Quote

Date: January 18, 2011 06:16PM


Gregory Bateson soon after endorsing B&G repudiated both of them and NLP when later asked about NLP stated: 'If someone says they know NLP, run don't walk away from them.' Bateson was ticked off at them because he saw the toxic direction NLP had took and that a lot of it's leading adherents went power mad.

Milton Erickson never had a good thing to say about either since he had to tell both of them to leave after only two days at his home.

Satir, well she was Bandler's psychotherapist. Bandler and the NLP community has done everything possible to cover up this part of his personal history, along with his cocaine addiction, the murder of one woman and the odd death of his second wife and now him battling diabetes. NLPers have a vested interest in promoting a squeaky clean if eccentric bandler as it's co-founder instead of the out of control coke addict and all around SOB that has lied about everything he's every done.

Here's one link:
[www.google.com]

Oh and what Corboy has stated is very much true, if you use NLP techniques on people without their conscious approval - it will turn into a monster much like the many high profile trainers in the NLP community. Worse this is encouraged by the trainers, they routinely tell students to go out and practice on people without their consent during the breaks.

How does performing techniques on people without their consent turn one into a monster? Because you cease to respect that person's boundries and rights not to be screwed with, you in effect reduce them to a object like box. Kinda like the same way psychopaths view people.

Quote

http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,96753,96790#msg-96790Date: January 17, 2011 12:02AM


Even short(weekend or week long) but intense workshops can negatively affect a person's mental health.

I attended some years back a week long NLP course, at first I enjoyed it but about a month later I started having all sorts of nasty inter personal issues and bouts of helplessness, confusion, that persisted for a year, etc. Mind you the trainer was using all sorts of covert hypnosis during the 12 hour a day, week long course.

Another short course I took was a two day Sufi Meditation seminar which was not overtly cult like but used a lot of cult indoctrination techniques. Lots of chanting, staring into each other eyes for extended periods, weird breathing techniques that put people into estatic states, etc. Lots of folks didn't have a positive time either. From my research the teacher(Puran Bair) was sort of legit but evidently invented his own meditation sytem and borrowed heavily from 3HO. Which is really bad.

Here's the thing real Sufis don't use estatic states, they are generally frowned upon because students can develop a addiction.

Bottom line, short courses can be just as pernicious as a long course depending on the trainer.

My advice to folks is this; if you attend a seminar start feeling nauseous, weak or just don't like whats going on - Leave!

If you attend a seminar and everyone is getting some sort of emotional high at the same time and you're feeling like you've won the lottery - Leave.

Both are symptoms of maniupulation by the trainer.

Quote

http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,12906,92772#msg-92772Date: October 10, 2010 10:42PM


@walter1963

You've obviously been there and got the t-shirt.
Senior Trainers of a guy like Richard Bandler, can tie people in "loops" that they are literally not aware of.

There is evidence in this thread, that Byron Katie copied techniques from the same area, and from the Ericksonian hypnosis area. There are many hard facts in this thread, showing how she literally copied some of those patterns verbatim.

Its very very hard to combat these LGAT techniques, as if you attend a seminar, and are detached, the Gurus underlings will notice you.
Some of those with industry contacts were able to get "free tickets" or play the "refund" game, and were able to see the top people. But when you are detached, and observing their techniques, people notice.
Some get hostile.
They think you are stealing their content.

But only an experienced expert can go into the lion's den. Once you get to the top of the food chain, like near the Bandler people, its very dangerous, as they can hit you unconsciously.
Never bring money, or any cards, never bring a purse or wallet, and NEVER sign or buy anything.
Never let them push you around.

As stated if you start feeling "spacey" just leave.
If anyone gets into your face with high-pressure, always have a water bottle on hand, that can "slip" and dump into their $800 suit. Interrupt their pattern.


And stay off the phone with them, as stated. There are other threads here showing their phone techniques.

And those guys do have a CONSCIENCE.
Their conscience and morality tells them its unethical to NOT take your money.
They believe its ethical to take all your money, to teach you a lesson. They could not care less if their customers get pushed into being bankrupt from their schemes.
That is the school of hard knocks, and they don't care.

