I'm involved in kind of a weird situation right now. I wrote a little about it in a post several months ago, but it's escalated to the point where I now have to go to court on August 5th because my ex-radio co-host (who happens to be involved with Landmark) has filed an anti-harrassment order against me!

Here's what happened. We started working together in early 2004. Everything was okay for awhile. In October of that year, he invited me to a Landmark forum. I couldn't go at the time (I had no money) but finally almost a year later, I signed up for a weekend.

Well, I ended up walking out before the end of the third day. I told my co-host and he seemed to accept my decision. Everything seemed fine between us at first but things slowly grew more tense. (I don't know if my walking out of Landmark had anything to do with this.) He's also involved with a lot of other "new age" stuff like tantra, Kabbalah, shamanism, etc. plus the radio show had an "oracle" theme. I have never been into that stuff so maybe it's just we were too different.

Anyway, there was a very weird dynamic between us throughout our four years of working together. Often he would be very (unneccesarily) critical of my performance on the show, but if I tried to defend myself or do anything other than accept his criticisms, he would call me "hypersensitive" or act like I was causing problems. There were other times that I could pick up on the silent tension, so I would ask him about it and try to figure out if there was some way we could address/fix it, but again, he would call me "hypersensitive" or accuse me of taking away his business time, or being a drama queen, or whatever. I don't know if this makes sense (it barely did to me) but it felt like a big mindf***.

Ironically, when he finally fired me from the show in December of 2007, he cited the tension between us as the reason (but I thought I was just being hypersensitive/causing problems and there was no tension??) Anyway, despite everything I was devastated to lose the show. This guy was extremely charismatic, at times he could be a very sensitive listener, and I thought the world of him and his show.

So I decided to write a blog chronicling my years on the show. I even asked the guy for his permission and he said yes.

Well, it turned out the blog wasn't flattering to his ego. Even though virtually everyone else thought I was giving him the benefit of the doubt or being "too nice" to him in my writing, my former co-host began to accuse me of running a "slanderous campaign" against him. He described my blog as "inaccurate", a "tirade", etc. yet even after I offered to correct anything that might have been false and post a full retraction, he refused to point out any such material. He had his mind made up that I was running a "slanderous campaign" and that my blog was the primary evidence. (He also, weirdly, accused me of crude phone calls and anonymous emails, of which I had nothing to do with.)

In March things got particularly tense and he began to accuse me of "stalking" him. For the record, after things really fell apart, virtually every email conversation we had was initiated by HIM, even after I asked him not to contact me. Yet I was the "stalker"!

This guy threatened that, if I didn't take down my blog, he would tell everyone he knew not to work with me (he has significant ties in music in radio), that he would post my picture under the words "(My name) -- The Biggest Stalker in (My Town)", he threatened to retaliate, "take the gloves off", etc.

I tried to ignore him but in June I got another thread where he told me that he "couldn't protect me from the impact of my actions forever."

Finally, last month his OWN behavior got him fired from the radio station. He still has his show on a second station in Seattle, so it's not like he lost it entirely, but he still freaked out. He finally retaliated by publicly -- on his official website -- accusing me of stalking/slandering him (therefore slandering ME in the process), Then he went on the air at the Seattle station and said the same thing! I immediately complained to the Seattle station, but this ex-co-host even used my complaint (like I didn't have a legit reason to) as evidence of my "attack" against him.

Last week, I was finally served with an anti-Harrassment order from this guy which is extremely frivolous and malicious; his "petition" is filled with false claims. AMong other things, he accuses my fiancee and I of conspiring with the managers at the (non-Seattle) station to get him fired because of his (so-called) Jewish faith.

The real reason he was fired was because of a growing pile of infractions and because he threatened violence against the station manager. I had nothing to do with it (I have no power or authority to make such decisions.)

Sorry this is so long, but my point is that this former co-host (someone who I used to consider a friend)'s behavior has grown increasingly erratic. I've read up on both Paranoid Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder and this guy seems to fit the descriptions to a T, particularly with PPD.

Could his involvement with Landmark have anything to do with this, or is it just a coincidence? I am fairly sure he is still heavily involved.

His petition included creepy phrases like "I have tracked this situation with my producers and advisers and they believe (my name) is at the root of this", meaning his firing and the so-called harrassment campaign. It is pretty spooky to think some team of "producers and advisers" who don't even know me are making such judgments about me. Could he mean his Landmarkian advisers? I dunno.

Again this barely makes sense to me anymore. I don't know if I should be worried. Right now it's more of a headache/annoyance than anything else and I highly doubt the judge will grant his order (I haven't harrassed him, if anything it's the other way around!) but it's like, what will he do next if he doesn't get his way?

