Dave,

I'm still waiting for a response to the specific feedback I gave to you, in which you said you would "address my concerns" (referring specifically to both me and anticult), as you had time.

I am patiently awaiting your response if you so choose. Your most recent post here does not address the specific concerns as stated previously including your ongoing business association with T. Harv Ecker and Joe Vitale etc., or the fact that you say you teach "cult mind control tactics."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2010 08:32AM by buffman.

Quote
ImthatDave
Believe it or not, I did not realize that CAN was taken over by Scientologists or I wouldn't have recommended it. Completely my mistake. So, thanks for pointing that out, while I did mention in the interview I did CAN, I typically refer people to Rick Ross. So, good to know.
[SNIP]
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but I took many courses on cult investigation while I worked in law enforcement, particularly satanic groups and conducted investigations. I've also instructed at the college level and have been an expert witness on cults, all of those things would qualify me as an expert. Not to mention the fact that I've spend 27 years studying cults, particularly religious cults, mass influence and persuasion.
[SNIP]
Sad really, I'm on your side and have done my best to help thousands of people see where they've been manipulated and taught them how to avoid it and help even more learn how to do sales and marketing effectively and appropriately. If you are too narrow minded to see the difference then enjoy yourselves here, my work and my reputation stands on its own.

Scientology's takeover of CAN occurred in the mid-1990s. News media extensively covered the events; here's a link to a highly informative 60 Minutes segment:

[www.youtube.com]

Everyone who does serious work against cults, mind control, thought reform, and malicious persuasion "realized" in 1996 that Scientology owns and staffs CAN. Way to keep up with your field, Dave! Your 27 years of study must have occurred before the mid-1990s; if not, you might want to get a refund for all those courses you took.

A cult expert who doesn't know that CAN became a Scientology front 14 years ago is a lot like a terrorism expert who doesn't know a significant act of terror occurred on September 11, 2001. Not someone I'd hire. Or trust.

Your reputation may stand on its own, but it doesn't stand on much. And you are not on my side.

Also, your attempt to direct everyone's attention to the non-issue of this board's anonymity are pointless, and really, really lame. It's not even a good red herring. But I'll address it because, as you'll see, it harms your position even more. You really shouldn't have brought it up.

This is an anonymous message board. Your options are:

1. Accept that fact and address the issues
2. Go to a message board where people use their real names and avoid the issues
3. Try to lure the unsuspecting into private encounters in an arena where you're comfortable and avoid the issues. People who come to this message board and prefer to conduct their main interactions off the board usually up to no good.
4. Continue attempting to impugn us for remaining anonymous, which only draws attention to the fact that you neither answer questions nor go away.

Speaking of anonymous, I've placed a link below to the Anonymous January 16th anti-Scientology protest in Sydney, Australia.

One interesting thing about this video is that the people who conceal their identities are non-violent activists who work tirelessly against the cult of Scientology. The man who's filmed engaging in acts that caused Sydney police to detain him, Scientology Rev. Mark Hanna, handed out his business card moments before he began breaking the law.

A man known only as "tamphex" restrained Hanna and prevented more lawlessness. The police are now preparing charges against Rev. Hanna.

The issue Dave Lakhani has raised is, if you give your name, that means you're good, brave, right, reasonable, trustworthy, and slime-free, right? And if you're anonymous, you must be a frightened coward who has nothing worthwhile to offer.

Dave, this video is my response to your red herring. I know you're just using the anonymity issue to dodge the excellent questions others in this thread have raised, but that's going to be a much less appealing tack for you to take now.

So how about you get to work on some answers for the very specific questions buffman, The Anticult, and helpme2times have asked?

January 16th. 2010 Anonymous Protest -- Sydney, Australia
[www.youtube.com]



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2010 11:50AM by Christa.

