HAI Global is a newly formed non-profit with volunteer board members. The responsibility of any board is to insure that the actions and behavior of an organization are consistent with it's stated purpose. The HAI Board's behavior suggests that it is unable to do it's job; not a single board-member took direct personal or collective initiative to a threat to HAI's mission, legal status and survival when a HAI facilitator violated the law, HAI agreements, ethical practices and marital agreements to harm a HAI participant and endanger their life physically, mentally and emotionally.
The board suffers from:
1) A lack of formal training and experience running a public organization and the responsibilities that come to the public with tax-free status.
2) A lack of clear protocols that insure that a participant's safety is put first.
The symptoms of this include:
1) No board-member has apologized.
2) No board-member showed up to help in response to a participant stating that a facilitator had endangered their life.
3) No board-member contacted me independently to hear what went on prior to influencing HAI's coarse of action.
4) No board-member has ever followed up to insure I am safe.
5) No board-member has responded to me directly in response to my clearly stated intention to make public a pattern of behavior that is incongruent of a teaching non-profit organization committed to "win/win."
6) Desire Storch, when I initiated contact:
a) Said she was busy and told me she was a volunteer and her work came first.
b) Refused to give me the e-mail addresses of the other board-members twice or directly answer my questions about how informed the other members were.
c) Offered no help, suggestion or any indication that anyone on the board was capable of handling facilitator negligence. In short, my impression was that Desire saw herself as someone whose job was to make the facilitators happy when convenient by doing what she thought the facilitators wanted, rather than to protect the organizations tax-free legal status by holding herself responsible to it's mission and the legal mandates of such a position. This is what is referred to as a "Paper Board," and denies the facilitators and organization of the input of important opportunities to grow.
The Facilitator Body and Workshops suffer from many of our cultural imbalances:
1) Addiction to over-stimulation to move through the unspoken pain, shame, trauma and dissociated elements of the psyche. The wounded feminine gets little attention, which takes time, patience and trained skill to address. Whether it is asking women to let strangers look deep into what are in many cases already incestuously violated vaginas without being invited to be seen in their emotional trauma, or the safe-physical-sex conversation without reference to the safe-emotional-sex conversation, 90% of the sexuality within HAI and the community is asynchronous: the dialog and speed is inadequate to see and be seen on an emotional level apace with the physical sex.
Consistent with the culture, the distinctions necessary to stay emotionally respectful (re-spect from the latin "to look, and look again) to ourselves and a partner are 80% absent within HAI at the workshop, facilitator one-on-one and community one-on-one levels:
After 30 workshops and work with four facilitators and 30 lovers within the community I remain completely ignorant of the following from HAI sources:
How do I have a safe-emotional conversation prior to sex. All of my 30 HAI lovers were sexual on the first or second date, with me initiating the little clarity that was brought to our emotions. In one case a HAI woman, laying down on my living room floor and undressing for sex on a first date, got up and left rather than have a conversation to clarify our emotional needs and refused to reschedule.
When is my sex pain management and addictive for me or my partner?
Is my partner dealing with trauma and if so what do I do about it?
How do I connect, explore and end a relationship without re-traumatizing someone?
What do I do when a woman wants me to hurt her and I care about her and don't want to hurt her but she insists?
How do I respond to a partner trying to cheat on their partner who I also know when I am threatened with violence if I tell?
How do I keep others safe when someone lies to me, knowing that lying is a habit that is not personal with me and it is the most innocent who is hurt most by lies?
How to tell when a person is "following the crowd" in a workshop because it is too dangerous in their history to be themselves, even when following the crowd is violating their boundaries?
What is a safe and healthy thing to do when a facilitator violates their agreements and hurts me and others, but does not want to deal with their abuse of their role and I get hurt even more?
How to keep other participants safe when the entire organization functions to protect family secrets rather than protect their community from blind spots?
How to communicate the complexity of my strengths and weaknesses to a community who lacks the patience and skill to ask or listen, but blames me when they bump into parts of me their projections did not anticipate, but which were perfectly predictable and that I could have explained if given any chance?
