The 10 Priorities (from Biggest Job)

[Ursus]

Somehow, when I read The Prophet, I get a different interpretation than Hyde School does.  In fact, I totally don't get why they seem to hold him in such high esteem, since my own experience of the place would suggest that much of their philosophy is antithetical to Kahlil Gibran's.  

At first I thought that they were just trying to jump on some kind of bandwagon of popularity the book has enjoyed.  In fact, I still think that.

It is perhaps the worst and most insulting kind of plagiarism there is. On some subliminal level they respond to it, and they certainly see that the rest of the world does, so they try to incorporate the cadence of the words and the philosophy in some fashion to illicit that sympathy.  But it doesn't quite work.  They can't paraphrase so that the sentences approach a logical sequence, or at least hold together in meaning or subject.  And the resultant mish-mash clearly bears no relation to what they practice or what they preach.  

They should have stuck with what Joe Gauld does, who started this whole farce, and just use Gibran's quotes to start new paragraphs in books.  People will still not get it then either, but at least it will be held separate.

Too bad Gibran isn't still alive to sue, ha ha!

[Anonymous]

Somehow, when I read The Prophet, I get a different interpretation than Hyde School does.  In fact, I totally don't get why they seem to hold him in such high esteem, since my own experience of the place would suggest that much of their philosophy is antithetical to Kahlil Gibran's.  

At first I thought that they were just trying to jump on some kind of bandwagon of popularity the book has enjoyed.  In fact, I still think that.

It is perhaps the worst and most insulting kind of plagiarism there is. On some subliminal level they respond to it, and they certainly see that the rest of the world does, so they try to incorporate the cadence of the words and the philosophy in some fashion to illicit that sympathy.  But it doesn't quite work.  They can't paraphrase so that the sentences approach a logical sequence, or at least hold together in meaning or subject.  And the resultant mish-mash clearly bears no relation to what they practice or what they preach.  

They should have stuck with what Joe Gauld does, who started this whole farce, and just use Gibran's quotes to start new paragraphs in books.  People will still not get it then either, but at least it will be held separate.

Too bad Gibran isn't still alive to sue, ha ha!

I can't comment on The Prophet. Joe killed any desire in me to read it. I heard enough in school meetings to convince me that it's kitsch and a poor substitute for religion or philosophy.

As for Joe, I think he identifies seriously with the idea of being a Gibranian prophet, much as Hitler identified with the idea of being a Wagnerian Messiah. To each his own. Malcolm and Laura, judging from their literary pretensions, seem to have caught the prophet bug too.

[Ursus]

I can't comment on The Prophet. Joe killed any desire in me to read it. I heard enough in school meetings to convince me that it's kitsch and a poor substitute for religion or philosophy.

As for Joe, I think he identifies seriously with the idea of being a Gibranian prophet, much as Hitler identified with the idea of being a Wagnerian Messiah. To each his own. Malcolm and Laura, judging from their literary pretensions, seem to have caught the prophet bug too.

I tried reading The Prophet several times at different points in my life, but made slow headway for similar reasons.  To be fair, I won't dismiss it outright as kitsch, but it simply just isn't my style and moreover, carries some bad associations with it.  However, I have read enough to know that the Gauldian pretensions are of far inferior ilk and completely miss the mark.

You point out an aspect of Hyde's interest in the book perhaps more applicable than mere market cache, namely the aspirations to "prophetdom."  This is so true!

There was a time in the 70's when Hyde tried to change its focus from being a fix-it school for errant youth to being more of a "school for leaders."  All of a sudden, "leadership" became an even hotter buzz word in school meetings and seminars, and kids on the brink of being ousted were told that they just "didn't have leadership potential."  I believe this was in large part due to Ed Legg.  Certainly those words were spit more from his lips than anyone else's.  

Gauld wasn't the only one who aspired to be a prophet, though Gibran wasn't Legg's style.  Legg called it "being a leader."

[Anonymous]

THE crowds gathered at the foot of the Valley.
Thousands pushed their way through.
The ominous rumbling was heard for miles.

Is he down yet, a merchant selfishly cried.
Where can I see him, an old woman shrieked.
I have waited for him for over one hundred years, a withered man murmured.
The crowd hushed in unison as a glimpse of a figure appeared in the clouded distance.
He is here, they whispered.

He looked almost young yet his age was impossible to guess.
He was not tall, yet he had many tall ways.
As they stared, he sat upon a rock.
Quietly folding his arms, he began to speak:

I am here.
I am tired.
But I will answer your questions.
Bring me food, drink, and don't forget a little gold.
A little silver for an answer.
A drachma for a doubt, a penny for a thought.
For I am The Profit and what I have learned has cost me ten lifetimes.
What you are about to learn has cost you two dollars and fifty cents.

http://rsidd.online.fr/profit/profit.html#Knowledge

[Anonymous]

I can't comment on The Prophet. Joe killed any desire in me to read it. I heard enough in school meetings to convince me that it's kitsch and a poor substitute for religion or philosophy.

