Secret Objectivist cult


Recommended Posts

Our Objectivist cult is way beyond this person or that, or this organization or that.

We're gonna friggin' save the world, folks. Whether they friggin' want us to or not.

Here's some technique to chew on.

Peer Pressure 101

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Soak it up and learn. We're gonna need this stuff.

Don't forget. We are the enlightened ones.

Not anyone else.

We have a right, nay, a duty, to shove The Truth down people's throats.

Hell, we have a right to lie to people if that gets them to The Truth...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Does anyone know how we can get a membership kit out to the guy in the white shirt?

O-Relics Search Update

While we haven't yet located any of the items on our "hot" list, there have been a couple of significant triumphs:

Frank O'Connor's Liver

This was found pretty much by accident when one of our operatives was on break at a bar in Cleveland called "The Knotty Pine." It was mounted on a crudely-labeled board ("Frank O'Connor's Liver," it said), propped up against a jar of Red Hots. Ask and Ye Shall Receive, I guess. Cost: 1 round for the bar. Behold Its eerie, multifaceted landscape; you can almost see everytime he had to run out of the apartment and go pound one down.

unhealthy_liver_180.jpg

The Crucifixion Of Greenspan

Location: Hard Rock Cafe', Boise, Idaho. This one took some doing, but once our folks told them what they had they couldn't wait to let it go. In the spirit of value-for-value exchange, we bartered it straight up for a black velvet painting--you know, the one where the dogs are playing pool. You can feel the pathos emanating from His Parted Lips.

SkullBoy.jpg

All in all, fine work by the teams: Tally Ho, and keep on scraping!

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Perigo Baton

Good one.

Frank O'Connor's Liver

This one crosses the line into baaaad taste. Not funny.

The Crucifixion Of Greenspan

I don’t even get the joke here. He played the sax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3/4/10

Press Release

International Affairs Desk

Unnamed Objectivist Cult Appoints Director of Security

In an unprecedented hiring coup, the Unnamed Objectivist Cult (UOC) has announced the appointment of Gomez "Knuckles" Rosenberg as Global Director of Security.

Rosenberg was persuaded to come out of a lengthy retirement, accepting an undisclosed (but purportedly ludicrously lucrative) offer. Rosenberg, speaking from his trailer at a Ringling Brothers Florida retirement community commented: "It just makes sense. Great organizations need great minds, sure: but they need muscle, too. I'll leave it at that."

"We are simply overwhelmed," said a UOC representative, who refused to identify himself and was wearing a black hood, "All I have to say is: 'Don't you monkey with the monkey.'"

fezmonkey.jpg

Rosenberg, relaxing in his Sarasota, Florida Mobile Home

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a litmus test for aspiring Galt Dwellers of the Inner Gulch Sanctum. I need people of fiber, not like the wusses in the videos below where Milgram's experiment was replicated.

As you can see once you watch them, almost anyone can be convinced to administer a lethal electric shock to a stranger by their own free will. All you need to do is set the situation up correctly.

But that's not good enough for me. Most of these folks complained about the pain they were causing.

I need the people who can do this smiling, without hesitation, knowing that they are administering The Truth.

(From BBC, May 2009)

Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009 1/3

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009, 2/3

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009, 3/3

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

This stuff works, folks.

Here's another time when Milgram's experiment was replicated. This was two years earlier. Unfortunately, the embedding feature of this video was disabled by the account owner. But the link to YouTube is valid.

Enough about wusses. Let's do this thing right...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PRESS RELEASE

Dateline 3/5/2010

UOC Regional Affairs Desk

Tallahassee, Florida

UOC announces acquistion of Advanced Mobile Teaching Unit

Rapidly-expanding UOC (Unnamed Objectivist Cult) has purchased (price undisclosed) what they refer to as an "Advanced Mobile Teaching Unit" (AMTU) for the purposes of further expanding the ongoing UOC membership/recruitment campaign.

An unidentified UOC spokesperson met the eager press today: "I don't even know where to start on this one. All I can say is 'Craig's List, Craig's List, Craig's List!'. This thing has all the toys. We've got radios in there. Whiteboard. A Porta-Potty to simply die for. The back bunk area made it clean through a blacklight sweep and we didn't find one damn stain; I don't know how they did it but for four hundred bucks, this bitch is ours!"

