GloriaG Wrote:
>
>
>
> In support of Throughmyeyes, all I can add is that
> it is during the SELP part of the course that they
> really get into a person's psyche to control them.
> They plant seeds of that in the Advanced Course
> and then ratchet up the pressure at the start of
> SELP by arranging weekly (? might have been more
> than weekly) phonecalls with Landmark appointed
> small group leader. What I mean is that they
> divide all the participants into small groups of 6
> and introduce a new person who has 'completed the
> programme' to manage the group. And we were
> supposed to have these regular calls with this
> person. So now they have a greater control over
> your life.
>
> I never experienced these calls but that is one of
> the reasons I quit after 1 day of SELP.
>
> I hope this also helps you understand why you lost
> your friend so completely. I hope you can find a
> way to heal from this terrible hurt.


Thank you for this information GloriaG. I knew that the phone calls had started but I wasn't aware of the frequency or what was even discussed - and I questioned the validity which obviously didn't help. I didn't understand why a person from a supposed course would call you to see how things were going. It make no sense to me.

The entire process is insidious and unfortunately I have developed a mild form of post traumatic stress due to the emotional abuse I had suffered prior to the end of our relationship, and the complete and utter ghosting that occurred when he ended out relationship via email and has refused to respond to any emails, messages or phone calls since. It was brutal and not the man I knew and loved.

I have never encountered anything like this before in my life and it is really quite difficult to work through.

Again, thank you for your insight. I really appreciated it and I hope everything is okay with you too.

Here is one reason why ghosting is such a terrible thing to do.

It usually leads the victim to dive into his (often her) deepest insecurities.

As in, where was I at fault? What did I do wrong? Was it Incident X, Y, Z.

You're inflicting the equivalent of a Communist 'self criticism/struggle session on yourself.

[www.google.com]

Imagine a the victim of a Landmark trained 'ghoster' doing this to herself.

The victim claws herself raw and bloody. What an opportunity if the Landmarkian
returns to her life. She's already a wreck, all he has to do is exploit it.

Ghosting

[www.google.com]

corboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is one reason why ghosting is such a terrible
> thing to do.
>
> It usually leads the victim to dive into his
> (often her) deepest insecurities.
>
> As in, where was I at fault? What did I do wrong?


Hello Corboy, yes it is exactly what I have done. It has been crazy making to say the least. My rational brain knows I didn’t do anything wrong but then my insecurities come into play as you said. It is a horrible way to treat a person. Landmark literally produces sociopaths.

Thanks for the links Corboy. This article is brilliant.

[www.psychologytoday.com]

From the Psychology Today article cited above

(Quote)

Quote


Ghosting gives you no cue for how to react. It creates the ultimate scenario of ambiguity.

Should you be worried?
What if they are hurt and lying in a hospital bed somewhere?
Should you be upset?
Maybe they are just a little busy and will be calling you at any moment.

You don’t know how to react because you don’t really know what has happened.

Staying connected to others is so important to our survival that our brain has evolved to have a social monitoring system (SMS) that monitors the environment for cues so that we know how to respond in social situations.12 Social cues allow us to regulate our own behavior accordingly, but ghosting deprives you of these usual cues and can create a sense of emotional dysregulation where you feel out of control.

In short, feeling wounded and shattered and puzzled by someone ghosting you
is about THEM.

It is not about you pulling a 'racket'.

If this guy comes back, throughmyeyes, keep us updated here on CEI.

Perhaps, perhaps many other people are out there who have been ghosted
by LEC graduates.

I’d say there would be quite a few who have been but like he needed someone to actually point it out - hopefully this thread may help them too.

If he does come back Corboy I’ll let you know but I highly doubt he will. Coincidentally last night I received a message from him after five weeks of silence saying I had to “take control of my own life and stop blaming others for who and where I am”.....I may have told him to get f.....and what he had done to me was psychologically and emotionally abusive. He then said he needed space told me to leave him alone which I completely intend to do and I did not respond.

Ps A “racket” is essentially a cost benefits analysis for relationships really isn’t it? I had concluded from the reading I had done this is what had happened and then he completed me. I didn’t fit in with the design anymore.

Throughmyeyes~

To the best of my understanding, a racket is a persistent complaint. They would also go on to say that it is accompanied by a persistent behavior. In other words, someone complains about the same thing over and over, but keeps behaving in the same way, and thus perpetuates the experience.

There is sort of a grey area, though, as to how it is used, and some people involved in L.E. would use the term to describe any persistent complaint, period. This might not have been the term that a forum leader would have chosen for that scenario, but many participants are less exact in their definitions. In my case, I had changed much of my behavior, but had refused to reconcile or contact someone who had betrayed me. The person who had recruited me into L.E. still referred to that as my "racket"

Also, corboy is giving you good advice. I can see where a Lekkie might use this "ghosting" as a means to traumatize someone, and then try to sell you on an L.E. course when you are most vulnerable, suggestible, and confused. That sounds like classic Landmark to me. Also, notice how your ex tried to make it sound as if YOU are the one with the problem. More classic Landmark. It's never them, it's always you, (also typical of a narcissist).

Yes, they take more and more of your time, including phone calls. This also occurs in the seminars, where group leaders have group calls with the seminar leader, and also with their group.

Thank you very much kdag. Yes he is blaming me for everything by the looks of things. I am very grateful for the advice from both you and Corboy as your insight, knowledge and bravery help me make sense of a non-sensicle and psychologically abusive situation. Your support has definitely helped make me stronger.

Throughmyeyes,

It seemed to be part of the formula. From my observations, at least part of the formula goes something like this:

1) Cause a "breakdown," accompanied by confusion. When I was in the "Assisting Program," they gave me and others tasks, but would then set us up to fail. This was often accomplished by giving people two different sets of conflicting instructions. First by the staff member you were assisting, and five minutes later by someone of higher rank.

One time, while I was in the room, one of the employees actually said, to someone on the phone, that the assisting program was designed to cause "breakdowns." I saw it first-hand almost every time I was there.

2) Once they have you either screaming or in tears, they always have someone from Landmark right there to offer "coaching," (and a fake sympathetic shoulder to cry on).

3) During the "coaching," they always ask you how you feel, or "what is there for you." In doing this, they gain more insight about how to get under your skin, under the guise of being "helpful,"

It is also a convenient time for them to push their philosophy into your mind, as you are more suggestible at that point. When you confide personal information, or your feelings to them, I think it also causes you to "bond" somewhat, and, ironically, to trust them more.

Later, whatever you said will often be used to cause another "breakdown."