Well, maybe it does sound vulgar BUT I did get a response. :D

Actually, two responses.

Quote

Sure Alexis...feel free to e-mail us about your experiences (and those of anyone else you may know)
Keep in mind that any experiences from other countries would need a lot of weight behind them if we are to be able to justify all the travel involved (for interviews etc) to our finance department. That is, unless you are prepared to travel to Australia.
Not disrespectful at all, just a tad premature.

Quote

Hi, are you talking from personal experience. We will perhaps be doing interviews in America as well and I'd like to hear more about why you have these views about Landmark.

Thanks and best wishes, Kathryn Bonella

60 MINUTES AUSTRALIA

So .... everyone pleeeeaaase email 60 Minutes Australia to tell them about your bad experiences with landmark no matter where you live. :twisted:

Wow, sounds like they are going after the story.

I hope some folks here email the Landmark experts we have had on this forum. (Guy, and others).

I bet they would interview anonymously someone who had been a Trainer or a higher up.
This is THE big chance to tell the truth about Landmark!

Once one 60 minutes does it, then perhaps the American one will do it too.

Please, if anyone knows the post-Landmark folks on this forum, let them know about this.

Coz

60 Minutes in Sydney Australia is now accepting stories from other countries. The international number is:
+61.2.9438.3433. Sydney time is +10GMT

I understand that it may be hard to go forward and speak to the media but this really may be the opportunity we all need to end this sad and evil attack on our society.

In my discussions with the 60 Minutes producer in Sydney, any interviews will be legally protected, (indemnified). I would imagine your identity would also be protected.

The producer has already spent 1 month on this project with no one coming forward. It will soon need to be closed and this opportunity will be missed. In a strange way, I wish I had done Landmark so I could speak out. Unfortunately, they don't want friends and family, they want YOU to interview.

I pray that people will come forward and stand up for the 1.5 million people who have passed through the turnstiles of Est/Landmark since 1971.

Please seriously think this one over. :)
Oz

I think it is great that 60 minutes do a story, but we need to remember the formula they work to - usually sensational, and sorry, it's not '60 minutes' - it's about 20 min on each story. Not really in-depth enough to thoroughly do away with Landmark. And remember there will be time given to the positive spin from Landmarkians.

But was thinking, that better still would be to get Michael Moore to do his next big documentary on Landmark. It could win an academy award too! He's obviously got the money, and is prepared to take on formidable opposition. He could do it with humour, and he's well known at the moment. We could blitz him with emails with the suggestion.

Concerned Oz wrote---

I understand that it may be hard to go forward and speak to the media but this really may be the opportunity we all need to end this sad and evil attack on our society.

Why? if you have something to say, as many posting here do, go on the record and take a stand!

The truth is that of the 1.5 million that have "gone through the turnstiles" the vast majority don't have complaints. For the minority that do, speak now or forever hold your gripes in anonymity.

Concerend Oz, you claim you wished you had done Landmark so you can be a part of the report. If you think that you need to "end this sad and evil attack on our society" sign yourself up, take the course and then high tail it to Sixty minutes and report what you see.

Think of it as your contribution to society.

"The truth is that of the 1.5 million that have "gone through the turnstiles" the vast majority don't have complaints. For the minority that do, speak now or forever hold your gripes in anonymity."

Interesting truth....I wonder how you managed to contact 1.5 million people to find out their current impression of "going through the turnstiles".

Those names and numbers are supposed to be confidential. :shock:

Of course sorting and resolving all that data would take some time too.... :roll:

:twisted: Guy :twisted:

I was quoting concerned Oz about the 1.5 million. I'm assuming it's true for him since it was a direct quote from his post. So I was responding directly to his assertion to make my point. If those aren't the facts I wouldn't be surprised.

Some people on this board have referred to you as a former "Forum Leader."

Is this true?

Escapeintact,

It's not a question of the 'minority' who were unhappy. It's a question of the deception and manipulation
inflicted on ALL who have done a Landmark course. The 'happy-clappy' people are the ones MOST under
mind-control. And they don't know it.

I would also say that NO way should anyone do the course as you are advocating. It indicates a lack of
understanding of the mind-games which would be played on anyone going into such a thing.

But, do I detect an example of recruitment in action! I would say that you are a Landmarkian who just can't
help themselves! An example of a 'recruitment conversation' if ever I saw one.

Anyway, no one need do a course to get the disgruntled people '60 Minutes' is looking for. There are enough
out there who can fit the bill.

Hi Rachel,

As I have stated in several posts, I did Est many years ago. I liked the seminar but not the organization or recruitment "game", as it was sometimes euphimistically referred to.