UOC has implied, but not formally announced, a cross-country tour which will run parallel to the summer carnival season. The spokesperson did leave one ominous hint: "I'm not saying we're on for this, but it would for sure make sense to set up next to those Jehova Witness guys at the fairs; you know, the ones that have the plexiglass boxes with the dead spiders and stuff in them. Needless to say, we are confident that at the least we can publish and offer a much better free comic book. Plus, we can always trot out The Hand of Peikoff--that should scare the bejeezus out of the locals. We anticipate the unsure will decide in our favor when it comes to signing up."

trailer.jpg

A rare up-close photo of the latest UOC acquistion--is it just for teaching, or fun, too?

bag_over_head.jpg

Artist rendering of anonymized UOC spokesman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here is a litmus test for aspiring Galt Dwellers of the Inner Gulch Sanctum. I need people of fiber, not like the wusses in the videos below where Milgram's experiment was replicated.

As you can see once you watch them, almost anyone can be convinced to administer a lethal electric shock to a stranger by their own free will. All you need to do is set the situation up correctly.

But that's not good enough for me. Most of these folks complained about the pain they were causing.

I need the people who can do this smiling, without hesitation, knowing that they are administering The Truth.

(From BBC, May 2009)

Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009 1/3

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009, 2/3

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009, 3/3

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

This stuff works, folks.

Here's another time when Milgram's experiment was replicated. This was two years earlier. Unfortunately, the embedding feature of this video was disabled by the account owner. But the link to YouTube is valid.

Enough about wusses. Let's do this thing right...

:)

Michael

Michael:

And it apparently makes great TV!

Contestants turn torturers in French TV experiment

by Roland Lloyd Parry Roland Lloyd Parry Tue Mar 16, 8:00 am ET PARIS (AFP) – Game show contestants turn torturers in a new psychological experiment for French television, zapping a man with electricity until he cries for mercy -- then zapping him again until he seems to drop dead.

"The Game of Death" has all the trappings of a traditional television quiz show, with a roaring crowd and a glamorous and well-known hostess urging the players on under gaudy studio lights.

But the contestants did not know they were taking part in an experiment to find out whether television could push them to outrageous lengths, and which has prompted comparisons with the atrocities of Nazi Germany.

"We were amazed to find that 81 percent of the participants obeyed" the sadistic orders of the television presenter, said Christophe Nick, the maker of the documentary for the state-owned France 2 channel which airs Wednesday.

"They are not equipped to disobey," he added. "They don't want to do it, they try to convince the authority figure that they should stop, but they don't manage to," he told AFP.

Nick and a team of psychologists recruited 80 volunteers, telling them they were taking part in a pilot for a new television show.

The game: posing questions to another "player" and punishing him with up to 460 volts of electricity when he gets them wrong -- even until his cries of "Let me go!" fall silent and he appears to have died.

Not knowing that the screaming victim is really an actor, the apparently reluctant contestants yield to the orders of the presenter and chants of "Punishment!" from a studio audience who also believed the game was real.

Nick said 80 percent of the contestants went all the way, zapping the victim with the maximum 460 volts until he appeared to die. Out of 80 players, just 16 walked out.

One contestant interviewed afterwards said she went along with the torture despite knowing that her own grandparents were Jews who had been persecuted by the Nazis.

"Since I was a little girl, I have always asked myself why they (the Nazis) did it. How could they obey such orders? And there I was, obeying them myself," said Sophie, quoted in a book by the film makers.

"I was worried about the contestant," said another contestant. "At the same time, I was afraid to spoil the programme."

The experiment was modelled on an infamous study at Yale University in the 1960s, which used similar methods to examine how obedient citizens could come to take part in mass murder.

Some observers were sceptical of the manipulative way the participants were handled.

Jacques Semelin, a psychologist and historian who studies genocide and totalitarianism, pointed out that the participants were made to sign a contract obliging them to obey the presenter's instructions.

"There are elements of manipulation from the start," said Jacques Semelin, a psychologist and historian who studies genocide and totalitarianism.

"They are obedient, but it's more than mere obedience -- there is the audience, the cameras everywhere."

But for the film makers, the manipulative power of television was exactly the point.

"The questioners are ... in the grip of the authority of television," said Jean-Leon Beauvois, a psychologist who took part in the documentary.

"When it decides to abuse its power, television can do anything to anybody," said Nick. "It has an absolutely terrifying power."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, why didn't I think of that...

