Monday, 2 March 2009

Is Landmark All About Interpretation?

Landmark Education is frightened of criticism, as is Scientology (to which it's related). It will do all in its power to stifle criticism including law suits. Why is Landmark so scared? Why does Landmark refuse to open itself to scientific inquiry and therefore legitimate itself?

I use the term scientific inquiry carefully. Landmark has some attempts at research on its website. Don't be fooled as these are not impartial, disinterested research projects undertaken on Landmark. They are paid for boosters of Landmark's methods by academics who wished to make a quick buck. Not too different from those who research the products of pharmaceutical companies and always seem to come with results that support Big Pharma's case.

Landmark can't have legitimate research because simply it would expose it for the sham it is. Cults rely on faith and foolishness. The genius of Landmark--and it has one otherwise it wouldn't make all that money--is to dehumanize people before they are led into the glory of how Landmark can fulfil them.

Landmark Forum Critic puts the whole thing very pithily:

The Landmark Forum in 3 Easy Steps:

Friday Morning: Eliminate dissent.

Saturday Evening: Sacrifice the most talented woman.

Sunday: Find a scurrilous nobody and crown her queen.

It's like witnessing a murder and not saying anything about it. The result can last a lifetime. An honest audience turned into a group of frauds in just 3 days. Now that's transformation!

The point about Landmark is that it uses the techniques of interpretation, for that is one of the purposes of the Socratic method, to instil its worldview into the gullible. Of course we all engage in interpretation and we realize that some arguments may be stronger than others, but they achieve that status on the basis of logic and reasoning, not dehumanization or "eliminating dissent." That is barbaric authoritarianism.

I compared Landmark's techniques to a Ponzi scheme based on one adherent's experiences. Jessica, the adherent, took umbrage at my interpretation of her experiences. She said that was not what she meant. If that's the case, Jessica needs to write more carefully and articulately than she has. There is no restriction, mental or spiritual, on interpretation unless it takes place within the confines of a prison.

Maybe Jessica will learn that Landmark is a kind of Ponzi scheme and the feelings of dissociation that she has from being away from home in a strange city, unsure about her job, not knowing how to deal with homeless people will not be answered by Landmark. She must know herself. Certainly by the time Landmark is finished, she won't have any money to contribute to the cause of the homeless.

Thursday, 8 January 2009

Landmark the Ponzi Scheme

With the exposure of Bernie Madoff and his $50 billion Ponzi scheme, someone ought to do the same with Landmark. It's fundamentally a pyramid scheme always depending on new recruits to boost the income. When journalists have attempted to obtain financial information about Landmark, their attornies start the heavy breathing act.

Rachel Jones of Noseweek in South Africa asked Landmark for a simple set of accounts detailing the costs of a Landmark Forum and its profits. She was concerned about the high costs relative to the actual cost of such a program. Needless to say she wasn't given the information, only threats and evasiveness by its executives.

Besides conning actual cash out of its acolytes, Landmark has one extraordinary trick up its sleeve--volunteering. They run something called the "Landmark Assisting Programme". An Australian woman, Jessica, living in London described her venture with this. Not only is it duplicitous but it is greedy and mendacious too. This is one of the reasons Landmark was thrown out of France and Sweden.

Landmark, a for-profit, company doesn't even want to pay the minimum wage. How cheap can you get? But people like Jessica, professionals in crisis as I've said before, are the prime suckers for this. There could be hope for her yet.

Read on....

dictation

November 23rd, 2008 · No Comments

Attention, Landmarkers. I am running a racket.

Attention, non-Landmarkers. Running a racket is top-secret (not really) Landmark Forum jargon for someone or something is getting on my nerves and I would like to whinge about it in three, two, one:

My Landmark Forum In Action seminar leader called me last week. I was at work, and rather busy, didn’t want to talk to anyone at all, and especially not anyone Landmarky. Talking to Landmarky people means that I have to have things like integrity, energy and responsibility. Three things best left alone on a Monday morning.