It sounds like a chicken and egg thing. Hard to tell if he was made worse by Landmark but I'd say that generally all bets are off when dealing with a Landmarkian and Landmark tends to give these people a home, license, and rationale for their bad behavior. They just don't seem to care to adhere to what might be normal, reasonable, or rational behavior if they drink the kool-aid that tells them to be ~unreasonable,~ that ~nothing is real, ~ and that they ~create their own reality.~ Makes you wonder why HE would "create" such a reality for himself, doesn't it?

Many (most) Landmarkers are led to believe that hysterical, angry outbursts and temper tantrums are quite acceptable because their "leader," Werner Erhard was prone to them. He was known for his expletive-filled tirades and abusive rants. His inner circle learned to deal with this and they modeled themselves after him and trained other Forum leaders who were prone to the same. It's part of their schtick.

I'd say Landmark is particularly dangerous for certain people. This guy sounds like one of the ones who tend to psychotic and/or sociopathic rage, which is not something Landmark is equipped to deal with. They usually discourage these people and try to get them to go away. If you take a look at the literature, the flip-side of narcissism is paranoia. Narcissists are afraid that other people are as shallow and cruel, as greedy and manipulative, and as arrogant and needy as they themselves are.


Ellen

I have done a lot of new age stuff. But after having been involved with landmark for 4 years I can surely say that when a landmarker gets angry with you they will become very obnoxious. It seems (like Elena said) that there is a kind of inherited anger coming from Werner Erhard.

The way I have seen it is when forum leaders tell you that if you are attacked (ie being part of a cult) you should attack the attacker.

Landmarkers live in their own reality - created by their words. If they feel attacked they MUST attack the attacker. It just lies within the framework of their mind set.

My best advice is to distance yourself from the guy. He will never let up. If you have a legal angle you could pursue that but it will become even uglier.

"Attack the attacker" was L. Ron Hubbard's directive and one of his more famous utterances.

And Nettie's right about your colleague likely never giving up. One thing narcissists can't stand is losing. They equate it with dying in some weird psychological way. You can't win a contest with a narcissist. They will fight to the death. Reminds me of the movie "Dangerous Liaisons" about the battling narcissists who crush the victims of their monstrous egos for entertainment. At one point the Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close) looks into the camera and chillingly says, "I've distilled every thing to one single principle: win or die."


Ellen

"It seems (like Elena said) that there is a kind of inherited anger coming from Werner Erhard."

It is as though the EST tech implanted material from WE's core into others. Psychoanalysts call this the internalized introject.

In childhood we can incorporate features of the adult personalities around us, slowly, gradually and in a way that supports our true developing selves.

But in the high pressure intrusive chamber of the LGAT when confused, sleep deprived and regressed, one can be rapidly impregnated with
introject material inherited from the founder, passed down through generations of forum leaders and then implanted in the next generation to be marched through the chamber.

Years ago, I was glancing rapidly through a book about Rajneesh/Osho, written by a former member who mused that there was a sort of 'psychic cloning' that seemed to happen, that Rajneesh seemed to have had to ablity to implant some image of himself within devotees who then become his psychic property.

One has to wonder if Rajneesh/Osho learned something about LGAT tech and then applied it covertly.

Thanks for the replies. It's all very interesting. I have absolutely no problem distancing myself from this guy but I'm kind of stuck going to court with him next week. I guess I'm still wondering, should I be worried if he doesn't get his way? It seems like not getting his restraining order might make things worse. However, I don't deserve to have such an order slapped on me at ALL and to even be going to court for it is ridiculous. So should I defend myself or (since I'm dealing with a paranoid Lekkie) would defending myself be considered an "attack"? Arrrghhh. Anyway thanks much for the input!

Quote
kickedinthehead
Thanks for the replies. It's all very interesting. I have absolutely no problem distancing myself from this guy but I'm kind of stuck going to court with him next week. I guess I'm still wondering, should I be worried if he doesn't get his way? It seems like not getting his restraining order might make things worse. However, I don't deserve to have such an order slapped on me at ALL and to even be going to court for it is ridiculous. So should I defend myself or (since I'm dealing with a paranoid Lekkie) would defending myself be considered an "attack"? Arrrghhh. Anyway thanks much for the input!

Tough call.

I'd probably go ahead and fight it, at this point. Paradoxically enough, and in this type of situation, the Landmarker will interpret any retreat as a "win" on his part, reinforcing his tendencies to nastiness and aggression.

There have been judges who have dismissed these clowns and ushered them out the door. I'd just hope the judge could see through him. (I might do a search on his previous legal activities, just out of curiosity. Dollars to do-nuts, this isn't the first time he's pursued someone into court.)



Ellen

You need a lawyer. This isnt something to go into alone.