When a former friend recruited me into doing the Landmark Forum, I was reluctant. Her argument was "It's $500 and a weekend. What have you got to lose?" She was so invested in my doing the Forum that she paid over half of my tuition.

The way that it was presented to me, it was something to try, with no further obligation or strings attached. There seemed to be very little risk. I was given the impression that if Landmark did not work for me, I would be free to get on with my life.

After I did the forum, Landmark principles were pushed into every conversation I had with my recruiter. I would point out to her that many parts of the program did not work for me, and of course, she would point out how it was always my flaws that prevented it from working. In the seminars, the seminar leaders would instruct us to "just try on" certain ideas, to see if they fit. Again, there was allegedly no pressure to actually buy into what they were saying.

Meanwhile, the center manager, and even the Forum leaders, (during the Tuesday night session), would briefly talk about "hard cases," or people who said that Landmark did not work for them. They made vague and fleeting mention of tactics that were used on those people. If there is really no pressure to adopt the philosophy put forth by Landmark, why would anyone be considered a "hard case"? Either you accepted their premises or you didn't, and if you did not, that was supposed to be okay. Only it's not.

Contrary to what they tell you, if you voice any criticism of the program, or ask the wrong questions, you may be subjected to harassment, surveillance - or worse. Most people DO walk away from Landmark without being harassed. I suspect they prefer to harass mostly people who have no clout, (with a few notable exceptions), simply because they assume that they can get by with it. Predators have a tendency to target people who don't have the resources to fight back. I was dirt poor, and they knew that.

My recruiter knew that I had not been blown away by the Forum, and I guess that that, (and my apparent stoicism), made me a "hard case." Although I had been cooperative, I had voiced some mild criticism, and maybe asked a few of the wrong questions. In addition, some of us have noticed that people who are stoic or non-reactive seem to be targeted for an extra level of nastiness.

My recruiter and Landmark had been among the few people who had my cellphone number. Soon after I had completed the Forum, I had been awakened early one morning by a hang-up phone call. This was followed immediately by someone outside of my house, who turned on my outdoor water tap, and left it running full-blast onto the ground. I was forced to go outside to turn it off, and when I did, I looked across the street and saw the culprit standing there with a camera pointed in my direction. Because of this, and everything that followed, I believe that they had put me under surveillance.

One year later, in my last seminar at Landmark, they handed out a pamphlet. Some people would not even touch it to pass it along to the next person. They leaned way back in their seats and put their hands up in the air, so you had to pass it over them to the next person. They obviously knew what was going on. The page on top was a consent form, which stated that we had agreed to receive information about the program that was described therein. It did not state that we had consented to take that program. We had to sign the form and hand it back, before we could even look at the contents. I was an idiot to sign it.

There were about 20 - 25 pages that we could take home and read. We had to return our pamphlets the following week, and I believe that we also had to have agreed to not make any copies, (I wish I had made a copy).

When I think back on what was in the pamphlet, the program description pretty much outlined what could be described as "gangstalking," but they speak, (and write), so as to make it not sound as malicious as it is. The program involved "role-playing" by others, but I have since learned that they won't tell you, at the time, that they are role-playing, or even that they are involved in that program. When I asked questions, I was either lied to or stonewalled. According to the program description, the program ended with a presentation in which details of your personal life were aired in front of the whole group. From my perspective, (now on the other side of it), the program is nothing but a ghastly and vicious "hazing."

It appears to me that the goal of this "program" is to cause fear, confusion and uncertainty in the targeted person's life, and then add public humiliation on top of it, (using information that you never shared with them to begin with). In the implementation of this program, I strongly suspect that they are also collecting Keith Raniere-style "collateral." Every shred of privacy is stripped from the targeted individual, and personal information passed around to random people at Landmark. This will then be repeated back to you. Items that you have thrown into the trash will mysteriously reappear. What they don't tell you is that you apparently don't have to actually sign up for that program to end up being in it, nor will you be informed ahead of time.