I have no ongoing professional relationship with Joe Vitale. I was included in one of his books, he introduced me to my editor before he was in The Secret who gave me a book deal for Persuasion, I thanked Joe in the book and I stand by that thanks because it is the right and correct thing to do, I don't retract my thanks, that is ridiculous. I also don't retract my disagreement with him over The Secret, Law of Attraction, or any of that.

The only events of Harv's that I've done or will do in the future are his business events and his persuasion events. He doesn't do Master of Influence anymore and I'm not currently scheduled on his stage. If they schedule me, I'll speak on the stage, I make no excuses for making a living. There are stages of his and many others I would not speak on. But, where I can share persuasion ethically and open people's eyes to what is going on around them I will. Clear? I'm in the business of teaching sales, marketing and persuasion to that end. I've also made it my mission to expose what I see as negative, manipulative persuasion like James Ray, The Secret and many others as evidenced by more than one long teleseminar I've done and referenced here in the past.

I teach cult mind control tactics and you practice them in this forum every day. If you read my posts you'll see I explained this before. Cults, advertising, salesmen, marketers, ministers, educators and you use these tactics every day to persuade and to make your way in the world. I break them down so that people understand how they work, I also point out how people use them to manipulate. If you'd quote my book in context you'd acknowledge that but you choose to use things out of proper context to attempt to make your point, that is a manipulative persuasion technique, you are guilty of what you condemn me for. I made a very conscious decision to use a charged term like Cult Mind Control tactics not because it appeals to people who want to manipulate but because it appeals to people like you. The two kinds of people who read my books are people who are into hardcore persuasion, marketing, and sales and people who have been manipulated. The fact is I did grow up in a cult and my story appeals to people who had similar experiences, they then read the books, understand how they might have been lead astray and become seekers.

You keep referencing my blatent upselling to bigger and bigger programs, but it simply doesn't exist. I don't have upsell after upsell. People who study my material do often buy one of the products I sell and sometimes they buy more than one. They may buy my speaker training or they may buy my Public Relations program or Dark Art of Persuasion or Renegades of Persuasion. Or, they may buy all of them, their choice. They may also buy any one of the hundreds of books I recommend a year from Amazon.

Search NLP all you want, I don't post to those boards and rarely ever did, I told you earlier that I don't find it particularly useful outside a therapeutic environment. If I did, I'd teach it. Same for hypnosis. Can I put people in trance rapidly? You bet. Do I ever use hypnosis? Yep, just helped a 12 year old stop wetting the bed a few weeks back, a very proper use of hypnosis. Do I use it or teach it as a persuasion modality? No. Could it be used effectively? I think that the jury is in, it doesn't work that well. There are things that have some impact like rapport, anchoring, and representational language but it works better as an educational tool than a persuasion tool. I will say this though, just about any technique people believe works tends to make them more effective because it gives them confidence. So, why do I say I'm one of the fastest hypnotists around? Simple, I sometimes do demonstrations of hypnosis and then break down the trance phenomenon and in the past I did stage hypnosis occasionally still do now and then.

You object to me overgeneralizing? I don't think that I'm overgeneralizing, I'm making an observation, you both appear to me to be uneducated about sales or marketing and you both appear to see every form of persuasion as inappropriate, especially when in order to help people understand the difference between manipulation and persuasion, I come to the conclusion that intent is the difference and you disagree. Sorry guys, you appear to me to see red herrings everywhere you look.

Anticult to quote you "So-called expert persuaders are not used to dealing with people who have the same or higher level of training as they have. As a matter of fact, they AVOID those who have that level of training, as they can't sell them anything. So they get spoiled and used to being able to put one over on their average customer.
They are not used to dealing with people who are experienced and trained in advanced persuasion and critical thinking. " I've offered over and over again to debate you openly in public, you choose not to, your choice, but by not doing so you negate your argument. I believe you are afraid to debate me in public because you might have to admit that my intentions really are good and you were wrong about me. If you are as skilled as you say you are then you shouldn't have any trouble debating me and an honest open debate should expose me if there is something to expose. I'm perfectly willing to do it with you hiding behind your avatar here and we can have Rick moderate it. You'll be safe because I won't know who you are and Rick can take me on if I do or say something that would be clearly different than what I've said all along which is I teach sales, marketing, and persuasion. Do I use aggressive copy? Yes, do I teach people how to manipulate others? Sorry, no. I spend a lot of time explaining to them exactly how they are persuaded.

