I listen to a lot of Talk Radio and I'm always listening to lots of different programs and people. At times I will be listening to a program that is interviewing a guest. Sometimes these guest will use terms that I learned when I was in Landmark. They will even use it in the same or very similar context that the word, term, or phrase was used in Landmark. Usually the guest aren't that well known nationally.

This makes me curious, because now I want to know if these people are connected with a LGAT in some way. Did they have a great idea or success in their life and then got sucked into an LGAT at some point and got brain washed? Or did they get involved with a LGAT and now they are out trying to recruit?

From my own personal experience in Landmark, these organizations really like to suck in successful people and people with influence. That's what they did to me.

I wonder the same thing myself when I hear seemingly 'normal' people use terms that I know is used by certain LGATs. I believe that much of what sounds like LGAT lingo is just normal language that was hijacked or is mimicked by LGATs to give them a legitimate appearance to the unsuspecting (like the wolf in sheep's clothing). If you listen to a lekkie, for instance, they use some jargon that is common place in the contemporary business world(ie.,'cutting edge', 'technology'. etc.), but in the lekkie mind these terms have been adapted to fit into, and define the lekkie's conceptualization of reality.
I think its also a very disturbing reality that so many unseeming individuals are in fact quoting the language of their LGAT. When I hear language used by someone I don't know, that sounds like some cult's version of language, I watch for other behaviours and mannerisms that coincide with LGAT/cult indoctrination. If they appear, I walk away, when they don't appear to be zombies, I just admire and marvel at the use of language, as it was intended to be used!

Yep...

Sure enough.


I heard a jarring phrase uttered by Queen Noor of Jordan in an interview recently -- something about "showing up in one's life" or "how something shows up for one" or something similar. I filed it away, thinking maybe she was affecting the speech of someone else or mistakenly picked up this phrase somewhere. But guess what: pull up her name on the internet and there are links to the Hunger Project, Werner Erhard's bogus "charity" and private piggy-bank.

Yuck, yuck, and double-yuck.


Ellen

...which is a good excuse to question the relevancy of the Monarchy. Yeah, big issue not worth going into here, but one thing's for sure - money + bloodline + priviledge DOES NOT equal intelligence + common sense. In fact, why anyone famous does anything outside their job description puzzles me, i.e. kings and queens really have no place outside their chess boards, hollywood stars have no real voice beyond their scripted dialogue ... I really think there's a good reason we need to be protected from these people. Just do your job and let the rest of us do the thinking!

I want to take it a bit further....this is even more reason to go after LGAT's. It just goes to show that anyone is suseptable to their power and influence. My theory is: They really like getting a hold of powerful and influential people it seems...because guess what???? Control powerful and influential people that the masses like and tend to follow...then they indirectly get to have influence over a very large number of people. In general people don't question authority figures, especially ones they like. So if the Queen of Jordan thinks the Hunger Project is a good thing, guess what a large portion of Jordanian population might think.....If the queen thinks its good...then it must be good!!! Right!!!

Guys, here is a problem with becoming famous.

You are busy. Your life becomes hectic. And, the more famous you are, the more prestigious your name, everyone wants a piece of you.

The more marketable your name, the greater the crediblity it lends.

That means famous people and their publicists are innundated with proposals, pleas, come ons.

And a famous person may not have the time or ability to fact check each and every person or project proposal.

They're supposed to have staff persons who do this sort of back ground checking for them. But suppose a famous person's publicist or PR person is
seduced by a plausible organization, or has been an LGAT graduate?

How many celebrities are alert enough to run background checks on their entourage members or require them to sign contracts stating that they will give objective advice and not permit current or prior membership in a religion or human potential project to influence their work or their referrals?

Ponder for a moment, the Dalai Lama. His name confers instant credibility. Just imagine how many hustlers lie awake strategizing ways to get access to him, to make it look like he is their good buddy and endorses their work?

A famous organization may rent rooms in its facility to an organization that is totally unrelated, maybe even corrupt. Lots of churches are short on money these days, and rent rooms for events to generate revenue.

A very shady organization, one totally unrelated to the church in question (or say unrelated to a university, or a Buddhist or Quaker center that is renting its conference facility)...can then, without even saying so, make it seem that the place from which it rented the room actually endorses its agenda.

