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

I think we have all been affected in one way or another.

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

Never done any of their programs. I went to one "intro" about ten years ago for research purposes.

I've been watching these jerks since the 1970s. I can't believe they are still in business. Adam Smith "outed" Werner Erhard (scientology involvement) in 1975. I thought that would be the end of them. And how surprised I was to see the "60 Minutes" program that exposed him for being the monster he was. Yet he still has followers and they are still working hard to make money for him. Mystifying, to say the least.



Ellen

I think I only heard about the 60-minutes in the late eighties I reckon. Or maybe Werner was on a talkshow then to explain his side of the story? In any case, we were giving some background then by Landmark, of course their side of the story. Also that this was all started by Scientology and how to handle the claims SOC made against Landmark. Since all I knew then about scientology was that they thought we come from aliens etc., I swallowed the explanation of Landmark. So that's how organizations like that can continu, odd as it seems. I think organizations like this only fade away when the owners are no longer physically around - but when you see that at the same time offsprings start, it will take a long time... I think basicly LGAT's play into a demand of men and society. When society will become less focussed on indivualism etc. but refoccuses on other themes, it will slowly die out. And will be replaced for something else? Hopefully something better then this.

Quote
Europe-girl
@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"?

'They' are many people and/or entities. They are those in power, with or without knowledge of the whole picture and/or agenda. Corporations like Landmark can get so large and/or complex that you'd be hard-pressed to find one paid individual with the whole picture. But that's not the point. An octopus still needs eight arms/legs...

But, in many ways, 'they' is 'them', as in, [i:0b7c989167]Us and Them[/i:0b7c989167]. And that is what it is ... except that [i:0b7c989167]truly authentic[/i:0b7c989167] Forums, like Rick Ross, engage in [i:0b7c989167]really real[/i:0b7c989167] discussions - without the kind of censorship you'll find in 'cult' organisations and/or religions - which Landmark is both.

Quote

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.

Yeah, that's the point. But I think between those with 'honest' intentions and those hoping to gain more justification for their self-centred ways, the likely split is 50-50. From my experience, this seems to be the case. (This is a whole topic on its own...Intentions and/or motivations :? )

Ultimately, as you've said, many who commit to Landmark get something out of it. As sad as it must seem for many who are committed, a day will come when you have to say goodbye and make it on your own. From what I've gathered from your posts, Europe-girl, you seem to be fairly unaffected by Landmark programming...remain curious, I say.

Quote

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.

From the evidence, plenty of 'mentally unstable' people get through the doors of Landmark. Many of these 'fragile' individuals present no immediate threat, but, when they do, Landmark has a policy of keeping the peace by paying off the victim. Organisations like this do not want bad publicity. But organisations like this cannot help but generate bad publicity by their very natures.

I ask, where is the transparency?

Quote

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.

You know, the same could be said about organisations like the Nazi Party (1930-40s).

Quote

As I said the inner dialogue [i:0b7c989167]can [/i:0b7c989167]be in the way, it [i:0b7c989167]can [/i:0b7c989167]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:

I didn't profess to be an expert on metal illness and/or the workings of the 'inner voice'. Whether illnesses like schizophrenia is somehow connected to this 'inner voice', I can't be sure. I think diagnosis of such would be irresponsible and/or dangerous. Have a hunch - but seek professional advice.

Tautology is lazy and/or bad writing. Simple as that!

Quote
Europe-girl
I think I only heard about the 60-minutes in the late eighties I reckon. Or maybe Werner was on a talkshow then to explain his side of the story? In any case, we were giving some background then by Landmark, of course their side of the story. Also that this was all started by Scientology and how to handle the claims SOC made against Landmark.

It was broadcast in 1991. I'm curious...how did they explain the scientology connection to followers? Did they admit that some of Werner Erhard's "program" material was adopted from scientology? (The "Communication Course" is still, reportedly, almost identical to the original offered by the Co$ and wasn't a separate course until recently.)

Quote

Since all I knew then about scientology was that they thought we come from aliens etc., I swallowed the explanation of Landmark.

I don't see how one follows the other. I mean, here's what it sounds like: "I knew scientology was silly, therefore Landmark's defense must be correct." Didn't the fact that they were concerned with the Co$ give you any reason to be concerned at all?

Quote

So that's how organizations like that can continu, odd as it seems. I think organizations like this only fade away when the owners are no longer physically around - but when you see that at the same time offsprings start, it will take a long time... I think basicly LGAT's play into a demand of men and society. When society will become less focussed on indivualism etc. but refoccuses on other themes, it will slowly die out. And will be replaced for something else? Hopefully something better then this.

They are persistent, that's for sure. Like weeds. There's rarely a shortage of people willing to run scams for fun & profit. Historians trace the rise of the more recent "self-improvement" cult back a hundred and fifty years or so. The U.S. has been fertile territory for these crooks and kooks, perhaps because we are as open, curious, and permissive as we are. (Also as gullible, self-centered, and un or under-educated.)


Ellen

...But that doesn't explain why Europeans fall for this stuff. I wonder if the American "imprimateur" is part of the scam. Do you think if they advertised Landmark as having originated in Sri Lanka or Ethiopia it would have the same "draw?"