",I was worried about the contestant," said another contestant. "At the same time, I was afraid to spoil the programme.'"

Someone from our recruitment division needs to track this contestant down, STAT. That's what I'm talkin' about, Bobby!

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Here's another (very short) video I found interesting. It reminds me of some discussions I participated in on the old SoloHQ.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, that's why being a geek is good. We'd have a ruler clipped on to our pocket protector. Problem solved, using good old Empirical Science.

I just stole requisitioned a helicopter for us from the Lee County Sheriff's Department. Was that bad? It just needs a few cans of spray paint.

rde

Quick, Robin, into the Randmobile!

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich,

You know, a lot of this stuff comes off as tricks. Stuff like brain-teasers or optical illusions. You do it for a bit, then you realize you're in an experiment, so it won't work anymore.

Thus I started despairing of ever getting my Objectivist cult.

Fortunately, I came across these videos below. (Believe it or not, I became aware of them on an Internet marketing forum.) So there is hope after all.

(EDIT: The original videos I posted from YouTube were deleted from YouTube, so here is another copy of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment from Google Video. It's about half-an-hour long.)

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=677084988379129606&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

Scientology, move over! You're gonna get some real competition, now.

I have to figure out how to get folks into a closed environment with preassigned roles, but that won't be too hard. Look what started happening on the old SoloHQ, and that was open to people coming and going as they pleased.

I still get impressed when I think about how Barbara, who was held up as royalty by Perigo and duly treated as such by the entire forum, became--from one minute to the next--an object of scorn by the majority who posted when Perigo turned on her. The very same people (and there were many) who had heaped lavish praise on Barbara for months suddenly started insulting her, some in the most vulgar terms possible.

Objectivism might be a great body of ideas, but it is certainly is not a remedy against a person acting like a head of cattle if he or she is in a role. Rand-worshipers are supposed to act the part, following their respective personality-cult leaders. And so they do, even when they know better.

(Make sure you weed out the independent thinkers, though. Call them Rand diminishers or something and that will usually stop their toxic effect on the cult-formation.)

That's creepy, but hey, it's something to work with. All you have to do is step up to the plate and say, "I am now defending Ayn Rand's honor. A pox be on her attackers."

You don't even have to be elected or anything. Just start mouthing off. Some people will show up and start following you. Automatically. And they will do the most disgusting things imaginable if you tell them to. Others will even get creative like the "John Wayne" guard in the video and go independently sadistic on the scapegoats you designate as enemies if you give them a touch of secondary authority.

The real rub is figuring out the money thing. That can throw a big honking monkey-wrench in recruitment if it's done wrong.

What do you think about tithing?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

You provided a good link, but it was dying in a thread all by itself. I think it belongs in this thread, so I am copying it here.

I'm sure most people remember the Stanley Milgram experiment which showed that 70% of his test subjects (depending on conditions) would push the switch to shock people up to an ostensibly lethal dose. Dateline had a show last night, of which I caught the tail end. I'm convinced that knowledge of the experiment will change the results of the experiment.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Alas, this thread is dying. Surely it is for lack of a volunteer for a most important position in the cult. Having served in the US Navy I should know better, yet I shall volunteer for said position.

I shall prepare and distribute the Kool Aid, assuring all consume their assigned portions prior to, of course, consuming my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a subject of an experiment of sorts in high school. It occurred during the first day of my junior year in an English class taught by an elderly woman named Miss Brown -- a classic schoolmarm.

After the bell rang, Miss Brown, without even introducing herself, stood in front of the class and read a speech that lasted around five minutes. It was one of those onward and upward speeches that was full of vacuous platitudes. At first I sighed in anticipation of a boring semester, but then I looked closely at Miss Brown as she was reading. She appeared far too sharp to offer this kind of bullshit seriously, so I figured something was afoot. But I wasn't positive that we were being scammed; there was a chance that Miss Brown was a pedantic loon.

Anyway, after Miss Brown finished reading, she told the students to write a few lines about what they had learned from the speech. I was a little hesitant to express my true feelings, for fear that I might pay a price later on, but my cynicism overruled my caution, so I wrote: "Listeners knew as much after you read the speech as they did before you read it -- absolutely nothing."

