This post will cover the peculiar and very, very revealing musings adepts bestow upon the world regarding those who have not been through the “training” created by Werner Erhard (a used car salesman with no actual studies, who at times referred to himself as God), which later morphed into Landmark.

Let us start by acknowledging that this planet is home to more than 7 billion souls.

Landmark came into existence in 1985, growing out of EST, which had run since 1971. This is a for-profit company with no foundation to back up its bombastic claims. Compared to the history of exploring the human condition (philosophy, psychology, anthropology, civics, spirituality, political science etc), it’s a drop in the ocean. Somehow, this series of self-improvement “courses” (during which you are forbidden from taking notes and which consist 1/3 of a hard sale for future ones), in their minds, has divided the population of this planet – those who were transformed by Landmark and the rest.

Please take a moment to conceptualise how ludicrous that is, in the grand scheme of things, and that every cult, no matter how small and dysfunctional, claims to be privy to secrets of the universe no one else can access.

The only valid perspective on Landmark, as you might expect, is the praise of those who have done it and still hold a positive opinion. The rest of the world is comprised of the following:

-Non-graduates in general (afflicted by a multitude of flaws and by dissatisfaction);

-Detractors who never did Landmark (uninformed outsiders with no right to issue an opinion, even though they might’ve interacted closely with graduates);

-Detractors who started Landmark and walked out (they have no right to an opinion either because they never “completed”, and presumably went there with the wrong attitude), also known as “uncoachable”;

-Detractors who completed Landmark and hated it/ were damaged by it and denounced it later (they obviously didn’t use their teachings properly or were mentally ill beforehand).

As you can see, no critic’s opinion or experience is ever valid, as there is always something (presumably) amiss with said critic. It is, in their assertion, impossible to form an objective negative view, in any circumstance.

“Mediocre life”

Remember, it’s all 7+ billion, minus those who have done Landmark and liked it. The quote below is self-explanatory; the only thing to appreciate is the candid acknowledgement of this lady’s superiority complex. There must be relief for some people in having no social awareness, no filter, no modesty, no implicit respect for others and so forth. Perhaps some people already were that way and Landmark just provided them with a pretext to act it out.

“It robs you of you” seems to suggest that besides being “mediocre”, her interlocutor was causing further damage to himself by merely expressing a negative opinion about the Forum. But they’re not a cult, folks!

Detractors are the actual cult members!

Most people haven’t tried heroin either, and they don’t need to – they see what it does to others and that’s enough. The same goes for mind-altering courses or spiritual practices. If the damage is observable in how people behave, and recounted by so many across the planet, who have suffered as a result or have lost loved ones, avoiding it (or anyone trying to sell it) is only natural.

This person finds it amazing that someone didn’t take the word of their sibling, who appeared to be in an altered state of mind, and instead took to the internet to research. Again, if a sibling recommends mushrooms while on them, saying how amazing they are, one might want more sober opinions before trying.

“Sceptics spread their beliefs like a disease”

This comment was in response to someone describing how Landmark’s intentions were obscure and could not be trusted (which is a common sense reaction in any area of life).

It begs the question – why should someone trust any organisation refusing to be upfront about what they do and what they wish to achieve? Aren’t there scammers on this planet? Isn’t there malice and predatory behaviour? Why should Landmark be given the privilege of not being questioned from the beginning?

To use their own method – one person had required clear information from Landmark, had not received it and had refused to trust them blindly. That is what happened. The adept jumps from this to “I feel sorry for this person’s view on life”. How’s that for a story? It’s very clear that their claim to see things and people as they are, without adding an interpretation to suit their narrative, is absolute bullshit. They do, in fact, twist what is said to them, to guilt and shame other people.

In fact, sceptics don’t spread any “beliefs”. They advise caution and common sense. Landmark is not to be treated as an exception.

Uninformed outsiders

The dismissal below can be found on nearly every thread or article based on a negative view of Landmark, regardless of how someone reached that view (direct experience, the experience of a family member or friend, working for a business dominated by graduates, consistent pestering to join, extensive research etc).

One thing to note is that said experiences are seldom even considered – responses tend to start and end with “I”. Imagine knowing millions have been through the courses ans judging the entire thing through a single person’s experience, as if negative experiences were impossible. It’s no wonder graduates are often described as narcissistic, self-absorbed, unable to stop navel-gazing. Again, remember that one of their core distinctions, already always listening, is meant to turn them into open-minded, excellent listeners. Does that apply, perhaps, to anything but criticism of Landmark…?

