Like many people, I was drawn to the Landmark in 2002 through a 'friend' (ie. now no longer) who had enticed me along to one of the introductory sessions. Her timing was unfortunate, because I'd been going through some bad times with a generic feeling of isolation and that my chosen path in life just wasn't really going anywhere. Perhaps this made me vulnerable to suggestion, but I've always been quite receptive to different ideas that seem interesting, at least initially (luckily however, I also have a strong independent streak and am very wary of 'groups' and 'movements'). Anyway, despite misgivings about the heavy sales pressure, I signed up for the Forum.

People can get a pretty good idea as to what goes on within the Forum from the 'personal stories' on this site. That is not my focus here. I am interested in exposing the group and power dynamics that pervade Landmark, which deserve some special attention. As far as my own experience is concerned, suffice to say that I did the 'whole thing', despite deep reservations if not repulsion against their methods (particularly the 'boot camp' style authoritarianism, and the wholly reprehensible obsession with a 'hard sell'). I even 'got' something out of it, but this was primarily insight into the dynamics of altered states of consciousness and mass psychology that I learned - fascinating in itself from the point of view of an anthropologist, but nothing of what was supposedly on the 'curriculum'. So after doing the basic Forum and attending one rather anally absurd follow up meeting, I quickly gave the whole thing up for good.

On the surface, the social dynamic of the London based Forum I attended appeared to be quite positive. There was a thorough mix of ages, genders, religions, occupation groups, races and nationalities. I met designers, musicians, 'new agers' (of course!), lawyers, social workers, housewives, students, and even a truck driver. On balance though, there was a heavy predominance of high powered professionals in their 20s and 30s (a significant observation I shall return to). What was common to almost all, however, was a feel of restlessness and disconnectedness to life in general; a great hunger for something intangible yet gapingly vacant from (typically) sophisticated, metropolitan lives. How the authoritarianism, (ab)use of language and mind control operates within a Landmark group is intriguing, but once again this is perfectly adequately described in the articles on this site. What has not been addressed however, is how an initially heterogeneous Landmark group is able to pare down through the process of 'seminars' and 'advanced courses' to the young(ish) professional core we observed earlier. The question should arise in the inquiring mind as to why this is the case.

I was able to observe this weeding out process in action through retaining contact with a friend I met there, who, unlike me, continued with Landmark and is now entirely in a world of his own, or to use the Orwellian jargon of the Forum, 'transformed by his curriculum for life'. Through remaining in contact, I was able to observe his ever widening circle of new (Landmark) 'friends', and wonder at the remarkable process of 'natural selection' that seemed to be at work behind the scenes. For the more 'advanced' the Landmark devotees became, and the more seminars etc attended, the more they began to narrow down into an homogenised, exclusive group. Most remarkable was the disproportionate numbers of young, slim and glamorous professional class women, circulating and flirting around generally older (sometimes quite a lot older), but equally 'ideal' (appearance wise) men. Another remarkable phenomenon was the rapid dropping off of the old, very young, non-white (the only possible exceptions being one or two Asian and mixed race), and other minority (gay, disabled etc) participants from the basic Forum. Of course it is impossible to say with certainty why the latter groups had shed away, but considering the ruthless market orientation of the Landmark and its myopic obsession with the most superficial and conformist aspects of PR, it behoves to ask whether possibly 'less desirable' recruiters 'fell' or were 'pushed'. I suspect that the answer is a bit of both. Yet whatever the cause, the end result was invariably a core of fashionably dressed, apparently confident, 'up with it' and articulate 'graduates' who conveniently also exuded an enticing sexual allure, and thus formed the perfect recruiting agents for Landmark's unashamedly commercial purposes.

