Quote
sonnie_dee
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.

It's sickening how much these scammers are able to control people who actually believe they should "honor" their ~agreements.~ They use the people who are the most honest, even though THEY feel no such obligation. Do you really think they are "honest" about where the money goes and who gets what? These are con artists. They don't care about ~agreements.~ ~Agreements~ are for the "little people." My poor brother thinks he owes thousands to the Co$, even though the whole thing is a rip-off. But because he signed some sort of "agreement," he will probably be paying them for the rest of his life.

What about putting the information out anonymously?



Ellen

Quote
sonnie_dee
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.

Or perhaps only releasing a small portion of the information, as part of a fair use critique?

Quote
Europe-girl
<snip>
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.

<snip>

That was something I noticed at different points while being heavily involved in est: that I was actually getting less and less "value" the more I was involved. But my focus on "transforming the world" was overriding.

The understanding I have come to on the issue of the methods used in est/Landmark is that they are for the most part neither good or bad. It's how they're used/abused that results in their value. There are useful methods and they can bring positive results. However, most lead to eventually benefiting the organization to the point of detriment of the individual.

There are hypnotic methods used, but hypnosis is not detrimental inately. Hypnosis can be beneficial if used within it's limits of benefit and with knowledge and consent of the person it's applied to.

The aspect I found most insidious was est/Landmark assigning their techniques as exclusive and unique to them. They are methods that have been around and were packaged by Werner and others in a particular way in the Forum and seminars. It is taking personal ownership and acting from your own rational and consciousness -- that you own and act from any methods you do, not that they are sourced from Landmark, a Forum or Seminar Leader -- that I found true and useful.

-- Enric

Quote
Europe-girl
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:abb4869bce]true [/i:abb4869bce]authenticity.

G'day Euro-girl,

Yeah, nothing seems to be black & white, but, with regard to Landmark, the grey areas are thin - very thin. Either we're just fooling ourselves here or what has been disclosed about Landmark and other LGATs is pretty obvious - they are a scam. Nothing more than a dubious corporation trying to make money - lots of money. And then there's the human carnage...

Breakthroughs. From the very act of conception there is a breakthrough (penetration). We are born into this world and that's a breakthrough. We learn to talk, walk and eat on our own - more breakthroughs. The point is, life is a serious of perpetual breakthroughs. And, yes, they do seem to slow down as we get older and wiser...but Landmark does nothing more than sell the obvious for a profit. They want to own what is common property. And once they own it, depreciation sets in...

It bothers me that Landmark, early on, tries to silence/control the 'little voice' inside our heads. I thought they had a system for eliminating the mentally unstable potential recruits (a waiver?)...or do they, in fact, confuse and manipulate a certain percentage of recruits by making you focus on something like your 'little voice' and then fill that gap with a 'new voice'? The point I'm trying to make is that in a stable person the 'little voice' is not separate from the individual. I suppose schizophrenia is, in part, the detachment of that 'little voice' from your being, like being told that your left arm is not really part of who you are...but I'd like to keep my sanity (or atleast what I think is sanity), thanks very much.

And what is 'true authenticity'? Sounds like a tautology, like cold ice... :roll:

@Sonnie-dee, I understand you. I will not encourage you to disclose anything you have legally committed yourself not to do. I am sure that Landmark reads this forum too.

@Enric, I agree with you. Have you read the thread about cult speak? We also talk about things like that.

