In-Reply-To: <1995Dec21.002651.8848@ucbeh> 
Message-ID: 
References: <1995Dec21.002651.8848@ucbeh> 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On 21 Dec 1995 mossja@ucbeh.san.uc.edu wrote:

> Re: Black Lists
> 
> Carol2180@aol.com posts:
> 
> >>And it's not difficult getting off that sort of list.  All you have to do is
> start giving people fully informed choice, start being up front about agendas,
> and stop using thought reform.  Simple.

I recently received a packet of information from the "American Family 
Foundation" which contains about 200 pages of information which are 
intended to indicate that Landmark Education is a "Cult".

I will declare my biases up front.  Much of the material is originated by
fundamentalist Christian organizations who consider any organization that has
many volunteers and doesn't declare "Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior"  to be
a "cult" in the worst possible way (like satanism).  These groups have also
targed Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous as Cults at one time. 

I have participated in Landmark Education programs for almost 5 years, 
and have volunteerd in over 50 Forums and about 40 other courses.  I have 
observed the experiences of about 5000 Forum graduates, including members 
of the Clergy.

There is a document addressing Werner and a Swiss Banker.  According to 
the article, the banker loaned $15 million which "dissappeared".  Werner 
had several associates who were engaging in a variety of projects 
including "The Hunger Project", "Prison Possibilities", and "Youth at 
Risk".  Werner often directed money to these groups.  There may have been 
one or two unscroupulous recipients as well.  Eventually, Werner sold 
Landmark Education to the employees (about 75 staff members at that 
time), and gave them the right to Licence the technology to business 
consultants and executive training firms.  The other organizations, 
organized as non-profit orginizations, are not affiliated with Landmark 
except that Landmark Graduates often volunteer in these organizations.

Landmark offers a sequence of programs called the "Cirriculum for Living" 
in which the final program gives participants the opportunity to create a 
project in their community and be coached and trained in fulfilling that 
project for 3 months.  Often the projects take on Epic proportions.  I 
took on the project of making the Internet available to non-technical 
people.  One participant took on ending corneal blindness on the planet 
and has opened over 100 eye-banks world-wide.  One graduate took on 
taking lambskin condoms off the market (these pass the AIDS virus).  
Another took on having Ministers trained in Landmark technology.  One 
group of 5 women took on peace in the Middle East and met with Rabin and 
Arafat personally.  At least once a week, someones Self Expression and 
Leadership project "Pops" gaining national recognition.  Each participant 
chooses his or her own project.  They enroll other leaders, and 
eventually set it so that the project will succeed "Even if you died 
tomorrow".

Today, Landmark is an employee owned corporation.  It pays taxes, files 
SEC reportings, and is subject to all U.S. regulatory agencies.  The 
staff is adamant about reporting only legitimate receipted expendatures.

There was an article dated June 1986 which examines Werner's personal 
life.  Again, this irrelevant.  He has since sold the company and the new 
management has structured the organization to be subject to all 
governement regulations.  Even the "four day forum" is almost antique 
compared to todays "three day forum".  He talked about the notes passed 
between the supervisor (back of the room) and the leader.  (As the 
author, I know much of it is things like - your coffee will be ready in 5 
minutes, 2 people (names) came in 2 minutes late, but they are ready to 
participate fully.... a forum leader is in front of the room for almost 
14 hours streight - meanwhile they are trying to fix his lunch, get him 
messages from friends and family (an average of 5 calls/hour).  Once in a 
while, there will be a note about what a participant wants to get out of 
the Forum.  It's like trying to predict how long an argument will take to 
resolve - when the participant hasn't resolved it in 10 years.

Leading the Forum is an interesting challenge.  Imagine an encounter 
group or an A.A. meeting with 200 people in it, that lasts for 16 hours 
(4 4 hour segments/day plus 30-90 minute breaks) for 3 days.  It's not 
unusual for people to be "triggered" by certain sections.  When it 
happens, 20 people instantly have to go to the bathroom, 10 more appear 
to have gone into a drunken stupor.  In less than 5 minutes, everyone is 
back, alert, awake, and ready to share with the person sitting next to 
them.