After Miss Brown collected the papers, she sat at her desk and leafed quickly through them. Then she pulled one out and stood before the class again. She said that she had read something called "A Speech For All Occasions" and explained that it was devoid of content. The supposed lesson of this exercise was to teach students to be more critical.

Miss Brown said that only one student identified the true nature of the speech, after which she read my comment (without naming me). Later, after the class was over and students were leaving, she said, "Mr. Smith, I would like to talk to you." After everyone had left, she said that in all her years of teaching, no student had ever identified the speech for what it truly was. I replied that many students probably thought the speech was vacuous -- you could tell this by watching their reactions -- but they didn't want to take the risk of saying so. They didn't know her, and they didn't want to risk offending her, because they would be stuck with her for an entire semester.

Miss Brown seemed surprised by my observation. She said that it had not occurred to her before, that it was probably true, and that she would need to reconsider whether or not to repeat the experiment in the future. (She never did.) She then asked why I took the chance of offending her. I said that I didn't really care; if she had intended the speech seriously, it was going to a tough semester in any case. She thanked me for my honesty, and that was that.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I was taking -- "enduring" would be a better word -- a psychology course at the University of Arizona in the late 1960s, I volunteered to participate in an "experiment" that was being conducted by a woman who was working on her doctoral dissertation.

Eight people were seated around a conference table and given 20 multiple-choice questions. These were life-decision types of questions, e.g.: Would you choose a job that you didn't like but paid well over a job that you really liked but paid far less? Specific amounts were given and a few variables were added (e.g., would you be willing to move to another state?), so each question had 4 or 5 possible answers.

Right away I regretted my decision to participate in this phony-baloney "experiment," but it only took 10 minutes to answer the questions, so I figured the ordeal wouldn't be too bad. But then, after we answered the questions, the Ph.D. candidate passed out fresh copies of the same questionnaire and told us that we now had to reach collective decisions. In other words, we had to deliberate until we reached a unanimous decision for every option. (The woman left the room during this process.)

Well, the participants took their task seriously for the first five questions or so, but those took a good 45 minutes. But after it became clear that we would be stuck in that room for another 2 or 3 hours if we continued the process, people no longer cared about "negotiating." Someone would suggest an answer, and everyone else would say, "Yeah, that's fine; put that down." We covered the rest of the questions in around 15 minutes.

But we weren't done yet. After the Ph.D. candidate came back in, she found it necessary to explain the point of her experiment. Her "theory" was that people are more willing to compromise when they "negotiate" with a group than they are when making decisions on their own. Of course, she could have explained this as briefly as I have, but it took her around 20 minutes. By this time I was thoroughly pissed-off, so when she asked for feedback, I gave her some.

I said that her "experiment" proved absolutely nothing, because nothing was really at stake. The questions were purely hypothetical -- there were no real costs or benefits involved -- so we reached the point where we quickly agreed on an answer just to get the process over with. Besides, most of the questions, such as what kind of job "we" would be willing to take, made no sense when viewed as collective decisions.

I'm afraid our budding psychology professor did not take kindly to my criticisms of her research project, especially since they came from a lowly undergraduate. We argued for around 10 minutes, as I expressed my opinion that it is not possible to conduct authentic social "experiments" of the sort she was attempting, because there are too many variables that cannot be controlled. (Here I cited David Hume and Ludwig von Mises.) I got nowhere, of course, as it was explained to me that I didn't appreciate how sophisticated modern psychology had become. I remain unconvinced to this day.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually -expelled- from my psych 101 class in college freshman year for similarly being as much of a pain in the ass as GHS by relentlessly questioning the professor. Her name, if I recall, was Rosemary Pierrel, and she was the assistant or associate dean of the college and a big name in the world of experimental (lab rat / behaviorist) psychology. I was auditing it, so was in there only on sufferance. After some weeks of questioning each and every experiment, I finally asked her (politely) was there going to come a point at which we were going to stop learning about rats and start learning about people.

I was told later that week that I would not be allowed back into the class for the rest of the term. ...And I'm always such a pleasant person. You'd think anyone would love to have me or George in their classes. :P

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I googled the bitch (my recollection was correct):

http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/1987-95/91-154.html --> Rosemary Pierrel Sorrentino...[her]research and numerous papers on auditory discrimination and experimental psychology are widely known...While fulfilling her role as dean, she continued her dedication to research and scholarship, teaching an introductory course in psychology...continue[d] to do research on auditory sensitivity and loudness perception in rats and chinchillas.She is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Psychological Association....

