It occurred to me that for whatever 'woo' is contained in est/Landmark's training/coaching programs, the over-arching programming is pure Kurt Lewin.

UNFREEZE -- assail the participant's identity and perceptual frameworks with social constructivist 'woo'(we create our own stories, realities), and further batter with "attack therapy" (the gestalt dimension), which elicits the public confessional (ala Korean POW camps), which is followed by the collective love bombing.

CHANGE/TRANSITION -- this is accomplished by a pseudo-self-examination and the identification of 'individual' goals, which are, in turn, vetted by the group and negotiated DOWN, as in "you can only achieve your goals with the aid of the collective...invest your energy in our larger goals, and we will support the attainment of your little goals"...

And, as Lewin observed, (need to find the quote)...identification with a common transcendent goal is necessary to the transformation of individuals and communities...

So, with est/Landmark you have the Hunger Project, the MasterY Project...and, so many more...

Yes, of course, 'a' point was to pad Werner's pockets, but the larger agenda was group conformity.

REFREEZE -- individuals have subsumed individual identity and goals to the perceived wishes of a perceived collective mind, THE GROUP.


I would offer, as well, that the creation of an external enemy would be almost necessary to this process, and this could be members who have fallen away from the group, a competing collective, e.g. Scientology, or IF YOU WANT TO CONTRUE Lewinesque programming more broadly, [...] What is needed is an image, cut-out that members can scream "Hate, Hate, Hate" at, at an appointed hour every day, e.g. while watching the evening news.

I believe it was Margaret Thaler Singer who discussed the concepts of cults within cults, or big cult, little cults.

How it looks to me is that nothing can ever really be done about Landmark and the LGATs, per se, because U.S. society, at least, has become one big Lewin project with competing (not really) cults railing at each other.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, Kurt!!!

Bakkagirl



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2019 08:54PM by rrmoderator.

Bakkagirl wrote:

"...I would offer, as well, that the creation of an external enemy would be almost necessary to this process, and this could be members who have fallen away from the group..."

Well they even try to soften the "common enemy," (probably to give the impression of being less cult-like), by referring to them as "less educated," "less evolved," or unable to face their "stuff." Then they shake their heads in feigned pity, and pat themselves on the back for all their "compassion," meanwhile harassing their targets and running smear campaigns, (ostensibly "for their own good"). It's unbelievable the extent to which the adherents are capable of lying to themselves.

Bakkagirl,

I do think your construct is correct, though.

I especially like that you pointed out this part:

"... the identification of 'individual' goals, which are, in turn, vetted by the group and negotiated DOWN,"

Yes, i saw a lot of that, if not outright substitution of individual goals with something entirely different.

An easy substitution for them, I think, had to do with this part:

"...identification with a common transcendent goal is necessary to the transformation of individuals and communities..."

...and the Forum leader states the desire to "transform the world." So of course, participants should, in alignment with this lofty goal, do little else but devote their time to recruiting for Landmark. Because those individual goals were "selfish," anyway, (even though the selling point for your recruitment was that they would help you attain them).

Please don't discuss politics on this thread.

rrmoderator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please don't discuss politics on this thread.


Got it! I have tried not to. When we look at the latest LGAT/LGAT-like bustings, however, public figures are involved, and apparently even some politicians.

Does the proscription against politics forbid us to even discuss these people, or is it merely an admonition to avoid discussions on political parties and ideology?

Either we need clarification to not bring up certain of Epstein's clients, or guidelines, as to what areas can/cannot be discussed.

Can we bring up people who have been in the news, associated with busts, as long as we are not talking along party lines?

kdage:

Yes. No discussion about discussions political parties, candidates and ideology.

If someone is involved in a "cult" and is a politician that is OK.

bakkagirl:

Last warning.

If you persist with conspiracy theories and political comments you will be banned from this message board.

I don't understand WHAT is my "conspiracy theory".

Can you please explain.

bakkagirl:

I am not going to debate with you.

Again, you will be banned if you persist and post any more conspiracy theories or related links on this message board.

No one is interested in these fringe theories here and this message board is not for the furthering of conspiracy theories.