“Hi, Jessica? It’s ****. Are you interested in doing the Landmark Assisting Programme?”

“Um. What?”

“We really need assistants for some of the seminars.”

“Oh.”

“We’re desperate.”

“Oh. When do you need someone?”

“This Thursday night. Can you come? It would really help us out.”

“Um. Sure. What time?”

“6:30.”

“See you then.”

“Oh, that’s great! We’ll see you on Thursday. Thanks!”

Actually, I’m not at all interested in the Assisting Programme. The Assisting Programme is for Forum graduates who want to climb the ranks of the Landmark elite, ruthlessly clawing their way up out of the writhing pit of volunteers with their endless stories of rackets, breakdowns, breakthroughs, transformations and all manner of jargony life moments they’ve experienced since the forum. In short, they want jobs.

But I like my seminar leader. She’s sensible and intelligent, and she said she was desperate. So I decided I would go, because I told her I would, and because I have lots of Landmarky integrity these days.

Cut to 6:30 on Thursday night. I am prepared for a hectic night of running around the way I have seen assistants do on television. I march into Landmark Forum headquarters on Eversholt Street near Euston station to find a suspicious number of people milling around, all of them wearing name badges that say ‘Assisting Programme’.

“Hi, I’m here to assist. What can I do?”

“Oh!” A look of bewilderment. “Great! Um… go see that guy in the grey shirt.”

I approach the guy in the grey shirt. “Hi, I’m here to assist. What can I do?”

“Oh!” A look of bewilderment. “Great! Um… go see that guy in the blue shirt.”

I approach the guy in the blue shirt. “Hi, I’m here to assist. What can I do?”

“Oh!” A look of bewilderment. “Great! Um… see that girl over there? The one writing the intention of tonight’s session on the whiteboard?”

I look over. There is a girl writing a couple of sentences on a whiteboard in huge letters. She is taking approximately one minute to write each word. “Yes.”

“Do you think you could read out the intention of tonight’s session to her so she can write it without looking at it?”

A look of bewilderment. This time from me.

“Yes. I think I can do that.”

I’m so glad I could help Landmark in their hour of desperation. Nobody reads aloud like me.

Monday, 29 December 2008

Spurious Education and the Year's End...

My apologies for not posting for a while.

Landmark Education has a way of insinuating itself into organizations often without them being aware of what they might be harboring. I have mentioned how some companies pay for Landmark "courses" under the belief that they are truly educational and not preying on people's insecurities. This is often done under the guise of continuing professional education.

It is when the cult starts insinuating its way into the minds of more impressionable people that it turns more insidious than usual. The fact that it runs Landmark Forums for teenagers speaks to the foolishness and recklessness of parents. But when Landmark gets itself into the university curriculum, we should be on guard.

What Landmark tries to do is find a course or module that involves some kind of development work. Many universities have put personal development in the syllabus. The result is that coaches with Landmark backgrounds are teaching undergraduates the basics of the Landmark ideology. For example, see here

Is the university aware of what is happening? And what it is paying for? Highly unlikely. 

I have seen this happen. It enables Landmark acolytes to lend a spurious authenticity to their proselytizing activities by announcing that they have delivered courses to such and such university. 

This is similar to the way Landmark Education has used doubtful management research to bolster its shaky credentials while attempting to prevent any respectable impartial research into its activities.

A Happy New and Free-Thinking Year to all and let's keep the cults outside where they belong.

Sunday, 5 October 2008

Lawyers' Ethics and Landmark

Imagine the following scenario. A law firm in a major city undertakes much work in media and intellectual property areas. Clients might be seeking to protect copyrights or attack them. The crucial point is that no other lawyers in the firm should be committed to organizations whose positions might make maintaining that independence difficult.