As for Joe, I think he identifies seriously with the idea of being a Gibranian prophet, much as Hitler identified with the idea of being a Wagnerian Messiah. To each his own. Malcolm and Laura, judging from their literary pretensions, seem to have caught the prophet bug too.

I tried reading The Prophet several times at different points in my life, but made slow headway for similar reasons.  To be fair, I won't dismiss it outright as kitsch, but it simply just isn't my style and moreover, carries some bad associations with it.  However, I have read enough to know that the Gauldian pretensions are of far inferior ilk and completely miss the mark.

You point out an aspect of Hyde's interest in the book perhaps more applicable than mere market cache, namely the aspirations to "prophetdom."  This is so true!

There was a time in the 70's when Hyde tried to change its focus from being a fix-it school for errant youth to being more of a "school for leaders."  All of a sudden, "leadership" became an even hotter buzz word in school meetings and seminars, and kids on the brink of being ousted were told that they just "didn't have leadership potential."  I believe this was in large part due to Ed Legg.  Certainly those words were spit more from his lips than anyone else's.  

Gauld wasn't the only one who aspired to be a prophet, though Gibran wasn't Legg's style.  Legg called it "being a leader."

Legg and Gauld are not monsters. Hyde is an extension of normal human behavior and not another planet. I abstain from melodramatic and pornographic descriptions of Hyde out of a conviction of the ordinariness of the personalities involved. Indeed, the students are just as wicked as Legg and Gauld. Hyde lacks unique potential: it can be repeated anytime, anywhere, by anyone.

[Anonymous]

it can be repeated anytime, anywhere, by anyone.

 I think it take a certain type to start an enterprise like Hyde.  There is nothing monstrously unique about Joe.  I it has been pointed out that he has some of the same personality traits as Adolf Shickebruber.   A lot of driven leader/visionary types do.  Whether there actions are just or unjust is a different matter from the things that drive them.
 In the big picture it is hard to know if Hyde does more harm then good. IT professes to do good yet many that have experienced it claim to be left unaffected or worst of for the experience.  It certainly does not rise to the level of having triangle stitched on your chothing

[Ursus]

While Hyde may be an extension of human behavior, and Joe Gauld and Ed Legg are human beings, what they wrought with the creation of Hyde School was monstrous for some of us.  (Hitler was a human being too, and, by some accounts, allegedly a descendant of the Rothschild family.).  One can also certainly wonder about what the residual effect of witnessing such diabolicalness had on those overlooked by these monstrous graces, perhaps even on those singled out for benefit from their version of stardom.

While the actions of some of the students may have seemed as wicked as those from the higher-ups at Hyde, and perhaps in some cases even were, these students did not benefit from dozens of years of life experience to put that shit into perspective.  Let's use some common sense here.  While I may or may not have liked some of my peers or what "mischief" they were up to then, what they did whilst held in the fever of the Lord of the Flies holds far less weight with me than the originators of the formula responsible for creating those conditions in the first place.

If Hyde "can be repeated anytime, anywhere, by anyone," then we are in trouble.  The development of Hyde School rode on the coattails of many historical events and cultural trends.  From the existence of juvenile delinquency courts and military schools, through AA and the development of therapeutic communities (TCs) and all that they spawned, the whole concept of "tough love" that arose out of the Great Drug War that we are still dealing with today, not to mention societal dissatisfaction with previously held cultural norms of the 1960's, as well as people's penchant for easily digested two-sentence sophisms...

Hyde was always very careful to exert methods which could glide under the radar at any given time.  There were always examples of people being treated far worse at any said point in history.  This only makes Hyde all the more dangerous, in my opinion.  They capitalize on the alleged credence given by the passage of time.  Programs that exist longer, tend to be believed more.  They do "the Nixon mantra" and outlast their critics.  What they haven't counted on, however, is people being able to follow their dirty laundry over the course of decades, and being able to piece together their true intent.

[Anonymous]

it can be repeated anytime, anywhere, by anyone.

 I think it take a certain type to start an enterprise like Hyde.  There is nothing monstrously unique about Joe.  I it has been pointed out that he has some of the same personality traits as Adolf Shickebruber.   A lot of driven leader/visionary types do.  Whether there actions are just or unjust is a different matter from the things that drive them.
 In the big picture it is hard to know if Hyde does more harm then good. IT professes to do good yet many that have experienced it claim to be left unaffected or worst of for the experience.  It certainly does not rise to the level of having triangle stitched on your chothing

You are very perceptive. I was indeed thinking of the Holocaust when I wrote my comment about that banality of evil that is Hyde. It was not my intention to offend you or anyone else by the comparison. God knows, I lost most of my family in the Holocaust. I know as well as anyone that the Holocaust is not a subject to be treated lightly. I apologize if I have offended you by my insensitivity. But hey, what is this? The SS?