There is a story of someone who died in the middle of an EST training 
session - in 1983.  He had a heart attack that the leader didn't 
recognize as such.  Today, all participants are screened prior to the 
Forum.  If there is any doubt about physical or mental health, 
participants are required to send a note from a therapist or doctor 
indicating that there is no significant danger.  On the Music Stand in 
front and in back of the room is a typewritten note:
	"Is every participant well?"

Landmark goes to great pains to make sure that nothing like that happens 
again.  Participants who leave, or do not return from a break are reached 
to see if they need support.  In some cases, people will have medical 
conditions such as asthma, diabetes, or blood pressure, normally 
completely under control and dormant, become major problems.  If there is 
uncertainty, they participant is encouraged to complete the Forum at a 
later time.  In some cases, they return and discover that the illness is 
actually "triggered", just like the bladder and narcolepsy, and they 
complete the conversation over the phone and return to complete the 
Forum, happy and healthier than they have ever been.

Another article, dated 1981, speaks of an employee who was pressured into 
taking EST by her employers.  Today, not only are you encouraged to leave 
the Forum (with FULL REFUND) if you are pressured (condition of 
employment, ultimatum alternative to divorce, pre-condition of 
marriage...), the person who applied that pressure is warned that this is 
not how Landmark does business.  People who register for the Forum are 
given a minimum of 2 calls during which they are asked if they have been 
pressured to do the Forum.  About 5% of those who register in the Forum 
are taken out because they were pressured.  The person applying the 
pressure is often warned not to do this again.

There is an article about the Young People's training.  Again this was 
dated 1980.  There is a Children's forum about once/year.  Students who 
take it generally have an improvement in grades, socialization skills, 
and relationships to authority figures.  The Teen Forum deals with the 
teenagers obsession with "looking good" even to the point of rebelling 
against parents and authority figures - for the sake of "looking good".
The entire family is encouraged to participate.  At least one custodial 
parent must have completed the Forum, and the other custodial parent must 
agree to let the child do the Forum if applicable.  The assistants in the 
family program want to make sure that the Child's participation won't 
disrupt the family.

There is another article dated March 1980, which describes a series of 
guided meditations called the "Process".  They don't do the process 
anymore.  In fact the leaders do everything they can to keep you awake 
and concious.  They do have a "Fear Exercise" but it is nothing like the 
one described, and the Forum leaders are not allowed to use abusive or 
obscene language (they actually pay fines if they do).  Anything 
resembling group hypnosis has been removed from all Landmark Programs.

The next article describes Erhard's personal history.  There are 
religeous implications that Erhard had "heretical" beliefs.  That he 
believed that "God and Self are One", and a series of other nonsensical 
"spiritual insights".  None of this is present in the current Forum.  
Often, there is a point when someone raises the issue of "But what of 
God", and the Forum leader says something like "If your belief in God 
empowers you, then choose it, keep it".  Then there is the realization 
that many people in the room have the same relationship with God that 
they had with an abusive parent.  As one clerical Forum graduate put it 
"The Forum gave me the realization that I was able to constantly CHOOSE 
my relationship with God, rather than having it be a burdon".

There is an article about the Hunger Project.  The only implied 
connection between the two today is that there are Forum graduates who 
volunteer for "The Hunger Project".  The goal of this organization is "To 
end hunger by the year 2000".  They have worked to accomplish this goal 
by organizing economic development in third world countries.  Many 
countries in India, Asia, and South America have been declared "Emerging 
Markets" as a result of efforts organized by the Hunger Project.  The 
goal isn't to give people fish, the goal is to give them nets and teach 
them how to fish.

Suddenly, we discover that the Author of the previous several articles, 
Kevin Garvey was a staff writer for "Christianity Today" in 1977.  The 
discription he gives of est at that time is unrecognizable.  Today's 
Forum is almost nothing like that.

The only concept that is still common is the concept that "Reality" as 
defined by our Past, is often used to limit us in what we even attempt to 
accomplish in the future.  One could say - since there has been war in 
the Middle East for 6,000 years, it's rediculous to believe there could 
ever be peace.  When the limitations of the past are discarded on 
exchange for a possible future where the middle east is "A center of 
economic opportunity, a place where the children of Arabs and Jews can 
grow up in safety and cooperation".  There is suddenly the possibility of 
peace.  The appropriate actions that result from choosing that path 
include negotiating the structures that will make this a reality, setting 
up the schedules and timetables - as if one was standing in the future, 
remembering how it was accomplished.

