Let's clear up one thing now. When I use the word cult, I am not referring to the very loose definition of groups in which members share a common belief or purpose. I am not talking about garden clubs or other benign organizations. That is not the concern of "anti-cult" groups, and attempts to obfuscate the issue with such talk are, IMHO, dishonest. I am referring to the totalistic religious/political groups that are characterized by the qualities I list below, what Hassan refers to as "destructive" cults. I don't use the word because it is a disrespectful pejorative. I use it because it is more descriptive and accurate in communication than "new religious movement". Not all cults are religious, and not all new religious movements have cult-like characteristics. And I am not opposed to any group just because it might be regarded as a cult. I oppose the behaviors which are identified with abusive cults, wherever I find them. Of course there are often very fuzzy lines which distinguish abusive groups from others. There is also a very fuzzy line that separates serious alcohol abuse from socially acceptable drinking, but that doesn't stop us from addressing the serious problem of alcoholism.

    One charge leveled against critics of cults is the argument that major religions were regarded as cults in their early days, and that criticism of cults is just modern day religious bigotry and persecution. This analogy is bogus. The main and overwhelming concern people have about cults is not the unorthodox beliefs cults have, but the manner in which they treat their members, and the rest of society. Of course there are always some people that feel threatened by "heretical" beliefs. That has never been my objection, and I don't think you can fairly characterize the anti-cult efforts this way. The history of modern day abusive cults is a continuing refrain of deception, manipulation, and exploitation. If I speak out against these abuses, it is not because I am a bigot.

    Another idea that we hear often is that there is such a thing as an "anti-cult cult". This notion of an "anti-cult cult" suggests that groups that educate about cult abuse are themselves cults, and ex-cult members who are so involved have simply traded one cult for another. This idea is comforting to cult members, as it tends to legitimize their involvement, and draw attention away from the problems within destructive groups. After all, "It's all "mind control." I think this suggestion is also completely without merit. Of course, there are many influences on us in society, many subtle and blatant attempts to get us to behave is certain ways, conform to certain standards, and groups run the spectrum from completely benign to very coercive. In one sense, no one is completely free. But a comparison between the destructive, totalistic cults, and groups like AFF, the old CAN, or the new CultInfo, shows the absurdity of any suggestion they are operating in similar fashion. In fact, there is no comparison at all. The cult groups typically have an authoritarian hierarchy, often with a supreme godlike figurehead endowed with supernatural powers (who often live in grand worldly style), expect extreme levels of obedience and conformity, exert great control over very personal matters of members lives, use shameless amounts of guilt and fear to shape behavior, stifle dissent and control information, often isolate and alienate members from family and friends, etc. Cults often completely control and dominate a persons life, take everything they possibly can from that person, and make them feel guilty for not giving more. It was my experience that the resulting totalistic environment severely erodes a persons ability to act, and even think, independently. None of this applies to the "anti-cult" groups. I have been intimately involved in one, and reasonably exposed to the other, and I find the suggestion almost laughable.

    It is often argued that the UC has changed, that it is not the same as it was back in the 70's, and that charges of cult abuse are no longer relevant. When I got out in 1980, the group was already claiming that it was changing, learning from the mistakes of it's "overzealous" members. But fifteen to twenty years later, I still see the same problems. Sure, there are many differences in how things are structured, and many members live a life quite different from the typical member back then. But I listen to the tapes of Hyo giving his Sunday talks (1994 or 1995), belittling and verbally abusing the members. What was revealing about that was not so much his behavior, (well, that WAS revealing, but of a different problem) but the fact that the members just sat there and took it all, responding in predictable Moonie fashion. (sorry to use the M word, but it's to make the point) It did not inspire confidence in their independent, critical thinking skills. I try to imagine the scenario of frenzied self flagellation described at the "ancestral liberation" ceremonies, and can only see people who are not truly free. I read members on ARU defending the Japanese fund raising excesses with some lame reference to the principle of indemnity. I read the Sunday sermons of high Korean leaders and it sounds like a page out of Orwell's "Animal Farm." I read the memo that Tyler Hendricks wrote after the suicide in Reno denying to the members what the inner circle apparently had accepted as true (the fact that it was suicide) and blaming the members for it, and using it as an opportunity to get them to give more. It's the same old PR baloney, manipulation, deception, and mindf***ing nonsense all over again.