Having now been through it, I can say that the gaslighting involved in this program is unimaginably vile, and is capable of causing extreme cognitive dissonance, and paranoia. In the implementation of that gaslighting, they made use of information that I had not given them. Some of this information seems most likely to have been provided by my recruiter, whom I had met in a 12-step group. I had confided much to her, long before I had anything to do with Landmark. She had promised to keep that information to herself. Other personal information was also used, and they must have surreptitiously dug very deeply into my private life to get it. They did not have my consent to do this, but then again, their consent forms seem, more than anything, designed to cover their proverbial asses while not giving away what they actually do to people. Any "consent" that is given is in no way "informed."

Information about this program is concealed, and will not be found on their website, even with a search. I am sure that some of its components are either illegal, or just barely within the law, (and only because the laws have either not kept up with technology, and/or their actions were so outrageous that the laws never anticipated such things).

I had NOT signed up to participate in the program, only to "receive information" about it. Even worse: I had told several people, including the assistant seminar leader, a course supervisor, and my recruiter that further participation in Landmark's programs was against medical advice. On the advice of my therapist, I would be leaving the program, as soon as I finished the seminar I was in at that time. Although they had already started running the above-mentioned "program" on me, they should have stopped immediately. These people really, really need to learn when to quit.

I was enrolled in one of Landmark's seminars, at the time, and had spoken about what was going on to the assistant seminar leader. Since it had been this seminar in which the material was handed out, that should have been enough to get them off my back. From my conversation with him, it was obvious that he knew what was going on. His response was to ask me if I thought I was going crazy. I told him that I wasn't sure. He then told me that if I signed up for the next seminar in the series, that my question as to my sanity would be answered. I recalled the part about the details of my private life being aired in front of the entire class, and wasn't about to go back there. The mind-fuck continued.

Within the same week, my recruiter sent me a text, asking me to call her. When I called, her first words to me were, "Tell me what you know." I responded by saying that I thought she knew more about my situation than I did, and she confirmed this. I told her that she needed to tell me what was going on, and she refused. I had once believed this woman to be a kind person, but it seems that involvement with Landmark had stripped her of any kindness she had ever possessed. The mind-fuck continued.

In conclusion; if someone tries to recruit you into Landmark, and tells you that there's no pressure to actually adopt the Landmark philosophy; either they are lying, or maybe they are new to the program and really don't know any better. You may get out without having your life sabotaged, being put under surveillance or harassed, but then again, you may not. They might go so far as to send their goon squad onto your property, or into public places which you are known, by your recruiter, to frequent. In my case, they did both. From my point of view, there is not one thing in this program that makes it worth running that risk.

The bits and pieces of this program that I have described here barely scratch the surface. It is vile beyond belief. By all rights, this organization should be shut down. Until it is, don't ever sign anything put in front of you by these people!

There were crimes committed as a part of this "program." I strongly believe that Landmark's waiver form would qualify as an "unconscionable contract," if it were challenged in court. I guess you could say that, in posting this, I am challenging it right now.

kdag,

What you have described is a magnificent arsenal of coercive and abusive psychological techniques calculated to savage the target's self. I would assume the designation of "hard case", in fact, describes individuals who refuse to have their ego boundaries breached.

I do not doubt one 'word' of what you have related here.

Just to confirm, you are saying that the 'secret' muhahaadvanced program is called, "All the World's a Stage", is that correct?

These people sound like 12 year-olds making blood oaths in their secret club house. How pitiful.

What the name of this program suggests to me is that Landmark 'actors', and I am using this word in the legal sense, are agreeing/committing to engage in forms of subterfuge in their gang stalking of targets, OR, their infiltration of communities and organizations.

In reviewing various Erhard organizational permutations, one can see a 'corporate' agenda, expressed through the "Vanto Group", "Landmark Worldwide" (its corporate education track) and other less transparent entities; a geopolitical/social agenda, "The Hunger Project"; and, a religious/ideological agenda, "The Mastery Project"...and, I think there are many more 'projects'.

We know from the legal archive that formation, and administration of these entities has been characterized by subterfuge.

