Quote
http://www.culteducation.com/faq.html
Defining a Cult
Isn't the word "cult" a pejorative label used to discriminate against new religious movements?

No. It is disingenuous to ignore the historical significance and modern day applications of the word cult. Today many controversial groups, that have been called "cults", are seeking to either eliminate the word, or create through fear of litigation a reluctance to use the term. Some cult apologists have literally said that "'cult' is a four letter word," and should be replaced by the politically correct title "new religious movement" (NRM). However, historically cults have always been with us and they continue to be a part of the world today.

How is the word "cult" defined?
Webster's Dictionary defines a cult as:

"1. A formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as "unorthodox or spurious."; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. a: A great devotion to a person, idea, thing; esp.: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad, b: A usually small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure."

The most important concern today is not simply who might be somewhat "cultic" in their devotion now or historically, but what groups might represent potential problems regarding personal or public safety. That is, groups that are potentially unsafe and/or destructive.

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote the definitive book about thought reform (often called "brainwashing") also wrote a paper about cult formation. Lifton defined a cult as having the following three characteristics:

1. A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.

2. A process [is in use] called coercive persuasion or thought reform.

3. Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Are all so-called "cults" unsafe and destructive?

No. Just because a group is "cultic" and its adherents are focused on unusual leaders and/or ideas is no reason to call them unsafe or destructive. There are groups centered on seemingly strange spiritualists, radical political concepts, the supposed power of crystals, UFO's, witchcraft or "Satanism," that may appear eccentric, but most often don't harm anyone. An unsafe or destructive group is not defined by what it believes, but by what it does. That is, the behavior that causes harm and injury to the members of the group and/or others in society.

Destructive Cult

What are the characteristics of a destructive "cult" or group?

Margaret Singer, clinical psychologist and once Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley was the preeminent cult expert of the 20th Century. She counseled and/or interviewed thousands of people affected by controversial groups often called "cults." Dr. Singer offered meaningful definitions of unsafe groups or "cults" in her book Cults in our Midst.

According to Singer, unsafe groups or cults can generally be defined by three factors:

1. The origin of the group and role of the leader.

2. The power structure, or relationship between the leader and the followers.

3. The use of a coordinated program of persuasion, which is called thought reform [or more commonly, 'brainwashing'"].

What typifies an unsafe group or "cult's" leadership and structure?

Again, a good working understanding has been provided by Margaret Singer: "In most cases, there is one person, typically the founder at the top...decision making centers in him or her." Illustrating the structure Singer says, "imagine an inverted T. The leader is alone at the top and the followers are all at the bottom". There is little if any accountability and as Singer says, "the overriding philosophy...is that the ends justify the means, a view that allows [such groups] to establish their own brand of morality, outside normal society bounds".

What specifically would define a group or "cult" as unsafe?

Unsafe groups or "cults" often abuse and exploit their members. This abuse may occur in the areas of finances, physical labor, child abuse and neglect, medical neglect, sexual exploitation and/or psychological and emotional abuse.

Extreme examples of destructive behavior have been historically recorded in such groups as the Waco Davidians, the cult suicides of "Heaven's Gate" and the Solar Temple of Switzerland and the suicide/murder of almost one thousand members of the Peoples Temple ordered by Jim Jones. In 1995 the Japanese cult known as Aum, the followers of Shoko Asahara, gassed the subways of Tokyo with the deadly poison gas sarin, killing twelve and injuring thousands of citizens. Perhaps the most deaths ever caused by a single cult in modern history can be attributed to the "Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments" of Uganda. Shortly after the turn of the century 780 bodies were found after a reign of terror that included murder and possibly mass suicide. But due to the isolated circumstances of the group many believe all the bodies will never be recovered, placing the actual loss of life much higher, possibly greater than Jonestown.

Are all unsafe or destructive groups isolated in compounds?

