Introduction

I was talking with another member in private about one of the groups mentioned here in this forum and they expressed some anger about how they were duped into getting into this cult or falling prey to cult like thinking. While everyone will have some form of regret I think it is more important to think about how you get pulled, so that it does not occur in the future.

I gave a brief explanation on how I think things work and they felt it was good and I should put it in the thread they were talking about. As I was getting ready to write it down I realized that in reality I could write it a bit more general and it could be applied to any religion, cult, or movement. So, instead of writing specific about one group I had a brief encounter with online, I could hopefully open it up and bring other opinions and perspectives in on this.


Overview

The basis to this "guide", is the idea that your mind is the last sanctuary that is truly free, but human beings are social creatures that can be influenced in varying degrees. Sometimes the influence is subtle, obvious, or often found - incremental. For the simplicity of language, you must fight to keep your mind free - or at minimum fight so that you to choose which influences you wish to influence you. While influence can be abused, influence can be a good thing, for an extreme example: society influence that killing someone else is bad; this is an influence that can probably be universally accepted (of course there can be exceptions) as something beneficial to society and the individual.

In order to keep your mind within your realm of control I think we need to first take a short history lesson as well as I will explain the way I think about religion in general. The way I think about things is I try to understand them by trying to determine what is somethings function and what is its purpose.


Background: Religion/Spirituality

When you look at religion, to determine its function and purpose, you must first define what religion is. From a sociological background I define religion - any religion - as a group of people with a set of shared traditions and beliefs.

I must also differentiate religion with spirituality; because while religion can have components of spirituality I consider them distinctly different. A religion could be anything, technicaly, American Football could be considered a religion practiced by many people. You can have a group of people getting together on a certain day of the week with certain traditions (beer + nachos + special shirts) with certain beliefs (Packers rule + Bears suck), this certainly falls within my definition.

Spirituality on the other hand are the beliefs, ideas, principles, values, or whatever else a person has. Religion's purpose, in my view with my definition, is that of social cohesion. Go back to the "pagan" days of civilization when most of the people in the world lived rural lives, they likely had crops and raised livestock. They had certain holidays and festivals of which gave the community a reason to stop working in the fields and come together as a community.

This allowed to strengthen the community as a cohesive group as well as open business, trade, and relations between families. Young people worked long hard days on their family plots and didn't have time to socialize a whole lot. These festivals and holidays provided an opportunity for young persons to court one another, which eventually could lead to marriage and new relations between families. Human beings are social creatures and for the most part, this is a need that needs to be fulfilled. Religion throughout history has provided this function by bringing a group of people under a common set of traditions and beliefs (of course common language is also very important).

Spirituality on the other hand addresses a different need, one of the individual. With being intelligent, as (most) human beings are, there is often a need to find meaning in our lives or a need to find, create, or just have a certain set of values, principles, or beliefs. Humans have the ability to think and spirituality can be the food that feeds the hunger of the mind.


Religion/Spirituality in practice

Religion and spirituality can address the varying needs of the individual and the need to belong to a group. If there is a need to be fulfilled, you can bet on there being someone selling to fulfill it. Because just as it was in the pagan days, some people still need to belong to a group or a community. It doesn't matter if it is a bunch of overweight guys watching football on Sunday, doing a church group bake sale, or taking your kid to soccer practice with other parents - you belong to that group and fulfill the social need that you have with it.

This is where some religion, cults, or movements 'get' some people. The need of feeling that you belong. Many people not only don't like being alone, they fear it. This can be a very strong force for someone joining RCM that may or not be good, and they do this just to fulfill their social needs. The danger is not wanting to be with others, it is often what groups such as RCMs do to people after they have joined.


Your mind is a great thing

Every person has the ability to think critically. To evaluate something and try to determine the validity of what is being said, or what the truth really is. This is the power of the individual, to think and to do so critically. It is key to being able to think freely and to have a free mind. To figure things out for yourself.

For example, right now. You shouldn't be reading this soaking it all up saying to yourself "THIS MUST BE TRUTH", read everything, think about what is being said. Often there is a set of principles being talked about, think about these principles, how does it compare to what is being said? You may find, even in this text I may be expressing one value in one part, and totally trash in another. People are often hypocritical when expressing opinions and beliefs.

