- [Blair] Hello, everyone, and welcome back to the channel. My name is Blair, or the Iiluminaughtii, and today we're going to be getting into yet another business that some have argued operates like a cult. This company may not be
as well-known as Lululemon or most MLMs I've talked about. It's called Landmark Worldwide. Today isn't so much a crazy, wild ride with outrageous claims, but we're taking a peek behind the curtain and looking into what this company does that's had people wary
and skeptical of it. So, let's jump right in. (electronic music) Landmark Worldwide,
according to its website, "Is an international personal
and professional growth, training and developing company with a range of offerings
that are innovative, effective, and immediately relevant. Landmark's leading-edge methodology enables people to produce
extraordinary results and enhance the quality of their lives. Landmark's courses and seminars are offered in more than 125 cities via 53 major offices around the world. More than 193,000 people participate in Landmark's courses every year." I'm sure a lot of you
that work an office job have heard of corporate seminars
or things of that nature. The idea of a three-day weekend that teaches people about
getting ahead in business, what success means, or
things of that nature, is not uncommon. Landmark Education has been
around since the early '90s, and their entry course, Landmark Forum, seems to be nothing more
than a development seminar, that is, until you start
to dig a little bit deeper. In order to understand Landmark, we have to understand EST,
or Erhard Seminars Training. Werner Erhard, "The father of self-help," as he's been described
by The New York Times, started his seminars in the '70s. I'm not saying he was
the only one doing this, but his seminars easily became some of the most
controversial at that time. According to my source,
"Aspiring 'ESTies' flocked to hotel ballrooms across the country for combative training sessions during which they forwent
meal and bathroom breaks to take responsibility for their lives and 'get it' by discovering
there was nothing to get." "The criticism intensified as EST grew. It was labeled a cult that
practiced mind control, verbal abuse, sleep deprivation, a racket that exploited its followers, heavy recruiting, endless
'graduate seminars'." "Much was made of Mr. Erhard's
tangled Don Draperish past: his days as a car
salesman in Philadelphia, his dabbling in Mind
Dynamics and Scientology, his desertion of his first
wife and their four children to reinvent himself on the West Coast." "In 1985, he repackaged EST as the Forum, a kinder, gentler
iteration of the training that was also more success-oriented." 'In the '80s, people started
to think a little bit, and it was possible to use a less-confrontational style,' he said. But tax disputes, company lawsuits, and an ugly divorce from his second wife kept Mr. Erhard in the
news media cross hairs." Word about Mr. Erhard began to spread, and none of it looked good. "His name was fake, lifted from
an Esquire article he read," that made reference to Ludwig Erhard, a minister of economics, and Werner Heisenberg,
an atomic scientist. Mr. Werner Erhard was
really born Jack Rosenberg. In 1991, the IRS officials publicly accused Erhard of tax fraud. At the same time, "60 Minutes"
broadcast a report on him that depicted him as "An
abusive father and husband who molESTed two daughters
from his second marriage." Just before the show was televised, he sold the Forum and fled the country. Things got worse and worse for Erhard, even though he claims the allegations were just a smear campaign organized by Scientology officials to get back at him for
poaching clients and ideas. Strangely enough, he may not
be wrong about that, either. Mr. Erhard sued the IRS itself for falsely claiming he evaded taxes and won almost a quarter of
a million dollars in damages. The daughter that accused
him of abuse recanted, admitting she lied to
receive an advance on a book. The "60 Minutes" segment, it turned out, was riddled with so many discrepancies that CBS even deleted it
from its public archives. So no, I don't believe Erhard is nearly as horrible as people believed, and I think it's pretty common knowledge that it's far harder to
repair a bad reputation than it is to get one in the first place. A lot of accusations hurled
his way were unfounded, and CBS should've done
their proper fact checking before ever airing that
first "60 Minutes" expose. Is he shady and untrustworthy with questionable seminars? Perhaps, but that doesn't
give anyone a right to wrongly label him as
a child molester either. However, the reason I bring this up at all is because to this day, people
question EST's old methods, as well as what they became at Landmark. One GQ article reads, "The Landmark Forum is the streamlined,
highly gentler offspring of the pinnacle of the
'70s counter movement, EST. In EST's heyday, large
groups of groovy seekers were reportedly locked in rooms for as long as 20 hours a day
over two consecutive weekends and subjected to fantastic group pressure, verbal abuse, and brutal honESTy, all in the name of self-empowerment, personal transformation, and
the ego of EST's creator, a onetime car salesman turned publisher named Jack Rosenberg,