Suppose then some lawyers in the firm are acolytes of Landmark and might have even persuaded the law firm to subsidize their Landmark courses under the guise of continuing professional development.

Now imagine a client comes to the firm who is being threatened with a lawsuit by Landmark. Landmark is not a client of the firm. What then is the position of the firm with respect to taking on the client?

If the lawyers have disclosed their interests, the firm could say 'we can't accept this client.' But, as is likely, the (Landmark) lawyers haven't made any disclosures, then would the firm be in breach of conflicts' rules.

I suspect it could be since those lawyers would find themselves in a situation where to give the client zealous advocacy could be compromised by their adherence to the defendant organization.

Professional service firms--law, accounting, consulting--should audit their members' allegiances to external organization to prevent such conflicts coming down the pipeline. Or they could face potential malpractice lawsuits. At least, there are challenging ethical issues abounding.

Thursday, 2 October 2008

Turn up, Tune in, Transform?

This is one of the fairer newspaper articles on the Landmark Forum that I've seen. Even so, it would appear too critical for acolytes.

Independent.co.uk

Turn up, tune in, transform?

The Landmark Forum claims to change utterly the lives of its devotees - and it is spreading fast by their word of mouth. But are its 'breakthrough' sessions a good or bad thing? Some see it as education, and others as brainwashing. Mary Braid reports

Friday, 5 December 2003

Friday morning rush hour, and 150 young, affluent professionals are piling into a bland office block near Euston station in central London. They appear to be part of that desperate daily attempt to hit the desk before the boss gets in, but this crowd - sprinkled with lawyers, artists, business and City types, as yet all strangers to each other - are all on a day's holiday. They are hurrying to make the start - 9am sharp - of an intensive three-day course called the Forum, run by the American corporation, Landmark Education.

Friday morning rush hour, and 150 young, affluent professionals are piling into a bland office block near Euston station in central London. They appear to be part of that desperate daily attempt to hit the desk before the boss gets in, but this crowd - sprinkled with lawyers, artists, business and City types, as yet all strangers to each other - are all on a day's holiday. They are hurrying to make the start - 9am sharp - of an intensive three-day course called the Forum, run by the American corporation, Landmark Education.

Among the Forum crowd there is a real buzz - a mix of excitement and trepidation. And no wonder. Within this very ordinary building, Landmark promises something rather more special than the usual humdrum day at the office. The Forum course dangles the alluring prospect of complete life "transformation", in just three days.

As the crowd is about to discover, achieving transformation is no picnic. Once inside, the 150, who have paid £275 each for a long weekend's tuition, are directed by smiling course assistants to a large featureless room, lined with rows of hard-backed chairs. The course leader takes up position on a small raised platform at the front of the room.

And so begins the first of three gruelling days that will each last an average of 13 hours, and may run over until midnight. That sounds exhausting enough, but participants also have "homework" to complete overnight. Individual Forum sessions last around three hours. There are only three breaks during the day - two for 30 minutes, and a 90-minute break for dinner.

Mid-session visits to the lavatory or, god forbid, to puff on a cigarette, are frowned upon. (All stimulants and drugs, including coffee, tea and aspirin, are discouraged). Course leaders warn participants that even a few minutes' absence from the room - where the group discuss their personal "rackets" (Forum-speak for the complaints human beings nurse that prevent them achieving joy) - carries the terrible risk of their missing their personal "breakthrough" (ie, a new vision of relationships and life that leads to happiness).

Apart from when they split into smaller workshops, people sit in one huge group listening to the course leader explaining the route to transformation. Participants are encouraged to come down to the microphone and share their most intimate problems.

These days, in professional metropolitan circles, everyone seems to know someone doing the Forum. The Forum leader, David Ure, says that the course, which arrived in the UK in 1991, has seen a spurt of growth in the past two years, and is now so popular that Landmark runs two or three 150-strong forums a month in London, as well as occasional course in other parts of the UK.

