Don't think this one's been kicked around on the rrforum.

Years ago my Mom participated in Silva Mind Control. This would have been in the 1970's. All very New Agey. She dragged my Dad along, too. Didn't do a thing for Dad -- he doesn't need this kind of junk, but Mom thought he did, and she thought she needed it, too. Can't say it did anything for her, pro or con, other than she could go into an "alpha" state now and then. Don't think she kept up with whatever skills she learned in Silva. She's still an unhappy person.

Now I see they're calling it "Silva ULTRA Mind Control". Is this now, or was it always, an LGAT? Are there LGAT's that are more dangerous (or benign) than others?

Mom was all excited for me and my "breakthroughs" when I first emerged from Landmark. Possibly because one of our assignments was to "complete" a relationship. Mom and I have not always had the easiest of relationships, and I do believe she was genuinely touched when I called her. As I become more disenchanted with LE, she tries to remind me of the "good" stuff I got out of it. Could be she's afraid I'll grow distant again. Could be she views LE as something like Silva -- an "enlightening" experience.

Opinions, anybody?

Hi Hossgal,

Your question: "Are there LGAT's that are more dangerous (or benign) than others"

There are others in this discussion board more versed than I on this but I'll try and answer :)

To understand the process and potential danger of an LGAT, there are two areas to consider:
1. The philosophy held and taught by the group

2. The psychological process/s used by the group in concert with the possible existance of occult practices

The initial danger with all LGAT's is the lack of disclosure and unethical practice to varing degrees of these 2 factors, inhibiting the attendee from making a fully informed decison whether to attend or not:

1. Attendees are not advised of a course curriculum, its information sources, philosophical schools, possible occult connections and practices, and course outcomes to the extent of an accredited school, university or college course.

2. Attendees are not advised that in order to absorb the non disclosed philosophy they will be put through unknowingly, various psychological processes such as Transactional Analysis, REBT/ CBT and others in a highly controlled environment. In contrast, an ethical psychologist, therapist or counsellor will disclose the process their client will go through combined with an understanding of desired client outcomes.

When the undisclosed philosophy is combined with the unethically practiced and powerful psychological process, two outcomes may happen seperately or in tandem:
a) the attendee to varying degrees, adopts the groups values and beliefs which are usually in stark contrast to former beliefs and values held. ie: if the philosophy, beliefs, values and possible occult connections were presented on paper for the attendee's critical assessment prior to the course, he/she may not even attend.
b) the unethically practiced and undisclosed psychological process may cause a psychotic break in the attendee, (including suicide in documented cases) who may have been healthy or have an undiagnosed psychological condition prior to attendence.

At this level, all LGATs are dangerous.

To determine which LGAT's are more dangerous than others, I see 4 factors that need to be considered:
1. The degree to which the philosophy differs from:
a) the attendee's original thoughts, beliefs and values, (setting the stage for mood swings, disassociation, anxiety, depression and other conditions)
b) the degree to which the philosophy differs from the attendee's family, culture and society, (setting the stage for relationship breakups, loss of employment etc.)

2. The power of the psychological process determined by:
a) the mixture of psychological tools used
b) the intensity and efficency of the psychological tools used
c) the presence of any occult practices

3. The marketing reach of the LGAT determines an LGAT's danger to the broader community. Landmark is the biggest of its type in the world so in this case it is arguably the most dangerous to global society.

4. The nondisclosed motive of the LGAT and its level of success in achieving it as determined from the 3 factors above. Generally the nondisclosed motive is transformation via thought reform of attendees for the purposes of:
a) further enrollment in additional courses for additional $$$
b) creating an unpaid zealot styled workforce for purposes of assisting and selling/promoting courses to friends / family/ co-workers etc.

When all four factors are present and highly rated, then society is dealing with a very dangerous LGAT. One posion is more dangerous than another but a poison is still a poison.

I have not addressed whether an LGAT is dangerous at the individual level. This is a case by case situation.
* Some people walk away unaffected.
* Some have psychotic breaks or even commit suicide.
* Some become zeaolts, obsessed by there new found existentialism.
* Some wake up in months or in years either on their own or through therapy.

The often unmentioned suffers are the loved ones who have to deal with the "transformed" person and their new behaviours or in many cases, suffer the agony of a broken relationship.

Personally, it took me 12 years to wake up from my LGAT. I still have irrational thoughts occasionally triggered from my courses all that time ago. On the other side of the fence I also lost the Love of my Life to Landmark.

A question to all:
If nondisclosure of the LGAT's course content as discribed above is practiced, on this point alone, is it possible to rally public support for accreditation, (and so manditory course content disclosure) of all LGATs? Is this a way to move forward?

RRmoderator - I would value your comment on this question?

Oz

Thanks very much, Corboy and Concerned Oz.

Oz, your assessment of LGATs was very helpful and clear, indeed. I feel fortunate that evdently I'm one who walked away from LE unaffected, except for my anger & disillusionment at their methods and motivation. Of course, as I say this, I also hope I'm not carrying some sort of emotional time bomb. At this moment, I feel stronger and more focused than I've felt in a long time, so I think I'm OK. LE did nothing to alter my "core values".

At any rate, I'm checking in with my psychiatrist next week, and I'm going to let him know just what I think of LE. And recommend that he sign no more waivers for patients to attend LE.

Oz, I like the idea of demanding these organizations have accreditation. Then they would be held accountable. LE would fight that tooth and nail, I expect, as would other LGATs.

Where do we start? Local government? Senators and congressmen? It's definitely worth pursuing! Any lawyers out there in the group??