    Now, on to one of the most contentious and volatile issues surrounding the issue of cults. There is little that arouses such passionate reaction as suggesting to someone their group is a "mind control" cult. Even some who are no longer in the group show hostility to this thought. This reaction is understandable. As I mentioned in the beginning of this talk, when I was a member I felt indignation that anyone would judge and dismiss my experience. My faith, my prayers, my heart connection with the group and God was not something to be so negatively characterized. I knew there was something real there - how dare they say it was all just "brainwashing"? And it might be very hard for someone whose life has been unalterably affected by their experience in the group to believe that they gave so much simply because they were mistaken, misled, or duped. So I sympathize with these sentiments. Another major stumbling block to acceptance of the concept of mind control is the suggestion that ALL members are under this extreme control. It has always been obvious to me that members showed different degrees of dependence, different abilities to think "outside the box" of cult dogma and direction. But I also think that to a great extent rejection of the validity of the mind control concept is based on misconceptions about the whole topic, unnecessary fears and "straw man" arguments that cloud the issue. So let me start by providing a few definitions and say what I think mind control is and is not. The most useful definition that I have read was given by Margaret Singer in an article she wrote around 1994. She writes:

"Recently, cult apologists have attempted to create the impression that the concept of thought reform has been rejected by the scientific community. This is untrue.
"As recently as May of this year, (1994) the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders (DSM-IV) published by the American Psychiatric Association cites thought reform as a contributing factor to "Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" (a diagnostic frequently given to former cult members). Thought reform (notes 1,2,3 below) and its synonyms brainwashing and coercive persuasion (4,5) were also noted in DSM-III (1980) and DSM- III Revised (1987), as well as in widely recognized medical texts (6,7).
"Thought reform is not mysterious. It is the systematic application of psychological and social influence techniques in an organized programmatic way within a constructed and managed environment (6,7,8,9,10). The goal is to produce specific attitudinal and behavioral changes. The changes occur incrementally without its being patently visible to those undergoing the process that their attitudes and behavior are being changed a step at a time according to the plan of those directing the program.
"In society there are numerous elaborate attempts to influence attitudes and modify behavior. However, thought reform programs can be distinguished from other social influence efforts because of their totalistic scope and their sequenced phases aimed at destabilizing participants' sense of self, sense of reality, and values. Thought reform programs rely on organized peer pressure, the development of bonds between the leader or trainer and followers, the control of communication, and the use of a variety of influence techniques. The aim of all this is to promote conformity, compliance, and adopt specific attitudes and behaviors desired by such a group. Such a program is further characterized by the manipulation of the person's total social environment to stabilize and reinforce the modified behavior and attitude changes. (8,9,10)
"Thought reform is accomplished through the use of psychological techniques that do NOT depend on physical coercion. Today's thought reform programs are sophisticated, subtle, insidious, creating a psychological bond that in many ways is far more powerful than gun-at-the-head methods of influence. The effects generally lose their potency when the control processes are lifted or neutralized in some way. That is why most Korean War POW's gave up the content of their prison camp indoctrination programs when they came home, and why many cultists leave the group if they spend a substantial amount of time away from the group or have an opportunity to discuss their doubts with an intimate. (11)
"Contrary to popular misconceptions (some intentional on the part of the naysayers), a thought reform program does not require physical confinement and does not produce robots. Nor does it permanently capture the allegiance of all those exposed to it. In fact, some persons do not respond at all to the programs, while others retain the contents for varied periods of time. In sum, thought reform should be regarded as "situationally adaptive belief change that is not stable and is environment-dependent" (8,10).
"The current effort by cult apologists to deny thought reform exists is linked to earlier protective stances toward cults in which apologists attempted to deny cults' active and deceptive recruiting practices; deny the massive social, psychological, financial. spiritual, and other controls wielded by cult leaders; and thus dismiss their often destructive consequences.
"These earlier efforts to shield cults from criticism rest on a "seeker" theory of how people get into cults, which overlooks the active and deceptive tactics that most cults use to recruit and retain members. When bad things happened to the followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh, the twisted logic of some apologists implied that these "seekers" found what they wanted, thus absolving the cult leader and his conduct.
"Finally, to promulgate the myth that thought reform has been rejected by the scientific community, cult apologists doggedly stick to a faulty understanding of the process. Contrary to the findings in the literature, they aver that physical coercion and debilitation are necessary for thought reform to occur, and that the effects of thought reform must be instant, massive, uniform, universally responded to, and enduring.
"The recent upholding of thought reform in DSM-IV is but one more piece of the evidence that this orchestrated process of exploitive psychological manipulation is real and recognized within the professional psychiatric field. To say then that the concept of thought reform is rejected by the scientific community is false and irresponsible. The phenomenon has been studied and discussed since 1951, and the continuing studies by social psychologists and other behavioral scientists have solidified our understandings of its components and overall impact."
(bibliography deleted)