I must have forgotten the chinchillas. Shows what a lousy scholar I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I think I have found the perfect approach for creating a cult out of a message of individualism.

Get a load of this by Tony Robbins:



There's nothing inherently wrong in his message. In fact, it's a really good message. But the delivery is totally collectivist.

"Now I am the voice!" shouted--in collective echo--the people in response to Robbins.

"I will lead, not follow!" shouted--in unison--the people following Robbins.

Does anyone wonder what would happen if, in the middle of the climax, the call and response became the following?

"Stop wasting time!"
"Go kill the bastards!"

:smile:

Persuasion, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways in this video...

Authority figure
Social proof
Consistency of compliance (getting people to agree to do small acts, then later larger ones)
Leading people to feel power
Getting people to commit in public
Making people feel 100% right
Giving hope
And the granddaddy: Giving something people they can verify before asking them to accept something they cannot.

And the music! Dayaamm!

Objectivist cult, here I come! One large step closer!

Now, if only I can get that uncomfortable Nazi aftertaste out of it...

Michael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the times I've seen him empower himself by "getting into my karate stance."

"Absolute Power" was a pretty cool book, but I kind of gave up on him after that. He got that funny look in his eye.

rde

Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wave

If you have a little time, here is a TV play (under an hour) called The Wave. The production is a bit dated, the acting isn't the greatest, and the events don't flow as well as they could, but the message is so overpowering--and so parallel to Rand's depictions of villains--that it takes you completely by surprise.

Like, huh? Where did that come from?

It was a breath of fresh air to see phrases like "think for yourself" used as part of the theme.

In contrast to the lampooning nature of this thread and on a serious note, this film represents everything I despise about the way some people try to forward the Objectivist movement. If people wonder about the why of my so-called schism with Perigo, and why I refuse to make peace, this film shows why.

From what I have observed from that individual, the slogans, the symbols, the recently attempted "Band of Brothers" spirit, the intimidation, and so on, he is a wannabe that. (To be fair, I haven't see a custom salute from over there... yet.)

It's not personal, though. (Not much, anyway.) I don't really care about the person so much as the approach. It is wrong to try to turn Objectivism into group-think, clique-think, tribe, club of insiders, Band of Brothers, or what brand of collectivism have you.

And to top it all off, the film was based on a true--but, to be precise, poorly documented--experience in a real high school. So this was not dreamed up in some artist's imagination. It happened with real people. That means the danger is real--even here.

I enjoyed this film enormously. I hope you do, too. I am providing a few other links below the video if you want to learn more.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVRXXbU-z7U&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVRXXbU-z7U&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVRXXbU-z7U&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXi71XBdh1o&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXi71XBdh1o&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXi71XBdh1o&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Wikipedia: The Wave (novel), The Third Wave, Ron Jones (teacher)

Essay by Ron Jones: The Third Wave (part 1), The Third Wave (part 2)

This essay is quite good. I found it interesting that the average students greatly improved their academic work in that environment while the brighter students did not. Also, Jones's worries about his own reactions struck a nerve (which I recognize as I have wielded power without believing I had it at first). He found himself becoming--for real--the role he was playing.

Lots of info on the different forms of The Wave (including the 2008 German movie, the musical, books, news, etc.): thewave.tk

I guess the whole lesson is that we all have the capacity to be and do mindless group-think-acts within us. Only our decision and commitment to think for ourselves--and our encouragement for others to do the same--keeps us from falling into that trap.

It is a decision we all have to make as individuals, too. But it is so easy to be derailed when you are young. Hell, adults, too. But especially the young.

I believe morality starts with this decision. If you decide to think for yourself, you will adopt one kind of morality (the one I hold is good). If you choose conformity and belonging and trusting a leader to tell you what to think, you will choose another (the one that leads you do to evil things without realizing how you got there).

Something to think about, like really think about...

Anyway, back to the Objectivist cult...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So you're looking for an Objectivist cult? Don't like the ones that we normally write about on OL (e.g., the ARIans)? Not cultish enough? Well, try this group, as reported here http://www.observer.com/2010/daily-transom/poor-little-rich-girls?page=0 in the New York Observer, it's called NXIVM (no, not "Nexium," although you may need some of that after reading this rather detailed article on an all-too successful ($$ millions, plus) cult formed by a Keith Raniere, who concocted a bizarre combination of Werner Erhard/est/The Forum, scientology, Tony Robbins, the Dalai Lama and...yes, Objectivism. Raniere calls this brew, administered in marathon group training sessions a la est, the "Rational Enquiry Method." :rolleyes: my gawd!