@Jack Oskar Larm, I like the point you make about breakthroughs. :)
You know, when you say "they're a scam" I understand where you're coming from. But who is the "they"? As Sonnie-dee pointed out, most of the people in Landmark are in it with honest noble intentions, as was I. I'm a sucker for nuance, call me crazy. :wink: The "they" must be way up in the organization. I was part of it I agree, but if I had known what I know now, I would have chosen differently.
You asked something about sane people, and screening for that, am I right? Yes, they do screen intensively, I think I can still catch on to any sign of instability when I listen carefully to someone. I guess they don't want any instable people inthere because it leads to problems and bad advertising - not good for business. But they also want people inthere who "have something at stake", in my days you had to have a specific goal for doing a course. So... that leads automatically to people who are open for new suggestions (!) and will not leave too quickly. When you want to leave halfway, this goal is also used to keep you in. Then it's being argued that you just hit a big obstacle that holds you back from achieving your breakthrough in this particular area. Actually, thinking about this, this can be true in some cases. Who hasn't seen a person trying to duck a conversation because the one and only real sore point got touched...? But I also remember vividly that keeping someone in the course wasn't just for their sake. Having someone leave was almost worse then not meeting your enrollment target. It made you look real bad.
Anyway, every time I think of it, like Enric said, I keep coming back to the same analysis: it's not so much the content that makes it so nasty, most of the things are by itself not so bad. It's how it's being used that is so devious. What's the point of having a breakthrough in the relationship with whomever, if you are then pushed to destroy that same relationship by trying to "enroll' them time after time? It stinks.
As I said the inner dialogue [i:c0c9e5589e]can [/i:c0c9e5589e]be in the way, it [i:c0c9e5589e]can [/i:c0c9e5589e]be handy to even realise it's there. I agree that if you work with this in the wrong way, it can lead to mental illnesses. In fact I once saw someone leap into a manic phase as a result of it (this person had hidden a manic-depression disorder prior to the course...).
Oh, by the way, I said true authenticity, because I think that word is being misused within Landmark, of course it's a tautology - I just wanted to emphasise I didn't mean it in the jargon-kind-of-way. :wink:

By the way I'm really grateful for all your replies here. It's so good to be able to talk about this. Thanks everyone!

Quote

It's sickening how much these scammers are able to control people who actually believe they should "honor" their ~agreements.~ They use the people who are the most honest, even though THEY feel no such obligation. Do you really think they are "honest" about where the money goes and who gets what? These are con artists. They don't care about ~agreements.~ ~Agreements~ are for the "little people." My poor brother thinks he owes thousands to the Co$, even though the whole thing is a rip-off. But because he signed some sort of "agreement," he will probably be paying them for the rest of his life.

What about putting the information out anonymously?

Quote

Or perhaps only releasing a small portion of the information, as part of a fair use critique?

I actually spoke to a lawyer about a year ago and showed him all the documents that I had signed. He warned me that they were legally binding and that I should be very careful about releasing the information I had. We fully discussed what things I could and couldn't say without causing legal issues.

I also received a letter from Landmark reminding me of my legal agreements and with a nice little masked threat last year.

Unfortunately there is very little way to release things anonymously simply because in our country the number of staff/ex staff is very small. And most of the ex staff are still happy with their involvement and continue to assist. there are only a few of us who have really become anti Landmark since leaving staff.

Elena I agree it is sickening and unfortunately they win in this case. I can't afford a legal fight with landmark. They have the money and resources to win and I don't.

Quote

I also received a letter from Landmark reminding me of my legal agreements and with a nice little masked threat last year.

one thing is certain, you will be bound by these agreements forever, because landmark will never practice what it preaches to its followers or its paid and unpaid staff.
The great side to this is that you're free! If you had to trade silence for freedom, it's a fair trade. Your freedom will grow beyond measure while LE secrets will grow into a cyclone it will have to deal with sooner or later, anyway.

Quote
sonnie_dee

Quote

It's sickening how much these scammers are able to control people who actually believe they should "honor" their ~agreements.~ They use the people who are the most honest, even though THEY feel no such obligation. Do you really think they are "honest" about where the money goes and who gets what? These are con artists. They don't care about ~agreements.~ ~Agreements~ are for the "little people." My poor brother thinks he owes thousands to the Co$, even though the whole thing is a rip-off. But because he signed some sort of "agreement," he will probably be paying them for the rest of his life.

What about putting the information out anonymously?

Quote

Or perhaps only releasing a small portion of the information, as part of a fair use critique?

I actually spoke to a lawyer about a year ago and showed him all the documents that I had signed. He warned me that they were legally binding and that I should be very careful about releasing the information I had. We fully discussed what things I could and couldn't say without causing legal issues.

I also received a letter from Landmark reminding me of my legal agreements and with a nice little masked threat last year.

Unfortunately there is very little way to release things anonymously simply because in our country the number of staff/ex staff is very small. And most of the ex staff are still happy with their involvement and continue to assist. there are only a few of us who have really become anti Landmark since leaving staff.

Elena I agree it is sickening and unfortunately they win in this case. I can't afford a legal fight with landmark. They have the money and resources to win and I don't.

If only there were a "cult" Legal Defense Fund...

@Ajinajan and Elena, just out of curiosity, have you been involved in Landmark?