If you Google ?Landmark + Fight Club? the first search result will be a link to:
[www.landmarkeducationnews.com]
Here you will find an article by Landmark Education, proudly proclaiming
?Fight Club Author Discusses Creative Process; Credits Landmark Education?
This LE article refers to an article by Matt Thorne, published in the UK newspaper, The Independent, on Sunday 13 July 2008.
[www.independent.co.uk]
This fifteen hundred word article makes reference to Landmark Education (LE) with just the following thirty two words:
?Palahniuk began his career after attending a self-help course called Landmark, and he tells me that although he hasn't attended a course in several years, it still informs his attitude to life.?
Since just two percent of the article makes reference to LE, and since a large portion of the article discusses the writing groups and other means by which his writing career took off, it seems a little much for LE to lay claim to the creativity of one of their graduates.
LGATs rely on half-truths and the manipulation of language to convert participants ? the 2003 documentary on LE is a great example of this. A woman complains that she is being harassed by constant phone calls from LE employees (volunteers). The trainer tells her that she is wrong ? that she is not being harassed, but supported. If LGATs can twist the truth or use ambiguity to their advantage they will do it without batting an eye. As I will show you, Fight Club is anything but complimentary towards Landmark Education or to the LGAT industry as a whole. The author, Chuck Palahniuk has used Fight Club to satirize the LGAT industry, commenting on how recklessly it goes about providing enlightenment, sweeping casualties casually under the rug.
I realize that this may be an odd claim and that it might be strange that it?s taken so long for the secrets of this movie (and book) to be exposed, but there were very specific reasons that I was able to do this. The first is that I?ve spent the last few years studying everything I can on LGATs and the second ? as those of you familiar with my post on LGATs and dopamine might remember ? is that I?m bipolar. For all of its drawbacks bipolar disorder is an illness that provides brief periods of heightened creativity and creativity is really just the ability to think in metaphor ? to link seemingly unrelated ideas. While in one of these states I watched Fight Club for the first time in years and, if you know certain crucial facts about the history of LGATs and the major players in the industry, it becomes abundantly clear that the author was not in support of this industry at all.
For the purposes of this post I will assume that you have some understanding of what takes place in an LGAT and that you have seen the movie Fight Club.
So let?s begin. Edward Norton plays a ?nameless? character who cannot sleep. He tries the traditional medical route, but is turned away by a doctor who suggests he check out ?real pain? ? by visiting the testicular cancer support group. Norton goes to these groups, which involve putting on a name tag, sharing, and ? quite frequently ? crying (purging emotions). Some of these groups use guided meditation (Norton is told to ?go to his cave and find his power animal? for example). Norton does not understand why but these groups provide him with relief. He comments ?Every night I died? and every night I was born again? resurrected.? They allow him to sleep so he does not question how they work.
I believe that Norton represents a typical person who gets sucked into LGAT courses, in all likelihood Norton represents Palahniuk himself. LGATs require name tags, they encourage sharing, there is frequently crying, purging of emotions and LGATs also use guided meditation. Norton?s enjoyment of these groups comes to a halt when Marla Singer arrives. Norton narrates as Singer wanders into the group ?? until SHE? RUINED? EVERYTHING?. Marla ruins the experience for Norton because he knows that she?s faking which reminds him that he?s faking. Ultimately Singer is a reality check for Norton ? preventing him from simply enjoying the group without thinking about what is really going on around him. Clearly Marla Singer represents Margaret Singer Ph.D. ? the biggest enemy of LGATs and the author of Cults in Our Midst. (Chapter 8 of Cults in Our Midst is dedicated entirely to LGATs and the numerous psychological injuries they have caused over the years.) Margaret Singer?s full name is Margaret Thaler Singer ? Marler Singer. This allegory is not particularly well hidden by Palahniuk. I suspect that he did gain some value from the initial LE seminars ? that he had a peak experience or two and that he wanted to believe that his experiences were uncorrupted ? but that he came upon the work of Singer which made him reconsider whether he could support LE in good conscience.
