That's my question, 'a' question after 18 months spent investigating high-profile LGAT's.

Certainly, if we examine cults, in general, we can see a strong tendency among leaders to sexually exploit members; to establish 'members with privileges' type relationships. I am wondering, however, if there is something intrinsic to the technologies of LGAT that facilitates the sexual abuse of members by leaders, other members, and/or sexual abuse conducted in communities at large.

I guess, too, with certain groups there is the question of behavior modeled by the leader, and here I am thinking of Raniere, and Robbins and, well, I must say Erhard, who were/are sexually predatory.

With regard to the technologies and messages, I am wondering, specifically, whether the est/Landmark/Tony Robbins message related to 'victimhood', i.e. there are no victims (childhood sexual abuse, political terrorism, Acts of God), may translate in certain minds to "there are no crimes", or that crimes of a sexual or other nature (financial) can be rationalized according to some cosmic/karmic formula.

All thoughts welcome!

Bakkagirl

Well we now know what went on with NXIVM.

There was also the high profile LGAT founder who was accused of molestation by his daughter. The allegations were eventually dropped but that doesn't mean it didn't happen - there could easily have been coercion/intimidation to drop the allegation. Plus he fled the USA to avoid tax fraud investigation - again charges dropped. But surely an authentic person with high integrity would engage constructively with the IRS to prove their innocence?

In any kind of abusive relationship there is often a powerful stranglehold over the victim. If we think of that in the context of the strong emphasis on victim blaming that is present in LGATs (which many victims participants are trained to accept) it isn't hard to grasp that one of the most notorious LGAT pioneers could have this kind of influence over their own child. Do this in a group setting where no one is effectively challenging the leader then it becomes like the Asch Conformity Experiment.

This is seen in those who have grown up in residential cults and the difficulty they have in psychologically breaking from it even if they're physically able to escape and integrate into society.

Interesting, and with regard to the high profile LGAT personality and allegations made by his daughter(s), it is my understanding that these girls dropped a lawsuit against a CA print media outlet, which was not equivalent to recanting allegations made in a nationally televised expose.

In any case, Mr. HEAL YOUR FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS has left in his wake a great deal of interpersonal carnage...wives, girlfriends, employees.

Please note, my question is focused also on the behavior of cult generals, lieutenants, and minions...and, relates to messages embedded in the training.

bakkagirl

The behaviour of the minions is really the key isn't it.

This is bigger than cults which are relative amateurs compared to some applications of this - particularly totalitarian states.

Think how quickly and easily ordinary, rational people in Nazi Germany were persuaded to hand Jewish members of their own community to the SS to be killed, how people in Communist East Germany were constantly snitching each other to the Stasi, or the sheer number of functionaries it takes to impose the ideals of the regime in say China or North Korea.

These are ordinary people like you and me that are easily convinced to be tools of state violence and oppression. Their home/family life is/was probably was much like yours or mine. It wasn't the party leaders that killed people in the concentration camps and gulags. These people are in a state that just makes them go along with the herd - much like how seminar participants generally don't challenge the leader on the stage no matter how awful their behaviour.

And we're seeing the same scary trend in Western politics now with a rise in right wing extremism (KKK types) and blame of immigrants.

I've also see comparison of LGAT techniques (Lifton Criteria) with the methods used by Communists to turn prisoners of war. I would imagine a lot of $cientology and LGAT concepts are borrowed directly from that and I wonder if some of those involved early on in setting it up had spent time in POW camps. People who engage in abuse are very often themselves victims of abuse.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2019 11:43PM by StopLGATs.

Bakkagirl wrote:

"With regard to the technologies and messages, I am wondering, specifically, whether the est/Landmark/Tony Robbins message related to 'victimhood', i.e. there are no victims (childhood sexual abuse, political terrorism, Acts of God), may translate in certain minds to "there are no crimes", or that crimes of a sexual or other nature (financial) can be rationalized according to some cosmic/karmic formula."

I have seen that thinking a lot in New Age circles, and among some of the people I knew at Landmark. It goes along with "not making somebody 'wrong.'" If said by a person approaching it from a metaphysical standpoint, they will say that nobody can do anything to you without your consent; that you agreed to it on the etheric level, possibly even before you were born; that it was some sort of a soul agreement or "contract." They are quite hypocritical about it, though. For all of their admonitions against "making someone wrong," if you happen to be the victim, they are very quick to "make you wrong" if you consider retaliation.

For those who don't approach it from that angle, there are other angles. For one thing, there is their vague consent form. I have come to the conclusion that they take that as consent to do anything to you, even though that was not your intent. It seems that, as far as they're concerned, as long as you did not specifically forbid a particular action on their part, they consider themselves as having consent to carry it out. They will also extract vaguely-worded verbal permissions, on the spot, and what you get is not what you understood yourself to be consenting to. They will also use coercive influence in obtaining consent, and if you give them an inch, they will take the proverbial mile. They pretend to not understand the word "STOP."

