Talk:New Acropolis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Defamation at its best

The Wikipedia should be a source of facts and knowledge, yet the authors of this article insert pseudo-facts, using well known journalistic techniques, as well as reports made 10 years ago, mainly in France, where almost every group, religious or not, not belonging to one of the known churches is included.

Phrases like "some say", "according to" fill every media accusation made against the organization; and each time they try to define or defend themselves, their responses are used in a twisted way to ridicule them, stating supposed “religion experts” or the like, which have an interest conflict in the case, to say the least.

Yet, no single legal sue has ever flourished against them.

If any of the accusations were true, the judges at Europe or Israel would have closed them. But this has not happened.

On the contrary, the labor the organization does on more than 40 countries, a figure that increases each year, prompts praises both from its members' personal circle, because of the personal growth they show, as well as from the media and the institutions that do join projects with them.

As one propagandist once said, tell a lie a thousand times, and people will start believing it.

Those who have ideological grievances against New Acropolis and the knowledge they foster, as well as envy for their capability to summon volunteers, are behind this well orchestrated mass media defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordano1507~enwiki (talk • contribs) 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Critics References

Dear ENGER, Please don't delete any verifiability facts.
Everybody can verify following articles which published in reputable newspapers.

1. Sheila Gostick, Confidence For Dummies. // NOW (Toronto, Canada), 1-7.01.2004
2. Nick Cohen, The GM Jeremiahs. // The Observer (UK), 11.05.2003
3. Barrett Hooper, What is the Matrix? Good Question. // The National Post (Toronto, Canada), 14.12.2001
4. Rory Carroll in Rome, Satanists threaten the Pope's party. // The Guardian (UK), 18.12.1999
5. Bomb hits Paris cult bookstore. // Associated Press (Paris, France), 14.08.1996
6. Miguel Martínez: Story of an Emperor

NewAcropolis 21:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

https://nowtoronto.com/news/confidence-for-dummies/ Abcdefghijklmnopgoesthealphabet (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 15 April 2016

This articles are shady transaction G Bruno 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

These articles were published in reputable newspapers. So we can trust them. NewAcropolis 13:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 "... So we can trust them." 

• It is obvious the so called "NewAcropolis" user wants to confuse the readers: Many of these articles are just opinion articles, not periodistic investigations.

Now I am looking for it. Does anybody know newspaper investigations of New Acropolis in English or other languages? NewAcropolis 15:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

MORE LINKS (follow all the links provided in each): 1. http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,83485,83575 2. http://victimasectas.com/NuevaAcropolis/NuevaAcropolis.html 3. http://thesecretrealtruth.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post_4270.html

Do your best to investigate in multiple languages, as this organization does spread itself all over the world. Also, keep in mind that New Acropolis has a sophisticated public relations and IT network dedicated to promoting the organization and shielding it from criticism. Abcdefghijklmnopgoesthealphabet (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC) 9 April 2016

Also, given the level and intensity of secrecy in the organization, it is unsurprising that it is difficult to find in-depth, peer reviewed information regarding the organization. To learn the secrets, you would have to be a member for an extended period of time. You would also have to escape their detection. Furthermore, scholars are held to extremely high ethical standards that prevent them from deceiving those they study without first obtaining "informed consent", which would obviously prevent them from getting to any of the secrets New Acropolis so carefully guards. Journalists have practical limitations related to remaining employed. No employer would allow a single journalist to devote a sufficiently large amount of time to a pie-in-the-sky project that has no guarantee of being of enough popular interest to generate serious news sales. Framing "opinion articles" and other, less heavily regulated sources of information as inherently untrustworthy is a straw man. Abcdefghijklmnopgoesthealphabet (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC) 9 April 2016

The same (as above) holds true in the case of a lawsuit. Given that the organization maintains high levels of secrecy and does not allow members to have access to incriminating documentation, let alone to take it outside of one of their centers, it would be incredibly difficult to prove anything in a court of law.Abcdefghijklmnopgoesthealphabet (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 15 April 2016

Opinions vs Facts

Please make sure you state your OPINIONS inside the discussion TAB (this page). The Article should be restricted to verifiable and unbiased facts.

Papers and articles released by official institutions, academic bodies and verifiable legal organizations are always welcome and will be retained (see CESNUR) as part of the article content, otherwise it will be deleted (please note: Newspapers are NOT considered verifiable sources).

As stated below Wikipedia is not an Advertising media - this remains true for both parties: for those who sympathise with the institution and for those who oppose it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chfalcao (talk • contribs) 01:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Critics or Useless Opinions?

I have read the article from The Observer.

The only line about New Acropolis, in an article 4 screens long, just states that New Acropolis avenges "an obscure philosopher" named Giordano Bruno.

How can anyone claim such a source is reliable? Any respectful academic or scholar knows who was Giordano Bruno and why was he burned.

The campagin New Acropolis championed using his figure was about Freedom of Conscience and Thought.

It is obvious that the author of that article has no knowledge about this, or that he has his own obscure agenda.