Personally, I never heard of these guys, but apparently they have been peddling this scam for quite a while and have taken in some very wealthy people, who they have then drained of all their money (see the article).

How Raniere manages to combine this mishmash with Objectivism (he reportedly gave his personal, heavily-underlined, copy of Atlas Shrugged to one wealthy heiress, implying that he was the living personification of John Galt. According to the article, the same heiress also idolizes the Dalai Lama and sees no conflict between his philosophy and Rand's. :wacko:

As they say, "You can't make this sort of stuff up!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How Raniere manages to combine this mishmash with Objectivism

How about Neotek and the Church of Satan (Anton Lavey)? Looks like it's time to add to the list of the Simonian’s of Objectivism.

Neo-Tech was a combination of business scam hiding behind a "philosophy" created by "Frank R. Wallace" (aka, Wallace Ford), now deceased. He was an enthusiast for gambling and wrote a "novel," entitled "Eric Flame," which presented his eccentric applications (rather, distortions) of Objectivism combined with science fiction allusions to extraterrestrials and "ZON Power" (don't ask). He heavily promoted his theories through books, tapes, and expensive mail order courses. One could often find his mail order ads in libertarian and conservative magazines. As far as I know, his claims to have built upon Objectivism were never taken seriously outside of the following that he had attracted with his promotional schemes. By "not being taken seriously," I mean that no libertarian, Objectivist, or neo-Objectivist scholars, journals, or organizations ever gave his views any credence. He did have his followers, of course, but they were essentially ignored.

As for LaVey, the guy was essentially a conman exploiting the cultural anarchy of the 1960s and 70s. For awhile, he attracted a following in Hollywood and was reportedly a popular guest at some Hollywood parties due to his flamboyant appearance (shaved head, goatee, other makeup to create a resemblance to the popular image of Satan, dressed in black with flowing red cape, the whole bit). I mean, what a draw, "Satan" at your celebrity party!

LaVey also attracted a considerably darker type who took his views much more seriously than he himself, would have liked (on occasion, when he was challenged in an interview, LaVey would admit that his Church of Satan was simply a self-promotional b-s scheme, and that he did not believe in either God or Satan). One of them was Charles Manson. Parenthetically, director Roman Polanski reportedly used LaVey to play the role of Satan in his movie, Rosemary's Baby.

Outside of "Hollywood types" (and a few psychopaths), I don't think anyone took LaVey seriously.

Judging from the article in the New York Observer (and assuming that their description of Raniere and NXIVM are correct and not a journalistic distortion) , Raniere and his NXIVM organization have been much more succesful, and of a different stripe than the Church of Satan and Zon-Power. They sound much closer to Werner Erhard's est, which the magazine states that they were in fact modeled upon. What struck me, was the apparent attempt to merge Objectivist philosophy with something as diametrically opposed as the Dalai Lama's super-mystical/altruist/socialist philosophy.

If one does not have the ability to distinguish between Ayn Rand's views and the Dalai Lama's....

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I realize that this video was meant to be somewhat funny though its techniques are based in fact, however it scared me. In High School and for sometime after I had a cult and an anti-cult neither were by choice though I did not encourage or discrougae the beliefs of my "followers". I heard many times in High School "Are you God" and "Are you Satan". I have had the saying "People wear their secrets on their sleves and if you pretend not to see my secretes I wont see yours.". Because I vocalized peoples secretes instead of pretending that I didn't see them people always believed I was smarter than I really was and that I had some deep revelation about them. How could I know these things about them unless I was God, Satan, communed with demons or communed with Angels. Had I been malicious I could have easily created a full blown cult. I dislike this type of talk even as a joke.

As a side note.

Even though this can be used for cult building I use aspects of what is described in this video to create people from animals. When I find someone with potential I knock the foundation out from underneath of them destroying their false concepts, then because nature abhores a vacuum I fill them with true concepts. The difference between what I do and what those who create cults do is that I fill the emptiness with an ego, where as they destroy the ego (however small it might be in a person).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now