A Youtube channel to be highly-recommended is that of Julie Anderson from Canada.
Julie refuses to be labelled an 'MLM' victim and although she prefers to see herself as an 'MLM' survivor, she's more than this, because she has decided to overcome her initial shame and embarrassment, and challenge publicly the Big 'MLM' Lie - which was used to exploit her for 5 years. Julie can now face the truth that she was not only defrauded herself, but also tricked into trying to defraud others whilst acting under the guided-delusion that she was trying to help them.
David Brear (copyright 2023)
The man being interviewed is the typical mealy-mouthed apologist for MLM. He is what is called a "gatekeeper" -- that is, someone whose salaried job is to tamp down any real criticism or tough analysis with vagueness, hesitation, mild-mannered questioning, and a complete refusal to name any names or ruffle any corporate feathers. People of this sort will never be any use in the battled against MLM.
ReplyDeleteThe man being interviewed in the linked-video is Ian Howarth who remains the director of a legally-registered UK charity that he has labelled the 'Cult Information Centre (CIC)'
DeleteMr. Howarth has admitted that, for several years (starting in the mid 1990s), he was employed as a 'consultant' by 'Amway UK Ltd.' and then by the front companies of various other 'Amway' copy-cat 'MLM' cults. To my certain knowledge, when anyone naively made enquiries to 'CIC' regarding these 'MLM' cults, they were gaslighted by Mr. Howarth who never disclosed that he was in fact their paid agent. Mr. Howarth apparently negotiated limited compensation for a significant number of British 'MLM' victims in return for their silence, and he was paid by both sides. In other words, he assisted in committing, and covering up, mass-fraud, whilst profitting himself from this extensive criminal enterprise. This interview proves that he was recently still acting as the de facto agent of criminals.
During the same period in the UK, another self-styled 'cult expert,' Graham Baldwin (director of another charity, 'Catalyst') was also co-opted by the same 'MLM' cults, for exactly the same hidden criminal purpose. This is the associate whom Mr. Howarth is referring to during the interview, but without naming him.
Almost every grandiose claim that Mr. Howarth and Mr. Baldwin have publicly made about their lives and achievements (particularly regarding the number of cult victims who have contacted them and whom they have 'helped') cannot be verified. Some of Mr. Baldwin's most-absurd public boasts (eg. that he is 'a former offcer in British Army/Military Intelligence') have been puerile lies, but which journalists have never checked, let alone challenged.
I have publicly described the pair of them as dangerous and unqualified charlatans. Various other interested parties have the same opinion of Messrs. Baldwin and Howarth, but they have not been prepared to speak out publicly, because Mr. Baldwin is notoriously litigious. Mr. Howarth invariably pretends that anyone criticizing him must be 'the agent of another cultic group.'
I think Julie's reaction to Ian Howarth's limp attempt to protect his 'MLM' pay-masters in the video, demonstrates the damage he has caused, and continues to cause, to distressed 'MLM' survivors. Evidently, Howarth will have signed open-ended gagging-agreements with the likes of 'Amway.'
I had exactly the same reaction as Julie when, years ago, I telephoned Howarth with enquiries about 'Amway' and my brother's fanatical adherence to the group. When I refused to swallow Howarth's 'MLM' gaslighting BS, he maintained his pretence of moral and intellectual authority, but tellingly, he refused to continue our conversation. I had a similar deeply-disturbing experience with Graham Baldwin, except I actually met him face to face in his London office. Before he attempted to gaslight me, Baldwin invited me lunch. I later discovered that, in reality, he paid for this with money he'd obtained from the 'Amway' cultic racket.
The Cult Information Centre claims to man their phones 3 days a week within certain hours. Good luck getting through! It took me months to get a response.
DeleteI met with a renowned Cult-Apologist recently and even they swallowed their breath when we spoke about Haworth.
Another interesting titbit is I also spoke with a renowned expert in Cults, a real one yes, who described to me Graham Baldwin as a "Malignant Narcissist". I have been told that during his "Therapy" sessions he is known to shout at his "clients" and to follow this up with making them feel grateful to have retained his services.
None of that surprises me. When I met with Graham Baldwin, he was obviously acting a self-important role which only a vulnerable, or inexperienced, person would have fallen for. I found him to be an absurd and loutish character lacking in even basic manners. Interestingly, due to his seedy appearance, I thought Balwin was quite an elderly man. That was back in the 1990s. However, I later discovered that he isn't that much older than me.