Being hypocritical is a natural part of the human experience, in most cases we do not even know what we have said or done is hypocritical. In our minds what we think is right is sound, logical, and rational. Most people rarely - if ever - evaluate themselves and apply critical thinking to determine if these values or whatever else is valid. What becomes dangerous is often what starts out as an idea becomes an opinion, this opinion then becomes a belief. By the time most people have a belief it has become core to their perception of the world and who they are as a person. For you or anyone to challenge this belief shakes the very foundation of not only their world, but who they are.

The dangerousness of strongly held beliefs

Some belief, like influence, can be a good thing. Believing it is generally wrong to kill someone is probably a good thing for the world, however rarely does the average person only have simple beliefs. Often you will find people have a wide array of beliefs over everything and nothing. This isn't always the case when someone is young, while they may be influenced by many different things, it isn't until later in adulthood are these beliefs completely cemented in an average person.

When a belief is wrong or in fact, in violation of another value or belief a person has, you have a very dangerous person on your hand. In psychology what is created is called cognitive dissonance. When the conscious mind figures out that two things are at odds with each other the person has very few choices to make. They can choose to simply go into denial, 2+2 doesn't really add up to 4. They can choose one of the competing values. Or finally, they can lie by making up reasons 2+2 should add up to 4, but really doesn't.

Most of the time if someone is going around believing that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, no one is really hurt right? Yes and no. If they were to keep such an observation to themselves, it would ok, but how often do people communicate without trying to influence someone? Rarely if ever, because the nature of communication is one that in order to express oneself or communicate, some amount of influence must occur. If no influence is occurring, there is no communication as one person is talking and the other isn't listening. This expression of false belief leads me to the topic of faith, which is important to most spirituality or religions.


Faith the good/bad

Faith like many things can be a good thing, as hope, could be considered synonymous with faith. That is, to hold out a belief, despite all other evidence pointing to the contrary. Having faith as a parent that your kids are going to turn out alright, is something healthy hope for. It helps alleviate doubt and worry and may send out positive messages to your children that if you work hard, things can work out. And there in lies something key. The self-assurance that hard work will, in the end, pay off. That while things can be good, bad, sometimes worse, that in the end things will equal out and will be ok.

Where this faith can go wrong is where faith is synonymous with denial. Where all evidence points to X being true, but someone holds out 'faith' that X is really false. Or that someone will have 'faith' everything will work out in the end, but do nothing to make it better. To do nothing but have faith and apathy will be rewarded.

Then, the worst, is when people try to convince others that their "faith" is right. And this is where religions, cults, and movements go 'bad'.

Destruction of rational, critical, and logical thinking; Destroy your ability to keep your mind free

While some people get pulled into RCM in order to have a sense of belonging, these bad RCM begin to wear you down in order to strip you of your natural ability to keep your mind free and clear. They use an assortment of psychological tools in order to make you to no longer think rationally, because you are wrong, here is the 'evidence' that you are wrong. Prevent you from thinking critically, because someone who thinks critically is a 'doubter', a 'deceiver', an 'outcast' - you are all of these bad things. They will use social reinforcement along with their dogma to prevent any challenge to the group think or the authorities forced beliefs. After that, they will claim superior logic with use of false dichotomies, straw man arguments, and generally false or fabricated 'truth'.

What they are saying/believe is true and it is true because of X, Y, and Z. At first, if you use these natural powers of your mind they will subvert it talk of religious dogma. X is holy, so if X claims Y, Y is true. If you point out how Y is false by use of rational thought, critical thinking, or logic, they tell you you must have 'faith'. What they are saying is, deny the truth, and accept a lie. Once you start doing this they have you. Your mind is now incrementally under their influence. Your mind is no longer free and like any skill, the less you use them, the more likely you will lose them as time goes on.


Conclusion of Part 1

I am going to end here and open this up for community criticism, ideas, and suggestions. I haven't encompassed everything I would want to address, but I believe this is a good starting point. I also like to stop in order to get feed back, as it is entirely possible, I am some crazy dude or have horrible writing skills. In Part 2 I would like to start to focus on addressing something I touched on here. That is, X is true because Y said it. Focusing too much on the messenger, rather the message. This is another way they try to subvert your free thinking abilities.

Samael:

The best focus is not on a group or leader's beliefs, but rather upon behavior.

A common sense approach is meaningful and quite useful in this area.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Here are some basic "warning signs" to watch out for that apply to most potentially unsafe groups and leaders.