Examples of protocols that insure blindness in the form of simplicity: "We want to hear from all of you. Please condense what you want to say into the bare nugget." Or "in one or two words can you go around the room and say how you are feeling," followed by "yellowy, warm, fuzzy, cold, confused." This pseudo intimacy may give the impression that people are seen, but the reality is that even after making this website and spending several thousand hours of my time making videos, few people in the community at best see 50% of me, and at worse are projecting different filters than the ones I'm using onto me such that everything I say is reversed (my paradigm is that when people are transparent they are providing a technical service to make things safer, whereas in our culture people who share data about themselves are labeled as self-centered even though most of our problems and pain stem from a lack of seeing clearly).
2) Super-Human Shame in the Facilitator Body:
Trump is doing anyone who wants to understand super-human shame a great service. He cannot make mistakes and re-writes history to be right, regardless of how uninformed he is. He blames and intimidates anyone who disagrees with him and uses shame, critical parent, fame, power and money to try and push many people into doing what he wants. He is a child in an adult body that transfers his own shame onto everyone around him, while denying there is anything to transfer.
Peter Sandhill and the facilitators do all of this more graciously, hiding major blind spots in plain view by simply naming themselves teachers of love, intimacy, sexuality and proclaiming their commitment to human awareness and a world where everyone wins even when they are actively suppressing human awareness about their own ignorance, fear and mistakes. When their behavior does not match these words they employ a variety of defenses, including:
Controlling communication, first with procrastination/delay, then silence, then denial, then collusion, then lies, then more silence and finally blocking people's ability to speak on their platform.
This is covered in various exaggerated words: "We are undefended, loving you, here for you, loving you more than xxx."
The power structure is used and then outer power-structures are brought in to reinforce the message that "we have done nothing wrong and don't make mistakes"
Peter Sandhill tells me that an energy worker has told him that I should not have any issue with his behavior so he should not have to clean up his impact.
Peter Sandhill hires a lawyer, and then tells me that his lawyer has told him that I should forgive him like the black South Africans forgave their white oppressors, only without consulting me or having the forgiveness take place publicly so as not to tarnish Peter's image.
Peter Sandhill tells me that Sarah Sandhill, who is ignoring my request for help from her for the abuses of her husband who she recommended, agrees with him that he is hearing me even when I don't feel heard, and that he is listening to me, when he is arguing with me that he is listening, when I feel argued with, not heard.
Peter Sandhill tells me that he is such a good trauma therapist that Peter Levine's own staff come to him for trauma work, while ignoring the fact that he has traumatized me in classic ways any trained therapist would spot a mile away and has not taught me a single method for protecting me from himself.
Felicia gives Peter space to hurt me, rather than clean up his and HAI's mess "out of the goodness of her heart, not HAI's responsibility."
Jason pretends that things are not a HAI issue but asks me to sign a legal document promising never to tell anyone what happened or ever sue HAI.
HAI hires an attorney to try and shut down this website, despite it breaking no laws, while still not spending a penny to support a participant they have traumatized.
3) Ignorance and Fear:
By controlling communication through time restrictions, lack of interested questions, attack of certain areas of truth, shame, denying that they should hear anything and blocking this from getting out, each facilitator and board member at different times has actively participated in a willful level of ignorance and criminal negligence. Simply ask yourself: You have a a terrified individual who cannot drive safely and describes a process of abuse lasting more than a decade. All he asks for is to be heard and to be held. Is this so difficult to do? Is it so hard to say: "Well, we have left you hanging for a few days but now we are going to meet. Let's meet at your house, hear you and see you?" This would be the easiest thing in the world for any ethical adult who wanted to comfort, understand and respond to the pain caused by their mistakes, ignorance and negligence. After all, Peter Sandhill was trained by each facilitator, recommended by each of them, and broke agreements with all of them. I offered to play the tape. By choosing instead to abandon their client and meet with his abuser without the recording they choose a path of willful ignorance leading rapidly to criminal negligence and re-traumatization.
