Hi all,

I was reading some stuff on RR when I came across an interesting quote:

Quote

Landmark Education, starting in The Forum, teaches you to change what doesn't "work" for you, what doesn't make you happy. If you can not change it to what you want it to be, then terminate your relationship with it.

([www.culteducation.com])

Now I did the forum, half my forum in action and most of my advanced course and I don't believe that I was ever told this. It was just "if you have a breakdown, clean it up, be authentic and enrolling and you can't fail. If you fail again, repeat." That was basically the message I gleaned, sell sell SELL! Get the person's "no" and say "go."

But at the same time, the very next sentence says:

Quote

Ultimately, such pure self centered indulgence will require you to be alone or to totally control any person you are with.

This is EXACTLY the type of relationship I have with the guy who first got me in. He is always very dominant, always has to be right and the slightest criticism of Landmark sends him off at me. Think Tom cruise: "If you don't like Scientology, then, fuck you." Of course, he's much deeper into it than I was, maybe I just wasn't taught this part yet?

Anyway I suppose my question is, is it true that Landmark teaches disconnection as a last resort? I've heard it said many times that "Landmark is not a cult because it doesn't isolate its members" but if telling people to disconnect from people they can't "transform" is a part of the curriculum, isn't that a pretty solid case against that point?

And PS: Can anyone tell me about registration stats? I've heard a lot about forum leaders needing good recruitment stats from their forums to keep their jobs. It's their "specific measurable result." Can anyone confirm this and possibly direct me to some evidence to show to one of my friends who's questioning?

I read the same article a while ago, and I think it is one of the better ones about Landmark here. Besides the quotes you citied Dynamix, I had found these to be particularly interesting:

Quote

My perception was a mind set and lifestyle that does not take relationships seriously and does not make commitments to others because it limits the individual. You just get from the relationship what you can and then move on, easy come, easy go. As noted above, there is much talk of commitment in Landmark, to excellence, to honoring yourself and others, to integrity. In the end, the system only supports a commitment to self, doing whatever makes you happy, and a commitment to Landmark as the source of your power, the gift of which you should share with others.

and

Quote

Participants feel a relief from emotional distress when closely affiliated with the group and greater distress when away from the group. Once the system is learned and accepted, the social component of being a part of a group of people who act likewise enhances a feeling of well-being and subconsciously reinforces the system for the participant. Outside the group, challenging the underlying philosophy of Landmark or simply disagreeing with a position of a Landmark faithful induces great distress. Back at the center or with a Landmark friend, the distress is relieved, the challenger just did not "get it" and does not "honor" you as an individual. Again, this serves to strengthen affiliation and the likelihood of maintaining the expected behavior, termination of what does not "work," the source of the distress. Of course, no underlying problem has ever been solved in this process. It is perpetual participation and avoidance of issues.

I think there are plenty of examples on this board of people who have been "terminated" by Lekkies for not "working" in the Lekkie's life. There are also plenty of examples, of which I am one, where while not directly terminated, the relationship died a slower death, as the non-Lekkie sees that the dynamics of the relationship have changed to the point where there isn't a relationship anymore, and the relationship ends on a less dramatic note.

Relationships really have little choice but to suffer under LGAT influence. When one is committed only to self, there isn't room for anyone else. Have we not noticed the narcissitic, self-indulgent, egocentric, self-centered behavior?? Of course. Those we know and love fall in love with the reflection they see in their tainted reflecting pool. Never satisfied with how they are, they continue seeking to "grow" by taking the next course, and the next. There is no energy, time, or even interest left to notice the life of another, pay attention to it, and invest in it (beyond seeing them as entrollment material -- something for [i:3eb908694f]themselves[/i:3eb908694f]). Seems to me a successful relationship happens when I [i:3eb908694f]accept [/i:3eb908694f]myself and can turn my attention and pour energy into the life of another. Acceptance is the cessation of the obsession, and I can now turn my energy into commitments to others. I have something to give.

The second quote tells the obvious why. Whether the relationship ends by direct conscious choice or not, the agent returns to the center to relieve the dissonance that real life brings. My Lekkie friend has, at times, longed to spend more time at "home" (the center) than spend it with me, even though I don't bring up Landmark anymore, unless she does. It's natural for us to seek out the like-minded, but LGATs, through their intolerance of the unlike-minded, push this to the extreme. Keep them busy with themselves, and the center, and they will always come back because "no underlying problem has ever been solved."

What a business model.

LGATS promote disconnection, either directly or indirectly because it profits them. Is it a cult? I'm not sure I really care anymore whether they fit the technical definition -- the effects are cult-like, certainly, and that is what matters to me. The fact that relationships suffer so regularly certainly speaks to that point.

Good questions Dynamix.

-lightwolf

Good points, lightwolf. The issue of self [i:d01bc7b1f6]acceptance[/i:d01bc7b1f6] is involved in connection. LGATs, however, teach narcissism, which seems to be mistaken by some for self acceptance and is sold as self acceptance by LGATs. Another LGAT LIE. Lie # 8,943.