    As we read here, mind control does NOT mean that anyone can be converted, that all members are "brainwashed robots", that important personal factors are never involved, or that the only reason anyone joins such a group is because they were subjected to the mind control environment. I would also add (as I did in my first talk) that no one is saying that there is no valid thought, doctrine, experience, or feeling in such groups. One researcher I came across suggested that mind control might not be so effective in gaining converts, but it can work very well to keep them from leaving. Who could deny that guilt and fear figure heavily in the personal deliberations of members contemplating leaving the group? I want to paraphrase the central core of Singer's definition - " a systematic application of psychological techniques in an organized way in a totalistic, constructed environment, aimed at destabilizing a persons sense of self and values, and producing specific changes in thought and behavior." What member who went through virtually any of the UC workshops we held back in the 70's and 80's would deny that this accurately describes what took place there? How else to explain why a recruit can be an average kid in college pursuing lifelong goals on Friday night and by the following Tuesday be a religious zealot quoting the bible, totally devoted to one group out to "save the world"? How else to explain the extreme examples of cult behavior like murder and suicide? Who does not know a member of such a group whose zeal seems uncomfortably simplistic, dogmatic, cultish, or that can't be classified as "totally brainwashed"? Who really doubts that a person's thinking can get all distorted? I remember clearly what it was like for me in the group, how restricted my thinking was, how narrow my choices. I remember feeling guilty for doubting my "Abel". I remember when leaving was not an option, even though the insanity was driving me crazy. I remember looking longingly across the Hudson river, thinking that I could go down to Seventh(?) Ave. bus depot and be on a bus heading west in a matter of hours, knowing there was no way I could actually follow through on such a plan. I wasn't free, in any sense of the word. It was like nothing else I've lived. I would never go back there, would not wish it on anyone, and believe that it was a fundamental violation of my basic human rights.

    Are these transformations simply the "conversion experience", a "bona-fide religious event" that changes a persons attitudes and beliefs in a dramatic and instantaneous way? As I told in my talk, for me this experience was a specific, powerful event, a definite point in time I can identify (although I also see a process happening in the months leading up to it) No reflections on my commitment to the group would be complete without dealing with this issue. "What was that? What did that mean then? What does it mean for me now?"

    I am not a religious scholar, and I have no academic credentials to show that allow me to speak with great authority on the subject. But I do have a few observations of my own. It seems to me this experience has a stronger tradition in Christianity than in other religions, but I could be wrong. Maybe it's that living in a western, Judea-Christian culture, we just hear more stories of being "born again in Jesus" than in conversions to Buddha or Mohammad. Of course the story of St. Paul has to figure in strongly, as well. But if there is an observable cultural bias, it does suggest origins more mundane than "the hand of God". And what does it say about the truth or validity of that experience when it brings people to different truths, different gods? Why should I regard my conversion experience leading me to SMM as being somehow more truthful or relevant than the conversions that lead people to Jesus (or Muhammad, or Guru Ma)? Can they all be right? Only if you subscribe to a philosophical, new age existentialism that completely negates "the world according to the DP". Can we really be so sure that the conversion experience has its origins in the spiritual realm, and not in our own mind? Who would deny that in the workshop where I had my conversion there wasn't many strong influences operating on me? I remember the leading questions and environmental controls that were used in those workshops. I still have the letters written to me by my "spiritual mother" prior to my joining and I see now how suggestive they were. Not that she, or anyone, was conspiring to trick me, just that there was a dynamic psychological process in place that goes very far in explaining what my conversion experience was. In the larger sense, I can only be philosophical about that experience and events which led me to it. But I have to acknowledge that there was nothing about it that indicated anything other than something happening within my own mind.