a.k.a, Werner Erhard. In 1991, with lawsuits pending
and a potentially damning '60 Minutes' expose was about to create loads of bad publicity,
Erhard sold the technology of transformation to a group
of his former employees and split the country. His followers eventually formed a company called Landmark Education. Landmark now has over 400
employees in 21 countries. Its 2003 revenues were
approximately $67 million. The Landmark Forum is
the flagship seminar, a $400 three-day
public/personal inquisition through which participants
seek a transformation, a breakthrough to 'living powerfully.'" Even though Erhard, or
Jack Rosenberg, whoever, was unjustly attacked, I think it's safe to
say to Landmark was born of questionable circumstances. People labeled EST as
mind-controlling and a cult long before the "60 Minutes"
show ever aired, after all. But the Landmark Forum has been developed by different people and it's
in a new time now, right? Well, don't hold your breath. Erhard as been involved in
numerous projects along with EST, such as The Hunger Project. Around that time, Hunger
Project was criticized as a group that had no intention of actually feeding the starving, but just raising awareness of hunger. They've even been called an
offshoot of EST in the past with the vice president
and secretary treasurer of Hunger Project both being members of the EST advisory board. This goes way back, though,
to the '70s and '80s. Erhard's no longer on their board today, and The Hunger Project
seems to have cut ties with his organization. This is just to say that when Erhard gets
involved with a project, it doesn't seem to elicit
a very positive response. So, because Landmark is so
deeply rooted in Erhard's values, I'm not sure how much
good they have to offer, but I'm willing to be proven wrong, so let's go ahead and start with what people have
said about their seminars, the good, and the bad. Now, these reviews, as expected, were a bit of a mixed bag. Even though I know this
company isn't at all like The Girl Scouts, I
think the similarity here is that the experience
is almost going to depend entirely on the leader you get and the activities you do. Some people might be
fine sitting down all day just listening to a group leader talk about how to change your life. Some people might get
bored of that really easily and say the long hours
were killer for them. If a leader is dynamic and entertaining, I'm sure that would help, whereas, if they're talking to someone in a monotone voice all day, I can't imagine someone
having a fantastic experience. So, whether you've had a fantastic time or horrible time with
Landmark, that's valid. I just want to go over
some firsthand accounts to see if anything
particularly worrying surfaced. The first review I found on
YouTube was largely positive. The young woman in the video said that as difficult as it was
for her to sit all day, she found that Landmark really did change her view of the world. She claimed that she hadn't seen her mother as a person before, and this helped her view
the individual people in her life differently. Then another article called "Skeptic Goes to the Landmark
Forum" by Tiago Forte read, "I walked away from the Landmark Forum with a whole new
relationship with my father as my biggest breakthrough. It's been almost a year and a half, and it's only gotten better since then. He's no longer a threat to me, no longer an angry and
close-minded curmudgeon I have to contain and avoid. He's a friend and partner in life. We can tell each other anything, even on topics where we don't agree. I've become a passionate advocate of the work that Landmark is doing. I know of nothing that
comes remotely close in its ability to change
lives in such a short time. About a dozen of my friends and family have taken it since then. Every one has come back to thank me for sharing with them one of the most meaningful
experiences of their lives, especially the skeptical ones." Tiago's relationship with his father seems like it's improved a
ton, and that's fantastic. Hell, even an article from
The Guardian says that though the author thought he'd
be brainwashed, he was wrong. It says, "Landmark takes
you away from life. The three days create
a bubble of possibility in which we were able
to try on new opinions and experiment with fresh behaviors." Again, that's awesome. This is great that these
seminars have helped some people, and I'll give credit where it's due. But just as Landmark has
had its share of advocates, it also has its share of critics who claim that it's nothing
more than a feel-good weekend and it's wildly uncomfortable. Other sources have said, "If, like me, you are not in the habit of sharing highly personal tidbits of your life with 148 strangers for 13 hours
a day, three days in a row, then let me, uh, share with you what that experience feels like. It feels like intergalactic jet lag, or like someone has pumped your head full of a global weather system, heavy on the cumulonimbus. Some of the 148 strangers
were crying so much, they looked as if they'd been boiled. We had all paid $550 each to
spend a glorious summer weekend in a fluorescent-lighted
basement meeting room neat Madison Square Garden,