Lots of us have an unconscious automatic trust when we go into a university or church...we assume whatever event is scheduled on its premises is somehow associated with it, and therefore trustworthy.

When, all too often, most admin assistants lack the time or even the training
to run background checks.

There are few incentives.

One you risk being called alarmist or cynical.

Two, turning down an organization to rent your facilities, means refusing a source of revenue.

Part of cult education means getting across to people that just because something is advertised on a loved and trustworthy venue such as Craigslist
doesnt necessarily mean it is legit.

Just because someone gives a presentation using a church facility, or university does not mean it is affiliated with that venue-- it may even have a philosophy counter to the the values of the entity from which it has rented space.

Quote
elena
Yep...

Sure enough.


I heard a jarring phrase uttered by Queen Noor of Jordan in an interview recently -- something about "showing up in one's life" or "how something shows up for one" or something similar. I filed it away, thinking maybe she was affecting the speech of someone else or mistakenly picked up this phrase somewhere. But guess what: pull up her name on the internet and there are links to the Hunger Project, Werner Erhard's bogus "charity" and private piggy-bank.

Yuck, yuck, and double-yuck.


Ellen

That is AWFUL! Reading this description is kind of like how I feel when I'm watching a movie that I am totally unaware is a horror flick until one of the characters suddenly, unexpectedly turns into a friggin wolf or an alien or some other terrifying monster! I hate horror and I hate it when the above description by elena happens. I mean who the hell would think Queen Noor of Jordan would be one of them??
I think a very trusted and respected instructor of mine did the same thing yesterday, but I will have to watch and see if other behaviors coincide with the "empowering', relationship building" etc..type remarks...I hope against hope that those statements were not the dregs of LGAT mire.
I suddenly feel very pissed off..UGHH!

Here's one that got my attention the first time I heard it.....The frekin Cambell's soup commercial that is being aired here in Texas. In their jingle they sing Cambell's Soup Possibilities! I friggen hate the commercial it sounds totally moronic and zombiefied! The tone that "Possibilities" is sung in reminds me a lot of a stupid jingle that I heard a local center leaders sing in one of my classes once when they were trying to get people to go to a "Special Evening". Geee I wonder if they were going to serve Cambell's Soup afterwards.

Quote
corboy
Ponder for a moment, the Dalai Lama. His name confers instant credibility. Just imagine how many hustlers lie awake strategizing ways to get access to him, to make it look like he is their good buddy and endorses their work?

Oh my gosh, what an awful hypothetical thought! I am not a buddhist but I'd have to get sedated if some random hustler (like a lekkie maybe) ever succeeded at accessing and corrupting the Dalai Lama. Worse is if a landroid promotional speech ever included his name on its short list of celebrity participants. What a nasty thought..thanks corboy :)

A friend of mine was very badly shaken.

She had another friend who was an RN. She saw how well her pal had functioned
in crisis situations, and her friend was knowledgeable and helpful about
medical matters.

So my friend trusted her RN buddy, and trusted her to a very special degree, with particular respect because she was a health care professional and had been so capable.

As a result, my informant refused to trust her own perceptions when her RN pal began making a series of increasingly bad decisions that turned into a destructive, downward spiral. It turned out that her pal, despite her RN and all her professional knowledge, had an untreated psychological condition that was
pulling her into serious trouble.

My shrink shook his head and said, 'No matter what kind of title someone has, it
is just a bunch of capital letters and a piece of paper. What counts is how they
actually behave.'

The problem is, as human beings, we require a long period of dependency
as babies and tiny children, and then as older children and adolescents getting the lenghty and complex training needed to reach full adult functioning.

So we are pre-formatted to keep looking upward toward surrogate parent figures and even to institutions on which to confer automatic trust.

As tiny kids, we had no option but to trust that those around us were reliable--its a vital ingredient in early development.

And as adults its very easy to lapse into this and forget that everyone stays human and fallible, can fail to fact check, or their entourages can fail to fact check for them, and that conceivably even the Dalai Lama's advisors or the admin secretary for a royal personage or famous scientist could goof (or be
subourned) to let a hustler latch on.

If Albert Einstein were alive today, can you imagine how many opportunists would be on his case? He'd be like a cow in a pasture, having to flick his tail nonstop to swat them away.