Buffman - You are opposed to people teaching cult mind control tactics? Then you are opposed to people teaching persuasion at any level. There is nearly no difference other than intent and outcome in the psychological processes that lead people to buy a car or a cult leader. There are some very coercive things that some cults do and some are very efficient at predicting how certain personality types will respond and picking those people out. But even then the same can be done through effective customer profiling. In my opinion what you are saying is that you object to me calling what I teach "teaching cult mind control tactics." Teaching people how people make decisions and how to influence those decisions is the same whether you call it Influence as Cialdini does or you call it cult mind control tactics. I made a conscious decision and I stand by it. You make a lot of assumptions without having thoroughly studied my material and you and Anticult both keep pointing to things out of context. Let me say it again very clearly. CULT MIND CONTROL TACTICS and PERSUASION and EFFECTIVE MARKETING TO PEOPLE are one in the same. The techniques used to get you to buy a certain brand of car or potato chip is just another version of cult mind control tactics. Brand zealots are also cultists, simply not destructive. This forum is a cult in its own right. There are a group of people like Buffman and Anticult who set themselves up as arbiters of right and wrong without identifying themselves or their credentials and encourage people to listen to them and believe them through the number of posts they make. You are practicing what you preach against.

Buffman, am I to understand that you object to teaching Cult Mind Control Tactics and Manipulation for the purpose a) of making sure they don't happen to you without your explicit consent and b) to make sure you are not doing it? I do think all persuasion is ok if the intent is good and the outcome isn't destructive to the person being persuaded. That is simply how life works, we all have to convince others to do things for us in order to survive. Those most effective at persuading others to do what they need and hopefully helping others along the way tend to be the most successful. There is nothing wrong with that. If they decide to get what they want no matter the outcome to the person they are persuading, then I see that as highly manipulative and would and do object to it.

At the end of the day, I believe your real objection to what I do isn't what I teach it is what I call it. You object to me saying that I teach Cult Mind Control Tactics. You added in the coercion part, I've never said I'd teach anyone how to be coercive. I've spent the bigger part of my life in service to others in the capacity of a soldier and in law enforcement, keeping people safe from things and people that might harm them. That is a core part of my nature. You have no idea what I do in a seminar as to my knowledge you've never been to one of my seminars. I've gone on the record here and many other places saying that I don't think anyone should keep buying and buying and buying upsell after upsell. I believe in education and I also encourage people to be done with me as soon as possible. Learn what I have to teach, apply it and move on. If I create something new I will undoubtedly market it to them but you'll find I don't create new products that often.

Anticult, you say that my publisher will publish anything, do you work for them? Were you privy to our conversations? If not then please don't attempt to represent that you know what was discussed or allowed, you have no idea whatsoever. And for your information there is MUCH that publishers won't publish.

Anticult - If someone offers to pay for something I'm selling I'll take the money, I'm in the business of selling things. And, I don't use false scarcity, if I say I will only sell a certain number of products at a certain price, that's what I do. I agree that many people do that and I disagree with it. I also don't have a problem if people decide to sell more of something than they intended to if they acknowledge that demand made it sensible. That is simple economics but I don't think they should turn around in their next promotion and artificially limit the numbers for the purpose of creating false scarcity. That tactic backfires very quickly anyone because no one believes it. In fact, I doubt very many people who regularly buy things online believe in scarcity of anything.

Anticult - I think I've made it clear in my books, in my talks and here, I think there is a very fine line between persuasion and manipulation and I think that line is intent.

Anticult - Again, how do you know Tony is smarter than me? You accept that as being true based on what? Tony and I are not in the same business.