Finally we get to Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt. Tyler is utimately a figment of Norton?s imagination, but he represents a more impulsive, risk-seeking, confident version of Norton. Tyler represents the person that Norton wants to be, the person he aspires to be. In short Tyler represents an LGAT trainer or, more specifically, he represents Werner Erhard. At the end of the movie Tyler explains to Norton ?You were looking for a way to change your life. You could not do this on your own. All the ways you wish you were ? that?s me. I look like you want to look, I fuck like you want to fuck, I am smart, I am capable and I am free in all of the ways that you are not.?
Tyler Durden is a charismatic, alpha male sociopath. He represents freedom from all of the rules and he represents a new and exciting way of looking at the world. When you consider the three professions that Tyler has, the metaphor begins to gain clarity. Norton explains early on in the film that ?Tyler works as a waiter at the luxurious PRESSMAN Hotel?. Steven Pressman was the journalist who wrote the damning biography on Werner Erhard entitled ?Outrageous Betrayal ? The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile?. Later on in the film Norton comments ?Tyler was now involved in a class action lawsuit with the PRESSMAN Hotel over the urine content of their soup.? In 1998 Landmark Education sued Steven Pressman and attempted to force him to reveal all of his sources (presumably so that they could be duly harassed). Tyler?s second job is as a projectionist. He takes this job, we are told, because it affords him the opportunity to splice single frames of pornography into family films. ?Nobody knows that they saw it, but they have?? Norton explains. LGATs have been accused continuously over the forty years they?ve been around of saying one thing and meaning another. An interesting YouTube video looks at one specific example where Landmark uses the word ?enroll? obsessively in trying to get graduates to associate their own success with enrolling others. [www.youtube.com]
The final job that Tyler does is he makes soap. ?In order to make soap,? Tyler tells Norton, ?we need fat and the best fat for making soap comes from humans.? Consider what LGATs do. As well as a bunch of visualisation exercises and fortune cookie lectures, they get you to reveal your deepest, darkest secrets ? the problems, the concerns and the things which are troubling you. What they then do is they take what you say and they twist it around (so that you can take ?responsibility?) and they give it back to you. For this they charge hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Fat represents the bad parts of people that are repackaged and returned to participants. Norton comments while Tyler sells the soap ?It was beautiful - we were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them.?
The greatest conflict during the movie is between Tyler, who represents hedonism and doing things without thinking, and Marla (who represents information, logic and reason). Norton at one point comments ?Other than when they were fucking Tyler and Marla were never in the same room together.? Before Norton tries to send Marla away on a bus he exclaims ?They think you?re some kind of threat ? I can?t explain it right now.? Tyler at one point earlier in the film says ?You?re not into her are you?? Norton immediately says he?s not. Tyler continues ?That?s good, because she?s a predator posing as a house pet. Stay away from her.? He later sits down next to Norton and says ?Now I can?t have you talking to her about me. You say anything about me and about what goes on in this house and we?re over?? He then makes Norton promise three times that he would not talk to Marla about him. (This type of promising is quite reminiscent of LGAT agreements to never talk about what happens in them) My view is that this represents the way that trainers ask participants to disengage from reason during the trainings. This extract from Werner Erhard?s biography, Outrageous Betrayal ? The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile, sums up this attitude of LGATs quite nicely:
??For the first several hours of the training, Erhard and his other trainers kept up a non-stop barrage of verbal insults, taunting the participants in the straight-backed chairs, insisting they were all worthless human beings who clung to beliefs about themselves and their own lives that were rooted in ridiculous notions about reason, logic, and understanding.?
So there are three main characters in the film, all of whom may represent players in the LGAT industry:
? Norton ? representing a typical LGAT participant, or Palahniuk himself
? Marla Singer ? representing Margaret Singer
? Tyler Durden ? representing an LGAT trainer, or Erhard himself
I believe that Norton actually represents a few players, based upon interactions he has during the film. I referred earlier to the fact that Tyler is a more free and ?re-invented? version of Norton. If Tyler represents Werner Erhard and he is the re-invention of Norton then who would Norton also be? Werner Erhard was, of course, born as Jack Rosenburg but Rosenburg left his wife and four kids, moved to a new city, changed his name and started a new family. You have one guess as to what Norton?s nameless character was called on the set while making Fight Club (YouTube it). Norton?s character was referred to as ?Jack?. You may also remember from the movie that Norton finds a strange book in Tyler?s house.
Tyler (on a little bike): Hey man. What are you reading?