The Clergy who have taken the Forum have seen that they, and their 
churches, are often limited by the past.  When considering the world and 
the "possible future" from the Christian perspective, they can often 
achieve unprecedented results in their own communities.  Groups like 
Habitat for Humanity and Hand-to-Hand have made ending poverty in 
american and restoring ethics, integrity, and values to the culture a 
reality.

The Forum is like a tool, or an automobile.  In the hands of a 
intoxicated driver, the automobile is a lethal killing machine.  In the 
hands of a skilled surgeon, a razor sharp knife becomes an instrument for 
saving people's lives.  Landmark attempts to ensure that the Forum is 
available to people who are sane and responsible.   Once in a while, a 
fanatic or meglomaniac might slip through.

There is an article on "The Strange World of EST", copyrighted in 1982, 
which gives some of Erhard's credentials (Zen, hypnosis, yoga, Gestalt, 
encounter therapy, transpersonal psychology, and Scientology among 
others).  Of note:  Since Landmark was sold to the staff, the Forum has 
evolved under the leadership of 75 Forum Leaders.  Even in the 5 years 
since my first Forum, the approach has gone from hacking with a machete' 
to pain-free surgery with a scalpel.  Often, participants would stand up 
and physically threaten the Forum leaders.  Today, people have concerns 
and questions, but they are less likely to get violent about it.

The current Forum programs include distinctions from Alcoholics Anonymous
(Steps and Traditions), Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Bhuddism, and builds on
concepts introduced by Ghandi, John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Nelson 
Mandela, Einstein, Heidiger, Tom Peters, Tony Robbins, and Ronald Reagan.

There is a statement of "The EST Philosophy"
	Rules About Life by Werner Erhard
	1. Life has no Rules
	2.

The current "Landmark Philosophy" is quite a bit different.
	Life is a Series of Choices.
	Each Choice has Consequences.
	You are responsible for each Choice and it's Consequences.

By some point Sunday night, a participant is given this:
	"Your life" , Choose.
	I choose my life, because I choose my life.

With that choice, one takes responsibility for all of the consequences of 
all of the choices made up to that moment.  This gives one the freedom to 
make new choices with new consequences.  One can choose to stop resenting 
authority figures, to become a partner with one's boss, to do God's Will 
without remorse...  Each individual can make his own choices.  Each 
individual begins to see that they can make a whole new set of choices to 
create a future that empowers themselves and others.

As of the last quote I have heard, about 3 million people have done 
the Forum.  Each graduate impacts an "Inner circle" of about 50 people.  
When they complete the Self Expression and Leadership Program (about 30% 
of all Forum graduates get this far), graduates will impact a network 
averaging about 2000 people.

The current Forum Leader body is very different from Werner Erhard.  
Integrity - being your word - has become a critical requirement among the 
leader bodies.  Even in the entry level leadership programs, participants 
are required to streighten up their finances (balance check-books, catch 
up any past-due debts), their physical space (living space and office 
organized), and relationships (contact family and friends and clean up 
any resentments).  Out of 100 entry level participants, 2 will eventually 
lead seminars.  About 1 in 5,000 is interviewed as a potential Forum 
Leader.  In 5 years, the Forum Leader body has gone from 75 to 85.  The 
leaders are fully aware of the potential for abuse, and do everything 
they can to screen out potential abusers.  Today, Werner Erhart wouldn't 
meet the Criteria for being a Forum Leader.  I took the entry level 
program and never even made it to the next level (leading introductions).

I have seen a televised interview with Werner (videotaped), and found 
Werner to be a bit parnoid.  On the other hand, he had the good sense to 
let go and let the company grow.

> Carol, you have an amazing way of writing.  It is 100% insinuation.

> One would assume from what you are writing, that LEC:
 (1) does not give people fully informed choice;
 (2) has hidden agendas; 
 and
 (3) uses thought reform.


