Re: Charisma: good or bad?

[Guest guest]

There is a woman trhat my aunt knows who emigrated from Germany

during World War II. She was a child then but her opinion was and is

that " Hitler was a good man. " She wouldn't say why however.

Charisma is a fog and a ghost in my opinion.

Actually, it is more like a spirit.

What you do is you throw it up in front of people and have people put

faith in IT rather than YOU. Even so, charisma has no REAL substance.

You in essence just say over and over: " Follow me! I have the answers

to all your problems! "

But you hide the actual solution under a fog of more decepetion.

It's sort of like the Indian rope trick. You make people see

something that isn't really happening and ron everyone while they are

distracted.

Because INTENTIONS can never be seen, it is hard to trust a person

with charisma. I think I have come to not like charismatic people for

different reasons than others who first like them and then don't.

Other people will unswervingly obey a charismatic leader until the

leader fails them and they see that everything the leader pretended

to be was a lie.

I tend to see the lie right away.

People will tell me that I am being cynical, but I believe I am

logical. If someone says " Trust me! " the next logical question

is " Why should I. "

If someone says, " I will solve your problems for you! " I will

say, " Tell me how. "

If I don't get a good answer, or if I get one that seems like fluff,

they are not someone I can put my faith in.

It's that simple.

Tom

Administrator

I've been doing some reading and watching a lot of history shows this

last month. One thing I noticed was that so many of the bad people in

history from Hitler to Attila the Hun and beyond were described as

being very charismatic. They used this charisma to charm people and

convince them to do terrible things. Many crime bosses have been

similarly described as have crooked preachers.

This has led me to wonder if charisma has an undeservedly positive

association. When most people hear the word " charisma " they think of

a charming person, the life of the party or just a good looking

person. Really though it seems that many charismatics are merely

manipulators, good at " charming " (in the old context of actually

casting a spell on someone) people to do their bidding.

Perhaps it should be that people should distrust people with a lot of

charisma and be suspicious of their motives. This is really the way I

am, most of the time. I've been burned by these people in the past

and now I don't trust them very much. For me it is very hard trust

the bubbly people and they put me on guard.

I have also seen a lot of books and things supposed to teach

charisma, though they usually call it something else, like being

persuasive. I've been tempted to buy some of these programs or

books to use some of it myself, but not for nefarious reasons. My

idea would be to learn what to look for to defend against them or

even counter a charismatic who might be beating me in a negotiation

or something like that.

Anyone else have opinions on this?

[Guest guest]

That's a hard one. I definitely think charisma is dangerous because

of it's easy abuse. My husband has a lot of charisma and my

grandfather did, but they are/were both good people. I can see where

people easily follow my husband and they did the same with my

grandfather, fortunately they lead/led them in a good direction. I

can see the positive and helpful effects of what my husband does and

what my grandfather did. But they're both only human and capable of

making mistakes. On the other hand, with both of them, their

sincerity comes/came through and people notice that so it's hard to

say if they would be affected by the charisma alone, but definitely

the sincerity alone would not have been enough. People seem to be too

easily led (not as much so with Aspies). I'm not susceptible to

charisma so I don't know know what can be done to protect against it.

>

> I've been doing some reading and watching a lot of history shows

this last

> month. One thing I noticed was that so many of the bad people in

history from

> Hitler to Attila the Hun and beyond were described as being very

charismatic.

> They used this charisma to charm people and convince them to do

terrible

> things. Many crime bosses have been similarly described as have

crooked

> preachers.

>

> This has led me to wonder if charisma has an undeservedly positive

> association. When most people hear the word " charisma " they think

of a charming

> person, the life of the party or just a good looking person. Really

though it seems

> that many charismatics are merely manipulators, good at " charming "

(in the

> old context of actually casting a spell on someone) people to do

their

> bidding.

>

> Perhaps it should be that people should distrust people with a lot

of

> charisma and be suspicious of their motives. This is really the way

I am, most of

> the time. I've been burned by these people in the past and now I

don't trust

> them very much. For me it is very hard trust the bubbly people and

they put me

> on guard.