DeleteI was very concerned for members of my family when I mistakenly sought his advice. I contacted Baldwin naively believing him to be an 'independent expert on cults,' and he immediately offered to meet with me. At one point during our meeting, Baldwin tried to get me to make a donation to his charity. However, when I laughed at this pitch, and challenged him over his obviously-false claim 'to have once been an Army Intelligence officer,' he turned a strange colour and began to huff and puff.
I suspected that Baldwin was being paid by 'Amway' after he informed me that he had attended 'Amway' meetings and could recommend 'Amway' products. Just like Ian Howarth, he also insisted that 'Amway' is not a cult and that I shouldn't trust what had appeared in the media, etc., because 'Amway' has many enemies and commercial competitors
At this point, I chose to leave Baldwin's office before I lost my temper with him. I am reliably informed that, at various times, Baldwin subsequently attempted to character assassinate me when asked questions regarding his meeting with me. He has even claimed that he 'threw' me out of his office.
This type of childish lying is typical of severe and inflexible Narcissists, when someone threatens to call a halt to their ego-inflating games of make-believe.
At the time I met Baldwin, unknown to me, he was named as a 'expert witness' in a lawsuit in the USA filed by 'Amway's' attorneys against a well-known 'Amway' critic, Sidney Schwartz. According to the suit, Baldwin was going to testify that Sidney had defamed 'Amway' for 'falsely stating that it was a cult.' This lawsuit never made it to court, but Sidney and his family were caused considerable worry and distress by it.
Had I known the truth about Baldwin or Howarth, I would never have approached either of them. In my opinion they have been the paid agents of US-based racketeers and they should really be facing criminal charges.
The Scientology cult functions in precisely the say way. It wages "lawfare" (as we say the the States) against any effective critics, and it pre-empts any Cult Survivor Networks by surreptitiously taking them over and posing as advisors to victims (just as Baldwin and Howarth do). Gaslighting is a fine art with criminals such as these.
ReplyDeleteFYI. The final Chairman of the 'Cult Awareness Network,' which was infiltrated, sued, bankrupted and taken over by agents of the cult known as 'Scientology,' was the late Dr. Ed. Lottick, who was a close friend, and associate, of mine. In this way, all the names and addresses of persons who had contacted 'CAN' in confidence since its foundation (including survivors of 'Scientology' and concerned relatives of deluded 'Scientology' adherents) fell under the control of the bosses of 'Scientology.'
DeleteIn the case of Ian Howarth not only did he become a de facto agent of 'MLM' cultic racketeers, he also attempted to infiltrate real cult advice associations in the UK and Europe and gain access to even more 'MLM' survivors. As a member of a pan-European Federation of Cult Researchers (FECRIS), Howarth invited other members to bring all complaints and enquiries regarding 'MLM' groups to him.
Howarth subsequently resigned from FECRIS after refusing to answer questions put to him (at my instigation) by the board of FECRIS concerning his paid activities on behalf of 'Amway.' Had he answered these questions truthfully, he would have been expelled. Laughably, in his resignation letter, Howarth continued his failed attempt at gaslightling, and falsely accused the board of FECRIS of 'behaving like a cult.'
Howarth sounds like a real piece of shit.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is one way of describing him. In my opinion, Howarth was a twit with a deflated bank account and an inflated opinion of himself, and who was easily approached, groomed and coopted by the agents of wealthy 'MLM' racketeers, who turned him into a charlatan. Unfortunately, the study of the cult phenomenon has been largely an intellectual vacuum into which all sorts of twits and charlatans have been allowed to expand.
DeleteCurrently, there is nothing to stop anyone, even cult bosses, from running their very own 'cult advice' association.
I have only come into direct contact with Howarth once (around 20 years ago), when he was attending a FECRIS conference in the S. of France. I was actually there (at my own expense) personally to pass my concerns about Howarth (in confidence) to the membership and board of FECRIS. Unfortunately, one of the UK delegates whom I had spoken to privately (but who apparently was friendly with Howarth) pointed me out to him, and he then tried to engage me in a conversation by tapping me on the shoulder and addressing me by my first name in his most-slimy voice. For obvious reasons, I completely ignored him. Howarth then wisely gave up trying to speak to me, but he followed me out of the conference and into cafe where I was sat with two members of FECRIS. We were all amazed, and amused, by Howarth's seedy appearance a creepy behaviour. He sat by himself and pretended to ignoring us, although he had obviously followed us.