Most interestingly, we can therefore detect under the Landmark surface gloss a deep concealed conformity to racist, sexist and various other 'ist' norms, while at the same time they openly profess to be 'modern', 'liberated' and 'free'. Attending (with my enthusiastic Landmark friend) 'graduate' and 'team management' parties also enabled me to observe the power and sex dynamics of Landmark devotees at first hand. Remarkable here was how quickly the young women had conformed to a male sexist's wet dream. At one party I was dragged along to, a group of city girls I discovered had all taken up a bizarre passion for part time pole dancing - nothing strange in this of course; just the natural consequence, as they explained, of a woman's desire to achieve 'personal liberation'. 'Pole dancing for men makes me feel so empowered', as one said. And where had they got this idea from in the first place? Needless to say, it was initially conceived as a 'breakthrough possibility' from the 'team management and leadership programme' they were attending. A sort of pallid, zombie like hedonism was quite openly on display at these dismal affairs, and it was odd to observe supposedly intelligent, confident women vacantly gyrating through the night for the attentions of the perceived alpha males (this based solely on their Landmark credentials). Clearly then, Landmark had yet another unstated purpose: to provide a pool of young and available females, each ripe for plucking by the universally heterosexual, aspiring Forum Leader alpha males. Female aspirants are obviously rewarded by a different set of criteria, but no doubt they achieve their status in the same way as the men; this being entirely based upon the manipulative 'pulling' or recruiting powers that they can exercise on behalf of the organisation.

The Landmark 'values' and ideology are riddled with contradictions. At the start, there is a proclaimed emphasis on 'people' and 'sharing', and the very real importance of families and friends. Very shortly, however, these 'values' are revealed as highly conditional. Families and friends are in fact only 'important' in so far as you encourage them into participating in the Landmark Forum. Then, as the Landmark fastens its grip on the devotee's consciousness, these proclaimed 'people values' are turned right round on their head and subordinated to the twin needs of Landmark and unfettered personal desire; effectively meaning that any 'non-useful' or 'troublesome' family, partner or friend relationships therefore require immediate surgical 'conclusion', and must be cut off without any sentimentality or remorse. Conventional man/ woman partner relationships with children are likewise initially broadcast as the 'ideals' Forum participants should be aspiring towards. But once again, this red herring is quickly exposed as conditional, if not downright expedient. For as the devotee must submit to Landmark and pursue his or her own desires above all other restraints, then inconvenient partners (and children who cannot be 'Landmarked') must be jettisoned without further consideration. In this way, everything becomes utilitarian; family, job, religion, friendship networks and recreational activities are determined by two factors only: firstly whether that person, institution or activity can further the devotee's personal gratification; and secondly, but most importantly of all, whether the subject under analysis can serve to further the evangelical aims of the Landmark Forum. All other considerations are ideologically irrelevant. The above are just a few of the contradictions in evidence. For example, strict discipline is universally enforced at both the Forum and its derivative seminars; these restrictions covering food, drink, sleep, medication and the taking of alcohol and drugs. Yet at the dreary 'parties' I have described above, the drinking of alcohol was not only widespread, but cocaine and cannabis was conversely either indulged or tolerated by budding leaders and 'advanced' devotees alike - espoused under the Aleister Crowley/ Bhagwan Rajneesh like tenet of 'once you have broken through to your own authenticity, then anything is permitted'.

A perhaps even more alarming propaganda vehicle than the Forum is the 'Landmark Education for Business Development' enterprise. I would suggest that an in depth monitoring of which corporate organisations have signed up (and how deeply they are involved) are in order. On the Landmark website they boast that AT&T, Exxon and Lockheed Martin (amongst others) have 'benefited' and 'profited' from the LEBD course. One cannot help but note that a substantial section of the corporations listed have dubious ethical and environmental standards to say the least. Of particular interest might be to discover what the Landmark's 'business advice' course's techniques and methods are; whether it serves as another outreach for the Landmark Forum, and whether participating employees get ritually humiliated for independent thought and dissent in the same manner. What is evident however is that Landmark is successfully linking itself in directly to corporate power and finance as well as influencing individuals, which raises some disturbing questions as to its wider agenda.