> Let's test this:  first of all, let's hear from you what you consider a fully
> informed choice, and what you consider a hidden agenda.  Spell it out, briefly
> but completely.  Speak in terms of facts, not characterizations.  Then let
> someone else in this newsgroup try and go to register for the Forum without
> finding out whatever you say the hidden agenda is.  Of course, if it's a hidden
> agenda that even we who have done the Forum haven't found out about either,
> then maybe you're full of it.  Who does know of this hidden agenda?  The
> volunteers?  The Forum leaders?  Werner Erhard?  The llluminati?  The KGB?

One of the interesting ironies, and jokes, is that once you have attended 
an introduction to the Forum, you actually have an experience of the 
Forum.  The introduction leaders are trained to create two or three of 
the most significant distinctions and provide examples from their own 
lives.  From December to February, and from June until August, the 
enrollment assistants can even recreate a distinction or two.  In a 
"Special Evening", a real Forum Leader will get in front of 200 people 
and demonstrate about 20 of the most important distinctions from the 
Forum.  This always includes "Listening through a filter", "Already 
Always Listening", "Uncollapsing the Past", and "Taking Appropriate 
Committed Action".  Of course, you can't hear them as distinctions until 
after you've registered.

People often review the Forum, or assist in the Forum because they 
realize they weren't listening to distinctions when they were in the 
Forum the first time.  The "ground-rules", are actually a whole series of 
distinctions giving access to excellence and extraordinary performance.
When I took the Forum the first time, I kept thinking "let's get through 
this so we can get on with the Forum".  It was only when assisting on a 
Friday morning (I took a vacation day), that I realized that the ground 
rules WAS the Forum.  I sat in on introductions for almost 3 weeks before 
I realized that the most important parts of the entire Forum were 
included in the "Introductory Seminar".

My brother went to an introduction, realized that for 30 years, he had 
been comparing himself to me (the "brain"), and decided he was stupid.  
In the introduction, he realized that he had built his own computer, 
taught himself to program it well enough that he wrote software for the 
U.S. army to manage the deployment of resources during a war.  He 
realized that this was not a stupid kid.

Out of the insight, he didn't choose to do the Forum.  He called me to 
tell me that he had set himself up to get a 4 year degree as a software 
engineer.  This was a kid who dropped out of High School at age 18 
because he was still in 10th grade.

Actually, most Landmark Centers have their agenda pasted on plaques all 
over the walls.  It sounds more like a historical document today ("we 
stand for a world where cultural barriers are trancended".  Can someone 
submit the "Landmark Charter"?  There is nothing secret about it.  It's 
a bit wordy.  It was actually generated by about 2000 graduates.

> As to thought reform:  the Forum does indeed change the way you think forever. 
> Not *what* you think, as in, what your opinions are.  But *how* you think. 
> Because in the Forum you come to see what you think *as* what you think,
> instead of as "just the way it is."  But I thoroughly deny that your thinking
> is manipulated or unduly influenced in the Forum.  There is no *covert*
> influence on your thinking going on.  It is an extraordinarily overt
> conversation about your thinking.  That's the whole point.  That's what the
> thing is.  Do you think that it's invalid for a person to be interested in such
> a course?  If you don't think so, can't you see that there is nothing LEC could
> ever do to get taken of your blacklist, without giving up its essential
> contribution?

Actually, there IS a complete shift in how one thinks out of the Forum.  
It actually happens when their "pitching" the "Advanced Course".  The 
shift is when one realizes that we act as if who we are in the present is 
determined entirely by the past.  If that was true, we should be bushed 
on Friday, and refreshed and ready to work on Monday.

Then it is pointed out that what gives us being who we are is given by the
future we are living into.  If we know that we are about to loose our jobs,
we can get very upset, worried, "stressed".  If we knew we had just won the
lottery, we might live into the future a bit differently.  By the time I
completed the Forum, I had 3 job offers sitting on the table, and a Job I
already Loved.  My biggest problem was choosing the action which would give
the best (unforseen) results. I made a choice, there were consequences, 
and I could be completely responsible for them.  Ultimately, that choice 
impacted the lives of 125 million people on the planet (making the 
internet available to the general population).  Ironically, I didn't net 
a personal fortune - I was choosing to remain anonymous, rather than risk 
having the project killed by someone who didn't like my politics, 
personality, or life-style.

> I think the person who said, "If they weren't a cult, they wouldn't be on list"
> -- that person must not be a member of any minority group.  

