Destructive cults

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Apr 06, 2002 10:18 am

Destructive cults, as opposed to "ordinary" cults, is a problem in society as well as for individuals who are recruited. Destructive cults are something that should be clearly distiguished from common political or religious groups, there is a specific definition of the concept "dectructive cult", and I will post it below for those of you who are not familiar with the criteria.

Some destructive cult may have a political agenda, others are for profit only and some do not have an agenda outside the belief system the cult represents. A destructive cult with a political agenda will use different means to manipulate the power elements in a society. Sometimes terrorism is used, as in the case of Aum in Japan, who let out the highly toxic nerve gas sarin in the underground. Some cults have suicide as an agenda, like Jonestown. Regardless of the type of agenda, the real agenda is always hidden to the member initally, and revealed only step-by-step.

There is a set of criteria that is used internationally, here is a compilation: Skip this if you already know the criteira.

1. How members are recruited
- Cult activity are focused mainly or rising funds and recruiting new members
- New members are often recruited by "love-bombing", ie the cult is extremely nice and pleasant to newcomers, gives lots of social and emotional confirmation and encourangement and

2. How the cult is organised
- the teachings are absolute and provides an explaination of everyting and a (often instant and simplistic) solution to all problems
- the end always justifies the means
- the leader/s are an exclusive inner circle, charismatic, authorative and domineering
- the structure is hierachial, members have to go through certain steps before they are allowed in to the next level of "enlightenment" or next step in the hierarchy
- the cult appears to be exclusive and innovative, ie they teach they are the only way to freedom, insight, salvation, truth

3. How it affects members to follow the cult
- new members are not allowed to spend time alone, instead they are constantly kept active by meetings, discussions and other activities
- members are expected to work hard for the benefit of the cult, (ie manufacturing and selling things, recruit new members) which leads to exhaustion, which in turn is a good basis for applying mind-control
- members are expected to support the cult finacially, give money, sign over property, heritage etc, which often leads to finacial problems for the members
- members often go through a personality change that friends and family notices although they might not understand the reasons. Emotional numbness and trance-like states where the person is difficult to get contact with, is commonly occuring as well as dissociative symptoms where the person appears split, as if changing between different "identities" etc

4. Use of mind-altering and mind control techniques
- isolation of members, their social network and communication with people outside the cult is limited or prohibited
- environmental control, control of information
- use of "split of world" into black and white "right and wrong" and "good and evil", demonising of other beliefs systems
- use of mind control methods such as sleep deprivation combined with exhausting activites, sensory overload etc
- loading and redefining language
- guilt and scare tactics

5. Handling of questioning, critising and leaving the cult
- questioning and critising the cults values, beliefs and interpretations are strongly disencouraged and might lead to punishment, often social punishment (such as other members expressing how dissappointed and sad they are in you, or exclusion from group activites)
- wishes to leave the cult or leaving is punished, wishes to leave are met with threats about catastophs that what will happen and members who leave often recieve life-threatning letter, phonecalls etc afterwards
- former members are viewed as paria, they are either not discussed, or if discussed, they are demonised. Contact with former members is limited or prohibited.

Here's an article (not a scientific article, just a normal one so don't fear

) written by Phil Zimbardo, professor of psychology at Standford and former president of APA. He is specialised in social psychology.
http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycult ... zimbar.htm

So what do you think? What can be done about destructive cults? How can the tragedies they result in be avioded? Do you have any personal experience of destructive cults?

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sat Apr 06, 2002 12:35 pm

It would be sad to see one of CE's interesting threads sink without a reply so here you go:

I think wwe could generalise this into an interesting discussion of individuality and safety in numbers, herd instincts etc...

