kdag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will go so far as to say that we must tolerate
> pretty much any philosophy or religion, as long
> as the adherents are not being instructed to break
> the law. The problem with these groups is that
> they do have employees, associates,
> and some of the volunteers, (oh, excuse me. I mean
> some of the people in the "assisting program"),
> breaking the law. They rely heavily on loopholes
> and on simply not getting caught - and those are
> their ethics!

Here a personal benchmark for you, for what it is worth. I spent ten years in legal services investigating all manner of human ethical lapses. I have had face-to-face meetings with murderers, wife beaters, and white collar criminal scumbags. The majority of these people KNEW they had done something wrong, had some kind of moral framework. I wish I could say that of my current cohort of 'coaches', and 'organizational helpers', who are marching to a different drummer, entirely. Let's say I would not want to be in a dark alley with they folks.

Bakkagirl

bakkagirl wrote:

"...coaches', and 'organizational helpers', who are marching to a different drummer, entirely. Let's say I would not want to be in a dark alley with they folks."

Amen to that. This gives me reason to consider a couple of other things. I am wondering how it effects their lies, specifically in a courtroom. Will it make it easier for them to get by with lying, and to be believed? Could they lie their way through a polygraph? That worries me.

There is another thing I wonder about:
Many of these people did not grow up to be sociopaths. They did not necessarily have the genetic predisposition, and did not necessarily develop as sociopaths during their childhoods. As adults, before their LGAT involvement, they were pretty normal. I am wondering if, in at least some of them, the relatively "normal" part of their psychology still exists, buried under layers, or if it is gone completely. I don't know how much difference there is between these people and a born sociopath.

I felt that my recruiter still had some kind of an ethical compass, (which she actually fought against, as encouraged by her then-partner). I overheard an argument between them over lying, for example. I ran into her shortly after I became aware of her betrayal of me. She couldn't look me in the eyes. I don't know if this was due to guilt, or out of fear of repercussions. It has been years, and I don't know if she has gotten away from Landmark, or become even more deeply entrenched, by now.

I saw some signs of a conscience in a few other people, too. I am wondering if any of these people have reconsidered their dedication to Landmark. Some weren't too deeply involved to begin with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2019 06:32AM by kdag.

kdag,

I guess I figure that we are all possessed of a modicum of free will and that we are responsible for our actions.

I don't really care if these individuals retain some semblance of a conscience, or if they can be salvaged. That is not my business, as I see it.

I DO CARE that they inflict harm on others, and believe they should be punished under the full letter of the law.

bakkagirl

bakkagirl wrote:

"I don't really care if these individuals retain some semblance of a conscience, or if they can be salvaged. That is not my business, as I see it."

It's not my job to rescue them, either. My reason for wondering about that had more to do with anticipating their behavior, if they were called upon to testify. I am just turning things over in my head, and trying to discern how likely they would be to tell the truth. Then there is also the possibility that they might be too frightened to tell the truth.

I am sure they would like their asses off. So what?

Well over half of them, I'm sure. They would have to depend on every single one of them doing that - under oath.

Not everyone is a die-hard. Not everyone is a coward. Not everyone knew what was really going on, including some of the people who participated in it.

Think of your own organization and associates. Surely you can think of some who would jump at the chance to testify, if given the opportunity. There have to be others who are just as unhappy about the situation as you are.

How did they do it with NXIVM? A couple of people reported incidents, then others must have. Now, even Allison Mack is talking. How does one get people to find their courage?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2019 03:36AM by kdag.

Your questions are good ones.

I think in the case of 'both' organizations, and remember my thesis is that they are 'one' organization, members have varying levels of knowledge as to the entity's true agenda. There are still people out there defending NXIVM and its leaders, for goodness sake.

I would guess that the individuals at the top of the pyramid think they will be protected, have been assured they will be protected (by someone).
Lower in the ranks there are probably people who have realized that what they thought they were getting into is not what they got into. (See NXIVM class action suit.)

And, there are folks who will NEVER wake up because they are getting something out of the 'experience' or the entity, e.g. a sense of purpose, an identity, a 'family', a craft or trade, a means of making a living. These people, I predict, will keep their mouth's shut until the end of time, or will actively defend the organization. This is the faction, REALLY, that must be worried about, IMHO.

Bakkagirl

I think more than anyone it was Catherine Oxenberg that brought NXIVM down through her very public crusade to save her daughter.

NXIVM leaders held out as long as they could some have now entered guilty pleas rather than go to trial.

To date three of NXIVM's top leaders have plead guilty to felonies that will probably do prison time.

Only NXIVM leader Keith Raniere, heriress Clare Bronfman that bankrolled the group and NXIVM's bookkeeper remain are now waiting for trial that begins at the end of this month.

NXIVM actually did rather badly in court cases.

NXIVM/Raniere lost lawsuits against Microsoft and AT&Twith and the court awarded millions to defendants.

NXIVM/Raniere sued the Cult Education Institute and the case was dismissed without ever going to trial.

BTW -- Landmark Education dismissed its own lawsuit against the Cult Education Institute rather than proceed in discovery.

Thank you for this very encouraging summary.

Bakkagirl

rrmoderator wrote:

"I think more than anyone it was Catherine Oxenberg that brought NXIVM down through her very public crusade to save her daughter."

Thank you! And yes, I have read about that.
I also read that some of the other women had reported the branding, and I think they had reported some of the sexual abuse.

Were they simply not believed? Though I give much credit to Catherine Oxenberg, it upsets me if the other women were dismissed as kooks, if that was the case. They were obviously reporting crimes. Or did it just take the authorities years to gather enough evidence to make arrests, even though they were aware that crimes were being committed?