I have noted in the two years even since I did the Forum that Landmark's tentacles now reach into many more cities and regions in Europe than before. So not quite a Starbucks or McDonalds yet then, but obviously trying hard. Surprisingly large numbers of people seem to have heard of Landmark, and a few have even been advised or pressured to attend the Forum as a 'training exercise' for their work. This may be 'scary' - or not, as it is impossible to say how many people are being sucked in and how many turned off by their Forum experience. Judging by the excessive zeal which seems to grab converts like a ravening lamprey, this would translate very poorly into a normal work environment, for example. Persistently evangelical employees would be (and are) eventually fired from their jobs, and in the case of a small business owner, taking the step of becoming a Landmark devotee could quite well spell commercial suicide. In the case of large corporations where the managerial strata has been persuaded to do the LEBD, however, this could of course be a different matter altogether (as their market position is a dominant one and Landmark could generate a persuasive ideological control and spin mechanism, oiling the dark arts within an already firmly established and hierarchical institution).

Nice analysis! Good work.

The people who made Tony Robbins famous, Guthy-Renker, originally described Robbins as selling GREED and VANITY.
That is the truth.

Also, in Landmark, they are selling Greed and Vanity, as well as Lust, which i would take a subset of Greed.
Greed is Good! So they say....

It seems to me they push people slowly, into the mindset similar to that or Werner Blowhard, that of the SOCIOPATH.
For a sociopath, all people are just tools to be used for your own gratification.
Mainly to make money off.
But also, to gratify your sexual desires.
After all, what's the fun in running a cult without easy free sex?

So in general, over time, they push their Followers into malignant Narcissism and a sociopathic Belief System.
Sex is one of the first WEAPONS to be used, both by men and women, when they move into the sociopathic beliefs.
Those young women are being "groomed" to provide "fringe benefits" for the guys leading the Forum.
And the young, vulnerable, and insecure women i would imagine get their reward by getting the positive Attention of these same Leaders, and by giving them "pole dances", and i would imagine "lap dances".
(to be fair, even Oprah had a show on learning how to strip and be a pole dancer. I wonder what ever happened to Feminism? But that's another issue...)

Its fascinating that at these Landmark parties, there is drug and alcohol abuse, and sex, and all the rest of it.

What a crazy, absurd con-game this Landmark is.
Its just a psychological machine to empty your bank account, get you to work for free, and if you are an attractive female, apparently serve up some sexual fringe benefits.

It is literally PARADISE for a sociopath like Werner Erhard and his gang.

Coz

Excellent analysis and excellent reply.

I attended the Forum and observed the dismissal of several Asians, a lesbian, a very eccentric older "hippy" type and at the time wondered if there was something else going on. Mostly, I figured they were plants used to set examples for us. My Forum also had a diverse mix. The truck driver in mine surely was a plant. He claimed his wife "forced" him to attend, so the leader made his big deal about attendees attending under coercion. The man decided to stick it out and, of course, had the biggest breakthrough, wailed through the fear exercise, and gushed his way through the closing sessions. The old Landmark web page outlined experiences like this, so I'm sure our truck driver had a regular gig with Landmark.

Years ago, when I found this site, I had just gotten over being conned, and nearly killed, by a doctor who turned out to be a total fake. The therapist I saw in the aftermath concluded that this doctor was a sociopath. Recalling the things he did and said, and the reasons he always gave to try to get me to be the same way, and then learning more about The Forum, I concluded it was a training camp for narcissists and sociopaths. Ruthlessness in business s generally admired. On a more intimate level, narcissists\sociopaths initially are great to be around because they don't follow the rules, aren't afraid of adventure, don't have many fears. It's very freeing and empowering at first. This is part of the high that Landmark depends upon for more recruits. If they can limit the pool to sexy, charismatic people who are likely to have a large circle of acquaintances, all the better for them.

Just thoughts along the same lines of the prior excellent postings:

IMHO, this is not only with Landmark, but with advancement to upper levels through most cults. Miracle of Love does the same thing, using sexctasy and other accolades to keep people hooked, then afraid to look back and undo their ways.

Someone insecure, in a life crises is love bombed and supported by the other people in the group. Through healing themselves using the group's methods (whatever they may be) the person becomes a classic narcissist. Gradually whatever conscience the person has is replaced by the cult leaders' directives/guidance/commandments etc.