I'm sure you have all read 1984, and will understand about the human herd-instinct. Humans lust for power and influence, and often have no means of getting them...One cannot normally just wake up and change the world to how one wants it. So many people affiliate themselves with organisations which share their belief systems and agendas.
Picture this: I really want Osama bin Ladn dead. I am a crazy radical and I want the man dead, but I cannot just go and kill him myself, it is outside my power. But that's no problem, I can affiliate myself with the US government. Better yet, I can join the US army, and when they kill him I will feel like I have acheived my goal, after all, if I wasn't in that organisation they would not be as powerful, so it all hinges on me.
That is an example of someone using an organisation to get their personal agenda realised (and I have done this myself - I am a member of amnesty international, which allows me to acheive things which would otherwise be outside my power, and it makes me feel as if I am reaching my personal objectives i.e the release of unjustly imprisoned people and the cessation of torture...)
The example which is more pertinent, and links into 1984 is when people have no personal agenda or goals other than those of acheiving power (and to some extent immortality). This is what happens with cults. They prey on people's instincts to make them think 'If I am part of this cult, and the cult would not be the same without me. Therefore I am an integral part of the cult, and everything it acheives is down to me. When it lives on for 100 years, my influence lives on for 100 years.'.

But is the herd instinct good or bad? It can lead to people joining together and doing great things, as with amnesty, but it can also lead to awful things, as in destructive cults. The third, and in my opinion crucial aspect is that it leads to a lack of moral urgency. If you are part of a computing company and something goes wrong on the mainframe, are you going to fix it? I doubt it, because you know there is someone else who will do it (maybe there's someone emplyed to do it), but what if you don't know who is going to fix it? I still doubt you will do it yourself, you will just assume that someone else will.
What about when you see a man tinkering in a car with it's alarm going off. Will you stop him and confront him about being a car theif? I wouldn't be surprised if you will just leave it: 'A policeman or a brave man will do it later' you think. This is all bad, but it is especially bad when people start hearing about trgedies and political injustices on the radio but not doing anything about it. Someone else will do it you think. Tibet will just sort itself out...
so the herd instinct can differ in good and evil just about the same ammount as any individual does. Where does that get us?....

sorry CE if you don't wanna discuss this aspectr I'll delete this post and let you talk specifically about cults

ps sorry for the long post

AbysmalNature · Post by **AbysmalNature** » Sat Apr 06, 2002 12:54 pm

I am of the opinion that these same criteria can be applied to any religion. How to eliminate destructive cults, hmmmm, well in order to do that one would have to elliminate all the people on the outsides of society, people who have little or no place in society. Perhaps a attempt to bring such people into the group might work, People join cults for lots of reasons, but it is basically the same reason, the simple need to be part of a group, or to feel that something such as their family member dying to feel that such a event has answers. When the society can not give such people answers or the social closure they seek, they go seeking elsewhere and thus vulnerable to those who would exploit their weakness, and turn it into a destructive impulse, counterproductive to both themselves and the society at large.

I am not sure one can elliminate destructive cults, it seems to be largly a product of any religion, the fringes of one anyway, it is a interesting question, but I do not think that such a question can be answered, because I think it would involve fundamental changes in the dominant belief structures of the society at whole to allow for such differences in belief and how they apply to society.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 07, 2002 12:18 am

@CE, cults, destructive or otherwise, evolve to take advantage of gaps in social nurturing which modern culture does not provide. Until these same cultures recognize this lack and see fit to provide these values for people, there will always be those who search and fall into the arms of various cults.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sun Apr 07, 2002 11:35 am

anyone wanna talk about Hell's Angels, the destructive, anti-cults cult?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 07, 2002 4:26 pm

Originally posted by frogus
anyone wanna talk about Hell's Angels, the destructive, anti-cults cult?

@Frogus, you shouldn't label any group of people as destructive, much less a cult, unless you know a great deal about them. Did you bother using CE's posted set of critieria, drawn from other sources? I've had friends who were Hell's Angels, and they were neither destructive, nor members of a cult by any means.

I'd be more concerned about a Southern Baptist congregation near Dallas, Texas that tried to "program" a little Jewish kid that went on a weekend with some SB friends of his, a few months back. He was told it was going to be a lot of camping, and that's all. When he came back, he was nearly hysterical. Seems it was led by members of the Church who tried to convince him repeatedly that he was damned unless he was baptized in the name of Christ, joined their Church, etc.

The parents called the Church. The minister in charge apologized for his reaction, but said that yes, they were ordered by Christ in the bible to speak the Word and save as many souls as they could. The matter then went national, and has resulted in a firestorm of criticism.