When interviewed by the FECRIS board, Howarth actually boasted that yes he was a consultant to 'Amway' and that he could obtain compensation for anyone who conatcted FECRIS member organizations complaining of losing their money. He also admitted that his attendance of FECRIS conferences was financed by 'Amway.'
Howarth was later given a list of written questions by two members of the FECRIS board who were tasked with investigating these matters. Amongst other things, these questions concerned how much Howarth had received from 'Amway' and whether he had declared his paid association with 'Amway' to the distressed people who had contacted him with concerns about 'Amway.' Howarth must have realised who had compiled these questions and that he had been rumbled, so he flatly refused to answer and resigned before he could be kicked out of FECRIS.
On the rare occasions when Howarth has appeared in his role of 'UK cult expert' on television, he has come accross as little more than a tongue-tied clown. Interestingly, at one time, he used the name Hayworth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYswR2EGSgU&t=8s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnQvxh5VzBU&t=158s
The cultic nature of some MLMs is hidden by their claim to be "businesses," totally in the entrepreneurial manner. "We're just trying to make a living," members will protest.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface this might seem plausible, but the real nature of an MLM comes out in the way in which persons in the organization speak and act with each other. The imposition of total self-censorship, the demand that only specialized and approved vocabulary be used, the shameless intrusion into the private lives of members, the policing of behavior -- none of this is any different from what goes on in a narrow-minded religious cult. Some branches of the Amway racket even impose clothing choices and hair styles, and insist that every important life decision be vetted and approved by one's superiors in the MLM.
Any religious cult needs to do this in order to maintain orthodoxy and obedience, but in the case of an MLM it is also designed to insure loyalty to the "Plan" -- that is, the payment structure that sends money on a monthly basis to one's up-line. When you have instilled a military-type discipline in members -- one that governs all aspects of their lives -- those members will find it psychologically difficult to disobey.
There is an important fact about Amway that is not widely known. Its founders were both scions of a Dutch Calvinist tradition, which is deeply fundamentalist and intellectually narrow. Combine this heritage with the fanatical "rah-rah-let's-go-team" competitiveness of American capitalism, and with the absurd "Power of Positive Thinking" mania of most Americans, and you get the dangerous cult called Amway.
The background of the instigators of the 'Amway' cultic racket, is actually very-well known. Indeed, 'Amway' initially found its recruits in the 'Bible Belt' and its shills dressed like church pastors. They were even known as 'Black Hats.'
DeleteAlthough cults can be briefly defined as any non-rational, dualistic, ritual belief system instigated, and/or perverted, for the hidden criminal purpose of human exploitation, I have concluded that cults are cults, because they all exhibit certain identifying characteristics, no matter how they are presented externally.
One of these characteristics is deception.
Cults are presented externally as traditional associations. These can be arbitrarily defined by their instigators as almost any banal group (‘religious’, ‘cultural’, ‘political’, ‘commercial’, etc.). However, internally, they are always totalitarian/totalistic (i.e. they are centrally-controlled and require of their core-adherents an absolute subservience to the group and its patriarchal, and/ or matriarchal, self-appointed leadership above all other persons). By their very nature, cults never present themselves in their true colours. Consequently, no one ever becomes involved with one as a result of his/her fully-informed consent.
I have observed and listed 10 identifying characteristics. However, it is important to note that cults don't just suddenly appear and they don't always exhibit exactly the same characteristics. This is because (like cancers and viruses) cults grow and evolve (and sometimes explode or even implode) and their identifying characteristics appear at different stages of their evolution cycle. Thus, the fact that a particular group doesn't exhibit all of the characteristics which I've listed, doesn't mean that it won't in the future or that it should not be identified as being a constituent part of the overall cult phenomenon.
Apart from the fact that the bosss 'MLM' rackets have all peddled essentially the same non-rational ritual belief system, and 'economic' pseudo-science, for the hidden criminal purpose of human exploitation, I am fascinated to learn which 'MLM' groups you think have not exhibited the identifying characteristics of a cult?
e. g. Monoploy of Information. The leaders of cults seek to control all information entering not only their adherents’ minds, but also that entering the minds of casual observers. This is achieved by constantly denigrating all external sources of information whilst constantly repeating the group’s reality-inverting key-words and images, and/or by the physical isolation of adherents. Cults leaders systematically categorise, condemn and exclude as unenlightened, negative, impure, absolutely evil, etc. all free-thinking individuals and any quantifiable evidence challenging the authenticity of their imaginary scenarios of control. In this way, the minds of cult adherents can become converted to accept only what their leadership arbitrarily sanctions as enlightened, positive, pure, absolutely righteous, etc. Consequently, adherents habitually communicate amongst themselves using their group’s thought-stopping ritual jargon, and they find it difficult, if not impossible, to communicate with 'negative' persons outside of their group whom they falsely believe to be not only doomed, but also to be a suppressive threat to redemption.