at the Landmark Forum." "The Forum I attended generated a Comedie Humaine's worth
of plot development: a 33-year-old woman called her mother to say that she's gay; a 30-something gentleman called his mother of his illegitimate child and
said he wanted to be involved in the life of the child whom he had theretofore so wholly ignored; a 19-year-old woman
read a letter she wrote to three men who raped
her four years earlier. What sets all this soul-baring in motion? Here's the setup. During class, there are two
30-minute daytime breaks and a 90-minute one for dinner; each break brings an assignment. You're not allowed to
take notes during class, it's too distracting, and the
only thing you can consume in the room is water." "If you tell Roger," the Forum leader, "My boss was surly and unpleasant," Roger will say: 'No, she
wasn't surly and unpleasant. What did she say?' This is grueling to watch, though it leads to some breakthroughs; the exercise's humiliation axis is highly reminiscent
of 'Antiques Roadshow.' Once the conflict has been limned, the sharer is encouraged, regardless of his
antagonistic malfeasance, to forgive or apologize
to that antagonist, a fact that is caused
by one of my classmates, hilariously, to raise her
hand at one point to ask, 'Is the other person ever wrong?'" Although this writer, Henry Alford, is from The New York Times, said that he resented Roger
for the pressure put on him, he believed it did help him months later. Another writer from the
Time Magazine also attended a Landmark Forum led by Roger Smith. I'm not 100% sure if his name
is Roger, though, but anyway. He wrote that "When I stepped
to the mike at Landmark, I thought I could start by
offering a mild testimonial, so I said, blandly, that
even as a freelancer, I still felt unable to make
enough time for my kids. Smith immediately gutted
even that disclosure. 'There's no such thing as being torn between
work and family,' he said. Smith is not a trained therapist. Landmark has been criticized for delving into the traumas of largely
unscreened participants without having mental-health
professionals on hand, but I found him to be
remarkably insightful. He saw through my timid testimony and got right to the truth: if I can't handle being
a full-time parent, it's probably because I don't want to. I couldn't argue with him, not because he had a clever script, but because he was right." This writer didn't continue
with Landmark after the seminar, but he says he did benefit from having a mirror placed in front of him like that and being told a brutal truth. With The New York Times
as well as Time Magazine both falling into this gray area, it made me feel a bit uncertain. I haven't really seen
any cult-like behaviors, but at the same time, not having mental-health
professionals on hand is a bit questionable. So, we've seen reviews that love them and reviews that are mixed, but what about those that hate them? A few snippets from the
Cult Education Institute have far more negative
things to say about Landmark, and saw the entire experience
from a different light. Here's a few highlights. "A friend signed me up
for the Landmark Forum. She said it changed her life. I attended last Friday and walked out at the second break after five hours. I was appalled at their tactics. I am still in disbelief that others didn't see through their smoke
screen and leave as well. They said we couldn't take notes and then scolded some of the
participants publicly who were. Then, the leader said, 'If you don't follow the ground rules, you must have a personal
issue with authority,' an amazing manipulative argument making someone else the problem, keeping you from logically
doubting their ludicrous tactics. What type of education seminar forbids you from taking notes? These people are masters of control. I saw it early on. They were humiliating people
at the microphone as well, shortly before the second break. Besides that, there was
no water in the room. The leader lost her cool when a participant moved their chair, and she publicly lashed her for doing that and told her to move it back. How odd. The leader also rudely scolded
one of her staff members in front of everyone. She said, 'Watch the door,'
because 'someone just left!' Then, all of a sudden, she got
that sweet smile on her face. She must have caught herself, a little too late since we
all noticed she had a facade." A second testimony reads, "As a survivor of the
destructive EST and Forum, I applaud you for showing the world what a horrible and deceptive bunch of creeps these people are. I'm going to post my
story about the damage Werner Erhard did to my life. In short, he ruined it. I was abused as a child
at home by my parents who attended this training. They forced me to raise myself, and they told me that I created all the bad things that happened to me. They, in essence, were
programmed to believe that they didn't have to raise me because I was already a grown human who was responsible for
my actions and tragedies. EST destroyed my life in so many ways. If I could save one person
from these people, I would." And lastly, another
disturbing review claimed, "I attended a Landmark session and it led me to contact an
abusive brother who despises me. I endured one and a half hours