Research also reveals that parties attached to est/Landmark have concealed or downplayed this affiliation in their formation and administration of seemingly unrelated entities.

It would seem that "All the World's a Stage" may be a training program, and point of embarkation for 'actors' engaged in the covert advancement of Landmark agendas. At that level, it would be important to weed out the "hard cases" by whatever means.

All for now...

bakkagirl

"subterfuge

noun

1. an artifice or expedient used to evade a rule, escape a consequence, hide something, etc."

[www.thefreedictionary.com]

I had to look that up. I do feel that this definition fits very well with much of what they do.

I am not knowledgeable enough to comment about some of the other things. I tried to be very diligent in reporting only what I experienced first-hand in the O.P. In fact, I intentionally stripped it down to the barest bones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2018 06:22AM by kdag.

kdag,

I really appreciated your commentary, which I think well captures the escalating coercion you, and probably others, experienced in that organization.

To me, 'artifice' and 'subterfuge' are key features of Landmark culture. What one sees on the surface is clearly NOT what one gets at the deeper levels.

The persona of Werner Erhard seems very contrived to me, and that would be reflected in the behavior of people who have modeled themselves after their leader. I would assume that virtually everything is opposite of the values advertised on the surface, e.g. 'integrity'.

They clearly prey on people who are simply looking to improve themselves or their communities.

bakkagirl

bakkagirl wrote:

"I would assume that virtually everything is opposite of the values advertised on the surface, e.g. 'integrity'."

Yes, light years away from integrity and light-years away from authenticity. Not to mention that they chastise people for "running a racket," and then turn around and do this.

You PM box is full.

bakkagirl wrote:

"...a point of embarkation for 'actors' engaged in the covert advancement of Landmark agendas."

I have always suspected the ILP of doing that, and to be the beginning of high-level training. I never took the ILP, but they tried very hard to get me into it. A few weeks after I left Landmark, one of their staff called to tell me that "my" ILP program was starting the following week. I told her that i had not signed up for that, and she told me that I was enrolled and that it had already been paid for. This was after I had told them that I was leaving the program on medical advice.

I had never had any interest in the program, in spite of numerous phone calls giving me the hard sell on it.

When my "friends," got into the ILP. They would fly out of town to an undisclosed location. The trips usually lasted about a week. They told me that the trips were for their ILP training, but they would never talk about the training. It seemed as if every minute of their day, on most days, was controlled by Landmark. They were constantly stressed. It seemed like they were both sick all the time, and I think that was due to the overwhelming stress. Their personalities changed. They became deceitful and manipulative.

Because you have to fly out of town for the program, you are then in a strange town without your own transportation. I have only heard very little about the program itself, and what I have heard consisted of unproven rumors, so I can't honestly report anything about what goes on. Having said that, the rumors I did hear would lead me to believe that the program is highly abusive, with much personal disclosure, and I would assume, much collecting of "collateral."

I have always assumed that the program I was subjected to was for the purpose of intimidating/embarrassing/invalidating me, and possibly that they were using me as an "example" to anyone who considered stepping out of line.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2018 08:47AM by kdag.

* I should add that I can see bakkagirl's point. The people involved in administering the program could very well be involved in some of their own high-level training. I'm sure that it takes quite a bit of training for most people to descend to the level of mindfuckery practiced by this organization. I guess maybe that's what she was saying.

kdag,

What I see in your posts and those of so many others who have reported on their Landmark experience is:

1) behavior (of leaders) that is characterized by secrecy and subterfuge -- what you see, or what you are told,is NOT what you get.

2) covert agendas, and the manipulation of the agendas of individual participants, meaning the 'promise' is that participants will attain their goals, but these individual agendas are subtly directed and coerced such that they align with Landmark's larger vision.

3) on a larger organizational front, Landmark (or est before it) seems to create or involve itself in large-scale 'global' transformation projects, e.g. The Hunger Project, or in conjunction with an ecumenical religious group, The Mastery Project. Individual participation in Landmark seems to 'need' to escalate into participation in these large-scale agendas, and I suspect there are many.