>

> I have also seen a lot of books and things supposed to teach

charisma,

> though they usually call it something else, like being persuasive.

I've been

> tempted to buy some of these programs or books to use some of it

myself, but not

> for nefarious reasons. My idea would be to learn what to look for

to defend

> against them or even counter a charismatic who might be beating me

in a

> negotiation or something like that.

>

> Anyone else have opinions on this?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jim leader of that cult who died as a result of drinking cyanide laced Kool Aid was said to be quite charismatic. btw, commenting on anything will be spotty for a bit, computer having temper tantrum.mikecarrie01 <mikecarrie01@...> wrote: That's a hard one. I definitely think charisma is dangerous because of it's easy abuse. My husband has a lot of charisma and my grandfather did, but they are/were both good people. I can see where people easily follow my husband and they did the same with my grandfather, fortunately they lead/led them in a good direction. I can see the positive and helpful effects of what my husband does and what my grandfather did. But they're both only human and capable of making mistakes. On the other hand, with both of them, their sincerity comes/came through

and people notice that so it's hard to say if they would be affected by the charisma alone, but definitely the sincerity alone would not have been enough. People seem to be too easily led (not as much so with Aspies). I'm not susceptible to charisma so I don't know know what can be done to protect against it.>> I've been doing some reading and watching a lot of history shows this last > month. One thing I noticed was that so many of the bad people in history from > Hitler to Attila the Hun and beyond were described as being very charismatic. > They used this charisma to charm people and convince them to do terrible > things. Many crime bosses have been similarly described as have crooked > preachers. > > This has led me to wonder if charisma has an undeservedly positive >

association. When most people hear the word "charisma" they think of a charming > person, the life of the party or just a good looking person. Really though it seems > that many charismatics are merely manipulators, good at "charming" (in the > old context of actually casting a spell on someone) people to do their > bidding. > > Perhaps it should be that people should distrust people with a lot of > charisma and be suspicious of their motives. This is really the way I am, most of > the time. I've been burned by these people in the past and now I don't trust > them very much. For me it is very hard trust the bubbly people and they put me > on guard. > > I have also seen a lot of books and things supposed to teach charisma, > though they usually call it something else, like being

persuasive. I've been > tempted to buy some of these programs or books to use some of it myself, but not > for nefarious reasons. My idea would be to learn what to look for to defend > against them or even counter a charismatic who might be beating me in a > negotiation or something like that. > > Anyone else have opinions on this?> > >If you love something, set it free! So it is with books. See what I mean atwww.bookcrossing.com/friend/nheckoblogcritics.orghttp://notesfromnancy.blogspot.com

Heckofreelance proofreadernancygailus@...

Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/2006 7:09:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

As for Jim , I've read compelling indication that the CIA was heavily involved in that one.

I really don't believe that. The CIA has enough trouble trying not to screw up operations as it is that they wouldn't need to be getting messed up with a cult. They may have been watching , after he left the US anyway, because there were a lot of US citizens in the group and there was probably some fear as to what he was up to and how safe those people would be.

[Guest guest]

Charisma can of course be used for good or bad. I'm sure people like Ghandi and Luther King must have had as much of it as Hitler and Charlie Manson?

Problem with charm is that it IS hard to not fall for. A relative's XH was very charismatic and charmed everyone, including me. :-( Turned out he only married her for the money. After a couple of years he forced her at gun point to sign the divorce papers which afforded him with at least half of her fortune. Only my mom saw through his act and warned that this guy (who actually used to be a used car salesman!) wasn't what he seemed. Of course, no one listened...

As for Jim , I've read compelling indication that the CIA was heavily involved in that one. My personal conspiracy theory is that the establishment LOVES nutty cult leaders; the more dangerous & wacky, the better. Then they can use the label 'cult leader' on anyone they wish to discredit and can be sure to get an emotional knee-jerk reaction of instinctive fear from the public without having to qualify why. (I've seen examples of this being done to people who dare point out facts and connections that some would prefer the public not to know of.)