Warning Signs

# Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

# No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

# No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

# Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

# There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

# Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

# There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

# Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

# The group/leader is always right.

# The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Defining the word "cult"

Psychiatrist and professor at Harvard Medical School Robert Jay Lifton's writings are definitive and pivotal in understanding cults.

Lifton writes, "Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by 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 their power;

2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;

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

Coercive Persuasion

See [www.culteducation.com]

This paper by sociologist and Stanford University professor Richard Ofshe can also be helpful in better understanding the coercive persuasion methods frequently used by destructive groups.

Ofshe writes, "The key factors that distinguish coercive persuasion from other training and socialization schemes are:

1. The reliance on intense interpersonal and psychological attack to destabilize an individual's sense of self to promote compliance

2. The use of an organized peer group

3. Applying interpersonal pressure to promote conformity

4. The manipulation of the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize behavior once modified."

Recognizing thought reform

To better understand how such persuasion methods distinctly differ from education, advertising, propaganda and indoctrination note the chart prepared by psychologist and UC Berkeley professor Margaret Singer.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Lifton breaks down what he calls "thought reform," more commonly known as "brainwashing," into eight recognizable facets or criteria.

See [www.culteducation.com]

The eight criteria are as follows:

Milieu Control

Mystical Manipulation

The Demand for Purity

The Cult of Confession

The "Sacred Science"

Loading the Language

Doctrine Over Person

The Dispensing of Existence

Recovery issues

Singer who professionally counseled more than 1,000 recovering former cult members was an often quoted authority on this subject.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This is an excellent article by Singer drawing upon her knowledge and experience.

The most common key issues Singer covers in this article include depression, loneliness, indecisiveness, slipping into altered states, blurring of mental acuity, uncritical passivity, fear of the cult, the fishbowl effect, guilt, perplexities about altruism, money and elite no more.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2009 01:08AM by rrmoderator.

Something that has really interesting and perhaps disturbed me from my experience is how dishonest a group can be about their believes. The group I encountered used suggesting language to make it appear that they were respective of different religions. The actually teaching in the beginning was that all religions had good origin. However more and more we were taught about how those religions had been corrupted since their founders lived. No specifics were ever talked about how that actually happened. Eventually the teaching is that all those other corrupted religions are now in the hands of demons or negative entities. After finishing the teachings I saw that they believed that all other religions or teachings except for the one I was in involved, the Gnostic Movement was evil and meant to keep people away from the leaders teachings.

Over the last few days I have been reaching out to people I know who are still involved to show them that this is in fact the believe. In my opinion they have such an illusion of people discovering things for themselves that most people involved in the organization are in denial that this is actually what is believed. They have dishonest way of perpetuation their teachings that they don't have believes, that you should stay in awareness and you will find things out for yourself. However it is already laid for what you are expected to find. Those who discover something different or disagree with what is taught have a choice to leave or modify how they view their experience to make it fit into what they are taught.

I don't see in any of the lists mentioned above but I have heard it is common to see a cult like group not be honest and forthcoming with their believes. So not a concern with anyone's believes but the way they teach them. Personally I think the world would really benefit from more honest teaching of believes and ideas. Groups we would call cults are just the most extreme and most disturbing cases.


The criteria I did take from that list in regards to this matter is the one about Loading the Language. The excerpts from Robert Jay Lifton's book seems quite helpful on this point. I am going to read that over again and perhaps seek out the book.

Anyone else have any consideration on this issue. Loading language is related but I would like to see more on the dishonesty about what group actually believes. This may be a problematic subject matter, because to be involved in such a teaching and spreading it you need to be accepting of the justification for such lies. The line I was told was that people are taught things as they are ready for them and not before. There is clearly a degree of the group thinking it knows what is best for the participants.

The Robert Jay Lifton's book with excerpts available here [www.culteducation.com] is also partially available on Google books. [books.google.ca]. It looks quite interesting.

Has anyone looked at Chris Hedges work? He has two books that interest me American Fundamentalists 2006 and I Don't Believe in Atheists, 2008 (which now may be found as The New Fundamentalists). The first book deals with Christian Fundamentalism and its effect on the United States I have not yet read this book. The second which I have read deals with the new Militant Atheism which he argues is just as bad as any other form of Fundamentalism. As he says it is not any particular believe system but the Fanatical or fundamentalist mindset that we need to be concerned with. Cults tend to have a believe that they are absolutely right about what they believe and others are absolutely wrong, this ties in with the practice of the group as they feel that they are right in in what ever they do.