So,one has to imagine that these 'visions' are being cooked at the higher rungs of the ladder, and in the context of closely guarded 'meetings' and 'trainings'. Individuals leaders of these agendas would have to fully indoctrinated, under total control of Landmark. The would be its 'actors'.

In writing this, I am thinking back to individuals I have known who simply wanted to develop coaching skills (a professional development agenda), and within six months of participation in a 'coaching school', were describing to me, with great urgency, their need to participate in some socio-political mission in a foreign country, or, describing some dramatic change in their political or religious/spiritual worldview.

So, it seems to start with a personal agenda, a reasonable/doable one, and escalate to a socio/political/spiritual agenda of grandiose proportions.

At this point, I can almost gauge the level of indoctrination according to the level of grandiosity of vision.

e.g.,

As a coach, I might wish to focus on a research or community project that will bring more light and understanding regarding the challenges of women working in a certain environment; the goal being to facilitate some reasonable change...

For the indoctrinated, the mission would sound like, "I am working to liberate women GLOBALLY"...(always intangible, always vague, always grandiose)

bakkagirl

bakkagirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kdag,
>
> What I see in your posts and those of so many others who have reported on their Landmark experience is:
>
> 1) behavior (of leaders) that is characterized by secrecy and subterfuge -- what you see, or what you are told,is NOT what you get.

I would say that this is true. To me, it felt like a bait and switch. If nothing else, they seem to pull you in with the idea of empowering you to achieve your personal goals, (that is all they talk about in the introduction), but once you're there, it seems to me that the courses are geared more toward implanting their philosophy. Some people may achieve their goals, but I saw more people changing their goals than I saw achieving their original goals.
>
> 2) covert agendas, and the manipulation of the agendas of individual participants, meaning the 'promise' is that participants will attain their goals, but these individual agendas are subtly directed and coerced such that they align with Landmark's larger vision. Yes, as described above.

> 3) on a larger organizational front, Landmark (or est before it) seems to create or involve itself in large-scale 'global' transformation projects, e.g. The Hunger Project, or in conjunction with an ecumenical religious group, The Mastery Project. Individual participation in Landmark seems to 'need' to escalate into participation in these large-scale agendas, and I suspect there are many.
I would not be surprised, especially when you look at how many countries they operate in. Even if it goes no further than to get everyone to think within their parameters, it seems geared toward global influence. This could be good or bad, peace and cooperation are great things, but when I look at the mind games, the coercion, and the way that they try to get people to accept authority that they don't actually have, i don't even trust their motives, I am very skeptical and deeply concerned.

> So,one has to imagine that these 'visions' are being cooked at the higher rungs of the ladder, and in the context of closely guarded 'meetings' and 'trainings'. Individuals leaders of these agendas would have to fully indoctrinated, under total control of Landmark. The would be its 'actors'.
>
> In writing this, I am thinking back to individuals I have known who simply wanted to develop coaching skills (a professional development agenda), and within six months of participation in a 'coaching school', were describing to me, with great urgency, their need to participate in some socio-political mission in a foreign country, or, describing some dramatic change in their political or religious/spiritual worldview.

Yes, there are those changing goals, once again.
>
> So, it seems to start with a personal agenda, a reasonable/doable one, and escalate to a socio/political/spiritual agenda of grandiose proportions.
>
> At this point, I can almost gauge the level of indoctrination according to the level of grandiosity of vision.
>
> e.g.,

> As a coach, I might wish to focus on a research or community project that will bring more light and understanding regarding the challenges of women working in a certain environment; the goal being to facilitate some reasonable change...

> For the indoctrinated, the mission would sound like, "I am working to liberate women
GLOBALLY"...(always intangible, always vague, always grandiose)

As you have pointed out before, this may be a lofty goal, but it IS grandiose. Also, to me, their willingness to use the tactics that they use negates even the best intentions. The ends do not justify the means, and considering the means they use, I don't have much hope that it will end well.

> bakkagirl



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2018 04:11PM by kdag.