As the person advances through the ranks of the group, spending more money, recruting others, guiding the newbies, donating more, the individual receives praises, public acknowledgements, is deemed at high levels, etc. Extra bennies include such liberating experiences as sharing a shower with several other members, openly exploring each other's bodies, etc. Pretty heady. (no pun intended)

The person gradually loses their conscience and is slowly cultivated into a sociopath in their own right. Yet the person truly [i:6ffdbf7247]believes [/i:6ffdbf7247]they are acting with a conscience, with the guidance of their benevolent leader and their higher purpose or Mission.

In the extreme this is seen with leaders in Hitler's elite group.

I'd mentioned elsewhere the German flick "Downfall' about the inner circle of Hitler's last days. Some medical residents I know did not like the film "because watching the film made us feel compassion for them and actually like Hitler's leaders". IMHO, that IS the point. So many of these people begin/ began in a good place and got hooked. The ultimate consequences are disastrous

(we know that... forgive me for preaching to the choir)

Interesting discussion... and thanks to everyone for the compliments on my analysis. actually, I saw Downfall (Bunkr) tonight, Toni, and the parallels between Nazism and a cult are obvious. In fact, part of the film's chill resides in the fact that the same subordination of independent rational thought to an abstract, dysfunctional ideology is still with us today.

For while Landmark may be a rather extreme example, it is quite clear from general observation around us that the general ideology and world view it expounds does not exist in isolation. As well as many other derivative or rival personal/ business development organisations that profess a total 'curriculum for life', is it not true that the public relations techniques employed by increasing numbers of political/ corporate bodies also resound with the same meaningless banalities and linguistic gymnastics... only to be understood through their Orwellian inverse meanings? They apply the same manipulative ploys of using a charismatic personality to sell a half baked or blatantly disingenuous idea; the same straightjacket wound round the parameters of debate; the same refusal to see alternatives and last resort to parroting the official dogma; the same authoritarian abuses and the same shameless pursuit of power and profits (the British Prime Minister Tony Blair for example may not be a Landmark devotee, but he sure as hell acts like one!). And ordinary people cannot get off so lightly either, for the malaise has spread across the wider culture. Those who strive to conform to the dominant world culture eke out isolated, alienated lives. They increasingly relate to each other in terms of superficiality and disposable utilitarianism; and they make increasingly irrational decisions, while remaining blindly self centred and self obsessed. Is it any wonder therefore that in an environment such as this, that dodgy 'self help' organisations like Landmark can flourish? So the (rhetorical) question one has to ask is: To what extent have cults and cult like behaviour entered the mainstream of our everyday interactions? Or does society as a whole need a form of exit counselling?

As far as "conscience" this is a very slippery topic.
This is why it bothers me so much when Stephen Mormon Covey talks about CONSCIENCE as if God came down and created it or something!

Also, its just as incorrect, in my view to say that person X has no conscience.
Sure they do.

What they have is a very SELECTIVE conscience.
We all have a selective CONscience, but theirs is just more extreme and distorted.
So we would never steal, but we will lie on our taxes, etc.

I know a new age "healer" who by my age has already made enough to retire.
Because he would charge CASH up to $400 for a Voodoo type New Age health "treatment", he then moved his money off-shore, and is now leaving the country. He does not have to work again.
Now this is my friend from kindergarden age, and he is 100% Self-Righteous about it. (ironically i do not challenge him at all, as it would wreck our friendship, and he did not put a gun to their head, he just told them what they wanted to hear).
So he has a SELECTIVE conscience too.
Be an Honest New Age Healer, and believe in God, but Goddamn the greedy gov't and illegaly move hundreds of grand off-shore and then leave the country and retire at a young age.
So "spiritual".

In MOST cases, people CONvince themselves what they are doing is Holy. Even actual criminals truly BELIEVE that THEY ARE THE VICTIM of the system.