Hedges although a little pessimistic about humanity has created a very honest dialogue that could be quite helpful. It helped me to start to realized that extremism is a problem regardless of the form.

Just to put a counterpoint in here.

The Chris Hedges atheist stuff is pretty much a straw-man argument. From someone who knows many of these so-called militant atheists, they are nothing like he says. None of them believes they are 100% right, they know that's impossible. Most of them don't even call themselves atheists, but non-theists. Sure, there are some cranky/angry ones, but every single so-called bigname "atheist" he's talking about, that I am aware of, would change their beliefs with new evidence.
So that is a strange arguement.


Regardling the cult Warning Signs.
There are some modern groups now, who APPEAR to not follow that list of warning signs.

They appear to allow criticism, they appear to be anti-authoritarian, they appear to disclose their finances, they appear to allow anyone to come and go, they appear to allow criticism of the guru who they say is not even a guru, followers don't complain much as they blame themselves, they purchase and aquire positive media stories, the anti-guru says they are not a god-being while getting people to believe they are a godlike being, etc...

There are some newer groups, who have re-engineered the entire Thought-Reform system, so they don't APPEAR to meet these criteria. Yet, underneath, that is what is really going on, but its hidden.

A recent example of this, is the Byron Katie system, for example. [forum.culteducation.com]

The main difference it seems, is that they have put a new fancy, permissive looking wrapping-paper, on the older system, done in a very elegant and subtle way.
So it would be interesting for some new research in that area, and perhaps a new classification?
the new Guru, acts like an anti-guru at first. Its almost as if they have taken the list of the Warning Signs, and turned them upside down, for a better public presentation.

It seems the smartest new Guru's are moving into that area, with a new mode of self-presentation. Almost like a nearly invisible thought-reform system, to the untrained eye...


________________________
Warning Signs [www.culteducation.com]

# Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

# No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

# No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

# Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

# There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

# Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

# There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

# Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

# The group/leader is always right.

# The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Hi Anticult,

I have been dealing with a similar problem with the Gnostic Movement [forum.culteducation.com]. With this group the try their best to give the appearance of not giving their leader absolute authority. But they consider him to the only divine being living on the earth and their is no meaningful criticism of what he says. They compensate for a lot of this by saying that he doesn't run the organization, but all the people who do run the organization are extremely loyal to him. This group is one that grew out of another similar cult so there is really decades of working with people and perfecting the product to give the allusion of choice.

rmmoderator,

I think what you posted is some very good info and signs that you can look out for, but I don't personally think even knowing those facts will protect you when you are being influenced by RCM. In fact I personally think by simply providing these facts you are sustituting one set of influences for another. While most of us here could probably accept that most of the things on those lists are good indicators of a bad RCMs, I don't think we serve others by simply saying "that is bad, stay away from it, here is how you know it is bad."

In my opinion and perhaps I am alone here, but that is nothing truly different than what they are doing. We are simply substituting our dogma for theirs. I also don't find it psychologically or sociologically different to provide a list of 'warning signs' as you get these kinds of list all the time from bad RCMs.

"Signs of the Apocalypse"
1) X occurs
2) Y occurs
3) Z occurs

"Signs of a Cult"
1) X occurs
2) Y occurs
3) Z occurs

Do we not see how similar these are in function? I will admit, while I did read the lists, and I do find them good indicators of bad RCMs, I still need to read the linked articles written by the Ph.Ds. It is possible that those articles better address the problem that I am speaking to. If that is the case, I will of course recind the strength of my statement. However, until I finish reading all of them thoroughly I am going to agree these are good lists, but disagree they are a substitute for rational, logical, critical thinking skills. This is why I think so, and please if anyone disagrees please let me know and explain why you think so.

Critical thinking is what we use to deterimine what is valid or invalid (as I stated above). While I know it is easy to assume from our position that everyone thinks critically or considers rational thought or logic, we have to assume and remember that not all people do. Without these skills people are venurable to any and all forms of influence, the good and that bad. If you merely present them with lists and warning signs they may be influenced by them and realize what is going on. However, someone may come along and influence or convince them that everything in these lists are wrong or don't apply to this RCM. So they join the RCM and continue to get blown around like a leaf in the wind.

