Buddhism, Religion

by tenpelAugust 1, 20188:16 pm

Why are cults so difficult to oppose?

By Mark Dunlop

Overview
What is the Brainwashing Hypothesis?
How does Brainwashing Work?
Misleading stance of Inform organisation and some academics
Conclusion

Part 1. Overview

The aim of this article is to explain how cults work, to examine some of the factors which give cults their power and make them difficult to oppose, and to call for better legal protection against cults. This article is written by a former member of the Triratna Buddhist Order/Community, an organisation which the author now considers to be a deceptive cult. It is based on the situation in the UK, though the situation in the rest of the world is broadly similar.

There are several reasons why cults (and cultish behaviours) are difficult to oppose. Partly it is because of laws protecting Freedom of Religion and freedom of belief, which have the side-effect of allowing any organisation classified as a religion to be largely self-regulating.

Not only is there no commonly agreed legal definition of “religion”, but there is also no commonly agreed legal definition of “cult”. In practice, cults are often able to operate under the radar, masquerading as bona fide religions. Generally, any attempt to distinguish between a cult and a religion soon becomes bogged down in a disagreement over definitions.

This article adopts the perspective that a cult is a sociopathic religion or belief system.

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) describes Antisocial Personality Disorder (their preferred term for sociopathy or psychopathy) in part as:

A disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others …

From that perspective, a cult could be described as “An organisation exhibiting a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others.”

Not all religions are cults, and not all cults are religious. There are also secular cults, such as psychotherapy, political, or environmentalist cults. By no means all such organisations are cultish, but some are, to varying degrees. In general, any field which is poorly regulated, and which has a belief system attractive to idealists, has the potential to give rise to cultish behaviours.

There are also degrees of cultishness. There are probably few human organisations which are completely free from any trace of bullying, unacknowledged power cliques, or groupthink, all of which could be considered somewhat cultish behaviours. At the other end of the spectrum of cultishness, are groups which have deeply committed members, over whose lives and behaviour the group’s leaders exert a strong and exploitative dominance.

An organisation could be described as cultish to the degree to which it exhibits a pervasive pattern of abusive behaviours. However, any such behaviours are unlikely to be openly exhibited, but are more likely to be hidden and unacknowledged. This gives rise to another difficulty in identifying cults, which is that any hidden sociopathic behaviours are unlikely to be obvious to an outsider, or to a newcomer considering becoming involved with a particular organisation.

This means that a cult can be difficult to identify from the outside, and so it is usually necessary to rely on insiders or whistleblowers to reveal any hidden harmful behaviours within the group. However, this gives rise to a further difficulty, which is that critical ex-members or whistleblowers often face misunderstanding and disbelief.

The way that cults operate, and the methods they use to gain influence over their members’ behaviour, are not widely understood by the general public. So members of the public may have great difficulty in actually understanding what a critical ex-cult member is talking about. They may even think that only weak-willed, gullible people would ever be drawn into a cult. (Actually it is ambitious, strong-willed people who go on to become the most committed cult members.)

Additionally, some academic organisations and researchers are somewhat dismissive of the claims made by critical ex-members, and are especially dismissive of any claims about “brainwashing” or “mind control” (Part 4 of this article gives some more detail about these dismissive academics). This article holds that understanding how brainwashing works is crucial to understanding how cults work, and so the next two sections will attempt to explain how brainwashing works.

Part 2. What is the Brainwashing Hypothesis?

The brainwashing hypothesis does not propose the existence of some all-powerful magic technique, or anything which could be described as irresistible. Rather, it is a shorthand term to describe a set of processes which, it is alleged, allows some groups to significantly increase the power and effectiveness of some of the ordinary forms of influence found within society, enabling them to exert considerable influence and even dominance over many of their members.

Brainwashing can be seen as a variety of Gaslighting, which is defined in the Oxford online dictionary as to:

Manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity.

Essentially, brainwashing is the systematic exercise of undue influence.

There is a legal concept of undue influence, under the common law in England and Wales:

… the equitable doctrine of undue influence has grown out of and been developed by the necessity of grappling with insidious forms of spiritual tyranny and with the infinite varieties of fraud.
— Lindley LJ in Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145

In practice, this legal concept of undue influence is limited to cases in which a person in a position of trust uses improper pressure or influence to induce a person to enter into a transaction involving the transfer of money or property, when such a transaction is “not to be reasonably accounted for on the ground of friendship, relationship, charity or other ordinary motives on which ordinary men act” (Lindley LJ in Allcard v Skinner, again).