They literally believe its moral and ethical to take all of your money. Just like its moral and ethical for a lion to eat the gazelle.

Quote


[answers.yahoo.com]

What is the difference between monologic and dialogic communication?

Relate a situation when you or someone you know has engaged in monologue. How did this effect the relationship between the parties involved?

MT (Corboy replaced contributor's full name by initials for privacy)

In basic terms, monologic communication involves manipulation and control just as one would treat a physical object. It is the embodiment of an I-It relationship and obviously takes a one-way, transmission model approach to communication. Johannesen (1996) summarizes the characteristics of monologic communication in vivid terms:

A person employing monologue seeks to command, coerce, manipulate, conquer, dazzle, deceive, or exploit. Other persons are viewed as "things" to be exploited solely for the communicator's self-serving purpose: they are not taken seriously as persons.

Choices are narrowed and consequences are obscured.

Focus is on the communicator's message, not on the audience's real needs.

The core values, goals, and policies espoused by the communicator are impervious to influence exerted by receivers.

Audience feedback is used only to further the communicator's purpose.

An honest response from a receiver is not wanted or is precluded.

Monological communicators persistently strive to impose their truth or program on others; they have the superior attitude that they must coerce people to yield to what they believe others ought to know.

A dialogic view of public relations differs from a technician approach by being more humanistic, communication-centered, relationship-focused, and ethical. This perspective focuses on communicative relationships rather than on technical skills. Traditional approaches to public relations relegate publics to a secondary role, making them an instrument for meeting organizational policy or marketing needs; whereas, dialogue elevates publics to the status of communication equal with the organization.

Tanya

Monologic communication is discourse in which the source is not particularly interested in feedback or the point of view of the receiver, but only in expressing his or her story. Dialogic communication on the other hand, requires constant sensitivity between both sides, to insure that what is being understood is actually what was meant.

Michael

Monologic communication is a one-sided type of relating where the seemly previleged assume the position of the all knowing . It does not provide space for democratic environment and could be limiting. Other the other hand dialogic communication is a two-way type of relating where ideas are shared and encouraged. As a result democratic environment is encouraged and growth is fostered.

Quote

http://eqi.org/p1/nvc/nvc_carta1.htm

(excerpt)o I come to what I believe is a very important question: Where does someone's authority come from? More specifially, where does Marshall Rosenberg's authority or knowledge come from? Are they the same? Or are they different? Does his authority come only from his knowledge?

Marshall has a lot of invaluable experience. There is no questioning that. Yet I am reminded of the kings who claimed to get their authority from God. I am not saying Marshall makes this claim, but he comes too close to it for my comfort, and I believe for the comfort of many people who are neither religious nor "spititual." And when I read that he says things like this about what he calls "Beloved Divine Energy" I also feel worried that he is narrowing the audience for his ideas:

"And the Energy spoke to me, and it said, “You just do what you can to connect. Bring your energy in. Connect and help the other people connect and let me take care of the rest.”

And I worry that people will use this kind of statement as evidence it is a "self-improvement cult" as one person has already labeled it. I will also say that when I often feel preached to when Marshall speaks. I know that "preached to" would not be a feeling in NVC language, but I will use it to make another point briefly. That point is that Marshall states, with what appears to be a lot of authority, that such words are not really feelings, but rather evaluations or thoughts. I, however, am not so sure. I find that I don't agree with Marshall on all of his definitions of feelings and neeeds, but that is a topic for a complete article. I discuss it somewhat in this article on cause and effect, but incompletely, or let's say not to my satisfaction, so I plan to write more about it.

Now let me jump to the organization called CNVC. As I see it, CNVC now is a "central bank", let's say, of NVC "knowledge." Or at least it seems they want to be that. When I say "they," I don't even know who I am talking about specifically. And that is a bit of a worry to me. I don't know if "they" care about or value me. But I do know that "they" have aligned themselves with the US legal system. When I say aligned I mean they have chosen to rely on the US legal rules about contracts and copyrights, which are, of course, backed up by the full power of the US government -- a power which personally frightens me a great deal. I say CNVC is relying upon the power of the US government because of my reading of the CNVC agreement, or contract, with their "Certified Trainers."