Inger

Re: Re: Charisma: good or bad?

Jim leader of that cult who died as a result of drinking cyanide laced Kool Aid was said to be quite charismatic. btw, commenting on anything will be spotty for a bit, computer having temper tantrum.mikecarrie01 <mikecarrie01@...> wrote: That's a hard one. I definitely think charisma is dangerous because of it's easy abuse. My husband has a lot of charisma and my grandfather did, but they are/were both good people. I can see where people easily follow my husband and they did the same with my grandfather, fortunately they lead/led them in a good direction. I can see the positive and helpful effects of what my husband does and what my grandfather did. But they're both only human and capable of making mistakes. On the other hand, with both of them, their sincerity comes/came through and people notice that so it's hard to say if they would be affected by the charisma alone, but definitely the sincerity alone would not have been enough. People seem to be too easily led (not as much so with Aspies). I'm not susceptible to charisma so I don't know know what can be done to protect against it.>> I've been doing some reading and watching a lot of history shows this last > month. One thing I noticed was that so many of the bad people in history from > Hitler to Attila the Hun and beyond were described as being very charismatic. > They used this charisma to charm people and convince them to do terrible > things. Many crime bosses have been similarly described as have crooked > preachers. > > This has led me to wonder if charisma has an undeservedly positive > association. When most people hear the word "charisma" they think of a charming > person, the life of the party or just a good looking person. Really though it seems > that many charismatics are merely manipulators, good at "charming" (in the > old context of actually casting a spell on someone) people to do their > bidding. > > Perhaps it should be that people should distrust people with a lot of > charisma and be suspicious of their motives. This is really the way I am, most of > the time. I've been burned by these people in the past and now I don't trust > them very much. For me it is very hard trust the bubbly people and they put me > on guard. > > I have also seen a lot of books and things supposed to teach charisma, > though they usually call it something else, like being persuasive. I've been > tempted to buy some of these programs or books to use some of it myself, but not > for nefarious reasons. My idea would be to learn what to look for to defend > against them or even counter a charismatic who might be beating me in a > negotiation or something like that. > > Anyone else have opinions on this?> > >If you love something, set it free! So it is with books. See what I mean atwww.bookcrossing.com/friend/nheckoblogcritics.orghttp://notesfromnancy.blogspot.com Heckofreelance proofreadernancygailus@...

PhotosRing in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.

[Guest guest]

-Inger,did you read the same article i did,about town? i read ir

in the book " Secret and Suppressed " ,edited by the late Jim .It

sure convinced me that the CIA has been messing around with religious

movements in South America! Also,i agree that good as well as bad

people can have charisma.Jesus,Ghandi, Luther King,JFK,RFK,and

Mother Theresa all had it,but so did bad people like Hitler and

Stalin.It's what you use it for that counts. Kajira

-- In , " Inger Lorelei "

<inglori@s...> wrote:

>

> Charisma can of course be used for good or bad. I'm sure people

like Ghandi and Luther King must have had as much of it as

Hitler and Charlie Manson?

>

> Problem with charm is that it IS hard to not fall for. A relative's

XH was very charismatic and charmed everyone, including me. :-(

Turned out he only married her for the money. After a couple of years

he forced her at gun point to sign the divorce papers which afforded

him with at least half of her fortune. Only my mom saw through his

act and warned that this guy (who actually used to be a used car

salesman!) wasn't what he seemed. Of course, no one listened...

>

> As for Jim , I've read compelling indication that the CIA was

heavily involved in that one. My personal conspiracy theory is that

the establishment LOVES nutty cult leaders; the more dangerous &

wacky, the better. Then they can use the label 'cult leader' on

anyone they wish to discredit and can be sure to get an emotional

knee-jerk reaction of instinctive fear from the public without having

to qualify why. (I've seen examples of this being done to people who

dare point out facts and connections that some would prefer the

public not to know of.)