No. Isolation can often be less obvious. Many destructive groups create isolation through their control of a member's associations with outside society. The group members may be discouraged from associating with outsiders, especially those who express a negative attitude about the group and its leader(s). Isolation can also be fostered by a kind of hyper-activity that allows little time for family, outside interests or friendships. Marshall Applewhite the leader of "Heaven's Gate" controlled his followers through carefully subscribed daily schedules and regimentation, though the members were seemingly free to come and go at anytime. This regimentation and control took place in a mansion within a plush California neighborhood, not an isolated compound.

Destructive Cult Dynamics

What types of people become leaders of unsafe and/or destructive groups?

Many cult leaders seem to be narcissistic personalities often fantasizing about messianic visions that will change the course of human history, while appearing to have little if any conscience. Some make claims that they are the exclusive voice of God, "psychic" connections to historical figures, or aliens from outer space. Often these leaders seem deeply delusional and disturbed and some have been called psychopaths.

Extreme examples of destructive and delusional behavior by cult leaders such as Jim Jones, David Koresh and Shoko Asahara have caused many mental health professionals to question their sanity. Still others simply may be opportunistic con men or women, exploiting their followers for personal profit and self-interest.

What kind of relationship do destructive group leaders have with their followers?

The leadership most often defines what is right and wrong and group followers are essentially expected to defer making meaningful value judgments regarding almost any issue of significant importance. And any member of the group who questions or doubts the authority of the leader is likely to be labeled wrong, rebellious, suppressive, negative and in some situations even "demon possessed" or "satanic".

No area of a member or follower's life appears to be immune from such a group's scrutiny and/or criticism. A kind of learned dependency often develops. Group followers appear highly dependent upon their leaders to resolve problems and provide them with an ongoing sense of clarity and purpose.

Are there any meaningful boundaries in such relationships?

No. It seems that most destructive cult leaders do not provide appropriate boundaries regarding the relationship they have with their followers. Because of this and other factors such as learned dependency, thought reform and little if any meaningful accountability, a formula for abuse and exploitation often exists in such group relationships.

Also, the adulation of followers may have a negative impact upon the leader(s), almost like an intoxicating and addictive drug. This may deepen a codependent relationship between the leader and his or her followers. And such virtual worship may also provide seeming proof to some cult leaders that their grandiose delusions of greatness, power and absolute authority are true. The more obedience and adulation such leaders receive, the more they may want and eventually require. This may then become the foundation for ever-escalating bizarre and/or destructive behavior.

Destructive Cult Mindset

Is there actually a kind of mindset within potentially unsafe or destructive groups?

Yes. There seems to be a typical mindset within most destructive cults. This is often characterized by black and white thinking, a low tolerance of ambiguity and a relentlessly judgementa1 attitude. Members of such a group often think in "we, they" opposing terms regarding those outside their group. This mindset frequently produces feelings of superiority and/or spiritual elitism, claims of supposed "persecution" and unreasonable fears. These fears typically concern the outside world and the consequences of disagreeing with or leaving the group.

How is such a mindset achieved?

Most often destructive cults, groups and/or leaders are able to shape a mindset based upon control of communication, association, and information through hyperactivity and/or isolation. This in turn provides the basis for further control of behavior, emotions and thinking, which has been called "mind control." This is frequently a gradual step-by-step process that includes facets of psychological persuasion and the principles of influence.

Quote

Though I speak with the tongue of men and of angels
If I have not love, I am sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal...

Quote
MacReady
New article from the ABC including audio interview:
[www.abc.net.au]

Interesting to note that whenever the interviewer asks Serge about some of the more bizarre elements of UM cosmology, he simple points the finger at other unusual spiritual beliefs to justify it. He also avoids a straight answer on the Leonardo da Vinci question.

Quote
frodobaggins

Quote
MacReady
New article from the ABC including audio interview:
[www.abc.net.au]

Interesting to note that whenever the interviewer asks Serge about some of the more bizarre elements of UM cosmology, he simple points the finger at other unusual spiritual beliefs to justify it. He also avoids a straight answer on the Leonardo da Vinci question.

How can people defend him when he cant even answer the questions directly.

Shaky voice to Serge! Bit nervous?

How do you explain your god like powers?