Hi, I have been involved with Landmark and Est for a long time - and it's also a long time ago. Browsing the internet and seeing the French documentary, I've noticed that nothing has changed... (of course not).
I'd love to share :wink: my experiece. So if you have questions or just want to chat about what is was/is like, please react!
Don't worry, I'm not trying to enroll you! :o

Quote
Europe-girl
Hi, I have been involved with Landmark and Est for a long time - and it's also a long time ago. Browsing the internet and seeing the French documentary, I've noticed that nothing has changed... (of course not).
I'd love to share :wink: my experiece. So if you have questions or just want to chat about what is was/is like, please react!
Don't worry, I'm not trying to enroll you! :o

Hi, and welcome.

Were you an employee of Landmark?

How has it been in Europe with the French and the Swedes pretty much kicking Landmark out of their countries? Is the documentary the first critical material you've seen?


EZ

Hi Ezdoesit, no I wasn't an employee, but I did just about everything an employee would...
What happened in France and Sweden is after I left Landmark, so I can't say much about that. But I can imagine what turmoil has been in the centers and among staff and volunteers... Wow! And I can also imagine the explanation they have for themselves.

Have little time now, will get back here soon!

There is so much I would like to say and write, I don’t even know where to start. I stopped doing Landmark like a decade ago and still so much desire to talk about it…
A couple of years ago I started to do some searching on the internet. I was critical and got more critical, but today, it’s like the whole truth of it finally starts to sink in… It’s weird!!
When I stopped Landmark it was a conscious decision. The biggest reason was that I didn’t see myself improve anymore. All the ‘breakthroughs’ I had were for Landmark, very little for my personal life. I tried to invest in my own life, using the courses, but it didn’t work. All the pressure on targets and projects I deep down didn’t want to do in the first place… I just couldn’t avoid that. Somehow something gave me the very sane idea that it was time to put everything I had learned to the test and do it by myself.
So I stopped assisting and stopped doing courses, completely.
I guess in the years after that I looked at Landmark as a valuable experience, where I learned a lot. And felt richer in the process.
It took me some time to start realising again the value of ‘non-Landmarkers’ and picked up my own life slowly.
Then a couple of years ago I came across a forum-site where someone asked if it was a cult or dangerous. And I responded calmly: there is value in the trainings but don’t get sucked in.
And then 3 days ago I hit this forum and it hit home.

The poison of Landmark is not just in getting completely sucked into their way of thinking. It’s also poisonous because some of the things are helpful, insightful. But what is right and wrong? To which extend does the cult-thing go? Compared to sekts where people are held against their will, Landmark is nothing. But is it maybe even more cruel because they possess your mind instead of your body? And am I still possessed because I do feel it ‘makes a difference’ when I am ‘present’ to things instead of running around in my own dialogue??
I don’t know right now – I take this forum and posting here as a healing process. I do realise now that the brainwashing was much more sophisticated then I had ever known. And I like the fact I made a firm decision, supported by no one but me, to leave. And maybe I feel the same arrogance about that as I did when I was still with them… Maybe not much has changed? Maybe I’m on the same addiction-route looking for the thrill of a breakthrough… :? Or maybe everything’s changed because I think for my self.
Anyway… enough babbling from me now… :wink:

There’s one question going round in my mind, over and over, so I ask it here. With all the pressure on getting new participants, it’s logical to think that in the end it’s all about money. But they say the company is owned by the employees who can not own more than 3%. How is it structured then that guys like Schreiber, Rosenberg etc. end up with the money? Does anyone have solid proof or inside information? Like an ex-staffmember or something?
I am still hesitant to believe that the money-thing is the full truth. But it may be, especially since all the employee’s and staff I’ve seen were as brainwashed as me – and for them it was never about the money. But is it for these ‘big’ guys really? Or is it simply having power and being looked up to as a guru?
By the way: the one thing I have absolutely no doubt about is the ridiculous pressure on “enrolling” people. (I read in Nettie’s thread that this was softened, but don’t believe that, they have been telling that and disguising it for [i:90955b055a]years [/i:90955b055a]now). It’s really a destructive thing. It tells me with no doubt at all that something nasty is going on. I would just like to put my finger on what it is [i:90955b055a]exactly[/i:90955b055a].

Thanks for reading this, it really helps to get this of my chest – among people that do understand what I am going through. Love to hear your input. :)

Quote

The poison of Landmark is not just in getting completely sucked into their way of thinking. It’s also poisonous because some of the things are helpful, insightful. But what is right and wrong? To which extend does the cult-thing go? Compared to sekts where people are held against their will, Landmark is nothing. But is it maybe even more cruel because they possess your mind instead of your body? And am I still possessed because I do feel it ‘makes a difference’ when I am ‘present’ to things instead of running around in my own dialogue??

I am always left with the question, how is the teaching of landmark beneficial? If every 'breakthrough' experienced in landmark serves only landmark, and this seems to be the pattern, how does one maintain that it was beneficial to them personally? Any so called restored relationships resulting from a forum homework assignment, are not deemed a 'breakthrough' or even a positive result, unless the one with whom the graduate is reconciled, has been successfully recruited on graduation night. Was the true purpose 'reconciliation' or was it about reconciling you with anyone you can because you're gonna need recruitment numbers to keep your 'transformation'? Who benefits in that situation? A newly restored relationship now only 'works' within the landmark webs of control and deception. When graduates begin seeing increases in finances and promotions at work, if this result is real, who gets the increase? Who benefits from the influence accompanied by a promotion at work? The newly improved and rejuvenated life is now owned and managed by a greedy and ambitious leader, the beneficiary in that situation as well, is not the gleaming graduate.
Positive life changes are attributed to landmark by graduates, while 'positive' does not exist in the nature of what underpins landmark ideology or teaching. I totally disagree with giving landmark credit where it is not due.
As far as running around in your own dialogue goes, I was running around in my own dialogue when my friend attempted ot recruit me for a forum. My own dialogue was in disagreement with the rehearsed dialogues of the introduction leader, and my dialogue won. I left before it was over and began seeking information about this organization. So, you decide if your own dialogue is really all that bad. Every one of us has a tendency to jump to false conclusions or be influenced by our lifes experiences at one time or another. What purpose is there for life's individual and unique experiences if you do not draw upon them or ponder the lessons they have to offer. Our private dialogues are a great threat to the goals of landmark's programming, it is no wonder that the brainwashing begins by discounting these dialogues as something that holds a person back and prevents one from becoming who they could be.
It will be a cold day in hell before I'd want werner's dialogue running loose in my brain, that is what I call poison!