People “refuse because they don’t like being told what to do“

The hard sell Landmark employs is notorious, both in their courses and recruitment gatherings, and through graduates who pester anyone with a pulse to sign up. Apparently, that behaviour shouldn’t be off-putting enough to decline.

With the risk of turning blue in the face repeating this – behaviour reveals intention, which in turn reveals character. The lack of boundaries and inability to comprehend the word “no” are huge red flags, which indicate a propensity for treating people poorly in other ways as well. If an opportunity comes with shitty behaviour from dodgy characters, withdrawing is absolutely normal.

The comment above puts the onus on the normal person, having normal reactions to said behaviour.

“Resisting it”

Again, a person needs a reason to trust a certain process before renouncing scepticism where it’s concerned. When unsure of a result, unsure of the process itself (apart from its invasive and uncomfortable nature) and having nothing but word of mouth recommending it, there are no grounds to renounce that scepticism.

In no other area of life is a rational person expected to do so.

Relationships are suddenly downgraded to “inauthentic”

The implication is that after 3 days at Landmark, those previously valued relationships are suddenly all “inauthentic” and can only be made “authentic” by those involved attending. They have now become inferior, and the graduate is suddenly capable of eliminating all mind games or undesirable behaviour. Unlike them, all these other people just “can’t help it”. They need to fix themselves.

Imagine someone going on a short trip and returning with an attitude of being better than everyone else.

That’s why graduates prefer to spend their time with the group rather than family or friends, unless the latter attend Landmark. This person is describing a cult; there is no other way to put it.

You think people are damaged by Landmark? Go get help!

The comment below was in response to someone advising the OP not to go to Landmark (I seem to have lost that one). There was no personal experience recounted, but merely a description of the mental and emotional damage suffered by devotees. Here’s what this graduate took the liberty to assume, in an obviously emotional response:

Let’s point out the absolute hypocrisy of such reactions, even though graduates, as seen above, freely characterise the rest of the world as mediocre, steeped in mind games and limitations. Sure, they can be offended by someone portraying graduates as “lost” across the board, but they dish this out to non-graduates all the time.

Secondly, I thought we were supposed to be already always listening here, as opposed to making gratuitous assumptions about strangers, such as their supposed history with mental illness, creating a story. I thought the old judgemental and reactive self was meant to disappear. It obviously doesn’t! People may leave behind certain beliefs, prejudices and other “filters” – but they replace them with Landmark and keep treating others equally poorly.

Completing the Forum is about having integrity – and obviously the reverse

This is an answer to someone pondering whether they should attend the final evening on Tuesday, as they’d been informed it was designed to get their guests to register (which is true). Please pay close attention to the manipulation, as it’s very subtle.

To start with, people have recounted for many years being pressured to bring guests, as well as guests being harangued into registering.

The OP wasn’t interested in their recruitment night. A graduate gently explains that there is no “should”, but alludes to them being “without integrity” if they didn’t “finish what they started”, which brings “power”- actually, all it brings is more money to Landmark, when they get guests to register. So what is the intention here? To override someone’s reluctance, getting them to benefit the cult, by subtly shaming them.

As a side note, finishing what you started doesn’t always give you power. Many people get pulled into scams and realise it halfway through, before serious damage is done. Others meticulously plan crimes or their own death. Should they finish what they started to maintain their integrity? Others begin unfeasible projects or reckless/ dangerous ones. Perhaps Billy Bob is committed to robbing that bank next month, but should he? It all depends on the situation.

Changing one’s mind has nothing to do with integrity.

Few sceptics are happy

Again, this is a big, big world we inhabit.

This person is obviously far gone, since they think happiness and satisfaction are impossible to achieve outside of Landmark. Sceptics “spread unhappiness” (the correct way to put it is they dispel a mirage, a delusion, and that’s obviously not welcome).

There would be a lot to unpack here – what is happiness, how does one measure it in others, how does one make such sweeping statements about a large group of people whose only commonality is distrusting Landmark? However, the comment speaks for itself, in terms of absurdity.

Detractors/sceptics are the brainwashed ones!