They take it to absurd lengths, with no regard for the law. If you complain, they will act as if you gave them permission, or as if it was a misunderstanding, (even though they know perfectly well that no one in their right mind would actually agree to what they've done). All the while, they stress over and over that you, and only you, are responsible for your own well-being.

As to "no crimes," I can say that, in the past few years, if someone stole something from the shop I was working in, most of the people I was working with would not say that they "stole" it, but would say that they "took" it, as if they hadn't just committed a crime. I saw the same kind of euphemisms in the Landmark people.

I'm digressing slightly here but there are some interesting parallels regarding assumed consent via use of language and this is kind of the opposite direction:

There was a thing going around about 10 years ago called the Freemen On The Land movement which I would say is not a cult (too disorganised and disbanded) but has many similarities.

The whole premise of their stance was that written laws are drafted in such a way as to confuse people into giving consent. For example that statutory laws don't apply to you unless you consent to them. Likewise a police officer can't arrest you unless you consent (or "contract" with them) by saying you understand the charges (i.e. you consent to stand under their authority and give your name, address and DoB). Please don't test that one out - you might get tazered or worse! Likewise if you are called to appear in court it's just an invitation that only applies if you have consented according to them.

This has been used to justify all kinds of criminal behavior (no doubt cases where people assume the age of consent - whatever it is where you reside - doesn't apply to them) and I wonder if it attracted some of the same personality types that are also drawn to LGATs.

Sadly the pioneer of this movement in the UK (John Harris who actually seemed like a genuine, decent guy) committed suicide after he realised the monster that he'd unleashed.

[rationalwiki.org]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2019 01:54AM by StopLGATs.

I can give a hypothetical example. Going back to the waiver form on this thread:

[forum.culteducation.com]

"I hereby indemnify and hold Landmark Education, its officers, managers, shareholders, affiliates, employees, agents and/or people who assist, harmless from all loss, cost, obligation or damage arising out of my participation in the Programme or in other activities or events related to the
Programme."

(Bold italics mine).

I think the one I signed might also have said, "property damage." It seems that i asked them what kind of property damage I could possibly get from the program, and I was told, "Well, in case someone dings your car in the parking lot, or something." I accepted that explanation. So the scenario they gave me would have been accidental. What nobody expects is their level of malice. Since i signed the form, holding them blameless for damage, they could theoretically say that they were blameless if they sent someone out to the parking lot to key my car, (which, of course, I didn't consent to). That didn't happen, but i wouldn't put it past them. Actually, some of the things they did to me were considerably worse. It's as if their reasoning is; "Since we're blameless for damage, we can do all the damage we want."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2019 02:17AM by kdag.

Do we really know what went on with NXIVM?

Really abbreviated legal process by my standards, and plea deals out the wazoo.

Looks like they succeeded in shifting focus to Raniere, and away from other principals.

Media coverage focuses, as usual on the salacious elements -- the cult leader, and his perversity.

I would like to know more about Bronfman involvement, in that, that family is also linked, now, to Epstein matters (BTW, Jeffrey Epstein was in the quote, unquote leadership development business, and via the Wexner Foundation), and the Esalen, Erhard/est, LGAT crowd of days of yore.

They seem to be a perennial element when we are talking about cults, kid experiments, human trafficking.

Esalen/"Council of Nine* Bronfmans are members/donors -- research regarding children with 'paranormal' powers
NXIVM -- Rainbow schools, and other expressions of weirdness
Epstein/Mega Group/Bronfman -- Wexner Foundation 'leadership programs' at Harvard, MIT?
Epstein/Southern Trust -- Antilles School (St. Thomas, Virgin Islands)

Whole lot of kid stuff going on with these folks...

Bakkagirl

KDAG wrote:

"They take it to absurd lengths, with no regard for the law. If you complain, they will act as if you gave them permission, or as if it was a misunderstanding, (even though they know perfectly well that no one in their right mind would actually agree to what they've done). All the while, they stress over and over that you, and only you, are responsible for your own well-being."

I have seen THEM violate every commonly-held notion of practice in the coaching field, and this includes using an NPO as cover for a For-Profit business (globally).

Since a rational discussion of any issue is completely pointless, I have decided to take a 'new' approach, ;-). Little league baseball is really popular in my Japanese neighborhood, and I frequently see these tiny little kids with tiny, little, kid-sized bats. And, I have been thinking "how handy" a tiny little bat might be in one of these discussions. I priced and ordered one. Small, slim, elegant, with a solid core, and only 20 oz. Could fit easily into an attache case.

So, I figure I ask nicely 'once', possibly 'twice', and then it is BATTER UP!!!

Bakka

Batter Up!!! LOL

I can relate to that feeling, and so can many, (wouldn't we love to). That's just the problem, though. They drive people to that point, and then they call the police, who find the participant apoplectic, and see what appears to be a calm and seemingly in control Lekkie. Even talking about what was done to us can make us look crazy, and they know that. In fact, I'm sure they count on it.