But they say the company is owned by the employees who can not own more than 3%. How is it structured then that guys like Schreiber, Rosenberg etc. end up with the money? Does anyone have solid proof or inside information? Like an ex-staffmember or something?

I can confirm that that is accurate, staff members own the company with no one owning more then 3 or 4 % it used to be 2.5 but it changes every so often.

The thing to keep in mind is that no staff member has ever recieved dividends. all the money goes "back into the company" and this is where I believe the top end get richer... their salaries are huge where are the majority of paid office staff are on minimum wages.

Unfortunately most staff are not working for the money they are working because they believe in the whole bullsh*t they have learned. They can't/don't see the cultish behaviour or the negative aspects. It took me years to realise that my self esteem was completely gone. I was treated appallingly and I just accepted it.

Quote
sonnie_dee
But they say the company is owned by the employees who can not own more than 3%. How is it structured then that guys like Schreiber, Rosenberg etc. end up with the money? Does anyone have solid proof or inside information? Like an ex-staffmember or something?

I can confirm that that is accurate, staff members own the company with no one owning more then 3 or 4 % it used to be 2.5 but it changes every so often.

The thing to keep in mind is that no staff member has ever recieved dividends. all the money goes "back into the company" and this is where I believe the top end get richer... their salaries are huge where are the majority of paid office staff are on minimum wages.

Unfortunately most staff are not working for the money they are working because they believe in the whole bullsh*t they have learned. They can't/don't see the cultish behaviour or the negative aspects. It took me years to realise that my self esteem was completely gone. I was treated appallingly and I just accepted it.

You have to keep in mind that even if the staff own shares, it's the Board of Directors that can vote on budget line-items - such as salaries, bonuses, special pay packages, golden parachute retirement accounts, expense accounts, health insurance, even possibly stock compensation, etc...

And Art Schreiber is Chairman of the Board of Directors, Werner Erhard 's brother Harry Rosenberg is a board member, as is Werner Erhard 's sister Joan Rosenberg. Not to mention other Board Members who have been heavily involved since EST first began...

So that is a large percentage of individuals with close familial and/or historical ties to Werner Erhard, voting on these budget line items on the Board of Directors - in a privately owned, for-profit company...

@ON2 LF:
With regard to only Landmark benefitting from breakthroughs; it's not all that black and white. There are people who resolve broken relationships after having done Landmark. They benefit from that themselves firstly (for me this is the case). At the same time a lot of relationships are being destroyed as a result of Landmark-involvement...
The thing about breakthroughs is that the more you get involved in Landmark, the less interest you get for breakthroughs in your personal life, or your personal life blends in totally with Landmark. Then it's all about targets, training yourself in new tasks within the Landmark organization and having 'breakthroughs' in that. When after all of that you try to refocus again on your personal goals outside of Landmark, it's tough! Since they keep nagging you about inviting and enrolling people.

With regard to the inner dialogue. Of course it's not good to disregard your inner dialogue all together. But sometimes it helps me to identify my thoughtprocess and then decide to either go along with it or not. That I learned in Landmark... Even now I realise how devious this organization works and how much brainwashing is going on, I trust my own judgements enough to know that some things are at the core not even bad. It's what they made of it that makes it so nasty. They are smart enough to put in some ingredients that can in fact work, if you use it sanely and with [i:731a0ab520]true [/i:731a0ab520]authenticity.

@Sonnie-dee, Ajinajan,

About the money, yes that is the only thing I can come up with also. On paper it sounds okay, but there must be a lot of budgets they can get their hands on. Maybe I'm naive :) but why go through all this trouble so you can have that money? This organization has been around for years, and yes all the time with the same people (I'm all too aware). It must be an enormous amount of work to keep this going, to keep " reinventing" yourself to disguise what you are really about.
Gosh, I would have sold the concept years ago and go to the Bahama's instead, enjoying all my money.
That why I think there must be a second motive: hunger for power.
They say they're up for a world that works for everyone, and I believed this for a long time. My gut tells me this at least CAN'T be true if you see how people inside Landmark are being treated.

Anyway, it would be great if some insider could tells us details about money. I wasn't deep enough in the organization to see this stuff for myself.
Any other questions I'm happy to answer. :wink:

I was on staff and I have seen the annual reports. I am aware of how the money works but its more once I am out that I understand more. When I was working there I didn't look at things in the same way I do now.

I remember at a staff conference when some legal agreements were given to us, we were told to get them checked by legal representatives but I don't know of a single person who did, we blindly trusted the company. The problem now is I have to watch what I say because of the legal agreements I have signed blindly.

And before anyone asks, I have had them checked by a lawyer and I have pretty much screwed myself over in terms of not being able to disclose some of the information about financial and business side of things.

Looking back I should have done a lot of things differently particularly in terms of the agreements I signed. But hind sight is a great thing.