Here is an excerpt:

If, after reasonable attempts, the parties are unable to resolve the dispute as provided above, than [sic] the parties agree to the right to enforce this Agreement though the courts in the State of New Mexico, United States or the Federal courts sitting therein.

CNVC is also the "central bank" of what I will call NVC money. What I mean by "NVC money" is money made from training people on how to use NVC ideas. I am over-simplifying a bit, but I trust the reader will be able to get my main ideas. CNVC is either requesting or requiring the greater of 10% of a trainer's annual revenue, or $300 US dollars per year. See full excerpt below.

What worries me is that trainers around the world are sending some of their money to a central place. That money is then, it seems to me, used as a goverment would use taxes, i.e. both to help and control its citizens or members. The worry, of course, is how much of the former is done and how much of the latter.

Another concern I have is what will happen when Marshall dies? Marshall is by no doubt a visionary. I fear, though, that he is also a bit charismatic. I fear some are "converted" to become his "followers" in a way which is uncomfortably close to how one religion converts members to another.

More specifially, I fear that Marshall's ideas could become too much of a "system" - a concern I have noticed is shared by others. Still more specifically, I fear that there are those who will try to apply his "system" without deeply understanding what I will call the "big picture." The big picture as I sense it, is hard for me to describe, but I will try to put it in my words.

It has to do with more than non-violence. It has to do with more than empathy. It is more than conflict resolution. It is more than a new or improved form of communication. I believe it is entirely possible, for example, to have improved communication in the same culture of domination. For example, if we consider that the US courts could become involved in NVC matters, the belief in improved communication is unlikely to have much real impact. The fact that CNVC would include this clause is a major warning bell to me that someone has not fully understood Marshall's ideas, or someone thing else has gone wrong somewhere along the way.

I also plan to write more about this part of the quote from John...

NVC is seen by many who know about it as a subculture, or even a cult by some. To whatever degree NVC is associated with certain beliefs it will be rejected by those who don’t share them.

For the rest of the article, go here:

[eqi.org]

Quote

Non Violent Communication is a scam as practiced by new-agism. Many in
the Northwest Permaculture Community are being victimized and deluded by
the NVC Scam because they have been brainwashed to think that heated and
even angry discussion is somehow "destructive" or "dangerous" and that
we should express narcissistic needs and wants instead of moving in the
passion of truth during discussion. NVC is a utopian lie that assumes
others give a damn about your wants and needs when most people can't and
never will unless you show them PASSION which the new agers falsely
label as "violence."

One dictionary definition of VIOLENCE is: "of, pertaining to, or
constituting a distortion of meaning or fact."

Yet the masters of "Non-Violent Communication" use NVC to distort
meaning and fact by drawing attention away from principles and facts to
personalities and feelings, relegating conversation to discussion of
fantasy, and distorting fact by mislabeling "conversation" as
"communication" when they are two very different things.

[brainwashington.info]

NVC is really a coercive method of mislabeling passionate opposition as
"violent" to prevent honest passion from entering a discussion, while
the attacker appears to be calm, labeling the appearance of calm, rather
than truth, as the hallmark of "communication." This keeps deceitful
manipulators in control of a conversation with subtle techniques of
attack in which they label honest opposition as angry, violent, etc. to
draw attention away from or distort facts. It is part of the moral
relativism that allows the crafty to define or defy the moral ground
through subtle coercion.

The pusher of NVC likes to apply his rhetoric to attack anyone he
disagrees with by labeling the oppostion as angry, rather than
discussing the facts at hand. It's a happy exercise in delusional
thinking and maintaining self-delusion and focus on one's own wants and
needs at any cost, regardless of whom is hurt or abused by dishonesty.

NVC is part of the new-age cult of personality that deals with someone's
personality rather than his character. Yet any unprincipled salesman can
put on a nice personality before he sells you a stolen car or a lemon.
You may feel all warm and fuzzy about the sale until sometime down the
road the cops stop you at gunpoint or the lemon breaks down and strands
you in the Mohave Desert.

Such is the way of NVC. The manipulator leaves you holding his mental
disease in a parched mental wasteland.