4) Usury and Betrayal:
Taking money to help, failing to follow any reasonable protocols that would insure help was rendered, abandoning, blaming and refusing to offer effective help or to offer a refund or compensation constitutes usury. Asking an abuse survivor to sign a contract of secrecy to protect HAI, while denying that any of the abuse was a HAI issue constitutes a betrayal of the trust, ethics, intimacy and transparency that any institution seeking to lead in a relationship arena must protect at all costs.
5) Resistance of the Opportunity to Learn:
In my entire relationship with the entire organization I have encountered resistance to learning. Resistance is the phenomena by which someone giving, teaching, inviting something is met with a force in a pattern of energy that says: "If you want to do/say/be this way you will have less honor, energy, value, freedom and resources after you have done so." Ignoring, shaming, avoiding, dis-honoring, refusing to reward, withholding validation, denying time, focusing on what is bad and many other forms all play a part of this phenomena of resistance. Re-labeling and diversion are another form of resistance, as when I wrote a letter to Jason Weston recently requesting that HAI of it's own initiative hire a business consultant, trauma specialist and non-profit ethical consultant to review the pattern of behavior HAI has engaged with towards me and each write a report about what best practices in each area looks like, and in what areas and to what degree HAI has diverged from those practices: "A top company in the service industry, such as Zappos, which created 1billion in value selling shoes did so by taking care of it's customers like XXX in the very low-margin and typically difficult business of selling shoes. HAI, by contrast, in this area, refused to even read the e-mails about life-threatening abuse to one of the top 1% of it's clients by many business metrics. Recommendations: HAI will increase it's competency in client care if it does XXXX in this situation."
This is an invitation to learn. Having been worn down by the intense resistance to trying to teach HAI their own job without being paid and being shamed, this is a healthy request: "Why don't you learn your job from someone who knows it more than you do and actually pay them to teach you what your behavior suggests you don't know so that your clients, including myself, can be safe and you can have even a small chance of achieving your stated mission." A pro-active learning organization would have done this before this abuse occurred in any one of the last forty years, but not HAI. A responsive organization would say: "You have been very kind and patient not to sue us until now and very generous to give us this chance to make up for our incompetence. We'll hire great people and I'm sure we have a lot to learn and can't wait to do so in order to increase the safety and effectiveness of our service." To deflect and wear down the person trying to teach you want to do something like Jason:
a) Ignore the request.
b) Take zero action other than to confer with the other facilitators to confirm that we are all unanimous about doing nothing and learning nothing.
c) Relabel this and further obfuscate things by saying: "We are all in an un-defended place."
d) Direct the attention away from the facilitators doing anything and instead try and focus on the teacher: "We are concerned that you may be hurting yourself with your actions."
e) Say "we are happy to hear from you," when a more candid truth might be: "You are welcome here on condition that you go along with our protocol of directing you away from the abuse you need to see to stay alive so that we don't have to look at it. We definitely do not welcome anything that makes us take any action to face our shadow or protect our students. Go away if that's what you are interested in."
This pattern has begun in 1993 by pretending that Peter had already learned enough to be recommended, when a bit of testing could clearly reveal that he was not competent to do the work he was recommended for. The fact that this ignorance and need for learning is present-day as apposed to "something back there" can be found in the phenomena that not a single facilitator volunteered remorse or apology for their impact in precipitating life-threatening trauma. Peter did it under duress to the letter of my request. He has yet to extrapolate and go further into his impact by mentioning anything that is easy to imagine for anyone in an empathic state, such as: "I'm sorry I made you pay me $175. to request your first apology, sorry for stone-walling you for another few months, sorry for making you ask for an apology and I'm sorry that I have not offered you a refund for what we have both agreed was a very abusive relationship with me being paid for that." It's hard to have a sense that "Yeah, these people have really gotten it and are changing," when every single interaction is one of pulling teeth from reluctant dental patients squirming and wriggling and calling that "love" or "undefended," or just saying nothing.