>

> Inger

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Re: Re: Charisma: good or bad?

>

>

> Jim leader of that cult who died as a result of drinking

cyanide laced Kool Aid was said to be quite charismatic. btw,

commenting on anything will be spotty for a bit, computer having

temper tantrum.

>

> mikecarrie01 <mikecarrie01@y...> wrote:

> That's a hard one. I definitely think charisma is dangerous

because

> of it's easy abuse. My husband has a lot of charisma and my

> grandfather did, but they are/were both good people. I can see

where

> people easily follow my husband and they did the same with my

> grandfather, fortunately they lead/led them in a good direction.

I

> can see the positive and helpful effects of what my husband does

and

> what my grandfather did. But they're both only human and capable

of

> making mistakes. On the other hand, with both of them, their

> sincerity comes/came through and people notice that so it's hard

to

> say if they would be affected by the charisma alone, but

definitely

> the sincerity alone would not have been enough. People seem to be

too

> easily led (not as much so with Aspies). I'm not susceptible to

> charisma so I don't know know what can be done to protect against

it.

>

>

> >

> > I've been doing some reading and watching a lot of history

shows

> this last

> > month. One thing I noticed was that so many of the bad people

in

> history from

> > Hitler to Attila the Hun and beyond were described as being

very

> charismatic.

> > They used this charisma to charm people and convince them to do

> terrible

> > things. Many crime bosses have been similarly described as

have

> crooked

> > preachers.

> >

> > This has led me to wonder if charisma has an undeservedly

positive

> > association. When most people hear the word " charisma " they

think

> of a charming

> > person, the life of the party or just a good looking person.

Really

> though it seems

> > that many charismatics are merely manipulators, good

at " charming "

> (in the

> > old context of actually casting a spell on someone) people to

do

> their

> > bidding.

> >

> > Perhaps it should be that people should distrust people with a

lot

> of

> > charisma and be suspicious of their motives. This is really the

way

> I am, most of

> > the time. I've been burned by these people in the past and now

I

> don't trust

> > them very much. For me it is very hard trust the bubbly people

and

> they put me

> > on guard.

> >

> > I have also seen a lot of books and things supposed to teach

> charisma,

> > though they usually call it something else, like being

persuasive.

> I've been

> > tempted to buy some of these programs or books to use some of

it

> myself, but not

> > for nefarious reasons. My idea would be to learn what to look

for

> to defend

> > against them or even counter a charismatic who might be

beating me

> in a

> > negotiation or something like that.

> >

> > Anyone else have opinions on this?

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> If you love something, set it free! So it is with books. See what I

mean at

> www.bookcrossing.com/friend/nhecko

> blogcritics.org

> http://notesfromnancy.blogspot.com

>

>

>

>

> Hecko

> freelance proofreader

> nancygailus@y...

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

------------

> Photos

> Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events,

holidays, whatever.

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

> Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page

in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The CIA is an easy target for conspiracy theories for two reasons. First, they are a reasonably secret organization that is involved in a lot of cloak and dagger activity. Second, they have had many public failures which makes them look foolish.

The CIA did test LSD in the 1960's to see if it would make a truth serum. However, they learned that its effects were too unpredictable and the drug had flashbacks where a secondary dose would be released into the system up to several weeks later.

There is something else to consider. The CIA is prohibited by law from conducting operations on US soil. That is the domain of the FBI. The FBI and CIA don't get along very well as each defends its territory and fights for budget resources from Congress. There have been a number of failures because of this, the two being more interested in turf wars than stopping bad things from happening.

There have always been cults, but rarely are they large enough or outward oriented enough to be a threat to society as a whole. The vast majority are small and inward focused and more of a threat to their members than the outside world. The leaders of cults are more interested in power and control which means they dominate their little group, often cutting them off from the outside world. One of the few cults that has struck out was that doomsday cult in Japan that nerve gassed the subways a few years back. Cults do make people nervous, but street crime is far more common and frightening.