I think and perhaps I am alone in this line of thought, but I think they need some weight, and this weight is to think rationally, critically, and logically. With this skill they can find validity or verify everything that is warned about here, and then apply to any RCM they encounter at any time. Should someone try to influence them they can use these skills and determine if and what the person is saying is BS. They can also use the lists you give them to try to determine how dangerous the RCM is.

I think this goes hand in hand with what The Anticult is saying as to trying to categorize certain RCM that may not seem like an RCM, including on the outside. If people use the power of their mind they can determine whatever such group is saying is BS without ever having to determine if is a cult or a bad R/M. When some person tries to say some new agey thing like that KB tries to do like "we must walk around silent for a long time". Your mind then your mouth should be like "why do we do this" and not just accept whatever answer they give. Don't accept answers of "faith", "you will see", or any cryptic answers that hold no other real answer or meaning. If they can't be open and honest, I would personally find any RCM to not really be acceptable in my book.

Good points Samael, I don't think anyone is likely to disagree with you for the most part.

Critical thinking along with not seeing the world in black and white manner are essential to combating the cult mindset. A list is only as valuable as how you use it. Something is only dogmatic if you make it dogmatic. If you use the list along with critical thinking it will be quite effective. You will see that different cult experts have slightly different definitions this is because they are simply descriptions to define the same occurrence. These kinds of lists are really important thou, as a starting point, because we don't want to be involved in discriminating against religion or belief.

Spreading critical thinking is really vital to cult prevention. I started a theoretical discussion on working on cults from a community perspective because I think they are often able to get into peoples lifes because of a weakness at the community level. [forum.culteducation.com]

Having had some experience in several relatively benign Christian groups, I agree pretty much with what has been said here. I do want to add that just because a group may not fit this site's definition of a cult does not mean that one does not have to exercise caution. Sometimes the "brainwashing" can occur without one being aware of it.

Here are some additional things to look for: do the members' lives revolve solely around that group, or do they have lives of their own? When talking to members do you hear things like "I used to do X but now that I am saved/joined this group, I no longer do or have interest in these things?" I am not talking about turning away from obviously destructive habits like drugs and alcohol. I am talking about things like bowling, playing golf, things people do for relaxation.

Does there seem to be peer pressure to limit oneself to certain approved choices in music, tv, movies, and books? What is the group's viewpoint in regards to the greater world? How do they feel about education? Does the group encourage fanaticism? What do they consider a model member to be like?

Do you hear controlling things being said like "rebellion is from the Evil One;" "tell me what is important to you and I will tell you where your heart (or your God) is?" "Before we started tithing, we didn't think we could do it (tithe), but now that we are, we find that we are getting more and more involved in the church and not as interested in going out to eat, for example."

I have lost several friends to restrictive religious groups. It is very painful to sit on the sidelines and watch someone lose their curiosity and sense of adventure, their zest for life, and become a mere caricature of themselves. Invariably these are the folks who are most aggressive in recruiting for their group.

Keep your eyes and ears open, be vigilant. One or two members in a large, diverse, group who display these characteristics is probably no need for alarm. However, if you sense that the above attitudes predominate--and especially if you yourself do not share these attitudes--I would be very, very cautious.

One thing to recognize is that a group can devolve into a cult structure almost accidentaly. It can happen when someone gets into leadership without a good balance of team members and if they have more power than is legitimate they may use cult-leader tactics t.o try to get their job done. If they discover they are good at it or happen to have the kind of personality that thrives on manipulating others, then what can happen is that the rest of the leadership team and the core membership will gradually support them as the uncomfortable members leave.

If you stay in a group like that, your own loyalty to the original good purpose of the group can blind you to what is going on. It is always a good idea to take a look at a change in membership if it begins to change the character of the group. Some leaders will quietly bring in their own members, this is common when a cult takes over a church group. They come in through committees after the old membership has become disgruntled enough to leave and then the leader appeals to "tolerance" of a different attitude in the new people who show up to fill the void.

Always find a way to maintain some kind of personal loyalty among your friends in any group so that you can look them up and find out the "real" reasons they left, since most people will give acceptable excuses while quietly slipping away from a group that is "going cult". Leaders can look benign until they feel confident that no one is watching and that is when innocent people get hurt, when they turn evil.