[i:68afba155f]righttofight writes:
Hitler did succeed to a certain point. 6 million people lost their lives in death camps due to his extermination program. That is quite an evil achievement
[/i:68afba155f]

6 million is just the Jews. Millions and millions of others lost their lives in the camps as well. Not to mention the number of allied military and civillians (German and otherwise) that died as well.

I wonder how many/if any that Hilter himself had killed or if he just used others to carry out his programs.

What part of the Third Reich's LGAT do you find crude? I think they effectively used it to a tea!

I apologize for understating the victims. And - Yes - You are right. The LGATs are not crude instruments of thought reform. Neither was The Third Reich. Thankfully, I, we survived. I have been through all three program phases and I am free and healthy. My girlfriend was not so lucky. She is gone.

[i:b1ae9557ff]Righttofight writes:
I apologize for understating the victims. And - Yes - You are right. The LGATs are not crude instruments of thought reform. Neither was The Third Reich. Thankfully, I, we survived. I have been through all three program phases and I am free and healthy. My girlfriend was not so lucky. She is gone.[/i:b1ae9557ff]

What three program phases are you referring to? I first read it as your girlfriend died during the Holocaust. But I think you meant lost to a LGAT.

Yes, cult leaders have specific outcomes. They quickly learn what works and doesn't work.

The Third Reich had many cult-like characteristics. Uniforms, structure, command, separation from family and others that didn't agree with the party line, and songs and dance.

Regards

of course the third reich used
thought control techniques.

how do u think they could have murdered
so many people without it.

at the time the people of germany
did absolutely nothing to stop it.
the americans are doing absolutely
nothing to stop it either.

of course everyone u ask will tell
u that that isnt possible in America.

do u get it :)

I poster earlier some incomplete thoughts:

I apologize for understating the victims. And - Yes - You are right. The LGATs are not crude instruments of thought reform. Neither was The Third Reich. Thankfully, I, we survived. I have been through all three program phases and I am free and healthy. My girlfriend was not so lucky. She is gone.

>The LGATs and Third Reich are perfect instruments of thought reform.

>There are 3 program/training workshops in Legacy/Lifespring/Forum/Landmark, etc. Basic, Advance, Leadership. I walked out of the third phase after confronting the owner before my peers. The unthinkable.

>My girlfriend was brainwashed and psychologically killed her. The effects are too numerous to state.

Forum yakking is great, but we need to organize a non-profit association that collects dues to afford either a lobbyist or attorney to protect us while we introduce legislation to regulate these highly financed mind control companies.

Since they (LGATs) are not trucking people off to Auschwitz, you will not find the U.S. military going after them with bombs and troops. They are stealing people's minds legally, but not ethically. If these companies were truly exposed then there is hope for legislation. Thankfully there is culteducation.com

I can't believe the historians have all got it so wrong.

Hitler and LGATS: Their part in his downfall

RTF,

New legislation is not the answer in consideration that cultic manipulation is not a violation of rights, meaning life, liberty and happiness.

What is needed is education on the nature of cults, which also is not a right. The reasons why cults are profitable are knowable...otherwise they would not engage in the activity.

There is no way to force this type of knowledge. People must come to thier own conclusions, individually, and they will reap or suffer the consequences.

So in this sense is involvement a personal failure...yes, absolutely, as involvement is in contradiction to individual well-being so to speak. We would not be so concerned if it was not. But one can refuse and/or recover, and without legislation or rights violations.

The good of people refusing to attend Landmark is that they refused, by choice (which assumes consideration), not because it was illegal, and therefore were prevented from attending.

The good of people refusing to attend Landmark is that they refused, by choice (which assumes consideration), not because it is mentally damaging, or were legally prevented.

Hope you understand me,

BR,

Markus

Markus - Education is key to the problem and probably the best way. However, cults, and in particular Landmark violate people's rights as they are not forthcoming about what "processes" they are going to put enrollees through. That is a clear violation of ethics.

We all grow up with a set of principles to live by - our own philosophy, which is core to our beliefs. Landmark do not ask for permission to change these beliefs. They impose a new set of standards and beliefs upon people unsuspectingly using mind control techniques. The participants are caught totally unaware. It is a breach of trust for the purposes of furthering Landmark and the casualty in many cases is the participants' free will. Our free will to make life choices is the most precious thing humans have and it must not be violated.

Oz

Not to mention Oz, the psychological damage that is done to many people. There should at least be some accounting of how many people attempt suicide, have psychotic breaks, etc as a result of participation.

There are laws to protect the public against harm from all sorts of things, a person can't sell insurance, be a hairdresser or PRACTICE PSYCHOLOGY without a license. You cannot legally sell investments without disclosing all the risks invovled.

LGATS prey on an unsuspecting public by using deception to draw them in the door, then sophisticated psychological techniques to turn them into recruitment drones, with the added consequence in many cases, of destroying their lives. If there were at least a disclosure law in place that insured people were informed of the true risks of participation, that would go a long way toward helping people make informed decisions.

Hi,

I appreciated the responses.

Perhaps trying to leglislate the LGATs is trampling on one's rights.

Perhaps the answer is public information.

We should start an organization that engages in public information or is that the purpose of this site?

Can this site go further in supporting public information?

Is starting legislation to require one group to simply state this training is damaging to one's mental health necessary?

I think all of this is good and necessary, but I want to know what step to take.