For a fuller explanation of the legal concept of undue influence, see for example: Monthly Nutshell: Undue Influence (Contract Law) and Undue influence.

The brainwashing hypothesis amounts to an extension or widening of the legal concept of undue influence, to encompass not only the gaining of tangible property, but also the gaining of influence over some of the less tangible aspects of a person’s life.

Essentially, it is alleged, brainwashing gains undue influence over a person’s idealism and spirituality, so that over time, they may become more-or-less the devoted servants of the group or individual exerting the undue influence.

Part 3. How does Brainwashing Work?

This outline is based partly on the author’s experience in a pseudo-Buddhist cult, and partly on talking to, or reading the accounts of, other ex-members of various cults.

Briefly, the way that brainwashing (aka mind control) works, is that a cult promotes its cultish belief system, and then believers control their own minds, as they attempt to train their minds and reform their personalities, in accordance with the tenets of their cultish new belief system.

A cult belief system is a “Sleepers Awake!” type of belief system. In simple terms, it puts forward the idea that whatever unhappiness or dissatisfaction a person experiences in life, is due to them being at a low level of awareness, or effectively “asleep”. (At the end of this section, there are six examples of Triratna teachings which imply that newcomers are at a lower level of awareness than the group leadership.)

But a person can wake up, becoming more fully aware and enjoying happiness and spiritual fulfillment, if they follow the teaching and training offered by the group.

Brainwashing does not directly overcome a person’s free will. Rather, it tricks a person into voluntarily inhibiting their free will, by persuading them that the cult leadership is “enlightened”, or at least wiser and more aware than them. Therefore they should not rely on their own flawed and unenlightened judgement, but should defer instead to the guidance compassionately offered by their spiritual guide, who can see, where they are blind. (This is similar to Gaslighting, except that brainwashing manipulates a person into doubting their own awareness and judgement, rather than into doubting their own sanity.) An unscrupulous teacher, having gained the faith and trust of their student, can then exploit this trust and deference for their own ends. Students may thus become subject to “insidious forms of spiritual tyranny”.

In the case of a pseudo-Islamic terrorist cult, the group’s guidance is based on their fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. They teach that, if they are sincere and genuine, new members must completely reject secular, Western society, which is godless and ruled by the Devil. This life is a kind of exam or test; only the bravest and most faithful will be allowed to enter heaven. Some recruits may even come to believe that killing unbelievers can earn them a place in paradise:

… the purpose of humanity is to be tested: “Who has created death and life, that He may test you which of you is best in deed. And He is the All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving …”
— Qur’an [67:2], Muhsin Khan Translation (WP)

It may be that part of the attraction for believers in a cult-type of belief system is that, finally, everything makes sense and fits in. All internal conflicts and uncertainties are resolved; all conflicts are now external, in the outside world, and are explained by the belief system. To the extent that they believe and have faith, to that extent personal conflicts and unhappiness are dissolved away.

At times, believers may become inspired or even intoxicated with the ideals of the belief system, seeing themselves as members of an elite group of spiritual pioneers. As the psychologist William James observed:

Religion brings a new zest, which adds itself like a gift to life, taking the form either of lyrical enchantment or of appeal to earnestness and heroism.
— William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature

An additional attraction for some believers may be that adherence to the group norms and beliefs gives them a position in the group’s hierarchy, which confers status, and the possibility of becoming little mini-gurus themselves. Such people have a vested interest both in maintaining the group orthodoxy, and also in recruiting new members. In that sense, a cult can be seen as a sort of pseudo-spiritual pyramid scheme.

That’s the bare bones of how cult brainwashing works.

The main difference between a cult and a religion, is that a cult systematically undermines a member’s confidence in their own awareness and judgement, replacing it with a deference towards the leadership’s guidance. The cult will then exploit that deference for their own ends. A religion will not do that, or at least not to anything like the same extent.

In other words, a cult could be described as a sociopathic religion.

In theory, it might be possible for an organisation to brainwash its followers, but without exploiting them. Such benign brainwashing seems comparatively rare however, since brainwashing gives cult leaders considerable power and influence over their followers. And power tends to corrupt, particularly when combined with non-accountability.

Six examples of “Sleepers Awake!” type statements from Triratna (formerly Friends of the Western Buddhist Order or FWBO), implying that newcomers are at a lower level of awareness than the group leadership:

Quote 1.

Spiritual life begins with awareness, when one becomes aware that one is unaware, or when one wakes up to the fact that one is asleep.
— Sangharakshita, “Mind – Reactive and Creative”, page 8, pub. FWBO 1971.