An outline addresses the scam of NVC:
[brainwashington.info]

Quote

{ 2005 01 26 }
This Here Giraffe, Laughed

Giraffe. Listen with giraffe ears.Jackal ears.

How being trained in non violent communication can make you violent.

My office has a Training Budget and a Training Committee. Sometimes the Training Committee takes money from the Training Budget and invests it in an educational program for the rest of us. If our boss thinks it’s a worthwhile program, she is apt to make the program mandatory. Whether this is a good idea or not really depends on the source of the program. If it’s in-house, chances are that you’ll survive with your sanity intact. It is not, let me assure you, because your colleagues are wiser or more fascinating than outside trainers. It is because your colleagues fear you. They know that if they put on a training session that is stupid or boring or offensive – they know that you will be vengeful. You will be less likely to help them out with inconvenient work requests. You will be less likely to ask them to lunch. You will push their food to the very back of the office fridge – right underneath the spot where the freezer leaks. This is why in-house trainings – although not always fabulous – have a good chance of being bearable.

The training program we experienced the other day was from Outside.

It was an all-day training program in Non-Violent Communication. Let me say that again. ALL DAY. Ok. Moving on. So, our boss made the training mandatory. Mandatory. Enforced attendance at an all day training session on non-violent communication. Obviously she was testing us by inciting very-violent communication urges.

Non-violent communication is apparently a technique that was developed by Marshall Rosenberg. I mention Marshall only because our trainer mentioned Marshall. Every. Two. Minutes. “Marshall says…” “I once saw Marshall do this…” “When Marshall developed this program…” “Several times a year I go home to the mothership to rub Marshall’s butt…” Cult. The place is obviously a cult. Mass weddings and the ATF are only a compound away for Marshall, I fear.

The training was your basic non-confrontational stuff about problem-solving. Except it lasted ALL DAY. Perhaps I’ve mentioned that before. Anyway, it was pretty much like the training I had in college when I was a hall advisor – you know, “When you play your music loudly after midnight it makes me feel frustrated because I have an early class and I need to get sleep, so would you be willing to turn the music down after 11pm?” Blah blah blahdeedah. Heard it before. But – everyone can probably stand to have a refresher in that stuff now and then. I figured I’d probably pick up at least one new thing that I could use.

The trainer himself was a mild-mannered-looking guy (although he did have that therapist look that says he’s accommodating to the world and then a tyrant at home). He walked through the steps of Marshall’s “technique” in a painfully slow manner. He told illustrative (and tedious) stories about getting his son to take out the trash. He forced us to tell him what kind of emotions we might have in difficult situations. And then. And then he pulled out the hand puppets. Let me say that again. HAND PUPPETS. Specifically, he pulled out a giraffe puppet and a jackal puppet. When speaking to someone about a problem, you have to speak as though you are a giraffe: gently, patiently, and with empathy. Do not speak harshly, judgmentally, and with antagonism, i.e., like a jackal. He repeated this point several times. Not because we were unable to understand the point, I think, but because we were dazed by the fact that there was a grown man in the middle of the room doing a puppet show.

After the lunch break we all came back. Hoping against hope that there would be no more puppets. Alas. Not only were there puppets again, but in the middle of his discussion about how to empathize with the other person, we were told to “listen with giraffe ears.” And that’s when he put on the fuzzy giraffe-ear headband. A couple of minutes after that he exchanged it for a fuzzy jackal-ear headband. He must have said something in between, but, frankly, I couldn’t hear anything because I was in shock. Do you know how hard it is to take someone seriously when he is wearing a fuzzy animal-ear headband? Does he really think that we will be able to communicate at all, much less non-violently, while envisioning ourselves with giraffe ears? Is this part of the cult initiation? Does Marshall have a giraffe fetish? Does he like to play Jackals and Giraffes in the bedroom with his many cult wives? What the hell is happening?!

I don’t remember much else from the training session. Trauma will do that to a person, you know. Although I half-considered wearing a cat-ear headband to the office this morning. To signify that from now on I’ll be listening with the ears of an animal that ignores everything you say.

