Anyone still out there who thinks Landmark has distanced itself from its scientological roots? Landmark, and all its descendants and copy-cats will never be able to exorcise the demons at the heart of their "programs" -- they are too essential to the whole.

[counterfeitdreams.blogspot.com]

"...There are many reasons not to speak out. And believe me, I've heard them all.

The first is what I call the "get over it" argument. The person speaking out is characterized as a whining victim who is stuck in the past and should just "move on." People who are former Scientologists may also add the Scientology twist that "you pulled it in" - meaning that anything bad that happened to you in your life is the result of your own bad actions. They might talk about "taking responsibility," which, to a Scientologist, means admitting that anything bad that happened to you in life was your own doing - and therefore you have no right to complain. "Taking responsibility," according to the Scientology way of thinking, means essentially that one should shut up about it and just move on.

This sort of thinking is so pervasive within Scientology that sometimes one does not even need to say these words to an ex-Scientologist - they are already thinking this way. And no one, particularly an ex-Scientologist, wants to be cast in the role of "victim." Scientologists strive to be "cause over life" and don't want to admit, even to themselves, that they have been victimized..."

Good stuff, Elena. I'll read this blog in its entirety just as soon as I finish Outrageous Betrayal -- uhhhh...which you also turned me/us onto here. Thank you. It takes even more of the many fragments of memories I have of all this and helps me connect SO many more of the dots. Plus, the book and this blog will help me to CONTINUE answering those questions you had for me last week.

This is helping me so much -- and I'm now not even getting jumpy and hypo-manic about it all anymore. I feel like I'm finally 'taking-on' my past in ways I couldn't (or wouldn't) see before this. I feel like I owe both you and Nettie at least a few good beers out of this. :-)

I'd like to say this is also helping me. I never gave much thought to my participation with landmark until I started hearing about Anonymous and their protests against Scientology. Only then to see the ties to Landmark and Werner, something that was never disclosed by landmarkers themselves. I was always very curious about Werner when I was doing courses and when I would ask some of the old timers about him, they would talk as if he were some kind of God. I should have know better.

I ordered Transformation the movie from Netflicks. I told my husband, when we watch it he should expect me to be yelling back at the tv while it's on. hehe.

I'll tell ya one thing, Billie -- the book "Outrageous Betrayal" pokes so many holes in the "Transformation" flick (and connects so many dots that the movie conveniently leaves unconnected), that I might be tempted to kick the TV if I ever watch 'X-formation' again -- and its why I probably won't. I actually like my TV.

No goddamn wonder the pathetic, beady-eyed old gnome is so concerned about air-brushing his legacy. Its as rotten to the core as is he.

Well ----- back to the book. and afterward, back to that scientology site you offered up today, Elena.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2008 07:38AM by pauker.

The Werner/EST/Forum/Landmark legacy shows up in some very interesting and unexpected venues.

Werner actually sponsored a guru, Baba Mukananda, whom he met in India and helped sponsor on one of M's earliest tour/visits to the United States.

Muktananda later took up residence in the US and started Siddha/SYDA yoga, which continues to this day.

The kicker is...according to a former disciple, Muktananda incorporated elements of EST 'tech' into his own supposedly Hindu 'intensives'

Here is a thread where I assembled some material to aid researchers.,

[forum.culteducation.com]

Which may mean that persons not only got a dose of toxic Hinduism but, without knowing it, were exposed to LGAT/CO$ tech and because they did not know it, could not have known to study the impact of LGAT tech as part of thier own recovery.

Its interesting and rather alarming to think that one could wish to avoid
exposure to LGATs, and think that by sticking with a guru supposedly teaching an ancient Hindu path, be safe--but not know the guru is buddies with an LGAT operater and has incorporated some LGAT tech into his supposedly ancient methods.

Its a bit like how bacteria or viruses can mutate into a drug resistant strain by literally borrowing DNA or RNA from another bacterium within that same host that already has become drug resistant!

A seemingly Hindu outfit may have some 'DNA' incorporated from EST, and thus have a powerful genetic material that derives from CO$!

The Rhetoric of Shame - More Tech

In the fake spiritual scene there is actually a well developed, highly sophisticated rhetoric of invalidation.

As long as you report happy, happy experiences with whatever your human potential group or guru happens to be, you, through your happy stories, validate the group trance and people are nice and sweet to you. As long as you have nothing but good to day, you are one of the tribe.

But...if someone tries to report that they've incurred harm--WHAM they get zapped by the rhetoric of shame, because their harm report threatens to disrupt the group trance.