Norton: Listen to this. It?s an article written by an organ in the first person. I am Jack?s medulla oblongata. Without me Jack could not regulate his heat-rate, blood pressure, or breathing. There?s a whole series of these? I am Jack?s colon?
Tyler: Yeah? I get cancer. I kill Jack.
Throughout the movie there are more ?I am Jack?s?? comments such as:
? I am Jack?s raging bile duct
? I am Jack?s cold sweat
? I am Jack?s complete lack of surprise
? I am Jack?s wasted life
? I am Jack?s inflamed sense of rejection
? I am Jack?s broken heart
? I am Jack?s smirking revenge
And during one scene, where Jack sits on the floor and Tyler sits in the bath, Jack says:
?I don?t know my dad? I mean I know him but he left when I was like six years old? married this other woman, had some other kids? He did this every few years ? he goes to a new city and starts a new family.? (This is a fairly direct reference to Werner Erhard).
Norton?s profession also hints at the biggest criticism against LGATs. He works as a ?recall coordinator? and his job is ?to apply the formula?.
Norton (Voiceover): I'm a recall coordinator. My job was to apply the formula. It's simple arithmetic. It's a story problem. A new car built by my company leaves Boston traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we
initiate a recall? You take the number of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
(Norton is explaining this to a lady next to him on a plane)
LADY: Does this sort of accident happen often?
NORTON: You wouldn?t believe?
LADY: ... Which ... car company do you work for?
NORTON: A major one. (This clearly hints at Landmark)
What Palahniuk is hinting at here is the fact that LGATs are well aware that a small proportion of their participants suffer enormously as a result of their trainings, but they aren?t willing to stop running the courses because their revenues from satisfied participants exceed their costs of out of court settlements. Chapter eight of Margaret Singer?s book Cults in Our Midst speaks of the numerous out of court settlements paid out by LGATs over the years. Like this car company, LGATs prefer to pay people off in the event of disaster, rather than warning people of the real risks because from a business perspective this is a more profitable route to take.
I imagine that there are still some sceptics doubting that Palahniuk was using the movie as a metaphor, so here are a couple of other ?coincidences?. Werner Erhard?s mansion in San Francisco was located on Franklin Street. In Outrageous Betrayal Steven Pressman frequently refers to it and chapter eleven of Erhard?s biography is entitled ?Nightmare on Franklin Street?. The final showdown in Fight Club ? the building in which Norton and Marla eventually watch the other buildings collapsing from is in Franklin Street. This name comes up twice in the movie ? firstly when Norton checks a number that he called while ?asleep? he is told that the address is 1888 Franklin Street and later, after he escapes from the cops who are in on the plot (after running in his boxers down the road) he reaches a road with a bus shelter on it. He briefly looks up to the name on the bus shelter and it says Franklin Street.
Just prior to all of this is the scene where Norton tries to turn himself in. He approaches the counter in the police station and confesses to be responsible for ?multiple acts of vandalism?? Just before the movie moves on to the discussion with the policemen there is a brief changeover where a couple of things flash on the screen. One of the things which flash is a green sign which says ?Emery Street?. Anyone who has read Outrageous Betrayal, or is familiar with the origins of LGATs, knows that Stewart Emery played a significant role in the movement. An Australian, Emery worked closely with Erhard at est for a number of years before breaking away to form his own LGAT, Actualizations. These things seem too specific to just be coincidence.
Onto more general comparisons. Fight club is effectively about brutal interactions ? two people at a time ? during which participants achieve some sort of insight into life from taking part. Fight club is incredibly rule oriented. There is a major focus on the rules during the film and the first and second rule about Fight Club is ?YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB?. LGATs, of course, do exactly the same thing, enforcing strict rules ? the most crucial and emphasized of which is that you do not reveal any detail about what goes on in the LGAT. (Because it will ?ruin the experience.?)
There are other references to enlightenment which appear to link with LGATs. Norton makes statements like:
?Every night I died. Every night I was born again.?
?Afterwards we all felt saved.?
?I am enlightened.?
?After a fight you could deal with anything?
?We all started seeing things differently?
?I became the calm, little centre of the world. I was the Zen master?
The following two statements, the first by Norton and the second by Tyler reflect the idea that it is only when we realise that it?s all empty and meaningless that we can begin to create.
