The anti-cult tenets and the
position of this web site in contrast
The anti-cult theory basically rests on the
mind-control theory. Evil leaders have subjugated the will power of
innocent victims to do their biddings. This view automatically creates a
simplistic and cultic duality of baddies against goodies. It also
justifies the denial of the groups' religious legitimacy and thus encourages States to
interfere in individual religious choices. Those who object to this
position are automatically viewed as unable to understand the rightness
of the anti-cult wisdom or as corrupted individuals bought by the
cults.
This web site considers the above black and white
Disneyland worldview as
cultic itself. While cultists consider someone saved by his mere
adherence to the group, anti-cultists consider him saved by his mere
removal from it. While cultists view their leader as absolutely divine,
anti-cultists view him as absolute evil. In other words, anti-cultists
mirror the cultic mindset almost point by point. In time they have even
become a greater danger than cults themselves, kidnapping/deprogramming
cult members and envenoming conflicts to culminate in tragedies like
Jonestown and Waco.
This website, however, does not reject the
anti-cult view as absolutely false. It recognize that it points to a
phenomenon worth considering, that of the cultic mindset. However, it
points that vital distinction need to be made. Rather than
"mind-control", "indoctrination". Rather than
"deceit", "illusion". This web site is also opposed
to the unwarranted intervention of the State in religious affairs, but
claims that the religious nature of cults do not shed them from
criticism or scrutiny.
The table below goes into more details in this
parallel.
Anti-Cult Tenets
Position of this Website
1. Mind-control. Cultists are under
mind-control. They did not join the movement out of choice but because
they were deceived, or because they were subjected to mind-control
techniques that subjugated their free will, freedom of choice, and
critical abilities. Likewise, they do not stay in the movement because
they want to, but because, having been deprived of their free will,
they now can’t get out. In the early days, Ted Patrick claimed that the
only solution was to physically retrieve the member from the cult’s
influence and “deprogram” him. Nowadays, this claim is not made
anymore, and forcible deprogramming has been replaced with “vountary
exit counseling” (in contradiction with the basic theory).
1. Cultic Mindset. The mind-control theory has some heuristic
value as a metaphor to describe what I refer to as the "cultic
mindset", but taken literally, as anti-cultists have done over the
years, can prove very dangerous. Because of this, it is of vital
importance that a distinction be made. Rather than "mind-control", I
prefer to use "indoctrination", as this does not resort to esoteric,
superstitious, unproven, and dangerous explanations of hypnosis or
demonic-like possession that overrides the person's will. The persons
always retains his will, but is simply convinced that the black and
white view of the cult is right through constant repetition, fear,
appeal to authority, faith leap, positioning, and others means.
Likewise, after years of study, mainstream psychologists and
sociologists have not retained anti-cultists explanations and
describe instead the lure cults hold for some people by the fact
that groups like Scientology provide a feeling of belonging, a sense
of membership in an elite group, and more.
2. Con Game. The cult leader is seen as a
psychopathic exploiter motivated by greed and power. He maintains his
influence on followers through lies, hypnosis, and a strictly
controlled environment. His hold is such that his followers can kill
or commit suicide on command. They are his slaves and are forced to
work night and day for little or no pay. Ex-members are “free” when
they realize they have been lied to and understand the mind-control
mechanism to which they have been subjected. This is supposed to
produce an "healthy" anger, considered as a stage towards anti-cultic
“liberation”.
2. Cult Illusion. The anti-cult
depiction of evil cult leaders on the one hand and innocent
brainwashed victim on the other is a typical cultic,
black-and-white, Us vs.Them depiction. My position is that in most
cases the cult leader himself believes in his own doctrine. One of
the proof of that is that he is often willing to die for his
beliefs. This is an extremely important difference for ex-members,
because it means that there is no need, in order to be free from the
cult illusion, to go through an “anger” phases as one would thinking he has been "lied" to. All it takes is to realize the mindset
and understand the psychological mechanisms at the basis of this
particular form of illusion.