The above list of links are just a shamefull pack of lousy opinions of people trying to discredit something they just don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.225.120.211 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Site of Miguel Martinez

Please, see this edit and this. Without this comments this link is false. John Barley 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear John Barley, Please don't delete any verifiability facts. Everybody can verify of Miguel Martinez' article which published in reputable newspaper.--NewAcropolis 05:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear NewAcropolis! Of course you can see comments about information in reputable newspaper. Without this comments this link is false. This fact is verifiability. John Barley 08:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear NewAcropolis! This commentis very important. Without this comments this link is false. Best regards, John Barley 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference

In this edit [1] NewAcropolis write: "The title of article must be in - → Reference" Why? This is spam, I think. John Barley 07:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Miguel Martinez vs CESNUR

Critical links to CESNUR

• http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c10.html
• http://home.snafu.de/tilman/prolinks/cesnur.and.massimo.introvigne.html

MIGUEL MARTINEZ CRITICIZES CESNUR

• http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/eng.htm

CESNUR CRITICIZES MIGUEL MARTINEZ

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/gandow_eng.htm http://www.cesnur.org/testi/anticult_terror.htm http://www.cesnur.org/testi/lavage.htm

The quote above doesn’t refer to the article of New Acroplis. Please put it in appropriate article. --NewAcropolis 14:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

New Acropolis former student comments

New Acropolis opens the door to a complete new perspective of philosophy and religion. The awarness to multiple ways of thinking as well as the solidarity and friendship among New Acropolis members may be perceived as a threat by critics. Those who believe in just "one truth" might have difficulty understanding the New Acropolis community. None of New Acropolis studies promote criticism and hate. Its teachings are opened to all people who are courious and open-minded. That is the reason of New Acropolis success and continuous growth around the world.

yeah, those scary "one truth" people, right. They always keep dragging out the skeletons and the witch's brew out of the closets of the noble occultists and their communities. Anyway, as is discussed at length here http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/txt/liv-gb.htm behind the front of low cost philosophy classes is a cult dedicated to the promotion not of "philosophy" but specifically of theosophical teachings of Helena Blavatsky and Alice Bailey as well as Livraga's interpretation of The Republic (Plato) style of totalitarianism as a desirable political system to be put into practice. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am a former member and I can verify beyond any doubt that New Acropolis is a deceptive cult that uses well-known brainwashing techniques to indoctrinate members into a sick and twisted inner circle that promotes secrecy, lying, and constant attention to the organization and its needs. They lie to everyone in the organization and slowly reveal secrets to you as you get closer to the inner circle. You will not realize this as a new or casual member. They will seem very nice, tolerant, and accommodating. They will make you feel good. However, you should be very careful about anything that looks like a mentoring or intimate teaching program (they will call it by different names depending on the criticisms that are out there about the organization). It is during this time that they will seek to indoctrinate you. And they will succeed, especially if you agree to keep their secrets for them. The reason you are asked to keep secrets is because they know that others will recognize that you are being brainwashed and will do something to disrupt it. By the time you are fully brainwashed, you will truly believe that they have done something great, and you will trust them more than anything in the world. It will never occur to you that they are lying to you. Even when you look back one day and realize they lied to you about things, you will believe that it was the right thing to do. And you will lie to others, too, because you now believe that this lying is the right thing to do. You will slowly but surely lose touch with reality, lose touch with your friends and family, and lose a lot of things in your life, but you will believe that they needed to be lost, regardless of whether or not it's true. New Acropolis leaders are 100% aware that this will happen. In some cases, I have even seen them say that it would happen out loud, though they use very vague language so it isn't obvious. The leaders have done this to hundreds of families, maybe thousands, and they truly believe it is the right thing to do. They're insane. And as for the comment above about the teachings being open to all, well, if you think long and hard about how you get access to those teachings and who actually does get access to them, you'll realize that there's a lot more needed for them to be available than being "curious and open-minded." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdefghijklmnopgoesthealphabet (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Abcdefghijklmnopgoesthealphabet (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)9 April 2016

about Manual of the Leader

I was deleting this text: "In 1967, Jorge Livraga Rizzi published the "Manual of the Leader" where he exposed his views on leadership and the hierarchical functionning of the New Acropolis. It takes model on the hierarchical system described by Plato in The Republic. It is implanted in 46 countries, and counts 8,000 members (around 50 in Belgium). ( Nouvelle Acropole: les liaisons dangereuses, Resistances, 28 January 2007 (in French))" from "Foundational Charter". I think it's from another place. John Barley 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Small change in an unproven criticism

Checking other pages in different languages I made a small change that I think it is justified. Regarding the French Commission reference, there was an implicit assumption, non proven, that New Acropolis is a cult. This is a controversial term and there is not common agreement of what is or is not under that category (that is also one of the reasons the French black list was not continued). So I think it is more correct to remove that phrase that includes it in that category. Please, let discuss here if not agreed. --Tachen (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is reasonable to be concerned about the connotations of the words we use, and many people believe that cults are violent, nightmarish, and overtly oppressive. This very misunderstanding is one of the many things that allows real cults to flourish. Obviously, very few people would join a cult knowingly, and by the time a member realizes the organization may be a cult, it is much too late for them to be able to care. They believe they are doing the right thing, and they compare themselves to violent doomsday cults as a way of distancing themselves from the phenomena of cults. However, if you research cult characteristics and stay away from "extreme" portrayals, it will become clear that cults do have distinguishing features. By simply removing the word "cult" as opposed to attempting to define the term, you are contributing to a social problem. Abcdefghijklmnopgoesthealphabet (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Critics comments

SOMEONE IS EDITING THE WIKIPEDIA PAGES, DELETING ALL CRITICISMS OF NEW ACROPOLIS.Abcdefghijklmnopgoesthealphabet (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC) 11 April 2016

It is clear that the benefetors of the New Acropolis Organization was editing this pages. If there is criticism about it, Let the readers judge for themselves, give them the links as tools. Since it's the discussion page I'll feel free and will tell that a close friend of mine joined it a couple of years ago. Slowly but surely he dismentelled all his previous social connections. He is still in touch with his family, whom are worried about him. Now that we are clear - the Organization has it's critics and the article in wikipedia should reflect it. If it's done in the proper way - under a different section, It's very needed.

Please see "Critics Links" and "Former Student Comments" below for more information. Abcdefghijklmnopgoesthealphabet (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC) 9 April 2016