I don't know all MLMs, so I can't make a general comment on the cultic character of all of them. But I can say this: Your last paragraph is a perfect description of contemporary Mainstream Media (the BBC in the U.K., and the major news networks in the United States).
ReplyDeleteThe disease is a lot more widespread than most of us think.
Actually, you do know all 'MLMs,' because it is already established that all of them have peddled the one crack-pot pseudo-science, and all of them have tolerated no dissent from it. The 'MLM' phenomenon is itself both cultic and criminogenic.
DeleteThe 'MLM' pseudo-science can be reduced to a simple formula:
'Endless-chain recruiting + endless purchases by the recruits = endless pofits for the recruits.'
You should be aware that what has been labelled 'Multi-Level Marketing, ' has never been multi-level or marketing at all, it has been infinite-level recruiting, because no 'MLM' boss has set common-sense limits on the number of contractors being signed up, or on the areas of population where they are supposed to be selling. Due to this, and other built-in anti-commercial, practices (not least price-fixing), virtually no 'MLM' products have been sold to members of the general public based entirely on value and demand. i.e. To persons who have not been contractors motivated by the false-expectation of future reward.
Imagine if the management at McDonalds had set no limits on the number of franchises their company sold, or on the locations where these were supposed to operate? Imagine if many millions of McDonalds restaurants were being constantly opened everywhere in the world, right next door to one another, with exorbitant fixed-price menus, only for them all inevitably to find no genuine customers, lose money and keep being closed?
Yet, no 'MLM' front-company has every voluntarily-disclosed (in an easy-to-understand format) how many contractors overall it has recruited, and churned, since it was first instigated. This basic key-data lies at the heart of the monopoly of information which 'MLM' racketeers have all sought to maintain, in order to continue to operate. Once you understand this, you should then see that the so-called 'MLM' business model' has really been a plan to commit financial suicide. Indeed, if 'MLM' was a viable business that produced overall net profits for its adherents, then the omnipresent allied frauds (in which the 'secrets of MLM success' have been peddled) could not operate.
Behind its 'commercial' façade, the available evidence (in the form of many millions of ill-informed losing contractors over decades) proves that the widely-misunderstood phenomenon that has become popularly-known as 'MLM' , has been nothing more than an absurd, non-rational, economic pseudo-science maliciously-designed to lure unwary persons into de facto servitude, dissociate them from external reality and not only steal their money, but also deceive them into unconsciously acting the role of bait to lure other unwary persons (particularly their friends and family members) into the same trap.
The technical-sounding made-up jargon term, 'MLM,' is therefore, the misleading title for an enticing structured-scenario of control which has been developed, and constantly acted out as reality, by the instigators, and associates, of various copy-cat, major and minor, ongoing organised crime groups (hiding behind labyrinths of legally-registered corporate structures) to shut-down the critical, and evaluative, faculties of victims, and of casual observers, in order to perpetrate, and dissimulate, a series of blame-the-victim 'Long Cons' - comprising self-perpetuating rigged-market swindles, a.k.a. pyramid scams (dressed-up as 'legitimate direct selling income opportunites') and related advance-fee frauds (dressed up as 'legitimate: training and motivation, self-betterment, programs, recruitment leads, lead generation systems,' etc.).
Apart from an insignificant minority of shills (whose leading-role in the 'Long Con' has been to pretend that anyone can achieve financial freedom simply by following their unquestioning example and exactly-duplicating a step-by-step-plan of recruitment and self-consumption), the hidden overall net-loss/churn rate for participation in so-called 'MLM income opportunities,' has always been effectively 100% (by design).
Anonymous, a Blog reader has asked me to address your dark comment regarding the Mainstream media in the UK and USA.
DeleteWhat I will say is that anyone who thinks that the current British Broadcasting Corporation conforms to my description a totalistic/criminal monopoly of information, apparently doesn't understand the history, structure and scale of the BBC. That said, senior BBC management has attempted to hide various scandals within the ranks of its back-catalogue of celebrity performers - I'm particularly thinking of Jimmy Savile ( Britain's most prolific, and manipulative, paedo-sexual criminal) who had political leaders and senior members of the Royal family as useful idiots.