There are so many points of contact between Hyde and a German concentration camp that I am inclined to see the school as Auschwitz without ovens. I know this is a radical statement. And it goes a lot deeper than the Gauld/Hitler analogy. To repeat my earlier post, Hyde teaches us to submit to its physical, emotional, and sexual abuses; it teaches us to acquiesce; it teaches us to collaborate; it takes away our last shred of self-respect; it remakes us in its image; and it brainwashes us into believing that this has taught us courage, integrity, and leadership. No, there are no Jewish stars, but once there were leashes, signs, badges, and shaved heads, and today there is still pariah status for conscientious objectors, the social equivalent of the Jewish star. To avoid pariah status, one must contribute to the efficient operation of the system. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Hyde is Auschwitz with the ovens, and our identities going up the chimneys.

[Anonymous]

While the actions of some of the students may have seemed as wicked as those from the higher-ups at Hyde, and perhaps in some cases even were, these students did not benefit from dozens of years of life experience to put that shit into perspective.  Let's use some common sense here.  While I may or may not have liked some of my peers or what "mischief" they were up to then, what they did whilst held in the fever of the Lord of the Flies holds far less weight with me than the originators of the formula responsible for creating those conditions in the first place.

I'm pretty well read in the Holocaust, and frankly this is the first I've heard of Hitler being descended from the Rothschilds. Any references?

I have no quarrel at all, however, with your laying the responsibility at Gauld and Legg's feet. I was merely pointing out that Hyde taught me a lesson about the latent evil in human nature, and how under the right circumstances it can be brought out.

[Anonymous]

Hyde teaches us to submit to its physical, emotional, and sexual abuses; it teaches us to acquiesce; it teaches us to collaborate; it takes away our last shred of self-respect; it remakes us in its image; and it brainwashes us into believing that this has taught us courage, integrity, and leadership.

 Wow, It never got under my skin that much.  I was thinking red triangle for Freemasons.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_conce ... amp_badges

Or a black one superimposed on a yellow one for being an blue eye that has has sex with Jews.

[Ursus]

I'm pretty well read in the Holocaust, and frankly this is the first I've heard of Hitler being descended from the Rothschilds. Any references?

There was a collection of evidence and psychological analysis done of Hitler back in the 1930's and 40's by Walter C. Langer of the Office of Strategic Services and others. Much of this was done while Hitler was still alive, and hence relies on interviews with former associates, relatives, etc. as well as hard data sources. The OSS was very interested in knowing who Hitler was, both in what they could use against him, as well as what they might glean from his methodology for their own purposes. From the Preface:

It is hoped that the study may be helpful in gaining a deeper insight into Adolf Hitler and the German people and that it may serve as a guide for our propaganda activities as well as our future dealings with them.[/list]

This material is now declassified and much of it is now accessible due to the efforts and archiving of the Nizkor Project. I believe there are some 1400 pages of the original OSS material, although I tend to doubt that all of that made it to the internet. If you are unfamiliar with the Nizkor Project, there is a brief description on Wikipedia, which includes a link to get you to their website.

The title page of Langer's OSS material, A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler | His Life and Legend, as found on the Nizkor Project website is HERE.  The portion that details the potential Rothschild connection is within the first few pages of the section titled "Hitler | As He Knows Himself":

Adolph's father, Alois Hitler, was the illegitimate son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber. It is generally supposed that the father of Alois Hitler was a Johann Georg Hiedler, a miller's assistant. Alois, however, was not legitimized, and bore his mother's name until he was forty years of age when he changed it to Hitler. Just why this was done is not clear, but it is generally said among the villagers that it was necessary in order to obtain a legacy. Where the legacy came from is unknown. One could suppose that Johann Georg Hiedler relented on his deathbed and left an inheritance to his illegitimate son together with his name. However, it is not clear why he did not legitimise the son when he fineally married the mother thirty-five years earlier. Why the son chose to take the name Hitler instead of Hiedler, if this is the case, is a mystery which remains unsolved. Unfortunately, the date of the death of Hiedler has not been established and consequently we are unable to relate these two events in time. A peculiar series of events prior to Hitler's birth leaves plenty of room for speculation.