Of course, this is *not* typical Christian behavior, nor is it typical SB behavior (though some SB ministers have come out in support of the congregation's behavior in this instance.) But this example of the SB does show some of the hallmarks of a cult--namely its affinity for recruitment, the charismatic nature of its leaders, the use of guilt and scare tactics to control people and gain members, and a strong unwillingness to consider criticisms and questioning of values. As for being destructive--certainly not obviously so. But at what point does the degeneration of a person's internal value system into a series of easily answered questions determined by a specific interpretation of a given book become "destructive" in a sense?

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sun Apr 07, 2002 6:12 pm

Originally posted by fable
I'd be more concerned about a Southern Baptist congregation near Dallas, Texas that tried to "program" a little Jewish kid that went on a weekend with some SB friends of his, a few months back. He was told it was going to be a lot of camping, and that's all. When he came back, he was nearly hysterical. Seems it was led by members of the Church who tried to convince him repeatedly that he was damned unless he was baptized in the name of Christ, joined their Church, etc.

The parents called the Church. The minister in charge apologized for his reaction, but said that yes, they were ordered by Christ in the bible to speak the Word and save as many souls as they could. The matter then went national, and has resulted in a firestorm of criticism.

Of course, this is *not* typical Christian behavior, nor is it typical SB behavior (though some SB ministers have come out in support of the congregation's behavior in this instance.) But this example of the SB does show some of the hallmarks of a cult--namely its affinity for recruitment, the charismatic nature of its leaders, the use of guilt and scare tactics to control people and gain members, and a strong unwillingness to consider criticisms and questioning of values.

I agree. I didn't hear about this particular situation, but it sounds somewhat like the typical(though somewhat extreme) fundamental Southern Baptist Church.

I might have more to say on the topic of Destructive cults later, if I feel it relevant to the discussion.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 3:11 am

Originally posted by frogus
anyone wanna talk about Hell's Angels, the destructive, anti-cults cult?

@Frogus: As far as I'm informed the "Hell's Angels" are a Motorcycle Club (or Gang) with NO religious tendencies... or am I mistaken ?

for Details:
Overview - Worldwide
Hells Angels

No worries,

Beldin

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 5:55 am

@Frogus, you shouldn't label any group of people as destructive, much less a cult, unless you know a great deal about them. Did you bother using CE's posted set of critieria, drawn from other sources? I've had friends who were Hell's Angels, and they were neither destructive, nor members of a cult by any means.

Sorry of course I am not saying that all hell's angels are destructive, just like you can't even really say all Nazis are anit-semitic...The Hell's Angels now is just a badge, a club like any other, but at its creation this was not so...and I believe that CEs definition is not a be-all and end-all. I think that organisations can be cults without fulfilling these criteria, while organisations can also fulfill these criteria without being cults (SBC)...anyway I am gathering evidence to support what I've said as I type...will post back later, but am not interestd in a big argument or flame war if it comes to that...

Jace · Post by **Jace** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 6:50 am

It is my understanding that the Hells Angels and related groups originated primarily from returned servicemen at the end of WWII who got home and became extreemly disillusioned with the social setup in the US. They had gone from a very tight group that looked after them and gave them social support to a society that wanted to forget them and get on with life after war. The end of the war left a lot of - mainly poor white - men without any roots or a culture that they could relate to anymore, so they got together and travelled about in the easyest and cheapest way they could.
It that way these groups are more of a movement than a cult. The rules have come from the ground up and not imposed from the top of the Hierarchy down. Any clashes with authority and any percieved antisocial behaviours have come about from the interaction between them and mainstream society.

CE, could you give a bit more information on how you define dangerous? Are you meaning phisical danger to members and/or non-members or are you thinking wider as in danger to social structure and/or gaining political control?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 10:14 am

Originally posted by Beldin

As far as I'm informed the "Hell's Angels" are a Motorcycle Club (or Gang) with NO religious tendencies... or am I mistaken ?
[/img]

Frogus is right that an organisation doesn't need to be religious to be defined as a destructive cult, it can have any belief/value system - the core characteristics are the methods the cult use to spread the message, the degree of dogma and lack of acceptance for independant thinking etc and other critiera I listed above.