However, the BBC has been largely financed by an almost-compulsory form of public subscription (which is increasingly unpopular), and it is not owned by anyone with a political/financial agenda, but it has been subject to decisions made by politicians temporarily holding power. Thus, it has never been entirely free of external political/financial influence.
In theory (as contained in its charter), but not always in practice, the BBC is supposed to be apolitical - projecting no support for any faction and giving equal broadcasting time to the UK's main political parties. Thus, right wing commentators have generally portrayed the BBC as being biased towards the left, whilst left wing commentators say it has been a propaganda arm of the current Conservative administration. Yet the BBC has included plenty of political satire in its content, and this has attacked all sides of the political debate.
Personally, I don't think that the BBC influences the thinking of many people in the UK, because it tries, and fails, to be all things to all people. Consequently, the BBC has been widely criticized from all sides of the political debate.
Interestingly, George Orwell worked for the BBC during WWII, when the corporation reaally was a key part of the UK National government's monopoly of information.
As to the mainstream media in the USA - most of this is now privately owned by persons with a political agenda and it is reliant on advertising revenue. Americans on the left only watch media that is left leaning, and Americans on the right only watch media that reflects there existing beliefs. That said, Donald Trump has pretended that any media dissenting from his own totalistic controlling scenario has been 'fake,' whilst only coverage supporting his comic-book act, has been 'telling the truth.'
Very little media survives in the USA which can be described as entirely independent, but satire still thrives there. Interestingly, some of America's best satirists have not been Americans.
If you think the BBC won't do anything to support a Left-Liberal-Labourite position or talking point, I can't take seriously your understanding of U.K. politics.
ReplyDeleteMy previous comment was not "dark" (whatever you may have meant by that). And the fact that someone had to approach you privately to respond to it, rather than coming here himself to respond, confirms for me that certain topics are taboo to debate in Great Britain, and inconvenient queries about such topics have to be squashed. Did you get a call from the BBC?
Let's see if this comment gets published by you, Mr. Brear.
FYI. The person who asked me to address your comment is not even British. This person merely wanted to know if I agreed with your view of the mainsteam media in the USA and UK maintaining a totalistic monoploy of information, and if I could post a reply.
DeleteBecause of their training, I generally consider most journalists to be masters of the art of applying false-objectivity, whilst imagining they are being fair-minded and purely objective. It has always been dead easy to fool journalists, because they invariably print what they are told, and they are subject to decisions made by editors who themselves are controlled by lawyers and accountants. After all, for many years, financial journalists consistently described Bernie Madoff as 'a financial wizard who ran the world's largest hedge fund.' Yet it was an open secret on Wall St. that he was a crook.
Your comment was dark, because in it you imply that the BBC is somehow centrally-controlled by sinister persons with a dangerous left-wing political agenda which is being relentlessly piped into everyone's home. This is utter nonsense (and humourless nonsense at that). In reality, few British people take much notice of BBC types and we love to take the piss out of the organization. It's a national sport. There are plenty of other news outlets.
The BBC has always been a vast outfit with all sorts of persons working for it and broadcasting all sorts of programmes. There are even regional branches of the BBC. Obviously there are lots of liberal-minded labour- supporting people within the BBC's news and current affairs Dept., but there are also persons with completely differerent views. The organization itself has always attempted to respect its charter and appear apolitical, but both sides of the political fence habitually accuse it of bias. Probably with good reason.
Your latest comment in which you suggest that discussing the BBC is 'taboo' in Britain, and that someone from the organization has contacted me, is puerile nonsense (again of a dark, sinister and humourless nature).
You evidently have no idea what the BBC really is, or how it is generally viewed in the UK by everyday persons with fully-functioning critical faculties.
e. g. Have you any idea about what has recently been happening with regard to, Richard Sharp, the former Chairman of the BBC, who was appointed by Boris Johnson?
Sharp (a Conservative party donor) was given the job of overseeing the BBC by Johnson in 2021. This led to widespread accusations of 'cronyism' and a Tory attempt to take over the BBC.
It was then revealed that, before he was appointed, Sharp had hidden the fact that he had personally helped Johnson to acquire an £ 800 000 loan, because the Prime Minister was having financial problems.
As a result, Sharp was eventually forced to resign earlier this year.