More likely, they have never been on a black-list.  It's easy to get on 
someone's list.  All one has to do is voice an opinion with which someone 
can disagreee, or fail to voice an opinion consistant with the opinions 
of the group making the list.

> People who are
> members of minority groups know that it's very easy to get on the black list of
> a large number of people for no reason at all; that once one's group is on a
> black list people are very ingenious in gathering evidence to justify that; and
> that to totally dispel a negative judgement once it has been popularized is a
> well nigh miraculous achievement.  All the Forum had to do to get black listed
> is be different.

In the late 1920's Stalin put all of his "enemies" into the Gulag, 
including their wives and children.  Those who did not publicly agree 
with Stalin, or appeared to be too "intellectual", made the list.

In the late 1930's, people who did not denounce Judaism and endorse the 
Nazis were sent to camps as communists and Jewish Sympathizers.  Often 
these were the first to be killed.  Deitrich Bonhoffer (SIC) eventually 
died in the camps.

In the 1950's anyone who did not denounce communism (give names of 
communists/sympathizers) was obviously a communist.  To avoid being 
blacklisted, people gave names of anyone they didn't like.  This was 
sufficient grounds to warrant a detailed investigation of all past 
activities and organizations of the person named on the list.

In the 1970's entire states made it onto Nixon's "list", Colorado was the 
first to feel the "gas crisis" because they cast their electoral votes 
for Humphrey in 1968.  The United Presbyterian Church was put on the list 
because they contributed money to the "Angela Davis" defense fund.

In 1990, the American Family Foundation decided that any group which did 
not mandate "Christian Fundamentalist Values" was a cult.  The chief 
people deciding who should make that list - men like Pat Robertson (CBN), 
Dr. K. Dobson (Focus on the Family), and Jerry Falwell.

Blacklists have been around since the days of Noah :-).  Ramises 
blacklisted the first-born of all hebrew children.  Herod blacklisted 
hebrew children in Judea under the age of 2.  Nero Blacklisted the 
Christians.  The Crusaders blacklisted the Moslems.  The Moslems 
blacklisted the Jews.  The Inquisitioners blacklisted most women, all 
midwives, and most sexually active adults.  Queen Mary, King James, Queen 
Elizabeth, Cromwell, Napoleon, Lennon, Stalin, and Hitler all had their "Lists".

I was even on a KKK "hate list", for conducting rational discussions 
which poked holes in the claim that the only cure for the "breakdown in 
family values" was "internment of all "welfare mothers" and conscript 
labor for all delinquent fathers".

The strategy of a black-list is simple.  Carefully target groups for 
which you can get agreement (Gays, Retards, Mentally Disturbed...), and 
target larger groups as their ability to generate opposition deminishes.

The biggest reason that Landmark is on the "Cult List" is that they stand 
for a world "Where cultural barriers are transcended, where making a
difference, and improving the quality of life, is on everybody's agenda". 

	There were a number of Landmark Graduates who stood against the 
	persecution of Gays on the basis of perceived sexual preference.
	(Amendment #2 in Colorado).  In other words, you can't beat me up 
	because you think I might be Gay.  Other laws in that state prevent 
	Gays from "making passes at coworkers".

	There were Landmark Graduates who stood against the ban on aid to 
	women who had abortions.

	There were Landmark Graduates who stood against the discrimination 
	against divorced people.  Who stood for divorce laws which were not 
	intended to be punitive in nature.  Who stood for the possiblitiy of 
	arbitration rather than litigation.

	Of course, there were also those graduates who stood for having the 
	leaders of several Fundamentalist Christian Churches complete the Forum.
	Another graduate wanted Republicans to do the forum.
	The product of this was the "Contract for America".

	Because Landmark doesn't try to restrict or direct the Ideology of 
	it's graduates, there are times when diverse elements end up 
	converging in interesting ways.  The demolition of the Berlin Wall, 
	the Middle East Peace Accord, and the end of Apartheid in South 
	Africa were generated by Landmark Graduates.  Landmark's programs 
	are designed to cause breakthroughs in what is possible.



	Rex Ballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.




From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Dec 27 00:07:34 1995
Status: O
X-Status: 
Newsgroups: alt.self-improve,alt.fan.landmark,sci.psychology.misc