[Flaming Lips lyrics = 1]

Quote


"60 Minutes" broadcast about Werner Erhard
A News Summary/August 26, 2009

By Rick Ross

Background

Beginning in the 1970s a company named "est" (Erhard Seminar Training) sold courses, which are now often called "large group awareness training" and/or "mass marathon training" for "self-improvement." This included an introductory course known as "The Forum."

Jack Rosenberg, a former used-car salesman, created Est with no formal education past high school.

In the 1960s Rosenberg left his wife and four children in Philadelphia, changed his name to "Werner Hans Erhard," moved to California and started another family.

Erhard was reportedly "the role model, the living example of what the est Training could do."

But CBS News reported allegations of incest, rape and spousal abuse made against Werner Erhard by his daughters and former employees.

Not long after the airing of this program Erhard sold his company reportedly to his employees and went into prolonged seclusion.

The for profit privately owned company, which still sells the Forum and other training courses, is now known as "Landmark Education" and headed by Werner Erhard's brother and sister.

What follows is a news summary that includes statements made by Erhard family members and insiders, which was broadcast by CBS "60 Minutes" March 3, 1991.

"I am god"

Dr. Bob Larzelere was the head of Erhard's counseling staff for seven years during the 1970s.

"I am god...he did say sometimes in staff meetings," Larzelere told CBS News.

Wendy Drucker was a top manager who worked closely with Erhard for nine years.

Drucker told CBS, "I would never have believed that I, could be a person who would wind up in a cult...And yet, certainly mind control was involved. And if that's what cults do, and they set up a leader to be bigger than anybody else, a god-like figure, I would say yes, that was true in the organization."

"We were told to surrender to him as 'source.' I think that's idolatry...This was not like, being an employee. This was like being, a servant, or a devotee," Drucker said.

Ms. Drucker confirmed Larzelere's statement and said that Erhard told "...the whole staff. At staff meetings...'I am the source...I am god."

"Terrifying man"

An est brochure once featured a loving portrait of Erhard with his second wife, Ellen. The implication was that if Erhard could turn his life around, the Forum could turn your life around too.

In an interview with Larry King on CNN Erhard explained, "[Est is] a program of inquiry into the things that concern people on a very everyday basis. Like - breaking through the ordinary barriers that just go along with children and your relationship with your children at certain ages."

But did that program work for Werner Erhard?

Celeste Erhard, the est founder's eldest daughter from his second marriage didn't seem to think it did.

"I have been afraid, deeply afraid of my father my whole life. My whole life....he's a terrifying man, he can be very terrifying," she told CBS News anchor Ben Bradley.

Dawn Damas was the family's governess and is still a close friend. She told CBS News that she witnessed Erhard assault his son St. John, or "Sinjin" when the boy was twelve.

"He...went over to Sinjin and started to slap him and hit him, and picked him up and threw him on the ground and started to kick him - in front of everybody and nobody moved, everyone was paralyzed. Um, and then said to St. John: 'If you ever get grades like this again, I'll break both of your legs with a baseball bat.'"

Werner Erhard declined to talk to "60 Minutes," but he did speak to reporter John Hubner of the San Jose Mercury News, for an article in WEST, the paper's Sunday magazine. In an audiotaped interview, Erhard denied that he ever hit his son Sinjin.

"Never, ever, ever...Never, ever struck one of my children, not any one of them, ever," he said.

But Adair Erhard directly contradicted her father.

"My dad...freaked out, he pushed him back on the chair, he fell over. At this point you know my brother was so petrified he actually peed in his pants. Um, you know he's down on the floor, he's kicking him, he's hitting him."

CBS anchor Ben Bradley reported, "Sinjin, who is now twenty-three, didn't want to speak on camera, but he told us the beating did take place..."

Ellen Erhard "strangled"

Erhard's daughters also recounted how he and/or his est associates abused their mother.

"At one point someone picked up a statue and hit her over the head. Um, you know my dad constantly saying: "What aren't you saying, what aren't you saying?...he himself also got up and, while she was on the floor, and kicked her a number of times," Adair Erhard told CBS.

Erhard's daughters claimed that the assault on their mother Ellen Erhard continued for two nights.