?When the fight was over nothing was solved, but nothing mattered.?
?First, you have to know that someday, you are going to die. Until you know that, you will be useless.?
?It?s only when we have lost everything that we are free to do anything?
All LGATs have some form of an exercise which forces participants to accept that they have nothing, want nothing and are nothing. In the movie this takes the form of Tyler pouring chemicals on Norton?s hand and forcing him to accept this.
Commenting on the way that isolation is one of the most crucial parts of thought reform, Tyler and Norton live completely alone, in a dilapidated old house, and Norton remarks ?At night we were alone for half a mile in every direction? (while they?re hitting golf balls). According to Dr. Robert Jay Lifton ? the author of Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism ? Milieu Control (Environment Control) is the first and most crucial aspect of thought reform. If you isolate a person from any perspective but the one you are trying to indoctrinate them with, then you can convince a person of virtually anything. Norton also comments on how even the most bizarre conditions normalise after a while. While wading through ankle deep water to switch on the electricity, he says ?? by the end of the first month I didn?t miss TV?
The first post I wrote on this site referred to the way in which LGATs manufacture a transient dopamine high in participants. Very briefly summarised: applying extraordinary stress for a sustained period (which causes the brain to produce excess dopamine) and then suddenly removing the stress causes this high. Because participants? brains will temporarily be in a state of psychological hypervigilance there will be a period of a few days to a few weeks during which there will be a dopamine excess (much like one would experience taking cocaine). A scene from Fight Club provides a clear example of this. This scene is the ?human sacrifice? scene. Tyler pulls Raymond K Hessel out from a convenience store, puts him on his knees and tells him ?You are going to die? (while pointing a gun at the back of his head. Raymond is beside himself with fear, shaking, begging and crying as Tyler taunts him about his sad life and how he needs to sort it out. Eventually Tyler lets Raymond go and he sprints into the darkness, having just been ?given back his life?. Norton is frustrated with Tyler for doing this and says, ?What was the point of that?!!... I feel sick?? to which Tyler responds, ?Imagine how he feels. Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K Hessel?s life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you or I have ever tasted?? (Major stress sustained for a period then suddenly removed = euphoria) This is effectively how LGATs generate their experiences.
Palahniuk?s commentary on the recklessness, and the inevitable loss of lives coming from, LGATs is seen when Bob is killed during Project Mayhem. The space monkeys bring his dead body back to the house and believe that because he was killed serving Project Mayhem they should just bury ?him in the garden?. One of the space monkeys says ?Those mother fuckers!? - referring to the police who shot him. Norton immediately fires back ?You?re running around in ski masks trying to blow things up ? what did you think was going to happen?? It is clear that these space monkeys (representing LGAT supporters) have lost perspective of right and wrong. They have dissociated themselves from the human ? Bob ? and claim that ?in Project Mayhem we have no names?? Norton cannot believe the zombie-like attitude of the space monkeys and stops anyone from touching Bob. ?This is a person. His name is Robert Polsen? and you?re not going to bury him in the fucking garden.?
Right near the end of the movie this attitude of LGATs is referred to once more. Norton has arrived in the parking lot at Franklin Street and has found the bomb, placed in the van by Tyler. Tyler stands outside the van while Norton attempts to disarm the bomb.
Tyler: We?re not killing anyone. We?re setting them free!?
Norton: Bob is dead! They shot him in the head!
Tyler (shrugging): You want to make an omelette you gotta break some eggs?
This comment to me summarises the attitude of LGATs to those hurt. It also summarise the attitudes of people who support LGATs, knowing the damage they cause. Like Chuck Palahniuk I have looked into this and found out just how much misery is caused by these heartless organisations. If you currently believe that your group does no harm I would ask you to look into the history of these organisations and take seriously the stories of psychological damage caused.
Source: http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?4,116430,116483
Jason Terry IFE Fireworks 2012 4th Of July independence day BET Awards 2012 declaration of independence 4th Of July 2012
Whether a sole trade, considering the move into the retail sector, an existing business owner seeking to expand a portfolio or an entrepreneur struggling to maintain the repayments on a current finance agreement; the first three quarters of 2012 have made for anything but the ideal commercial environment.
November 22nd, 2012 by 
admin 