But, and this is OT so maybe I'll get edited, but I don't know what you can possibly mean when you say:

"As nearly all the public response to their attempts to "sell the war" were negative, they could hardly have been using "mind control techniques" unless they were using mind control techniques that have been proven to be totally useless and ineffective."

In fact, only now is public reaction becoming negative. Public attempts to sell the war were horribly successful. Many people in this benighted country still are utterly convinced of Cheney's often reiterated lie which insisted on a connection between Al Queda and Iraq.

Their widely promulgated fictions were so succesfull in fact, that we ended up going to war, with the senate overwhelmingly voting to confirm the resolution to use force in Iraq.

Bush was, after all, elected president of the USA and it appears that a large percentage of US citizens support him and many others believe "My country, right or wrong". Those supporters of Bush supported the war, those citizens who were anti-Bush didn't. No amount of this "selling using cult mind control techniques" probably changed or controlled a single mind.

Our media may be giving us a false conception of US public opinion as over here the media is far more "left" than the population.

The "mind control techniques" comment was my own.  And of course, "mind control techniques" are any kind of mental filter and either ignores or devalues information that doubts the revered truth.  It's kind of cognitive dissonance in a more organized fashion.  And there is now overwhelming evidence that the "threats" about Iraq were cherry-picked, but what Hersh is saying is that some of that happened on a more unconscious level, like in a cult.

Anyhow, do you have a comment on the point I was actually making?

No Joe, "mind control techniques" does not mean anything you want it to mean and while there may not be an Oxford dictionary definition the phrase does not mean "any kind of mental filter and (sic) either ignores or devalues information that doubts the revered truth."

So, are you suggesting that "never leave room for doubt in your mind" is NOT a mind control technique?  Of course it is.

Are you also suggesting that a belief system that does not allow for criticism of the leader isn't a "mind control technique?"

"Mind control techniques" are usually internal, not something imposed from the outside.  A kind of self-censorship, and the absolute foundation of what makes a cult a cult.

Hi Joe

The aspect that you identify as to what Maharaji said in the early days and how he is acting now is I think very important.  In fact I think Maharaji is being quite deliberate in how he is acting now and reflects what he said in the past.  Basically I think he is trying to square an impossible circle. By appearing on the world stage (well at least trying to be on the world stage) he is trying to placate his earlier followers by gaining what many think is his rightful place on the world stage.  After all if he is the supremely endowed one (in the sense of being God treading on this planet) then appearing in front of United Nations symbols really is the correct and rightful thing to happen.  It is almost as if he is, at last, achieving what people dimly think he promised.

For new people, who do not have the baggage of the 1970s/1980s memories, what they are presented with is a apparant successful person being invited to prestigious events, donating monies to worthy causes, selling pictures and artifacts to create more money for worthy causes.  And, yes, I would guess at first glance there will be people who think "Hmmm, maybe there is something here I should check out?". However it is mostly doomed to failure as for the most part Maharaji is propagating himself through the very same medium that the 'alternative' view of him is presented, namely the internet.  Any curious person simply has to type in Prem Rawat in a friendly google search engine and on the very first page about half of the results link to this 'alternative' view.

Any real world leader or someone with a unique 'message of peace' would not need to so obviously have to package themselves in the way that Rawat does.  Essentially Prem Rawat is all packaging and no real content.

T

"What difference does it make whether my body is ten years old or 200 years old? My soul has no age! Whether I am very old or very young, listen to me."

"The great leaders think that I have come to rule and yes, they are right! I will rule the world, and just watch how I will do it. Even the lion and sheep will embrace each other. Has there been such a king before? "

I guess I may be wrong in attributing much forethought on the part of Mr Rawat.  I guess he just 'wings' it and if something works out then great and if not, as you say, he can always blame his followers as he has done repeatedly over the decades.

I do think however that there are people behind him who are thinking some of this stuff through and suggesting to Rawat which direction he should go in.  Until of course it does not work out and he simply drops them.  Hey ho.

The current keys things together with the donations and humanatarian aspect I guess is him simply just appealing to many peoples natural and rightful wish to help others in this world.  All Rawat is doing is hijacking good causes in the hope that people may be fooled into believing he is actually doing any lasting good. In a similar vein he appealed to many people in the 1970s to get to 'know oneself', to experience a oneness and all that stuff, basically riding on the coattails of the mood that prevailed at that time.  Of course he was far more successful at that time as Indian practices, meditation, Bentley driving Gurus et al were all the rage then.  Now of course rich stuck up people more interested in themselves and their lifestyle are seen for what they are.

It really is fascinating to watch the development and decline of 'our' guru.  It is also a real shame that he caused so much suffering and pain for so many thousands of people.

T

"I agree also that it's interesting to watch Rawat's decline.  It's also pathetic to watch, because it's clear that what he is about is just perserving what he's got.  The sad part is that there are still a bunch of people who are part of his charade."

Some of those people are probably just clinging onto him as a kind of life-raft.

They have devoted so much of their lives and sometimes enormous talent to him.They are left with nothing. Reality has dawned.Their friends and their "network" ( maybe for work etc) are still in the cult.They are getting old.........They may have clawed their way up to a certain position of importance and they perceive that it's too late to be important in the real world.They are now dependent on keeping their position and hoping that some of his wealth and "grace" and a few hand outs trickle their way.

Heck, he's already started to promise retirement homes...who knows how much more of their money he may give back in return for their loyalty in saving his face.The fewer the numbers( of premies) the more the possibility that he can risk giving something away.

Just a thought??

I think this is a great observation. Leaving aside the politics of whether Bush's circle is a 'cult' or not, in fact, even leaving aside the word 'cult' - any group by whatever name that has a 'huge difference in the content of internal and external communication' is suspect.

Of course, in many instances it is harmless - humans will always form into groups with their own private group-think. But when such a group has a deliberate public-facing message which is at such odds with their own inner message, then the danger bells should ring.

That has always been Maharaji's main problem with recruiting. Even now at programs new people pick up on this difference - the laughter of some of the audience (the premies) to a banal observation by M, indicating that there is an inner message in the seemingly banal comment that only the cognescenti can understand. The atmosphere of reverence and religious observation to a supposedly open message, and even more so to the speaker of the message (who is of course not a guru, only a motivational speaker - or is it now 'inspirational speaker' - I can't keep up).

Sure, every group has internal lingo, etc., but with the Rawat cult it's much more intentional and organized, and it has always gone on, from what I recall, at least after about 1976, when what "new people" were told was different than what premies openly discussed and believed.  Now, it is just much more blatant.

I can recall the rationalization I had to go through, thinking that people "weren't ready" to hear the whole truth about who or what Rawat was, and what knowledge was, and what "the experience was," or even what the whole thing was about (devotion v. an experience of internal bliss).

This is something only a cult can do so blatantly and get away with it, because the members of the cult who know the "true" story, accept the misrepresentations as necessary, part of a "divine plan" beyond their understanding, etc.