3. Not a religion. The religious cover of
cults is a cynical exploitation of the special protection genuine
religions enjoy. Because of the use of mind-control, cult members did
not really choose to join the movement, and therefore their beliefs
cannot be counted as true religious beliefs. These are the
pathological result of psychological manipulation from which
ex-members need to "recover" once they realize they have been lied
to. Therefore, cults should not be treated like religions, but like
frauds and scams.
3. Religious Rights. I oppose the idea that cult members
are mindless robots. The fact that the cultic mindset is a form
of illusion does not prevent the beliefs of cult members to be as
genuine as the ones of any other believers. For that matter, I don't
view the cultic mindset as being the exclusivity of cults. Members
of any religion, or anybody for that matter, can very well be the
victim of it as well. To claim that cult members should not have the
same rights as any other persons is a very serious attack on the
most basic rights, and one of the most de-humanizing things there
can be. It is, however, the kind of things the anti-cult theory
directly leads to. To deprive someone of such right, one would need
an extraordinary reason, and the mind-control claim of anti-cultists
on which this is based, is at best unproven, and at worst totally
false. Religious movements, however, are not above criticism, and
nothing is lost by recognizing the religious nature of cults.
4. Intervention. Governments have a
responsibility to protect society, the family, and the victim
himself, from this scam. Special laws to address the cult problem
are necessary, and existing fraud and youth protection laws should
be fully applied to stop the cults.
4. Referee. The State has to be aware
that arbitrary siding with one or the other parties can have
disastrous consequences. It is very important that it maintains its
role of impartial referee. It is the unwarranted intervention of
authorities that helped to precipitate tragedies like Jonestown and
Waco. Existing laws are entirely sufficient to deal with whatever
problems cults may create. Since cults are considered
scams rather than religions, the measures proposed by anti-cultists
are not seen as religious discrimination. Since this premise is
false, it does indeed constitute religious discrimination, and
one of the worst kind at that.
5. Cult apologists. Those who deny the
dangers of cults and claim that anti-cult laws are religious
discrimination are dupes deceived by cults or paid by cults to lie.
They are “cult apologists”, cult shills, and what they say should be
ignored.
5. Civil Rights Activists. Being opposed to kidnapping and
forcible deprogramming has nothing to do with defending cults. It
has to do with defending the freedom of belief of EVERYBODY. Being
opposed to dangerous and unwarranted intervention of authorities has
nothing to do with defending cults. It has to do with preventing
further tragedies from occurring. To refer as “cult apologists”
people who scientifically investigate what truly happens in cults,
and those who use the highest principles of law to defend the rights
of oppressed minorities is yet another illustration of anti-cultists'
cultic mindset.
The anti-cult theory mostly rests on the first
two tenets, which I call myths in both cases - the Mind-control myth and
the con game myth. The two other points (not a religion and appeal to
law enforcement) are consequences ensuing from these myths, while the
last one (cult apologists) is the cultic justification against those who oppose
anti-cult myths.
My position stands in contrast to those tenets.
Rather than mind-control, I refer to indoctrination and cult illusion.
The difference is important, because it does not imply a subjugation of
the person's will, the key justification of anti-cultists to deprive cult
members of their rights and responsibility. I am also opposed to the
black and white, Us-vs.-Them, depiction of an evil leader vs innocent
victims. I claim, on the contrary, that both share in the same illusion
and reinforce each other in their beliefs. Naturally, this means that,
while cults should be criticize for what they are, it does not remove
their religious prerogative, nor justify special laws to repress them,
and that those who seek to preserve these rights (and indirectly the
basic rights of everybody) are not "cult apologists" but, on the
contrary, civil rights activists.
Related Pages :
The Anti-Cult Movement
The history of the anti-cult movement and it's kidnapping and forcible
deprogramming of cult members.
The FBI report
After its major goof in the Waco disaster, where the FBI relied on
information provided by anti-cultists, it has seriously revised its
approach.
Moderate ex-members
Scientology ex-members critical of Scientology but who reject the
mind-control theory.
This web site is
NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER
who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical
of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a
Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.