One way to remain member of this pseudo spiritual tribe is to join the vicioius mob and jeer at the person trying to bear witness.

Which means...you know that some day if you dare to report something's wrong, you can expect folks to do the same to you.

This 'scene can be composed of members of many different groups. Its not any one cult or set up. Its a milieu that socializes people before they even become members of a cult.

(One part of the 'tech' is to learn to laugh and say, 'Of course my group is a cult. There are good cults and bad cults'--which blurs the distinction. If you tell 'em about Lifton's criteria or the Stanford Prison Experiment done by Zimbardo--they will get pissy in a hurry)

I am sorry and angry to say that the 'get over it' line is almost ubiquitous in the so called 'spiritual' scene.

Which IMO is about as spiritual as the local dope dealing hang out.

The 'get over it' line is the favorite cry of abusive people who dont want to be called on the damage they have done, and who want to be free to relate to people as objects and cant cope when you stand up to them as a person.

'Get over it.'

Its the cry of a two year old in an adult body who cant cope when confronted with the cause and effect trail of harm that person has done.

As for victim, a great way to eradicate all notion of interpersonal responsiblity is to declare 'there are no victims'.

That means one no longer has to ponder that one's actions could potentially help or harm others. If victims dont exist, you're free to blitzkrieg your way through life, and the hell with anyone you run over. They dont exist as people.

And 'there are no victims' is also a way to free a powerholder from the notion of ethos of care--that to the extent one has power, one is accountable for the proper and benevolent use of that power.

So...any time we hear 'there are no victims' or 'you brought it on yourself'
that is a social scene where powerholders seek total power, zero accountablity and have rejected the ethos of care--and dont have the balls to admit it.

In short, in large sectors of the so called spiritual scene, what is really worshipped is power, and powerholders.

Only the suffering of the powerholder is worthy of compassion.

In this world if you are not a powerholder, you dont exist, except as an object to be used and discarded. If you cry out, your suffering is ignored or becomes an object of contempt.

The atmosphere in this gangster world is intially very liberating.

But the grim matter is, it is set up so that only a very few become powerholders and most are excluded from power.

The pawn-people are allowed the delusional feeling of freedom but when it is their turn to be run over and used, they will discover there is no ethos of care in this moral wilderness.

The way to tell if a social scene is genuinely spiritual versus coverlty worships power and despises weakness is--find out beforehand the attitude toward those who suffer misfortune, those who are ill, old, poor.

Dare to ask if it is possible for a spiritual leader to abuse power and see what kinds of answers you get.

At least in the world of kink, people are up front that they want to play with power and want to play rough. That way, one can decide beforehand if this is the kind of action one likes.

In this fake spiritual world, sadistic power games are played--but no one tells the truth about this, making conscious and informed consent impossible.

At least from what friends have told me, in the world of kink, matters are negotiated in advance to ensure that everyone--the dominants and submissives all go home feeling satisfied.

Not so in the fake hidden BDSM dungeon of pseudo spiriituality.

The denizens love to claim they are conscious--but are actually, IMO, unconscious that what they really worship is power and what they really get off on are power imbalances.

Worst of all, its non consensual, because the underlings are not even told
they are being led into a power game where they're the ones who will be
paddled and ripped off.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2008 12:00AM by corboy.

Thanks Pauker, I ordered "Outrageous Betrayal" from amazon today.

Corboy-
I love your 'Rhetoric of Shame', I've never read anything like that before, it pulls it all apart at the roots. I'll print it out and study it so I know it inside out.

I realised yesterday that I also have bought into that idea of despising victims (without having done any LE courses). I heard myself declare to a friend, "I am not a victim!!" and realised that it is because a part of me despises victims... hmmm.. Not too comfortable about that, I want to think it through carefully.

As you said, "Its a milieu that socializes people before they even become members of a cult". Could we name this mileue so that we may examine and talk about it more easily? For example, could we call it something like the 'victim-despising mileue', or the 'victim-fearing mileue' (since ultimately it seems that they fear being called victims even more than they despise them). I'd like to really examine how these victim-despising and fearing ideas originated and propagated, and why (if there is a 'why'). Are they represented on tv? If so, which programmes / movies / adverts in particular? (One that springs to my mind is MASH 4077- the 'coolest' characters revelled in despising and mocking others)

I've also been wondering, what is the 'achilles heel' of Landmarkers? And could it be this deep fear of being labelled a victim? What other achiiles heels are there?

Has anyone ever tried telling a Landmarker that they are a victim? What was their response? (The robotic -"That's your interpretation"??)

Vegiegardener