Based on my experience and then watching my sister in an LGAT, I find it interesting that LGATs divide people in sophisticatedly subtle ways. It wasn't an overt rule to be separate from non-followers. In fact, the rule was to [u:d01bc7b1f6]include[/u:d01bc7b1f6] others in our lives (I now know what THIS was about: RECRUITMENT. We were instructed to open up to others and tell about ourselves. And don't forget to include the course, of course!) This is more of the same old twisting, saying one thing, meaning another and when, in REAL LIFE, the "teachings" are applied, the [u:d01bc7b1f6]opposite[/u:d01bc7b1f6] is what REALLY happens. Maybe this adds to the confusion some of us felt, keeping us off balance, unable to even think straight after enough of it. So, I followed their instructions to stop thinking altogether: "TRUST THE PROCESS" (and just do as we say).

Division can be accomplished covertly and unbeknownst to the followers if the technology is slick enough. Just running around harboring rigid, self righteous beliefs in the jargon that [u:d01bc7b1f6]itself[/u:d01bc7b1f6] separates will cause some good separation. And then, as the quote says, reinforcing the feeling of relief and comfort back at the LGAT keeps the process going.

Quote

Can anyone tell me about registration stats? I've heard a lot about forum leaders needing good recruitment stats from their forums to keep their jobs. It's their "specific measurable result." Can anyone confirm this and possibly direct me to some evidence to show to one of my friends who's questioning?

Forum leaders do have registrations as a specific measureable result as well as number of guests at a final night. I dont believe they lose their jobs if they are unsuccessful at one night but I believe they get retrained if they are constantly unsuccessful. As for the evidence. There isn't any physcial evidence as such I just know from having worked with forum leaders while on staff.

At the end of the night they will really go hard on those that they believe were the cause of not meeting stats ie introduction leaders, staff etc

Forum leaders get very upset if they don't meet their stats and if they come back at a later date they will always bring up that we didn't cause enought last time.

I second what Sonnie_dee says above.

I think as one parameter was that the Forum leader had to "be the cause of" something like 40-50% to enroll in the advanced course after the forum.

It is important to know that statistics in landmark world is seen as the only thing separating story (bad) from reality (subjective reality). When people want to reform landmark they always want the statistical pressure to be eased off. But what they don't know is that in an "empty and meaningless" world the thing landmark want to make something mean is to have bodies to count. A body is also an interpretation and really doen't mean any thing actually.

Those bodies "upsets" don't mean anything. So why bother about reforming landmark as long as they still get the bodies and the green stuff that is attached to these bodies.

Usually we as introduction leaders had to meet the 25% enrollment mark when leading introductions. Then it was called acceptable.

You [i:860722a07e] would [/i:860722a07e] think that if any product with claims as grand as ESTmarks's was nearly as effective as the they purported it to be... no enrollment efforts would be needed. They're in denial about this gaping flaw in their own logic. Historically, those things that are profoundly effective and profoundly beneficial sell themselves... word of mouth travels exceeedingly rapidly..

ESTmark has had a full human generation to make its' case and it still struggles with enrollment ? Perhaps their problem is, to some extent, their [i:860722a07e] detachment from reality [/i:860722a07e] ...

Thus the proper classification of est/Landmark and the others as psychological MLMs. The product is secondary. Selling and recruitment is what it's all about.

A free marketplace is very efficient and determining which products and ideas meet peoples needs and wants, which are winners and which are losers. When you have to promote something outside the common marketplace, tightly shepherd it, and keep it out of the light of review, you have admitted it can't compete. The marketplace has spoken; your product/idea is inferior and can't capture widespread demand or support.

But if I can keep it out there, create a cultic mindset around it, wrap it in [i:f2704a14a2]something else[/i:f2704a14a2] that people want -- financial independence, empowerment, whatever, then I can create enough demand to keep lining my pockets. I don't need the marketplace's approval. I do need to control the information, however, which is why I think these groups are so litigious. Must keep product out of the light!

-lightwolf

I liked what Nettie said above:

Quote

I think as one parameter was that the Forum leader had to "be the cause of" something like 40-50% to enroll in the advanced course after the forum.

It is important to know that statistics in landmark world is seen as the only thing separating story (bad) from reality (subjective reality). When people want to reform landmark they always want the statistical pressure to be eased off. But what they don't know is that in an "empty and meaningless" world the thing landmark want to make something mean is to have bodies to count. A body is also an interpretation and really doen't mean any thing actually.

Those bodies "upsets" don't mean anything. So why bother about reforming landmark as long as they still get the bodies and the green stuff that is attached to these bodies.

Usually we as introduction leaders had to meet the 25% enrollment mark when leading introductions. Then it was called acceptable.

Anyone have more specific data on the use of statistics within Introductions/Seminars? I know from experience that in every single seminar I ever attended, "registration" and "enrollment" was pushed during at least 60% of each course!