Most people don't live in small, self-sustaining communities because they don't want to. I wouldn't mind living in a well built condominium complex with shops nearby, but the problem is that other people are so beastly and don't know how to behave. This is part of the reason people are leaving the cities for the suburbs, to get some space. The other reason is taxes. If city politicians cut back taxes and property assessments, then people would move back in and make gentrification more attractive. More people in the cities would also allow economy of scale to be applied to things like sewage and garbage treatment and would also leave more space outside for farms, forests and parks.

But back to the CIA. That agency has existed in a very hostile environment every since the 1960's. The agency was very nearly exterminated after a few high profile failures and spying debacles, mostly against the Russians and other communist countries. The agency had very restrictive laws and oversight placed on it and ever since there have been members of congress, some of them still serving, that would love to have any excuse to kill the agency. Just look at what has happened since 9/11. That was a major failure and its efforts since they have been under tremendous scrutiny. Several internal whistleblowers have also come out to talk about projects.

They've got enough to worry about without getting involved in the wilder schemes attributed to them.

[Guest guest]

Actually a few of the Branch Dravidians did leave before the final assault.

Really though this was just grandstanding by the ATF. That agency had built up a practice of calling in local media to film their assaults to get media play and attract attention to the ATF. The press and lots of it was on site, on the main road in front of the compound, up to half an hour before the raid occurred.

The ATF said that they had to assault the compound because Koresh never left. This was not true. He went to town several times each week and many people knew him on sight and by name, including the Sheriff and his deputies. Koresh and his followers never caused any trouble in town. They were considered odd by the people around them, but not dangerous. Everyone knew they had guns, but so did most everyone in the area. They might have had a lot of guns, but they also had a lot of people so it balanced out. Anyway, they could have had the sheriff arrest him or had a small team in town to get him when he came to town.

This episode also shows lack of interagency cooperation. The ATF, FBI and others were on site. Though they had a command post, each agency also had its own HQ and followed its own practices. One agency, for example, would play loud music and the sounds of animals being slaughtered, even though their were children in the compound (and one of the big claims for the operation was to "save" the children). One agency saw where the Dravidians had a .50 Barret sniper rifle. They wanted it kept there so they could keep their people out of harm's way, but another agency negotiated with them to move it. At that point, they lost track of the big gun so no one knew where it might be pointing. There were plenty of other things too.

The fire was inevitable given the tactics used. The type of gas sprayed into the compound was a military grade gas that was known to flammable under the right conditions, which actually turned out to be fairly broad. It is entirely likely that the gas was ignited by one of the lanterns the Dravidians were using because they didn't have electricity. On top of that, several survivors maintained that when they came out of the burning compound that they were shot at. This would explain why a number of people ran out of the burning building, starting jumping around and ran back inside. Having been shot at myself, a bullet does make a very distinct sound when it goes by one that even if you've never heard it before will cause your muscles to tighten up and start ducking.

I really think that this whole thing was a badly planned mission that turned into a bloody act of revenge by the agents in the field and perhaps in higher HQ. This is particularly so given how many federal laws were violated in the process: the use of military equipment (helicopters, armored personnel carriers, military engineering vehicles), training assault troops on military bases, military grade gas and others.

[Guest guest]

, since when did the CIA ever worry about anyone's safety?? And since when did concerns about screwing things up ever stop them from meddling in just about EVERYTHING?

Some suspect that they even CREATE cult leaders. I am more moderate and think they just put gasoline on the fire of someone who is already a bit deranged.

Don't underestimate the propaganda value of having a large section of the world's population terrified at the thought of cults and thinking anything away from the mainstream = certain death. Very effective in dissuading people from getting any ideas of living in small, self-sufficient communities. Such people are not as easily controlled.

That is probably why they are so eager for us all to think it either impossible or dangerous to get 'unplugged from the matrix.' If that means sacrificing the lives of a few naive dropouts, I'm sure they consider it just as "worth it" as Madeleine Albright said she thought it was to sacrifice the lives of Iraqi babies with the sanctions that limited medical supplies.