Are you speaking from your own personal experience when you write about Landmark Rachel?

My suggestion to Concerned Oz was not a recruitment ploy, it was a challenge to put his money where his mouth is. If he thinks that Landmark is such a threat to society he can investigate it and then expose it if need be.

The vast majority of Landmarkians are highly educated, successful people. They are a bit too touchy-feely for my taste though. A few I met were zealous about enrollment. Most I knew, and this dates back over twenty years, were not enrollment zealots.

The "brainwashing" argument is the only explanation detractors can use to explain why 90% of Landmark participants give high praise for the experience. It has no basis in scientific fact.

Would I recommend Landmark now? NO. In 20 years things may have changed a great deal. And even when I did "enroll" some friends in Est I warned them about the "enrollment" manipulation game. None of them became enrollment zealots. But 6 of us met our future wives either directly or indirectly through our participation. In 20 years there has only been 1 divorce.

We all got together for the first time in years recently and everyone had good things to say about their experiences with Est/Landmark. Even the one guy that got swept up in the IFLP for a while. He's a smart man and he stopped participating when it no longer served him. I was surprised to here how involved he once was with Landmark. It sounded like thet used him to me. But his overall impression was still positive.

You dont have to go through a car crash to know that being in a car crash is a bad experience, best avoided when at all possible.

This URL will take you to a long, long list of articles on mind control/aka thought reform otherwise known as ‘brainwashing’

[culteducation.com]

In the article entitled

[b:2e52a68511]Thought Reform Programs and the Production of Psychiatric Casualties[/b:2e52a68511],

Singer and Ofshe write:

If you don’t like the term ‘brainwashing’ other terms are:

(quote) ‘"thought reform" was introduced into the psychiatric literature by Lifton and the term "coercive persuasion"' by Schein. Both described the organized "ideological remolding" programs introduced by the Chinese Communists after their 1949 takeover…

‘Neither mysterious methods nor arcane new techniques were involved; the effectiveness of thought reform programs did [i:2e52a68511]not [/i:2e52a68511]depend on prison settings, physical abuse, or death threats. Programs used the organization and application of intense guilt/shame/anxiety manipulation, combined with the production of strong emotional arousal in settings where people did not leave because of social and psychological pressures or because of enforced confinement. The pressures could be reduced only by participants' accepting the belief system or adopting behaviors promulgated by the purveyors of the thought reform programs.
Landmark and Est both make use of ‘strong emotional arousal’, use ‘intense guilt/shame/anxiety’ (proportions can vary depending on the seminar) and ‘enforced confinement’.

[b:2e52a68511]Six Conditions for Thought Reform[/b:2e52a68511]
[www.hometown.aol.com]

Six conditions are simultaneously present in a thought reform program:

'obtaining substantial control over an individual's time and thought content,

typically by gaining control over major elements of the person's social and physical environment, systematically creating a sense of powerlessness in the person, manipulating a system of rewards, punishment. and experiences in such a way as to promote new learning of an ideology or belief system advocated by management,manipulating a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in such a way as to inhibit observable behavior that reflects the values and routines of life organization the individual displayed prior to contact with the group, maintaining a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure in the organization and maintaining a non-informed state existing in the subject.'

'The last two conditions work because there is no effective way for the subject to influence the system and because the program moves along in such a way that the subject is [i:2e52a68511]unaware [/i:2e52a68511]of being changed for a hidden organizational purpose.

'In a closed system of logic, [i:2e52a68511]criticism or complaints are handled by showing the subject that he or she is defective, not the organization[/i:2e52a68511]. Observations may be turned around and argued to mean the opposite of what the critic intended.

'When a subject questions or doubts a tenet or rule, attention is called to factual information that suggests some internal contradiction within the belief system or a contradiction with what the subject has been told: the criticism or observation is "turned around" and [i:2e52a68511]the subject made to feel he or she is wrong[/i:2e52a68511]. In effect the subject is told, "You are always wrong; the system is always right."

The system refuses to be modified except by executive order. In addition, by keeping a subject in a non-informed state, [i:2e52a68511]he or she functions in an environment to which he or she is forced to adapt [/i:2e52a68511]in a series of steps, each sufficiently minor so that the subject does not notice change in him- or herself and does not become aware of the goals of the program until late in the process (if ever).

With this point-by-point flow chart in mind, take a look at Drew Kopp’s analysis of the room set up in his 40 page article

[www.u.arizona.edu]

and also read the material on the ‘Manipulating the Room Environment’ thread.

[board.culteducation.com]