of devastating abuse from him as I apologized, thanks to
my Landmark brainwashing. Afterwards, I was disoriented, but lucky enough to have a boyfriend who came and collected me, where I stood lost on the
street in a very familiar city. I wanted to walk out under a bus. When he got back to the hotel I broke. All I wanted was to kill myself, though out of moral duty, was willing to go to a mental hospital for the rest of my life instead." Clearly Landmark isn't for everyone. I think it might be able to do great good having people reach out to
family members and friends that they have fractured
relationships with. It's absolutely helped some people, and I won't deny that based
on the earlier testimony. However, some people have
cut abusers and manipulators and horrible people out of
their life for a reason, and if Landmark is encouraging or even demanding their
attendees contact those people, that is damaging. I'm not so sure I'd be thinking straight after three days of relentless positivity with little water and sleep. This is why, if anything,
they should absolutely have mental-health professionals
on hand at the very least. So, as for this, are their
seminars helpful portion, my final answer is, it depends. I don't know how many
people have left Landmark feeling furious, hurt, or in tears versus feeling invigorated or inspired. Regardless of the ratio
between good or bad, there seems to be enough negative stories to make me believe they're mishandling at least some aspects of the program. I'll leave that up to you guys
to make up your own minds, but we're going to get more
into the black and white issues that Landmark's had over the years. And let's take a moment from
the insanity of today's video to talk about today's sponsor, ExpressVPN. So, you guys know the deal. ExpressVPN protects your privacy
and security online, right? And you guys even know that ExpressVPN can be used to work with Netflix, so you can watch shows and things that are not available in your area. You can watch "Doctor
Who" over on Netflix UK, same with "Star Trek: Discovery". If you wanna go over to Canda Netflix, you can check out
"Brooklyn 99" over there, and "Ricky and Morty" is
over on France Netflix. And if you're interested
in checking out some anime, you can go to Japanese Netflix
with ExpressVPN as well and take a look at
everything over there, too. There are hundreds of VPNs out there, but the reason I use
ExpressVPN to watch shows is because it's ridiculously fast. There's never buffering
or lag, at least for me, and you can stream in
HD with no problem, too, which is (kisses) chef's kiss. So, if you wanna get started right now and get ExpressVPN, go
to expressvpn.com/casket where you can get an extra
three months for free. Support the show, watch what you want, and protect your identity online by going to expressvpn.com/casket. (electronic music) Now, before I talk about the legal battles Landmark has been in, there's
one thing I want to address. If you search Landmark Education lawsuits, you may come across a
wrongful death lawsuit. It sounds serious, it looks bad, especially considering
the last review we read, but this is not the Landmark
Education we're talking about. This was a recent lawsuit brought up against a district in California
at Landmark Middle School. I know this may sound
dumb to even bring this up because this is the internet
and people make mistakes, but I don't want anyone
looking into this lawsuit just to read a headline
and make an assumption. There is a separate wrongful
death lawsuit we will get into, but it's not quite the same. Landmark wasn't at fault in the same way. So anyway, let's get into the legal issues Landmark Forum has faced. One of the first lawsuits
came in the mid-90s when Landmark Education sued CAN, the Cult Awareness Network,
for calling them a cult. The case itself involved a dispute over the legality and applicable usage of what Matthews termed cult
indoctrination practices. CAN later settled and made a statement that it did not consider
Landmark Education a cult as part of the settlement agreement. From the sounds of it, even though the Cult Awareness
had some good concerns and points to be made, they didn't have nearly enough to accuse Landmark of
being an actual cult. They made points about sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition and sensory
overload at Landmark Forum, but calling them a cult crossed the line. Landmark Forum won this case, but they lost the next one in 2004. Landmark tried to sue Rick Ross, one of their greatest
critics and a culture expert. Not Rick Ross the rapper, for the record. He's the director of the
Cult Education Institute, a source we used earlier
for these anonymous stories about Landmark Forum. It's no surprise to me that Landmark tried to shut the Cult Education Institute down after they did the same with CAN, but things didn't play out
the same way this time. Now, the thing is, Rick Ross has his own strange and rocky past. Some argue he's not credible
while other sources hail him as an expert deprogrammer. Regardless, he became a
massive headache for Landmark. According to one source, "In June 2004, Landmark sued Ross and the Ross Institute in