Doing the Forum allows you to buy into a whole Landmark world: there are special weekend courses for children as young as eight, with parental permission; courses for families; and a series of advanced courses for individuals that can cost double the price of a Forum weekend. From next year, Forum "graduates" will also be able to find a flatmate or an employee on the Landmark website. Landmark already offers a dating service. Mr Ure says 5,000 people a year are now doing the Forum.

It is unlikely, however, that many know anything about the Forum's roots. In fact, its basic ideas were borrowed from "est" (Erhard Seminars Training), a self-awareness movement that took California by storm in the 1970s, and once counted Diana Ross, John Denver and Yoko Ono among its devotees. Est, founded by Werner Erhard, a former car and encyclopaedia salesman, was a controversial group which folded under the weight of a huge scandal.

What is surprising is the ease with which the young, generally liberal and intelligent London crowd seems to adopt Forum language and comply with Forum rules. Jane, a 40-year-old manager, says that she seemed to be the only participant on one weekend to find the "school" rules, didactic platform tone and Jerry-Springer-style public confessions, pretty unbearable. Like most participants, Jane was introduced to the Forum by a friend. Landmark encourages its "graduates" to persuade family and friends to attend a free introductory evening and claims that 90 per cent of Forum business is generated this way.

It might have been her lunchtime glass of wine, her unauthorised fag breaks, or being four minutes late back from a break, but less than a day into the course, Jane was asked to leave because of her "attitude". "I just thought it was funny to hear some other adult talk to me like I was a child," she recalls.

Course curtailed, Jane missed the "breakthroughs" that occur midway through the Forum, when participants are encouraged to phone husbands, siblings, parents and other loved ones with whom relations are poor. These emotional reconciliation calls often come late at night, during "homework" hours, and are in line with a central Forum message that participants should not let their past determine the shape of their future. The bleary-eyed recipients of Forum calls are usually assailed by declarations of love and forgiveness, and invited to Forum "graduation" - a couple of days after the course.

Jane still laughs at her lone rebellion. But she stresses that her fellow course-mates took the Forum extremely seriously. And there is an army of Forum graduates ready to swear that their lives have been utterly changed by the course.

When Landmark was asked to put up some satisfied customers for interview, there was a surprise. Esther Freud, author of Hideous Kinky and great-granddaughter of Sigmund, stepped forward. Freud started doing Forum courses last year. "I went along because a friend of mine was so transformed by it," says Freud. "She was so much happier and more energetic. One day, I was moaning about something and she said that the complaint was my 'racket'. She was right. I was at a great stage in my life, but I was stopping myself from enjoying it."

Freud says that she was suspicious about the Forum before she took a course, but did not do any pre-course research. "I wondered whether they did it for the money, or whether it was an attempt to brainwash us," she says. "And my partner was a little nervous since he had heard of someone doing it years ago and leaving her husband. I was unbelievably cynical the first time I went. When someone stood up and became emotional, I thought, 'where did they get him from?'.

"But I would say that the Forum has pretty much made all my relationships better. The Forum is about 'getting present' to how incredibly short your life is, how precious it is, and how precious people in it are. Lots of my friends have done it."

But not everyone is so impressed. Disaffected participants claim that they were "brainwashed" by Landmark, and relatives complain that loved ones have been so altered by Forum "transformation" that their personalities all but vanished. Ian Howarth, of the Cult Information Centre, says that he receives regular calls of concern about the Forum. The Forum's detractors include Laura, whose executive husband was taken along to the Forum by a business colleague.

"After just one day on the course, there was a complete change in him," she says. "Some women might like it if their husband suddenly started saying he loved them all the time, but I found it scary. It just wasn't David. It was as if everything that made David what he was had been taken away and replaced with this happy, smiley person. He was weirdly euphoric and animated. Then he became very depressed.

"I did some research and I persuaded him not to go back, but he suffered panic attacks for a long time afterwards. He had to see a psychiatrist a couple of times." Laura and David claim to have counselled scores of disaffected Forum participants.