I'm not informed enough to assess whether Hell's Angels fulfills the criteria for a destructive cult or not, as Fable writes, one must know a lot about an organisations to be able to cathegorise them. However, I don't at all mind that we also discuss such mechanisms as are of importance for the existance of destructive or non-destructive cults, such as group-think, herd-mentality, mind control techniques, etc.

@Jace: I mean both physical and psychological danger to members as well as dangers for other people in society and society as a whole. Introverted suicidal cults like the suicide cults in the US and Switzerland concern the people within the cult (and their familes and friends who of course suffered from their suicides) whereas I believe for instance the Scientologists have a political agenda, and parts of the Taliban movement had the characteristics of a destructive cult.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 10:18 am

I don't think that we will ever truly be rid of cults. They serve two purposes. First, they provide an outlet for people to believe in something when their traditional institutions (church, schools, government, etc.) fail them. Second, cults draw upon people with low self-esteem and maladaptive social skills for their membership. In this way they provide the sense of belonging that individuals might not get in other places. Gangs and racial supremecists groups also provide this function.

As long as people feel that they cannot get the answers they want to hear from society, and as long as people feel alienated, cults will be around.

Jace · Post by **Jace** » Tue Apr 09, 2002 5:18 am

CE, the reason I asked for specifics is that organisations like the Masons have a very cult like set up and are seen as beeing dangerous to political and judicial freedom in the UK (and other countries). They have a closed membership, but there is evedence that a very large percentage of senior police officers, lawyers and judges are members. They have refused to provide lists of members. While there is little evedence of any specific political agenda, it has been the case that you can not progress easily in law or in the police force if you are not a member.

This sort of quiet inserection of power by more main stream and accepable cults worries me much more than radical ones.

Having said that, I do agree that dangerous radical clults need to be monitored and turned away from destructive objectives. How you do this without making the situation worse or living under a police state I don't know.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 09, 2002 1:20 pm

Originally posted by Jace
CE, the reason I asked for specifics is that organisations like the Masons have a very cult like set up and are seen as beeing dangerous to political and judicial freedom in the UK (and other countries). They have a closed membership, but there is evedence that a very large percentage of senior police officers, lawyers and judges are members. They have refused to provide lists of members...

A standard operational procedure is being presented in a way that sounds very murky and potentially evil: "They have refused to provide lists of members." True, but so do many other private clubs and organizations. I can't speak for the UK, but in the US, membership lists of all organizations that are not considered "subversive" are permitted to be completely private.

As for the rest--who sees the Masons as being "dangerous to political and judicial freedom?" I'd sooner suspect any group that found them so of being cult-like in behavior, rather than the Masons, themselves.

I have friends in the Masons; and while some of them are very proud of Masonic symbolism and history (they were active in trying to promote individual and group liberties in some of the more oppressive European monarchies and empires of the 18th century), it's all pretty much a fraternal organization, now. Their "rituals" for every "grade" were published as far back as the late 19th century. It's easy to get "sponsored," and very hard to be turned down. I know teachers, nurses, engineers, and at least one bona fide sewer inspector who are members.

Let's have some evidence!

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 8:36 am

My wife and I were amazed a few years ago when we attended a Sunday service in a church in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, where my mother-in-law went as a child with her mom. It was Primitive Methodist--which is to say, heavier on emotion, less concerned than United Methodist Churches with ritual--but we were amazed by the minister. He was one of those bouncing types with a 1000 watt smile who sounded like an imitation Billy Graham. Part of his sermon was devoted to attacking evolution, whose proponents he described as a liberal cult attempting to win over the heart of youth with brainwashing techniques, just like cults, everywhere else.

At the time it all seemed outrageously funny, and my wife and I could hardly resist laughing out loud. My mother-in-law never spoke of the place again--she was too embarassed.

But I'm rather angered at this particular minister who, in a position of responsibility, deliberately twisted phrases with definite meaning to attack a POV he didn't like. I suppose he thought that any weapon was appropriate in destroying "Evil." I think his lack of inner balance and knowledge showed exactly the opposite.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 8:52 am

Originally posted by fable
I suppose he thought that any weapon was appropriate in destroying "Evil."

Of course he can use any weapon he can to thwart evil: God told him to do it. When religion is at the heart of anything it immediately justifies any action you decide to take, even if you twist the rationale behind those actions to go against mainline religious thought.