This is on par with the claim that refusing to engage with graduates’ ideas (to consider Landmark) makes you similar to a cult member, because only cult members refuse to hear others out. Similarly, people who “refuse to see life in different ways” are “brainwashed” by their “limited opinions of themselves”.

Here’s the actual definition, according to Merriam-Webster:

This person isn’t referring to unnatural circumstances, such as growing up in dictatorships, strict religious groups or other cults – they are referring to the general human condition, Landmark being anyone’s path to freedom. We are to understand that humans are generally brainwashed, whilst Landmark graduates see the world with clarity.

“Brainwashed” is an insult, even though brainwashing is known to occur (hence there is a word for it)

This was in response to a query on how to help someone who had been brainwashed by Landmark.

Actually, no – many people have been successfully deprogrammed over the decades. And to imply that concern for someone taken in and radically changed by a group is unwarranted is simply untrue – there are so many examples across the world, particularly groups associated with mass suicide or mass murder.

Would anyone claim they don’t wish those people had been saved before it was too late? Would they have used the words written above for the members of Heaven’s Gate, while they were still alive? Or is it just Landmark that holds the privilege of being beyond scrutiny, and beyond words such as brainwashing, when such suspicions are warranted?

“Your (critical) comment may be deleted”

From here we understand three things:

  1. Landmark should be above speculation and any speculation may be deleted.
  2. Anything else can be changed (that’s what they argue), apart from Landmark.
  3. There is a ritualistic aspect to those seminars (“including the way pens are placed”), akin to preparing Mass.

People are afraid of a “big life”

In this person’s mind, “I think I’m being scammed” or “I think this is a cult” somehow translates as someone being afraid of overcoming their limitations and living “bigly”, in the words of an orange clown.

Please note that anyone refusing Landmark’s teachings has a dreary little life. And they wonder why so many people find them insufferable!

Yet another example of inversion and projection

In response to a critic observing the effect Landmark tends to have on people (in strong words, hence presumably from experiences with them), this graduate yet again turns the issues around on the non-graduate population, as in most of this planet.

The word “uncoachable”refers to someone who has found Landmark to be utter bullshit (impossible to brainwash). “Uncoachability” doesn’t exist; it’s not a human trait; it’s akin to Scientology referring to someone’s body thetans.

And of course, the observations of graduates ending up lost and miserable are turned around to almost everyone that hasn’t done the Forum. Whereas it might be harsh or inaccurate to tar all members of an ideological group with the same brush, imagine how ridiculous it is to do so to the rest of the planet!

Then we have projection (“his target audience that needs saving”, after saying the global population needs to be saved by Landmark) and the pretence of mind-reading (“he is terrified of the truth about himself”). Again, going from point A (observations or opinions regarding a group) to …somewhere outside the alphabet.

An example of “listening”…to the voice in one’s head (as opposed to the interlocutor)

The comment below is completely reasonable and the person’s position well-explained. There is no criticism of Landmark’s ideas, no expression of misery or problems, no resentment towards the graduate trying to get him there… just a polite, good faith refusal to go.

Does the graduate responding listen? Does the guy politely wishing to no longer be pestered sound like he needs saving?

Of course he doesn’t listen. They never do. If someone has a hard time with the word “NO”, a notion even a Chihuahua can acknowledge, how are they going to be the most attentive listeners ever (which Landmark claims to teach people to become)? “Looking back, you will wonder why you waited so long” – this seems to come out of the certainty that the guy would in fact go at some point, as if it were inevitable.

The advice is always to go and spend that money, even if someone doesn’t have it; even if they say they adhere by the same principles already.

To conclude, this is what we come away with from the way graduates interact with “outsiders”:

  1. There is no legitimate reason to refuse to do Landmark, apart from a diagnosed mental illness. No such reason should be acknowledged by a graduate (ever) and an attempt should be made to convince the person to go.
  2. The billions of people outside Landmark are mediocre, afraid of life and themselves. If they say otherwise, they shouldn’t be believed – because their only path to freedom is Landmark.
  3. All critics are ill-informed, “uncoachable” (not an actual human trait), brainwashed etc. They should be either censored or convinced to go to Landmark.

There is nothing anyone could say revealing the true position and intentions of Landmark adepts towards the rest of the world better than their own words.