They include Julie, a 28-year-old advertising executive, who was introduced to the Forum by a best friend three years ago. "She had been at me for ages to go along, and I've always been a bit of a New Age bunny so eventually I went." Julie completed the three-day course but was persuaded by her boyfriend, alarmed at the change in her, not to graduate.

"During the first day, we were asked to talk about our most painful experiences," says Julie. "One girl said she had been raped by her father. She was told to ask herself why her father had done that. The Forum tries to get you to put a different interpretation on things. I went home so sad and so drained.

"Next day, the leader asked us all to sit with our eyes closed and conjure up a painful memory. He then asked us to imagine that we were each on a packed London Tube and everyone was looking at us and was out to get us. I can remember feeling terrified. All around the room I could hear these terrible screaming sobs; I realised that I was crying too.

"Then the group leader said to us that it did not matter. He said that there was a funny side, and the funny side was that we were not alone. And he laughed and then people who had been crying laughed, too. I also laughed. It sounds mad now but I went home euphoric. I told everyone I met how great the course was. By then my boyfriend had all these printouts about the Forum from the internet, but I wouldn't listen to him. I felt that I had been to the deepest, darkest place and had come out feeling great. I wanted the feeling again; not going back felt disloyal to the group.

Julie says that she was called and texted by Forum organisers after failing to turn up for graduation. "They said my boyfriend was trying to control me," she says.

Esther and Julie - it is as if they are speaking about two entirely different organisations.

Mark Kamin, who handles Landmark's PR out of Texas, describes the Forum as "a philosophical inquiry into the way we look at life". He rejects absolutely that it is a cult, or that it employs any cult-like mind-control techniques. With 125,000 people in 54 cities across the globe currently "doing the Forum" each year, and annual earnings of $58m (£34m), Landmark is understandably sensitive to the allegations.

Kamin puts the adverse publicity down to a sensation-seeking media. He disagrees that Landmark's connection with the now defunct "est" - Landmark was founded by former est members who purchased Erhard's "technology" (in layman's terms, ideas and methods) - is partly to blame, but it is hard not to conclude that Landmark picked up some of the smell around est along with Erhard's ideas. Est was, after all, accused of using harsh control techniques. And est folded after scandal engulfed Werner Erhard. Erhard was accused of abuse by his daughters - at least one later recanted - and tax fraud. Mark Kamin points out that Erhard never faced criminal charges on either accusation and that he eventually successfully sued the US tax service for $200,000 for wrongful disclosure.

Kamin says that Erhard has nothing to do with the organisation now and that his "technology" has been developed and modified by Landmark staff. Kamin denies that Erhard receives any income from Landmark, but he confirms that Erhard's younger brother Harry is Landmark's CEO.

Landmark fights hard to counter cult allegations. Kamin cites the 1999 study by Professor Raymond Fowler, then executive vice-president of the American Psychological Association, who attended a Forum course and reviewed the methods that Landmark says it uses to screen for the emotionally unstable. Fowler said that he had seen nothing harmful. "The Forum is not a cult or anything like a cult," Fowler concluded.

Fowler pointed out that cults generally have charismatic leaders, and cult members tend to remove themselves from their families. He found neither of these features in the Forum. Esther Freud also insists that the Forum has no cult characteristics. She says that she is nicer to her partner, the actor David Morrissey, since starting Forum, and a better mother to her two children.

Dominic Richards, a property developer and presenter of Home Start on Channel Five, says that attending the Forum in 1995 helped him to build bridges with his parents. For a decade, they had found his homosexuality hard to accept. "Now, they go on holiday with me and my partner," he says.

That doesn't chime with the experiences of Alex, a London-based media worker, who says that his family was shattered when four relatives did a series of Forum courses a few years ago. "They were down-to-earth people. Then suddenly they were phoning their parents and siblings at 3am in distress, talking about how much they loved them and offering to pay for them to do the course, too.