Anticult - Quoting you "Lets get real.
The professional persuaders, those who do it fulltime for a living for years, are experts in managing other people's perceptions, beliefs and behaviors, without those people even being aware it is happening.
When you have enough training to see exactly what they are doing, and to point out exactly what they are doing, as they are doing it, without exception their first response is to freak-out and try to turn-it-around, and make the person doubt their rational thinking. They aim for the core beliefs, and even for the core processes of the mind itself.

This is why the real expert persuaders, like Byron Katie and others, design their system from the ground up, to eliminate any form of analysis and critical thought from the "mind".

They know that once people are using their critical faculties and have training in advanced persuasion, then their system is not going to work on them."

So in one paragraph not only do you set yourself up as the ultimate arbitrator of what is valid or invalid in persuasion you've made yourself the guru of exposure. I find it interesting that you've anointed yourself savior of the persuasion and would be persuaded world.

I think you should search out how much I talk about how people need to think and make decisions for themselves which again is the reason that everyone should understand how persuasion works and takes place. We both agree that people should practice reasoned, rational thinking, your argument doesn't hold water, there is far too much information public information where I encourage it. You are encouraging people to listen to you as an authority figure by presenting yourself and their protector. Let them make their own decisions. Instead of being a reactionary be an educator, give people the tools to make their own best decisions, not your own best decision for them.

Helpme2times - As I mentioned in an earlier post, I wasn't aware that CAN was owned by Scientologists, it somehow escaped me, I've been very outspoken about Sciientology as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I stand corrected and certainly will not recommend them again. I was recommending CAN long before the lawsuit.

Stoic - I don't mind that you brought me up, I hope that the conversation will be helpful, I think that this is an issue that many wrestle with. I will warn you though, if you or anyone else on this forum posts a torrent of any of my material you are in violation of federal law and I have taken every effort to protect my intellectual property. If a torrent does get posted, I will start here in tracking down who posted it and I will take appropriate legal action. I'm not threatening you but you need to not suggest that people commit crimes.

Buffman - I don't "co-market" with Harv Eker. I've spoken on his stages in the past and I've promoted the stages I spoke on as I do everyone who hires me for the most part. I haven't promoted any of Harv's event for a couple of years.

Anticult - It isn't about me personally? Come on, you had to choke on your tongue when you said that, you've made this nothing less than personal and about me, look at the thread topic. I think this quote from you makes that very clear "So its about analyzing what he is doing professionally, as an allegedly advanced persuader, who sells extremely overpriced products to people, and brags about getting people to join an exclusive in-group and pay a lot of money to get his "advanced" material. So it would be utter madness and foolishness to not carefully analyze what precisely he is doing.
A person would have to be out of their mind, or totally naive to take what he is doing at face value." If you think $197 for Renegades of Persuasion is a lot of money, well, all a matter of opinion I guess. If you think $2000 is "extremely overpriced" to learn the basics of public relations or how to build a speaking business again, your opinion, but to my knowledge, you are not in a position to evaluate the value of anything I do as you've never been to an event. Maybe rather than gross generalizations you should get your facts together first.

Anticult - My DD 214 is available my military service is unquestionable, what have you done to make the world a better place?

Anticult - Sounds like you and Bandler and LaValle are pretty tight why don't you just call him up?

Anticult - Statements like these make me say you seem paranoid: "Its no accident the pro's tell you to call them up on the phone, that is their turf, and that's all they need."

Anticult - How do you see me using Thetruthisthesecret.com as a marketing tool? You announce it is run by me as if you uncovered some big secret, I've only said it publicly about a thousand times. So, show me the link to the big money making backend, there isn't one, sorry. That was done because I found the secret to be ridiculous and manipulative and I was one of the first to come out talking about it publicly INCLUDING in my talks on all major stages, yes, even Harv Eker's.

Anticult - Your continued suggestions that I'm not as smart as this person or that person are simply attempts to goad me, sorry, doesn't work. I'm confident of one thing, you won't debate me which makes me wonder what you have to hide. Even Salty Droid whom I respect identified himself.