This suggests deep trauma, not intelligent action. If anyone gave me a list this big of all the ways my company fucked up and it seemed even remotely plausible, I'd want to know how/why/when this all happened and why it was that someone on the outside has to point this out. It suggests massive incompetency in my ability to oversea, predict, understand my impact etc. etc. If I'm blind then the most important thing on my plate as a business owner is to see clearly so I can avoid similar problems. It is not to shut the person pointing them out up in whatever way works. One client may lose if I am blind. But my whole company will fail if I'm blind. They are doing me a great favor. There's only one mindset that does not want to hear what's blind and needs fixing: That is someone who does not believe they can deal with the problem that would be revealed if the light was turned on. And that suggests a pretty big problem, but also certain failure. Not because any problem is to big for a cared for and generous community to sort out, but because the problems that kill us are the ones we fear too much to look at. Trauma requires help and Peter has spoken about un-treated trauma in his marriage to me that hurt his marriage and that means that the same trauma is hurting HAI and everyone else. You cannot be "traumatized with this person," but "free of trauma with these people." The reactivity goes down but since Peter has behaved irrationally on the surface but intelligently as a regressed trauma survivor it's a probable diagnosis that weakens his ability to lead. That needs healing, not shame, but that is harder when he insists on leading despite endangering other people.
Look out for this pattern in more nuance in each of the detailed descriptions about what has happened in all segments of the HAI relationship: When was "teaching HAI" easy or proactive on HAI's part? When you read about the time Peter Sandhill did not think it would be interesting for the facilitators to benefit from my expertise in real-estate development and negotiation that has saved me and clients hundreds of thousands of dollars for FREE one has to wonder: "What would this organization be like and how big would it be if it changed this one pattern: Ignoring and punishing advice, teaching and feedback to embracing and pro-active learning from top leaders in all areas of expertise."
The community, including myself, seems both blind, and blind to it's blind spots about the most basic threats to healthy relationship as demonstrated by the silence in each of my 30 lover relationships and interactions over fifteen years at events and privately with the following key topics:
1) Trauma literacy: What is trauma, how to recognize it's symptoms, understand it's origins, protect both people from re-enactment and where to go for help.
2) How to understand and respect the 10-20% of the HAI community that is uncommonly sensitive biologically.
3) Healthy protocols for ending relationships, which is important when a workshop environment facilitates an average of 500% more sex than outside the workshop environment.
4) How to articulate emotional needs and where they come from and navigate around them.
5) How to create a win/win when people want different things.
6) How to fight cleanly and healthily.
7) How to discern between love/sex addiction and using one another for addictive purposes vs. healthy sexuality.
8) Where to go for help when the community and HAI cannot or do not help.
9) How to deal with a pattern of dishonesty/cheating within some members of the community.
10) How to discern between things someone can "choose" and the things that appear like free-will but are actually part of survival contracts that someone needs help to release/heal before they regain free will in those terrains. How to protect people who cannot deal with standing out from following others across inner boundaries that are not healthy for them to cross.
The bias towards "ego-centric" thinking has left this community in a dance between deep attempts at service during the workshops and "everyone for themselves" the rest of the time. This decreases the safety in the community by 40% which precludes much of the deep emotional literacy around feelings and experiences that emerge when safety and intimacy is consistent and reliable enough to stay in the growth-regions of the brain and avoid repeated emotional and physical trauma. The inadequacies of the workshops and facilitators to either fully cover most of the terrain key to sustainable relationships in America, combined with the absence of referral to competent external resources expertise leaves a large percentage of people failing far more then they need to be, hurting much more than they need to be, and blaming themselves, given the cultural bias towards "present a positive face of gratitude," which effectively silences useful complaints in favor of "looking cool." This precludes the evolution of the organization through healthy challenge from becoming more than 1/3rd of it's full potential to help, heal, protect, serve and educate it's participants in the community.
Their client is weakened, first by hiding the fact that they are not licensed, then by behaving unprofessionally with my time, money and trust, then trying to pin their harmful impact on my inadequacy, then intimidating by removing my access to community and support on multiple fronts, then putting on a show for everyone else that masks the truth of the ugliness they are defending.