    No discussion of this issue would be complete without some reference to Robert Lifton's book "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism". In it he outlines eight ways of manipulation that he observed being used in communist China and Korea. I will not list them in detail here, but an excellent summary of them can be seen at click here     You'll see that every one of the points was evident in the UC workshops and Ken Sudo seminars. This particular topic, and the things Lifton wrote, have so much relevance to the UC experience, that it deserves it's own separate chapter of discussion and analysis, one that I am unable to embark on at this time. I would hope everyone who is interested would take the time to look at it closely. Gordon Nuefeld posted on ARU a very interesting series of observations based on his personal experience at Booneville concerning this, and I have included them on this web page at "Thought reform and the Psychology of Choo Choo Pow". The parallels are remarkable. I heard that Lifton himself expressed concern that some groups were taking lessons from his book! Is it so easy to ignore the similarity? Isn't it some indictment of the recruitment practices that they so closely followed the methods outlined by Lifton? Whether by coincidence or by design, this has to make one take notice. I've often thought it ironic, but not surprising, that communist rhetoric sounds so similar to official UC memos and pronouncements - the predictable cliche's, the jargon riddled nonsense , the mindless brainwashed tripe that makes one want to scream. I feel very strongly that such influence is unethical and not in anybody's better interest. Maybe it is not the practice so much today, (maybe) but it seems a clear demonstration of what the cult-education groups are talking about, and it will always be the legacy of the movement that SMM built.

    Speaking of Sudo lectures, I want to bring up the issue of the 120 training manual. This manual was supplied to most members back in the 70's, even those who didn't go through the training itself. It represents the typical indoctrination and mind set of the members of that time. I quoted a few of the more outrageous passages in my talk. But you can open that text to any page, and find blatant psychological manipulations and graphic individuality suppressing, mind numbing lectures. The clear message was that we were unworthy scum, that we had no right to our life, thoughts, feelings or desires, that we were destined to hell except for the infinite love of SMM, that our ancestors would accuse us if we ever left, that we must obey absolutely and if we didn't we would have to "pay indemnity", that we owe SMM everything, that we should be willing to die for SMM, etc.etc. ad nauseum. It is a graphic demonstration of a certain mindset, a mentality, that is anything but free and healthy. It seems like faith run amok, a fanaticism and extremism that no person would choose to embrace with free mind and heart. No one can see what is in that text and deny that the issue of mind control has great merit. I reject the claim that the Sudo training was an aberration of some sort, and not typical or representative of the training we were given. I am not saying that all members have this mentality, but I would venture that it is very common. This legacy can't be brushed aside so easily, and even if it isn't the reality today, it is a grave indictment of the movement the new messiah established.

    It may be that members have a legitimate complaint when anti-cult groups imply that all members of such groups have no freedom of thought. But to deny that this phenomena has real relevance to many cult groups today is to deny the obvious. I know what I experienced and observed in others. I can compare my thinking patterns and behavior before, during, and after my cult involvement, and see the difference. The extreme behavior of some cult groups like mass murder and suicide offer ample evidence that the members thinking can get short circuited. No one would argue that human behavior can not be influenced by a variety of pressures. No one should doubt there are specific techniques and controls used to control behavior, i.e., limit a persons freedom of mind. It is amply demonstrated that religious/ political cults often use these techniques, often to an extent that can only be considered unethical. In it's most extreme manifestation, it results in a specific psychological phenomenon often characterized by "sudden personality change", irrational zealotry, and a severe erosion of the ability to think and act independently. This degree of influence is unhealthy and immoral, and someone under this influence has no real freedom, religious or otherwise.