So to recap to make it simple for everyone. I think NLP and Hypnosis have very little effectiveness in overall persuasion but there is some application of some techniques. Cult Mind Control Tactics and Persuasion are synonymous, there is a very fine line between persuasion and manipulation. The most effective cultists use the very same tactics salespeople and marketers use. How you choose to use the techniques and for what outcome, I stick to my belief that the best delineation is intent. Just because Anticult says something isn't true doesn't make him right. I made a conscious decision to choose to use words like "Cult Mind Control Tactics" to describe persuasion and marketing training. I strongly encourage the ethical use of persuasion for appropriate outcomes and detest in when used to manipulate or hurt people ala James Ray as evidenced by multiple teleseminars and public discussions of it. I don't hide in forums and I address people publicly. Anticult won't debate me because he is worried I'll somehow takeover his mind, I wouldn't even consider it, he can have anyone moderate the conversation and I'll still agree to the debate. My bad, I missed that CAN was taken over by Scientology, I stand corrected and won't recommend them again.

Buffman, not sure if I answered all of your questions, if I didn't, please ask specifically what you'd like me to respond to. You appear to be reasoned to me and I think we probably more on the same side of the line than we are not, I think it is language that you disapprove of and I think if we had this conversation in person we'd both be much more clear.

Buffman, I think I have distanced myself from all of the people you object to though I will speak on Harv's business events stages if invited, I simply don't see that as a conflict at this point but if I do, I'll change. I retain the right to change my mind about anything based on new information. I understand you may object to that and I accept it. It is very unlikely my publisher is going to remove forwards from my books and I won't take back my thanks to Joe for introducing me to my publisher, that is simply not acceptable. I publicly thanked him for something he did then, I meant it then, I mean it now no matter how much I disagree when what he has said since.

You've mentioned that twice and I get it. You also allowed a post to by Stoic stay up suggesting that people break the law by posting my copyrighted material to a torrent site for the express purpose of harming me financially. I find that interesting. And, I'll continue to suggest that Anticult identify himself as he presents himself an expert over and over in his posts.

Quote
rrmoderator
ImthatDave:

No one on this message board has any obligation whatsoever to disclose their personal information or identity to you.

Arguments can be made regarding an issue on this message board without necessitating such a disclosure.

Either the argument and citation facts that support it are compelling, or they are not, regardless of who posts the material.

Christa -

It happens, no excuse, now I know and I'm moving on. I'm a big fan of Anonymous, I think that organization does great work in many cases.

We all have different ways of getting to the same result, mine may be different than yours but they don't make them any less effective or less honorable.

Thanks for the link.

I don't think Anticult identifying himself makes him more honorable, nor do I think not identifying himself makes him a coward, but he does present himself as a bonafide expert so he should establish his credentials, especially in a forum frequented by people who have been harmed by cults. And, I don't want anyone to get on the phone with me one on one in private, I want to record it and post it here for all to hear. I've answered all questions, in fact I'd submit I'm one of the few who have on this board, including Anticult.

Thank again for the link.
Dave

Quote
Christa

Quote
ImthatDave
Believe it or not, I did not realize that CAN was taken over by Scientologists or I wouldn't have recommended it. Completely my mistake. So, thanks for pointing that out, while I did mention in the interview I did CAN, I typically refer people to Rick Ross. So, good to know.
[SNIP]
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but I took many courses on cult investigation while I worked in law enforcement, particularly satanic groups and conducted investigations. I've also instructed at the college level and have been an expert witness on cults, all of those things would qualify me as an expert. Not to mention the fact that I've spend 27 years studying cults, particularly religious cults, mass influence and persuasion.
[SNIP]
Sad really, I'm on your side and have done my best to help thousands of people see where they've been manipulated and taught them how to avoid it and help even more learn how to do sales and marketing effectively and appropriately. If you are too narrow minded to see the difference then enjoy yourselves here, my work and my reputation stands on its own.