Celeste Erhard said, "At one point, on the second night, I did stand up and say: 'Please, you're killing her, you're killing her.' I mean, my mother was blue, her face was blue, she had, like drool coming out of the side of her mouth. She was dying. She was, you know, suffocating. And all he said to me was: 'Sit down, or you'll get more of the same.' And that is a direct quote, I remember every word. And that's all he said. And I sat down."

Adair Erhard agreed with her sister's account, "She was strangled literally. She turned blue, there was spit running out of the side of her mouth..."

A consultant that worked for Erhard did the actual choking, according to Adair Erhard.

And Dr. Bob Larzelere admitted to CBS that he was that consultant.

Larzelere said,, "'Somebody's got to volunteer, to hurt Ellen, to punish her, and make her talk, and make her confess.' And nobody did, until I thought, oh my god, this is an opportunity for me, finally, to get Werner's total approval. Now I can be a real soldier for him, now I can make him, proud of me, now I can get him to smile at me. Now I won't have to be afraid of him anymore. So I volunteered."

He did it "to scare her into confessing" about alleged infidelities.

Lazelere said that Erhard "didn't try to stop [him]...at all."

Lazelere lamented, "It was a despicable thing to do. And it took me days to realize it. Afterward. When I began to let myself feel again. It was, my god, it was like a nightmare. That I could have, gone that far, with wanting to please, wanting to get approval from, wanting to get love from another human being, to do that."

Erhard's daughters also told CBS that their father wouldn't allow their mother to live with them for two years. Adair Erhard said that periodically Ellen Erhard was allowed to come into the house, but "like a maid" to "scrub the floors." And the daughters "had to watch this," but "weren't allowed to speak with her."

Adair Erhard explained, "You know, he, whatever he said, that she should do, she had to do. And that was part of the instructions. Yeah, you have to be a maid for your house...I wanted to - say something so bad, or just do something about it, and there's, it's just so petrified all the time and there's just no way I could be okay with myself to, to tell anybody or to do anything about what was going on."

In an audiotaped interview Erhard dismissed these accounts about his marital relationship.

"Essentially nonsense. Ellen was never a maid. Ellen was my wife, and I always treated her like my wife," he said.

Ellen Erhard divorced her husband and reportedly as part of the divorce settlement she cannot talk publicly about their marriage.

Adair Erhard told CBS that her mother was grateful though that she chose to speak out about her father's behavior and wished she could do the same.

"Rape"

Deborah Rosenberg is one of Erhard's daughters, from his first marriage. Ms. Rosenberg told CBS that her father "molested" her when she was sixteen. She also claimed that Erhard had abused her siblings with "pornography all the way to rape."

She told Ben Bradley, "I wasn't there. But I believe my sister when she says that my father raped her...forcibly had sexual intercourse with her."

Erhard said that the rape never happened in an audiotaped interview.

But Deborah Rosenberg told CBS that when she confronted her father about this claim he admitted, "There had been sexual intercourse, and that it had been a nurturing experience for my sister. He said that 'I did not rape her.'"

When Deborah Rosenberg repeated what her father said to her sister she said that her response to his explanation was that "it was not a nurturing experience for her. And she's had to have a lot of therapy about that" and it was not consensual.

Governess Dawn Damas told "60 Minutes" that Erhard's daughters told CBS "true things about their father that are terrible...he beats his wife, and he beats his children, and rapes a daughter - and then he goes and tells people how to have marvelous relationships. I'm sorry, that's what I have against Werner Erhard."

Celeste Erhard commented about her relationship with her father as an adult.

"I kept thinking - that he would be a father, I kept thinking that when he got older, he'd want children, and he'd want his daughters. I just, I, I really thought that. You know that maybe he'd get wiser with age and he'd regret what he'd done, but um, he didn't," she said.

Erhard's response

Erhard's lawyers sent CBS affidavits from his sister and brother and from a few of his close associates disputing some of the stories from his children and denying that Erhard ever abused his wife.

Erhard stated, "There is only one appropriate response to these allegations, to heal and restore my family. And that is what I will do. To respond to the accusations at this time, would only further publicly exploit my family, and there has already been enough of that."