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting claims of product disparagement, tortious interference with ongoing and prospective business relations, trademark disparagement
under the Lanham Act, consumer fraud and unfair competition under New Jersey law,
and prima facie tort. Ross and the Institute filed an answer in September 2004 without
moving to dismiss. In it, they asserted various defenses, including that the statements
were statements of opinion, the fair comment privilege,
and lack of actual malice. The details are not clear, but Landmark appears to have voluntarily dismissed the case in December 2005." The reason why this proved to be such a massive loss for Landmark is because unlike in the '90s, this shows that, at least to some extent, that they can't argue
against Rick Ross' claims. I'm not saying that this does
make them a cult for sure, it just doesn't make them look good. But Landmark's reputation only got worse, and much, much worse. In fact, around the same
timeframe, in the early 2000s, according to Tulsa World, a
newspaper in Tulsa, Oklahoma, "Attorneys for Jason Weed and the family of the Tulsa postman he
killed agree on one thing, that a motivational seminar he attended days before the shooting drove him insane, according to a pending civil lawsuit. But attorneys representing
Landmark Education Corp., the company that hosted
the educational seminar, maintained that the
accusations are baseless and that the company was drawn
into the suit only for money. Weed shot postman Robert Jenkins to death on December 12th, 2001, but was found not guilty
by reason of insanity. He is in custody at a
federal medication facility, at least for now, pending
an appeals court ruling whether he can be released on the grounds that his mental disorder was temporary. Federal prosecutors
say Weed should be kept in 'a controlled custody environment' until it becomes clear what caused him to shoot Jenkins to death. But the cause has eluded authorities despite several expert opinions. Steroid use, recreational
drugs, brain injury and epilepsy have all been ruled out as a cause. Prosecutors have said Weed's psychologist believes that an underlying mental defect prompted the psychotic episode. Jenkins' mother, Jeanne Been, filed a lawsuit against
Weed in April 2003. Landmark was added as a
defendant in December, court records show. Filings since that time
show that Jenkins' family, as well as Weed's attorneys, claim that Weed was driven insane by his treatment during
a Landmark seminar. The lawsuit also alleges that
this was not the first time someone committed murder
soon after attending a Landmark Education seminar and that the group is 'manufacturing psychotic/insane killers and others with varying
degrees of mental disorders,' court records show. Landmark Education believes
that Jenkins' killing was a horrible tragedy, and
it denies any responsibility for Weed's actions, said Oliver Howard, a Tulsa attorney representing
Landmark in the suit. 'These allegations
against Landmark Education are completely inaccurate and unfounded and only serve to prolong this tragedy for the families involved,' said Art Schreiber, Landmark
Education's general counsel. Furthermore, Howard said,
Landmark officials believe that the company was drawn into the suit because 'claims against Weed alone would not produce any monetary recovery.'" I think it's really, really
dangerous to speculate if Landmark can brainwash someone into becoming a murderer. Like, I don't even know
if I wanna go there. And considering how many people have gone to their seminars, I highly doubt it just turns
sane people into killers, otherwise we'd have far, far more cases. But by the same token, I
do wonder if these seminars may push someone over the edge, someone who might be already
internally struggling, that is. The plaintiffs in this
case have even argued that Landmark knows their seminars can cause serious strains on
those with mental illness, and that's why they
actually screen for that in the first place. The final judgment did fall
in Landmark's favor, though. Even though Landmark
Education is still by far one of the most controversial topics I think I've researched, we'll touch more on that in just a second, but seriously, with MLMs, I
don't find any positive press until it comes from the
MLM or their community. With a lot of bad businesses I cover, they have good days
and charitable actions, but people don't deny
their shady behavior. But Landmark Education, on the other hand, well, it's been a while since I've seen such a split on people
for and against them, and it's really interesting. Anyway, Landmark still has
more lawsuits in their past, almost entirely against those
who speak badly of them. So, let's go over those, shall we? In 1993, Landmark Education Corporation sued Self Magazine for defamation. The defamation claimed by Landmark involved the article
published in February 1993. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. In a settlement-agreement, LE released Conde Nast Publications from any and all claims
relating to the article, and Self Magazine issued
a one-sentence editor note stating that the magazine
had no "firsthand" evidence that the "Landmark Forum is a cult". In 1994, Landmark sued the
original Cult Awareness Network and Cynthia Kisser, its