Ellen

Quote

I'm curious...how did they explain the scientology connection to followers? Did they admit that some of Werner Erhard's "program" material was adopted from scientology? (The "Communication Course" is still, reportedly, almost identical to the original offered by the Co$ and wasn't a separate course until recently.)

I remember at the introduction I went to this question was raised and David Miles point blank lied and said their was no connection. At that point I had no reason to disbelieve him. I think if an american had been leading the introduction may be I would have been more suspicious but even then back then I wasn't suspicious, simply naive.

When I was doing the Introduction leaders programme, after the first weekend they gave us a bundle of documents to read and learn, these included a list of common questions that people may ask in introductions and how we should answer them. Again it included lies because we were told that the the forum had nothing to do with scientology.

Quote

But that doesn't explain why Europeans fall for this stuff. I wonder if the American "imprimateur" is part of the scam. Do you think if they advertised Landmark as having originated in Sri Lanka or Ethiopia it would have the same "draw?"

Americans are known to be the home of the kooky but europeans, australians and other countries around the world are just as open to these things. And I think Landmark used their brains by simply training up leaders from around the world, while the majority maybe american based their are leaders from other countries and they do come across as very honest easy to believe people. they are trained to do that.

Back in the 90's when I first heard of landmark, I had never heard of it before, had no negatives impressions. didn't have the internet so didn't/couldn't do a search. I did ask friends but none of them had ever heard of it.

At the introduction they really use your friends (who have usually just completed the forum and are on a big high) to reel you in, your friends know your hooks and gets these out, the introduction leaders and assistances then use those to get you registered. Adding to this for me my bosses were paying me for to do the course and had taken me to the introduction and everyone else had already done it and none of them were being negative at all. I had no reason to suspect anything wrong other then a small niggle I had which I ignored because everyone told me it was ok
[/quote]

Quote
sonnie_dee

I remember at the introduction I went to this question was raised and David Miles point blank lied and said their was no connection. At that point I had no reason to disbelieve him. I think if an american had been leading the introduction may be I would have been more suspicious but even then back then I wasn't suspicious, simply naive.

Sonnie, do you think there was any possibility he didn't know? I mean, did he know he was lying? I'm guessing the upper level are probably evenly split between those who do and those who don't know the whole thing is a scam.

Quote

When I was doing the Introduction leaders programme, after the first weekend they gave us a bundle of documents to read and learn, these included a list of common questions that people may ask in introductions and how we should answer them. Again it included lies because we were told that the the forum had nothing to do with scientology.

Didn't it seem odd that they would make that claim?

Quote

At the introduction they really use your friends (who have usually just completed the forum and are on a big high) to reel you in, your friends know your hooks and gets these out, the introduction leaders and assistances then use those to get you registered. Adding to this for me my bosses were paying me for to do the course and had taken me to the introduction and everyone else had already done it and none of them were being negative at all. I had no reason to suspect anything wrong other then a small niggle I had which I ignored because everyone told me it was ok

Was the small niggle specific to anything or just a general suspicion?



Ellen

Quote

Sonnie, do you think there was any possibility he didn't know? I mean, did he know he was lying? I'm guessing the upper level are probably evenly split between those who do and those who don't know the whole thing is a scam.

I think there are many introduction leaders/staff who don't know they are telling lies, I certainly didn't. However I do believe David Miles would have known, He was a senior landmark forum leader who was also the regional landmark forum leader for New Zealand and Australia.

I honestly think most of the older/senior forum leaders would know because they were the ones that went through est first.

Quote

Didn't it seem odd that they would make that claim?

Looking back yes, but at that time I was hooked so to say. They really did have a good (reasonable) answer for anything anyone came up with and taking into account that the people doing ILP were those who had done the forum, advanced course and SELP

Quote

Was the small niggle specific to anything or just a general suspicion?

I wondered if it (the forum) was anti-christian and when I questioned they had the answer about the nun who had done it and showed me her testimony, I should have been concerned that they were that well prepared for that kind of question looking back.

I think the one thing going against me is that I was brought up in a sheltered life style. I didn't have first hand contact of cults or groups that were harmful. I was an idealist who wanted to make a difference in peoples lives, its why I became a teacher. I trusted people in general. I didn't know alot of what I know now and that is what Landmark preys on. They want to get the people who are naive

Yeah, everything Sonnie-dee says I recognise. Listen, if they were talking plain bullsh*t that you could spot right away, do you think so many people fall for it? Do you think they sustain for so many years if it's so obvious? There is a real smart design to it, it's subtle, intelligent.
Especially when you've never heard of LGAT's, or Landmark or whatever - and you see all these happy people, why would you be suspicious?

Now about the relationship between SOC and Landmark. Yes, they say there's no connection. They says this now, if you ask them, no?
Imagine you're in this wonderfull organization that only empowers you to live up to your possibility. You hear of this cult that believes people are from aliens. And you hear people are being held there against their will. And then "some people associate us with that cult". Of course you won't believe there's a connection.
To add to that you've learned that if you take a stand, if you're really up for something, you have a goal, then everything that initially comes up is "the not-goal". Things will happen to get you of track. So guess what the allegations of SOC are? It's a simple side-effect of some jealous (and wrong) group, because YOU are heading towards "a world that works for everyone".
Now see how subtle things can be?