Quote


"60 Minutes" broadcast about Werner Erhard
A News Summary/August 26, 2009

By Rick Ross

Background

Beginning in the 1970s a company named "est" (Erhard Seminar Training) sold courses, which are now often called "large group awareness training" and/or "mass marathon training" for "self-improvement." This included an introductory course known as "The Forum."

Jack Rosenberg, a former used-car salesman, created Est with no formal education past high school.

In the 1960s Rosenberg left his wife and four children in Philadelphia, changed his name to "Werner Hans Erhard," moved to California and started another family.

Erhard was reportedly "the role model, the living example of what the est Training could do."

But CBS News reported allegations of incest, rape and spousal abuse made against Werner Erhard by his daughters and former employees.

Not long after the airing of this program Erhard sold his company reportedly to his employees and went into prolonged seclusion.

The for profit privately owned company, which still sells the Forum and other training courses, is now known as "Landmark Education" and headed by Werner Erhard's brother and sister.

What follows is a news summary that includes statements made by Erhard family members and insiders, which was broadcast by CBS "60 Minutes" March 3, 1991.

"I am god"

Dr. Bob Larzelere was the head of Erhard's counseling staff for seven years during the 1970s.

"I am god...he did say sometimes in staff meetings," Larzelere told CBS News.

Wendy Drucker was a top manager who worked closely with Erhard for nine years.

Drucker told CBS, "I would never have believed that I, could be a person who would wind up in a cult...And yet, certainly mind control was involved. And if that's what cults do, and they set up a leader to be bigger than anybody else, a god-like figure, I would say yes, that was true in the organization."

"We were told to surrender to him as 'source.' I think that's idolatry...This was not like, being an employee. This was like being, a servant, or a devotee," Drucker said.

Ms. Drucker confirmed Larzelere's statement and said that Erhard told "...the whole staff. At staff meetings...'I am the source...I am god."

"Terrifying man"

An est brochure once featured a loving portrait of Erhard with his second wife, Ellen. The implication was that if Erhard could turn his life around, the Forum could turn your life around too.

In an interview with Larry King on CNN Erhard explained, "[Est is] a program of inquiry into the things that concern people on a very everyday basis. Like - breaking through the ordinary barriers that just go along with children and your relationship with your children at certain ages."

But did that program work for Werner Erhard?

Celeste Erhard, the est founder's eldest daughter from his second marriage didn't seem to think it did.

"I have been afraid, deeply afraid of my father my whole life. My whole life....he's a terrifying man, he can be very terrifying," she told CBS News anchor Ben Bradley.

Dawn Damas was the family's governess and is still a close friend. She told CBS News that she witnessed Erhard assault his son St. John, or "Sinjin" when the boy was twelve.

"He...went over to Sinjin and started to slap him and hit him, and picked him up and threw him on the ground and started to kick him - in front of everybody and nobody moved, everyone was paralyzed. Um, and then said to St. John: 'If you ever get grades like this again, I'll break both of your legs with a baseball bat.'"

Werner Erhard declined to talk to "60 Minutes," but he did speak to reporter John Hubner of the San Jose Mercury News, for an article in WEST, the paper's Sunday magazine. In an audiotaped interview, Erhard denied that he ever hit his son Sinjin.

"Never, ever, ever...Never, ever struck one of my children, not any one of them, ever," he said.

But Adair Erhard directly contradicted her father.

"My dad...freaked out, he pushed him back on the chair, he fell over. At this point you know my brother was so petrified he actually peed in his pants. Um, you know he's down on the floor, he's kicking him, he's hitting him."

CBS anchor Ben Bradley reported, "Sinjin, who is now twenty-three, didn't want to speak on camera, but he told us the beating did take place..."

Ellen Erhard "strangled"

Erhard's daughters also recounted how he and/or his est associates abused their mother.

"At one point someone picked up a statue and hit her over the head. Um, you know my dad constantly saying: "What aren't you saying, what aren't you saying?...he himself also got up and, while she was on the floor, and kicked her a number of times," Adair Erhard told CBS.

Erhard's daughters claimed that the assault on their mother Ellen Erhard continued for two nights.