Scientology's takeover of CAN occurred in the mid-1990s. News media extensively covered the events; here's a link to a highly informative 60 Minutes segment:

[www.youtube.com]

Everyone who does serious work against cults, mind control, thought reform, and malicious persuasion "realized" in 1996 that Scientology owns and staffs CAN. Way to keep up with your field, Dave! Your 27 years of study must have occurred before the mid-1990s; if not, you might want to get a refund for all those courses you took.

A cult expert who doesn't know that CAN became a Scientology front 14 years ago is a lot like a terrorism expert who doesn't know a significant act of terror occurred on September 11, 2001. Not someone I'd hire. Or trust.

Your reputation may stand on its own, but it doesn't stand on much. And you are not on my side.

Also, your attempt to direct everyone's attention to the non-issue of this board's anonymity are pointless, and really, really lame. It's not even a good strawman. But I'll address it, anyway.

This is an anonymous message board. Your options are:

1. Accept that fact and address the issues
2. Go to a message board where people use their real names and avoid the issues
3. Try to lure the unsuspecting into private encounters in an arena where you're comfortable and avoid the issues. People who come to this message board and prefer to conduct their main interactions off the board usually up to no good.
4. Continue attempting to impugn us for remaining anonymous, which only draws attention to the fact that you neither answer questions nor go away.

Speaking of anonymous, I've placed a link below to the Anonymous January 16th anti-Scientology protest in Sydney, Australia.

One interesting thing about this video is that the people who conceal their identities are non-violent activists who work tirelessly against the cult of Scientology. The man who's filmed engaging in acts that caused Sydney police to detain him, Scientology Rev. Mark Hanna, handed out his business card moments before he began breaking the law.

A man known only as "tamphex" restrained Hanna and prevented more lawlessness. The police are now preparing charges against Rev. Hanna.

The issue Dave Lakhani has raised is, if you give your name, that means you're good, brave, right, reasonable, trustworthy, and slime-free, right? And if you're anonymous, you must be a frightened coward who has nothing worthwhile to offer.

This video is my response to Dave's attempt to dodge the many questions other posters have raised about him.

January 16th. 2010 Anonymous Protest -- Sydney, Australia
[www.youtube.com]

Thank you Christa.

'A cult expert who doesn't know that CAN became a Scientology front 14 years ago is a lot like a terrorism expert who doesn't know a significant act of terror occurred on September 11, 2001. Not someone I'd hire. Or trust.'


My limited cult expertise comes only from my own experience, it seems to have innoculated me against being easily caught by Scientologists etc. I don't think thats enough as there are myriad forms of this con out there, some a lot more subtle than Scientology.

However, even I with my limited expertise became aware quite quickly that CAN is a Scientology front, there are warnings, with back up evidence, posted all over the web.

No, I wouldn't trust an 'expert' with this glaring hole in what can only be classed as general knowledge regarding avoiding the obvious cults.

Perhaps what Dave Lakhani is doing when he advises those experiencing problems with cult involvement to go to CAN is employing his sales filter to filter out those who are not going to become his customers. He is clearly not particularly interested in cultic involvement except where there is an opportunity to sell it, or to further publicise his persona as a cult expert.

A responsible human being offering advice, expert or no, would at least check on the bona-fides of the organisation he is making referrals to, otherwise he is just flapping his mouth.

Thank you Helpme2 and Christa.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2010 07:11PM by Stoic.

Great points and videos, Christa. Thank you.

The audio interview with Dave Lakhani, in which he recommends the notorious Cult Awareness Network, aka CAN, is to be found at exploringthemind.com and it's 53:54 minutes long. The mention of CAN takes place at the -22.48 mark.

I'd like to add that I was underwhelmed by the information put forth by the interview, which was surprising to me, given the length of it.

Mr. Lakhani has now chosen to single out The Anticult as needing to identify himself, thus persisting in his deflection of criticism.