The Palestineans who strap bombs to themselves aren't terrorists; they are freedom fighters who are fighting the infidel Jews and their Christian allies. The ultra-right wing Christian fundamentalists who assassinate abortion providers aren't murderers; they are doing God's will.

Invoking the name and will of God can justify anything, even to normally rational and intelligent people.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 8:55 am

I don't know what that minister's particlar problem was, but it has been said (by a renowned Chinese Paleontologist) that in China you can criticize the theory of evolution, but not the Communist government, while in America (and Europe), you can criticize the democratic government, but not the theory of evolution. Kind of odd, isn't it? So the scientific community is cult-like too in a way, since its gatekeepers will brook no dissent from this paradigm, and will ostracize those who dare to question it. Destructive cult elements are by no means restricted to those in the religious sphere.

@HLD Millions of people have been murdered in the name of politics, progress, personal ambition or national hegemony, as much or even more than in the name of God. The notion that crimes done in the name of God are justifiable doesn't really make a difference to the victims, any more than if those crimes were done in the name of ideology. I think religion is singled out because inhumanities done in the name of religion are obviously more hypocritical than inhumanities done in the name of [fill in the blanks], since our intuitive understanding of what religion stands for (ie. Christianity is about love, Islam about peace, Buddhism about serenity, Judaism about obedience to the Law), stands in stark opposition to the ways it has been abused in the past, the ways it is being abused in the present, and the ways it will be abused in the future.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:32 am

I don't know what that minister's particlar problem was, but it has been said (by a renowned Chinese Paleontologist) that in China you can criticize the theory of evolution, but not the Communist government, while in America (and Europe), you can criticize the democratic government, but not the theory of evolution. Kind of odd, isn't it? So the scientific community is cult-like too in a way, since its gatekeepers will brook no dissent from this paradigm, and will ostracize those who dare to question it. Destructive cult elements are by no means restricted to those in the religious sphere.

While I agree with your general sentiment above, I don't agree about the point concerning evolution. It's not proven, but the evidence does point to it being accurate. A scientist in a relevant field who declares in favor of Creationism is naturally going to find it tough to get a job, because they've shown themselves less interested in establishing best-fit facts and formulating theories than in adjusting facts to fit a literal interpretation of a single religion's holy book.

CE's already pointed all this out in far greater detail in the recent evolution thread. I will post links to her answers, here, if you like.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 12:34 pm

Thanks, but no thanks.

'Been there, browse through, and still unconvinced, having read pretty much the same things in other Evolution vs. Creation websites.

I don’t think the reason a scientist who disputes evolution, or leans more towards the intelligent design argument, will find it difficult to secure a university position because he believes what he believes. His credentials should speak for themselves, irrespective of his convictions. No, I think a psychological dynamic is involved here; he’s swimming against the current of established opinion. Biologists and evolutionist talk to people who hold the same views as themselves. They can easily go through their academic life never meeting anybody who has a thought different from their own. This I think is the biggest problem in the scientific community: its gatekeepers are cut from the same cloth, have the same peers, believe in the same things. Thus, there is no room new thought. After a while I think they start to believe that all civilized and rational people think the same way they and their friends do. That's why they don't simply disagree with creationists, or intelligent design theorists; they see them as intellectually, rationally, and perhaps even morally deficient, and must be opposed tooth and nail. What reasonable person, they must wonder, could possibly be against this foundational theory? Maybe some religious fanatics in Kansas, Ohio, and California, who want their children to learn the strengths AND weaknesses of the evolutionary theory, and the physiological, statistical, empirical, etc. shortcomings associated with it. Despite the increasing secularism, the fact that a significant majority of the American population (about 70% the last time I checked) still believe that human beings are a product of creation, and not of evolution, doesn’t seem to faze them one bit. The paradigm must be defended, and new hypotheses formulated to fill in the gaps, because the alternative would undermine their lifes work and entire worldview.

Frankly, I don’t blame them. What goes around comes around.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 12:41 pm

@Eminem: I agree, it can be quiet painfull when ones view of the world stand challanged by more fact-based ones, and the narrow minded thinking that springs from that pain is definatly a large problem in any cultural group.