Celeste Erhard said, "At one point, on the second night, I did stand up and say: 'Please, you're killing her, you're killing her.' I mean, my mother was blue, her face was blue, she had, like drool coming out of the side of her mouth. She was dying. She was, you know, suffocating. And all he said to me was: 'Sit down, or you'll get more of the same.' And that is a direct quote, I remember every word. And that's all he said. And I sat down."

Adair Erhard agreed with her sister's account, "She was strangled literally. She turned blue, there was spit running out of the side of her mouth..."

A consultant that worked for Erhard did the actual choking, according to Adair Erhard.

And Dr. Bob Larzelere admitted to CBS that he was that consultant.

Larzelere said,, "'Somebody's got to volunteer, to hurt Ellen, to punish her, and make her talk, and make her confess.' And nobody did, until I thought, oh my god, this is an opportunity for me, finally, to get Werner's total approval. Now I can be a real soldier for him, now I can make him, proud of me, now I can get him to smile at me. Now I won't have to be afraid of him anymore. So I volunteered."

He did it "to scare her into confessing" about alleged infidelities.

Lazelere said that Erhard "didn't try to stop [him]...at all."

Lazelere lamented, "It was a despicable thing to do. And it took me days to realize it. Afterward. When I began to let myself feel again. It was, my god, it was like a nightmare. That I could have, gone that far, with wanting to please, wanting to get approval from, wanting to get love from another human being, to do that."

Erhard's daughters also told CBS that their father wouldn't allow their mother to live with them for two years. Adair Erhard said that periodically Ellen Erhard was allowed to come into the house, but "like a maid" to "scrub the floors." And the daughters "had to watch this," but "weren't allowed to speak with her."

Adair Erhard explained, "You know, he, whatever he said, that she should do, she had to do. And that was part of the instructions. Yeah, you have to be a maid for your house...I wanted to - say something so bad, or just do something about it, and there's, it's just so petrified all the time and there's just no way I could be okay with myself to, to tell anybody or to do anything about what was going on."

In an audiotaped interview Erhard dismissed these accounts about his marital relationship.

"Essentially nonsense. Ellen was never a maid. Ellen was my wife, and I always treated her like my wife," he said.

Ellen Erhard divorced her husband and reportedly as part of the divorce settlement she cannot talk publicly about their marriage.

Adair Erhard told CBS that her mother was grateful though that she chose to speak out about her father's behavior and wished she could do the same.

"Rape"

Deborah Rosenberg is one of Erhard's daughters, from his first marriage. Ms. Rosenberg told CBS that her father "molested" her when she was sixteen. She also claimed that Erhard had abused her siblings with "pornography all the way to rape."

She told Ben Bradley, "I wasn't there. But I believe my sister when she says that my father raped her...forcibly had sexual intercourse with her."

Erhard said that the rape never happened in an audiotaped interview.

But Deborah Rosenberg told CBS that when she confronted her father about this claim he admitted, "There had been sexual intercourse, and that it had been a nurturing experience for my sister. He said that 'I did not rape her.'"

When Deborah Rosenberg repeated what her father said to her sister she said that her response to his explanation was that "it was not a nurturing experience for her. And she's had to have a lot of therapy about that" and it was not consensual.

Governess Dawn Damas told "60 Minutes" that Erhard's daughters told CBS "true things about their father that are terrible...he beats his wife, and he beats his children, and rapes a daughter - and then he goes and tells people how to have marvelous relationships. I'm sorry, that's what I have against Werner Erhard."

Celeste Erhard commented about her relationship with her father as an adult.

"I kept thinking - that he would be a father, I kept thinking that when he got older, he'd want children, and he'd want his daughters. I just, I, I really thought that. You know that maybe he'd get wiser with age and he'd regret what he'd done, but um, he didn't," she said.

Erhard's response

Erhard's lawyers sent CBS affidavits from his sister and brother and from a few of his close associates disputing some of the stories from his children and denying that Erhard ever abused his wife.

Erhard stated, "There is only one appropriate response to these allegations, to heal and restore my family. And that is what I will do. To respond to the accusations at this time, would only further publicly exploit my family, and there has already been enough of that."