There are some people who seriously doubt that Johann Georg Hiedler was the father of Alois. Thyssen and Koehler, for example, claim that Chancellor Dollfuss had ordered the Austrian police to conduct a thorough investigation into the Hitler family. As a result of this investigation a secret document was prepared which proved that Maria Anna Schicklgruber was living in Vienna at the time she conceived. At that time she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild. As soon as the family discovered her pregnancy she was sent back to her home in Spital where Alois was born. If it is true that one of the Rothschilds is the real father of Alois Hitler, it would make Adolph a quarter Jew. According to these sources, Adolph Hitler knew of the existence of this document and the incriminating evidence it contained. In order to obtain it he precipitated events in Austria and initiated the assassination of Dollfuss. According to this story, he failed to obtain the document at that time, since Dollfuss had secreted it and, had told Schuschnigg of its whereabouts so that in the event of his death the independence of Austria would remain assured. Several stories of this general character are in circulation.

Those who lend credence to this story point out several factors which seem to favor its plausibility:

(a) That it is unlikely that the miller's assistant in a small village in this district would have very much to leave in the form of a legacy.

(b) That it is strange that Johann Hiedler should not claim the boy until thirty-five years after he had married the mother and the mother had died.

(c) That if the legacy were left by Hiedler on the condition that Alois take his name, it would not have been possible for him to change it to Hitler.

(d) That the intelligence and behavior of Alois, as well as that of his two sons, is completely out of keeping with that usually found in Austrian peasant families. They point out that their ambitiousness and extraordinary political intuition is much more in harmony with the Rothschild tradition.

(e) That Alois Schicklgruber left his home village at an early age to seek his fortune in Vienna where his mother had worked

(f) That it would be peculiar for Alois Hitler, while working as a customs official in Braunau, should choose a Jew named Prinz, of Vienna, to act as Adolph's godfather unless he felt some kinship with the Jews himself.

This is certainly a very intriguing hypothesis and much of Adolph's later behavior could be explained in rather easy terms on this basis. However, it is not absolutely necessary to assume that he had Jewish blood in his veins in order to make a comprehensive picture of his character with its manifoid traits and sentiments. From a purely scientific point of view, therefore, it is sounder not to base our reconstruction on such slim evidence but to seek firmer foundations. Nevertheless, we can leave it as a possibility which requires further verification.[/list]

[Anonymous]

I'm not surprised that scholars have not picked up on Walter Langer's hypothesis that Hitler was 25% Jewish.

First, Langer was a psychologist simply reporting a "hot" rumor, not a historian.

Second, the source of the rumor is of the most unreliable kind. Chancellor Dolfuss of Austria had good reasons to wage psychological war against Hitler. What could be more embarrassing to Hitler than rumors of his Jewish ancestry?

Third, even if it were true that Hitler's grandmother became pregnant while in Baron Rothschild's employ in Vienna, what does this prove?

Fourth, miscegenation was extremely rare among Jews, a Rothschild no less. I'm not saying impossible, just extremely rare.

As rumors go, this is pretty unconvincing stuff.

[Anonymous]

Wow, It never got under my skin that much.

It's getting deep under my skin now. I was "fat, dumb, and happy" then. Well, dumb at any rate.

[Ursus]

Wow, It never got under my skin that much.

It's getting deep under my skin now. I was "fat, dumb, and happy" then. Well, dumb at any rate.

It's been under my skin for decades now.  A plague of increasing intensity rather than decreasing.  That's what 30 years of PTSD will do for you, ha haa!

[Ursus]

I'm not surprised that scholars have not picked up on Walter Langer's hypothesis that Hitler was 25% Jewish.

First, Langer was a psychologist simply reporting a "hot" rumor, not a historian.

Second, the source of the rumor is of the most unreliable kind. Chancellor Dolfuss of Austria had good reasons to wage psychological war against Hitler. What could be more embarrassing to Hitler than rumors of his Jewish ancestry?

Third, even if it were true that Hitler's grandmother became pregnant while in Baron Rothschild's employ in Vienna, what does this prove?

Fourth, miscegenation was extremely rare among Jews, a Rothschild no less. I'm not saying impossible, just extremely rare.

As rumors go, this is pretty unconvincing stuff.

Chancellor Dolfuss of Austria was not the "source" of that "rumor," merely a corroborating element of it.  As to the potential input of Hitler's grandmother -- "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" perhaps?  Who knows as to the whole of it.  Barring genetic testing, probably no one will ever know for sure.

As to your charge of miscegenation being rare among the Jews in Germany at this time...  I say bullshit.  My own lineage is rife with examples of just such type of intermarriage.  

Prior to the machinations of the U.S. and Britain in creating the economic depression in Germany following WWI, the Jews were quite happy in Germany.  That's why the whole Hitler deal took so many by surprise.  They just couldn't believe this was happening, that their friends and neighbors, yes, and relatives, were turning on them like this.  Nor could so many Germans believe this was happening.  They liked the Jews... ambitious, industrious, smart... hell, who wouldn't?