand but are genuine seekers and don't want to be locked into the set mold of conformity to her views.

I have also come to think that any Objectivist movement is quite peripheral to what our real purpose as rational individualists living in a collectivist world should be. I couldn't care less if my neighbor is Objectivist. What I need is for them to keep their hands off my stuff (and are in favor of governments that do the same). I'd also like it if they are productive, but that's optional as long as they respect my rights. As the founding of the United States proves, you do not need everyone to adhere to the same systematic philosophy to make a great new political system. Objectivism can be integral to engineering change toward a better government, but it doesn't mean that all consumers need to themselves be Objectivist.

Again, I agree. I'll add that along with "not need[ing] everyone to adhere to the same systematic philosophy to make a great new political system," having everyone adhere to the same systematic philosophy would be a dead-end street for intellectual advances; the ferment of competing views is fertile soil for new growth (as long as those views are competing within an overall context of respecting rights).

Ellen

___

[Rich Engle]

Peikoff as presenter.

I've only viewed a bunch of videos where he's classrom teaching. Interesting stuff, occasionally great moments of showing others how to think.

But content aside, as a presenter, I found him absolutely awful. It's not like he'd have any real impetus to do anything about it now, but for sure it is a correctable condition. I know this because I was fortunate enough to have a lot of very strong coaching in presentation (having, at one time, to do a great deal of it).

There's a venerable company here called VoicePro that would've tricked him up in a month.

Nathaniel, on the other hand, is one of the absolute very best I have ever seen. Ever. His concision. His ability to keep the audience on-point. I've seen a lot of great ones, and he sits right there.

Refined presentation skills are key and critical, esp. in areas such as these.

[Kevin Haggerty]

I've had dealings with cults. The Kung Fu school I attended for six years turned out to be a cult run by a "grandmaster" (I know, shoulda known right there) who considered himself the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. I had a friend bully me--ever so politely, of course--into attending some kind of recruiting party for Landmark Education. And in my Nietzchian college days I even went to work for Scientology on a dare--let 'em just try and brainwash me!

The central problem I see with the phenomenon, from which all its other problems flow, is the cult's assumption of unique and essencial knowledge of reality. When a cult convinces you that they alone hold the key to essencial knowledge, you will do whatever it takes to stay connected to it.

Then there's the way we humans tend to deal with epiphany. We tend to have such break-throughs so haphazardly throughout our lives that we can get really superstitious about them really fast. Say we've stuggled with low self-esteme all our lives and then we go to a Christian revival meeting and suddenly, inexplicably (at least for the moment) we feel loved and appreciated for ourselves alone. At this point our childish, superstitious, mechanistic/materialist inner-control-freak steps up and proclaims: "Ipso facto! It's the Christians that done it to me!" What is wrong with human beings? It's like a man stuck in a basement worshipping the stairs he used to climb out.

So, to my mind, to the extent that Objectivism is a "closed system," it's cultic. To the extent that Ayn Rand is the unique source of Objective insight, she is the leader of a cult. To the extent that devotees of Objectivist doctrine try to bully me into believing as they do, they are acting as members of a cult.

On the other hand, to the extent that Objectivism is acheivable spontaniously by anyone through personal introspection, it is simply a tool for improving one's judgement. To the extent that Ayn Rand is just a gifted fellow-traveler on the the road to truth, she is worthy of investigation. And to the extent that Objectivists simply state their ideas eloquently and publicly, encouraging outside opinion and debate--well, then you're prolly visiting the Objectivist Living website.

-Kevin

[Ellen Stuttle]

What is wrong with human beings? It's like a man stuck in a basement worshipping the stairs he used to climb out.

Humans have been climbing those stairs only a very, almost minutely, short time as evolution goes. Consider a band of early humans, with minds able to imagine much more than any earlier animal species but needing to function as a cohesive group in order for any individual member of that group to have good chances of surviving....

For sure "we" -- humans generally -- have a ways to go before there's a widespread state of existence in which each individual human can feel safe in being different/unique. But it's been a very short time evolutionarily, the progress thus far made.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And to the extent that Objectivists simply state their ideas eloquently and publicly, encouraging outside opinion and debate--well, then you're prolly visiting the Objectivist Living website.

Kevin,

Thank you. When we go to a more structured level and reach for the big brass ring in the capitalist world, you will definitely be offered a job in the publicity department...

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Humans have been climbing those stairs only a very, almost minutely, short time as evolution goes. Consider a band of early humans, with minds able to imagine much more than any earlier animal species but needing to function as a cohesive group in order for any individual member of that group to have good chances of surviving....

Sounds like you read "Clan of the Cave Bear," Ellen...

[Ellen Stuttle]

Humans have been climbing those stairs only a very, almost minutely, short time as evolution goes. Consider a band of early humans, with minds able to imagine much more than any earlier animal species but needing to function as a cohesive group in order for any individual member of that group to have good chances of surviving....

Sounds like you read "Clan of the Cave Bear," Ellen...

No, I haven't read that, or any of her other books. I will read all of them one of these days if I have the time, though there's a long list of novels in my to-read queue ahead of those.

Ellen

___