So, in my view, they all have a conscience.
But its just very selective in application.
It applies to Me, Myself, and I, and my dog, and...God, Landmark, Mary and Christ perhaps, Mom, and some of my Cronies.
I don't have a problem believing that most of the Landmarkians are True Believers. Even some of the real cynics at the top.
Erhard probably believes he is a persecuted Genius.
The human mind is a tricky thing...

Coz

OK, Coz, I defer to you again. :D

You've been at this longer than I have. In my experience, the devout have a very selective conscience... the knowing destructive lies and manipulation that wrecked havoc in the lives of my family, because of others' selective conscience, would lead me to believe that they lacked a conscience all together.

Selective conscience, when the groups' motives take over (again the leaders of the death camps believed they were doing good...as do various low level leaders in the Mormon church). Allowing the groups' directives to determine the behaviors of followers, and what they say to outsiders in their lives, means, IMHO, that the member increasingly relinquishes their own self determination (e.g. conscience).

You are right, Lalich's "Bounded Choice" addresses the fact that cult members do retain a part of themselves inside somewhere, it's just all bound up with cult doctrine.

Your new age buddy sounds like he was honest in what he delivered to his clients; and he was making his own decisions. Outright lying that affects others' lives is a different matter all together.

Agreed r.e. Covey's Mormonism.

Yes, conscience is a slippery topic. Conscience comes from the Latin word for knowledge. But aren't all the topics here rather slippery? Does not part of the definition of sociopath include the lack of empathy, the lack of remorse, the lack of guilt, lack of awareness that lies damage others? At what point does a cult member totally lose their sense of inner core? the knowledge of how their behaviors negatively influence others?

It seems to me that the culture of Landmark and other groups involve selective conscience in their recruitment as well as advancement. True self-help would strengthen a person's ability to make independent decisions and life direction, rather than rely increasingly on external validation (from the cult).

Stooge : You've opened up some good topics here! Did you see (no longer accessible by link) the cover story on yesterday's International Herald Tribune, Rumsfield did a surprise visit to Baghdad, warning Iraqis' new leaders against the dangers and corruption that occur with 'cronyism'.

Thanks for the conversation. Off to my real job. Have a good day all!

Ciao, t :D

I hadn't realised this about Landmark and minorities. I wonder if it's the same in Europe? My Landmark friend was brought into it by his wife/partner, who is black. But then again, she is also a consultant surgeon and very well respected in her field (ie she fits the thrusting young professional profile -- although she is in her early 40s, not 20s or 30s).

I have to admit to a slightly guilty wish that, if your observations hold correct, she will get excluded as they progress through Landmark (I think they've been involved for 1-2 years now)... then hopefully it would expose to them what a racket the whole Landmark thing is. They are both still at the fervent recruiting stage (and I think my husband and I may be temporarily off their guest list, as we've proven impossible to bring to an introductory evening). On the other hand, racism isn't quite as rampant in the UK as it is in the US (based on my observations of having been brought up in the US and having lived the last 15 years in the UK) -- it exists it's true, but nowhere near so universally as in the US. So maybe this is an unrealistic expectation, that they will eventually loosen their hold on her.

edited to remove typos, etc

The cults that I've been close to, are also fairly monoenthnic at the upper levels. At the entry and midlevels there is more ethnic diversity.

Just a thought here, there is no answer to be had. Is the racial unity at the upper levels of some groups actually a reflection of the racism of the group?

Or is it that minorities in North America have to have a fairly strong inner core to withstand society's subtle daily racial tension? Medical literature is currently addressing the physiologic measures of race related stress in our society, scientifically validating the stress measures that people of color psychologically experience.

I wonder if the psychology from living as a minority creates an inner core that is less conformist in some ways, so that eventually people of color are more likely to drop out of cults before reaching the higher levels?

No matter how much a person of color conforms to upper-middle-class society (or to a primarily white cult), they always stand out as 'different' anyway. The group identity to one's ethnic group is a tie, that many caucasions don't quite understand, in my experience. Until the cult bonding can overtake the ethnic identity, the upper levels may remain fairly monochrome. Just a thought.