"My relatives were hooked in for ages and spent a lot of money. They even tried to get their teenage kids involved. Everything was 'a racket'; you could not even suggest that they were being manipulated. They lost interest in the Forum in the end, and, in the long run, I don't think that it did them any mental damage. But it was a terrible worry for the rest of the family."

But Esther Freud remains convinced "that the people who run the Forum genuinely want peace in the world". Richards, who has done five Forum courses, sees the same good intent. "A room full of smiling people who all think life is great is always going to be odd," he says. He adds that the Forum fills a 21st-century gap. "There is so little community in modern city life. The Forum creates a sense of community with which it is good to touch base."

Julie sees it so very differently. She argues that the London crowd doing the Euston Forum have no idea of the danger they are in. "I think that the Forum can damage mental well-being. It's basically a pyramid selling scheme. The irony is that they aren't selling anything tangible. There is nothing real there."

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Dalai Lama Does Landmark!

Rachel Jones does a neat job on exposing the phoney academic studies Landmark uses to allegedly support the efficacy of its work at www.rickross.com. She also probes Landmark's continuing links to Eberhard Weber, the founder of est. (Don't forget that Landmark's licensing agreement with Weber expires next year.)

But the best and most hilarious part of the article is that David Ure, one of Landmark's Forum "leaders" ran a seminar for the Dalai Lama and 300 monks in the foothills of Tibet. When Jones contacted Tibetan exile officials, she was met with a form of "What the @#%& are you talking about?" Apparently she couldn't get David Ure--now in London--to discuss this monumental claim. I wouldn't be surprised if this is not the reason that the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. How could he have done it otherwise?

I have seen Ure in motion and I can imagine him actually saying something as outrageous as this. He is conceited enough to believe his own hype--foolish and stupid with a kind of elemental cleverness.

Friday, 12 September 2008

Q: What Exactly is the Purpose of Landmark? A: It's a Racket

Most people get sucked into debates about Landmark's brainwashing techniques. This is important because of the consequences to individuals and relationships. Yet the most important issue is often sidelined.

Landmark Education is designed to make lots of money for its owners. Nothing wrong with that perhaps, but when you are running what is basically a pyramid scheme something is very wrong.

Landmark charges high "tuition fees" for its courses. They are designed for you--the punter--to keep buying more of them. No single course is ever sufficient in itself. The result is that Landmark is reportedly earning around $70 to $80 million a year.

It has two more tricks it uses. The first is that the punter must bring along new recruits. If not, there is chastisement. The second is that punters are expected to volunteer their time on the phones and at meetings. Landmark has very few employees. This is why Landmark falls afoul of various countries' labor laws.

Landmark likes to target professionals--investment bankers, lawyers, and other financial types--because, to paraphrase John Dillinger, "That's where the money is." These are people who have been high achievers and will feel questioning about the value of what they do.

So on the one hand, there is a spiritual vacuum or malaise, and on the other, there is the cash to allay it. Landmark has identified its market targets with supreme care.

What is most surprising is how gullible these professionals are at the hands of a sophisticated organization like Landmark. Their gullibility leads them into questionable behaviors. In the French TV documentary on Landmark, a medical doctor who graduates from the Forum is shown describing how he is telling his patients to attend the Forum because that will cure their ailments.

This is a clear breach of ethics in any society or profession and should be sanctioned by the professional body.

So ask yourself, have you been approached by your lawyer or doctor or accountant or banker and asked to attend a Landmark meeting? Have you been told that it will be the best thing you could do for your life? Whether you are a client or friend or both, the one who asked you was behaving unethically at your expense.

Can you really trust the judgment of professionals who behave this way and who are so gullible, to really put your interests ahead of any other? Anyone who has been in this situation should have serious, serious doubts. Because they are putting Landmarks profits ahead of you.