Have you ever wondered why almost every happy hippie film from the 60s ended in death rather than in eternal bliss? Or why this often happened IRL too? Who supplied them with all the LSD and heroin?

Inger

Re: Re: Charisma: good or bad?

In a message dated 1/12/2006 7:09:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

As for Jim , I've read compelling indication that the CIA was heavily involved in that one.

I really don't believe that. The CIA has enough trouble trying not to screw up operations as it is that they wouldn't need to be getting messed up with a cult. They may have been watching , after he left the US anyway, because there were a lot of US citizens in the group and there was probably some fear as to what he was up to and how safe those people would be.

[Guest guest]

Yes, I do believe it was in a book by the late Jim , though not that

particular one.

I've also read similar things in many other books, articles and websites.

Not all overly reliable sources of course, but enough to at least make you

go 'hmmmm'.

Inger

Re: Charisma: good or bad?

-Inger,did you read the same article i did,about town? i read ir

in the book " Secret and Suppressed " ,edited by the late Jim .It

sure convinced me that the CIA has been messing around with religious

movements in South America! Also,i agree that good as well as bad

people can have charisma.Jesus,Ghandi, Luther King,JFK,RFK,and

Mother Theresa all had it,but so did bad people like Hitler and

Stalin.It's what you use it for that counts. Kajira

[Guest guest]

I think Inger was probably attributing to the CIA things that are

really the fault of the FBI and the Beaurau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and

Firearms.

Take a look at the assault on the Branch ian Compound, for

example. While the government may have had reason to intervene, it

hammed up the whole affair by racing a tank around the compound,

assualting its members with loud and annoying music, and generally

just harassing those people.

Was that any way for a government to behave?

The place burned down, and as much as the government would like to

say that it was all an accident and that the building was wood and

had no internal sprinkler system, NONE of that would have happened

if the government had simply left those people alone.

Are the taxes the cult defaulted on worth the lives of 87 people?

You be the judge.

Let me point out that we can all sit in front of our TV sets and can

claim that Koresch's followers were all brainwashed and that it's

our responsibility to rescue them, but let us remember that those

people got themselves into that situation. At ANY TIME, particularly

when they were supposed to be sleeping, they could have thought

deeply about what they believed and what they were doing there, and

if they wanted to leave, they could have tried to find a way to

leave, either by sneaking out or by suicide.

None of them left.

Perhaps it's because they BELIEVED in what they were doing.

I watched shows about people who had been in that cult who did

leave, or who were since de-programmed, and they either said that

they figured out for themselves that they ought to leave, or else

they said that they were brainwashed.

My opinion is that, assuming you are of sound mind and body, NO ONE

has control over your mind. This holds true even for POWs or slaves.

If you are brainwashed, it means that you have allowed yourself to

become brainwashed.

Now if people AREN'T of sound mind or body, that is a different

story. THOSE people MIGHT need rescuing.

It can be asked, " What sort of sane person would follow

Koeresch? " Well, how are we to know the true nature of the " cult? "

All we know is what we were fed by the media and the government, who

did NOT, incidentally, persuade the more moderate surviving members

of the community to comment.

Since that time, there have been few publicized raids on so-called

cults, but there are some cults that are much more radical than the

Branch ians that SHOULD be raided in my opinion. Sexual

exploitation of minors takes place in these cults.

But because these cults never threatened the US Government, these

cults get left alone.

Tom

Administrator

They've got enough to worry about without getting involved in the

wilder schemes attributed to them.

[Guest guest]

" If you are brainwashed, it means that you have allowed yourself to

become brainwashed. "

I think people have limits to what they are prepared to

swallow/believe. Some are prepared/able to go further than others - I

think some people do choose to be controlled because it is easier and

some people do not like thinking for themselves. I am always amazed

at what humans can justify.

>

> They've got enough to worry about without getting involved in the

> wilder schemes attributed to them.

>

>

>