then Executive Director, for, among other allegations, issuing leaflets about
"Destructive cults", this one we already mentioned
in a bit more detail earlier, so we'll keep moving right along. In 1996, Landmark Education Corporation sued Dr. Margaret singer,
an adjunct UC Berkeley professor of psychology, for defamation. Singer had mentioned LE
in her co-authored book "Cults in Our Midst". The text did not make it entirely clear whether she labeled the
organization as a cult or not. Singer admitted at deposition that she had "no personal,
firsthand knowledge of Landmark or its programs." In 1998, Landmark sued
Hachette Filipacchi Media, U.S. publishers of Elle Magazine for an allegedly defamatory article published in Elle Magazine, written by Rosemary Mahoney entitled, "Do you believe in miracles?" In 1998, Landmark attempted to compel Steven Pressman to respond
to deposition-questions aimed at obtaining the
confidential sources he used for research on his book, "Outrageous Betrayal: The
Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from Est to Exile". LE dropped the action against Pressman after the settlement of its litigation against the Cult Awareness Network. In 2003, journalist
surreptitiously filmed participants in a Landmark Forum in France, and selected excerpts were incorporated into a television documentary
broadcast by France3 in 2004. LE took the view that the
program as a whole was biased, inaccurate, and misleading, and that "France3 has
violated the personal rights of individuals unwittingly
filmed using hidden cameras." One of the women shown in the program stated publicly that she felt it was an intrusion of her privacy and that the extract taken out of context, and that she benefited
from her participation in the Landmark Forum. Subsequently, an anonymous individual posted this footage on the Internet. Landmark appealed to copyright law and served a subpoena on Internet Archive to have it removed and to reveal
the identity of the poster. The EFF declined,
considering that Landmark was misusing copyright law
to take down criticisms, referring to what it called Landmark's "Internet censorship campaign". Landmark withdrew its application. They've also sued a Swiss group, demanding infoSekta
say they aren't a cult. Landmark demanded that Martin Lell, a German author, remove
the word brainwashing from his book title, "The Forum:
Account of a Brainwashing: The Psycho-Outfit Landmark Education". But they lost because the German court determined that the word brainwashing constituted a matter of opinion. They've sued the Swiss magazine, FACTS, for referring to them as a cult, Panorama Magazine in the Netherlands. And holy shit, I mean, I've
justified defamation lawsuits before on this channel,
but this is insane. If a company or person
is wrongfully attacked, they do have the right to fight back, but I find it really,
really difficult to believe that all these authors and professionals are continually calling
Landmark a cult for the fun, the hecks, the giggles of it. Seriously though, I'm
not about to straight up call Landmark a cult, but
maybe we can all agree that at a bare minimum,
this is kinda shady. I just find it hard to
discredit so many reporters, and it looks a bit suspicious how angry and lawsuit-happy Landmark gets when trying to squash those claims. It's just weird because
if a pattern emerges and over multiple decades people continue to call you a cult, then
there's gotta be something that's cult-like, right? Something's gotta be
just, not the norm here. But again, this is my own opinion here and I'd be happy to hear yours wherever you wanna spout off about it if you've attended a
Landmark Forum thing before, or you know someone who has. Also as a small aside here, apparently Lululemon used
to push for their employees to attend these classes, and that's originally where
Landmark Forum was mentioned, so just FYI as to where that came from. This was originally because
of the Lululemon episode. But anyway, whether you
find Landmark good, bad, boring, whatever, that's up to you. Personally, the thing
that I find most worrying is how quick they are to silence critics, and it says either a lot about what they're potentially hiding, or you know, maybe that
they're just lawsuit-happy. Either one, not a very
good look as a business, and it most certainly
doesn't seem like a seminar I plan on attending any time soon. But with all of that being said, that's where I'm going
to end today's video. Let me know what you think in the comment section down below. Do you think that they potentially have some cult-like qualities? Or is this a large rumor chain that's been blown out of
proportion for literal decades. If you enjoyed today's video, make sure to leave a like on it. If you're new to the channel, make sure to subscribe so
you never miss more videos just like this one. And if you want more content from me, just pop open my description box, you're gonna see my Linktree link. It has links to all my social media, projects I'm involved with,
everything will be there. So, thank you so much for
making to to another video. Love you guys, and I'll
see you in the next one. Bye!
(upbeat music)
For more context on Warner Erhard and his influence on DCI and BOA read my article From the Cradle to the Corps.