I listened to all of the audio, and frankly I'm not sure what the point of it was. It frankly didn't address any of the negative associations, almost single-handedly blamed a single family for the negativity in the media, and didn't alleviate any "cult"-like concerns associated with the group.

I'm not sure how one can correlate the business of NXIVM with the ethics of the "Dalai Lama". Is it an executive coaching program, or is it about ethics? It seems rather amorphous because there was no clear demarcation between the two.

Frankly, it simply shows that people who have money can get away with more than those who don't. At least, for a little while.

Someone really ought to investigate into the financials of the organization as well as the founders, Raniere and Salzman themselves, and see how much of it is about ethics, and how much of it is about money. Because frankly, IMO, millionaires made from a business about ethics/executive coaching (the line isn't clear which adds to the dubiousness) seems rather shady to me.

The first step of any advanced LGAT seminar system like NXIVM, and many others, is to confuse people.
That is 100% intentional and deliberate.
Creating confusion.

Their first goal is to get people inside the tent, and then literally confuse the hell out of them. The more confused they get, the more they can lead them into more and more courses, and wherever they want.
And they target wealthy people, who might be easy targets, and can donate millions.

Rest assured, their supreme lesson in "ethics" will be similar to Werner Erhard...that is, there is no ethics, or you define your own ethics.

There are many people these days out in the world, who have very advanced skills in how to mess with people's minds, and make millions doing it. There certainly needs to be a lot more public education about how they do it.

The whole thing is about money! Executive coaching, ethics... what does it matter? If this group could sell rich people bags of garbage and make a profit at this point, they would!

I'm curious. How is Jness (www.jness.com) distinct from NXIVM? It labels Keith Raniere as the "conceptual" founder, but it seems to be an all woman's group.

this is odd - the group exclude all men but the leader of the Jness is Keith Raniere. Odd that there is a man at the top of an organization of women. Maybe it's a sign

A sign of what if I may ask?

I found this entertaining video on the web that reminded me of those and the groups this forum is dedicated to educating others about:

[www.youtube.com]

I would describe Jness as just a club for the women of Nxivm. I saw a brochure right around the time they began the women's group. It didn't say much but it seemed pretty harmless... Bunko night for the mind controlled? Since Raniere is worshiped by these folks, he is the leader of EVERYTHING, even the coffee clatch. Not much in the news with Nxivm... wonder if they are purposely staying under the radar?

I don't know how anything associated with that man who is obviously a narcissist and is "worshiped" by these folks can be considered "harmless".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2009 08:53AM by pinkunicorn.

Hmmm... I guess you're right. Since this group is so harmful and has destroyed the lives of so many, I see your point. Do you know many of his followers, pinkunicorn?

I know of some people who are in it, yes. They apparently tend to stay away from the leader because they find him to be, to put it really mildly, eccentric. This perception is different from those who purportedly "worship" him, which also confuses me to no end. Why belong to group where the leader is deemed to be this way? Everything starts from the top and works its way down.

It also disturbs me greatly that the leaders of the group claim to be ethical, but introduce nothing new and use the same basic methodologies with possible minor variances of those who scammed before them, while at the same time use beautiful principles of already existing ways of life to manipulate others for their time and money, taking credit for their newly perceived, but often times rationally unsound subjective happiness. In my mind, this is absolute hypocrisy.