(this statement was slightly rewritten in the 1975 edition of “Mind – Reactive and Creative”):

It is with this realisation, – when we become aware of our own unawareness, when we wake up to the fact that we are asleep, – that spiritual life begins.
— page 6 in 1975 edition

Quote 2.

I see it [the Buddhist path] in terms of a very definite transition from what we regard as a mundane way of seeing the world and experiencing the world, to what we would describe as a transcendental way, seeing it in terms of wisdom, seeing it in terms of real knowledge, seeing it in terms of ultimate reality, seeing it in terms of a truer, wider perspective.
— Sangharakshita, at 5m 16s, in ‘Going for Refuge’, T.V. programme, BBC East 12.11.92.

[In other words, it is again being suggested that the student’s existing understanding and perception of ‘the world’ is mundane and limited in its perspective.]

Quote 3.

Within both the positive group and the spiritual community people will be at many different levels and stages of experience and commitment. Each should feel a natural respect for and gratitude to those who, in any way, have progressed further on the Path and who are, therefore, teachers and guides. …

The acceptance of spiritual hierarchy ensures that those of greatest experience and understanding are able to guide and inspire.
— Subhuti, Buddhism for Today, p 131, 133. ISBN 0-904766-34-9

Addendum to Part 3 – Attachment theory

It is very much intended that the above outline of the brainwashing hypothesis should be understood within a wider context of social and psychological influences. The brainwashing hypothesis is not intended to supplant or compete with other theories and analyses, but rather to complement them, and in particular to offer a possible explanation of how brainwashing can focus and intensify some of the ordinary social and psychological influences found within society.

The above analysis of brainwashing concentrates on the “Sleepers Awake!” nature of a cultish belief system. In the view of this writer, that type of belief system is very characteristic of cults, and is perhaps even unique to cults. A Sleepers Awake type of belief system is at the root of what gives the cult leadership power over their students, but it is not the whole story. There are various forms of psychological and emotional manipulation that may be facilitated by that root, and these various forms of manipulation are not unique to cults, but may occur in many social situations. It is only the cultish belief system itself which is unique to a cult.

Brainwashing, it is alleged, allows some groups to significantly increase the power and effectiveness of some of these ordinary forms of influence found within society. It can be helpful to consider some of the observations made within the disciplines of psychology and sociology, in order to more fully understand some of the influence processes which can be unleashed within a cult, once a person has been at least partially brainwashed.

One of the most interesting perspectives is that of “Attachment theory”. Dr. Alexandra Stein (a former member of a political cult), outlines attachment theory in these words:

Attachment theory states that an evolutionary adaptation fundamental to humans is the drive to seek proximity to a safe other (initially as infants to caregivers) in order to gain protection from threat, thus improving chances of survival.

… the closed, fearful world within a cult is designed to promote a relationship of disorganised attachment to the leader or group: a combination of terror and ‘love’ that is used to emotionally trap and cognitively disable followers.

The brainwashing hypothesis offers a possible explanation of how a cult and its leadership can use their “Sleepers Awake!” type of belief system to position themselves as a “safe other” in the minds of their disciples. They can position themselves almost as a kind of divine parent, as the ultimate refuge, or even as the source of all wisdom. (Triratna’s founder, Sangharakshita, has been described by one of his followers as “our spiritual father”).

Newcomers to the group are also likely to experience positive, welcoming attention from established group members (even if the group doesn’t necessarily go in for full-on love bombing), which will tend to generate affection and attachment towards the group. This in turn may tend to make members fearful of losing approval from the group. Some cultish groups teach that a person will suffer mental illness, or even fall into hell, if they lose contact with the group. (Leaving the Triratna Order has been described as “spiritual catastrophe” by Sangharakshita.)

In this kind of way, a cultish group can engender “a combination of terror and ‘love’ that is used to emotionally trap and cognitively disable followers.” In that sense, dependency within a cult situation is in some ways quite similar to attachment and dependency in abusive domestic relationships, and also similar to some of the processes in Gaslighting.

Potentially, brainwashing enables cultish groups to unleash “social psychological forces of truly awesome power”, in the words of Benjamin Zablocki, professor of sociology at Rutgers University in America.

Part 4. Misleading stance of Inform organisation and some academics

It was mentioned above that some academic organisations and researchers are somewhat dismissive of the claims made by critical ex-members, and especially dismissive of any claims about “brainwashing” or “mind control”.

One such organisation is “Inform” (Information Network Focus on Religious Movements), who describe themselves as follows:

Inform is an independent charity that was founded in 1988 by Professor Eileen Barker with the support of the British Home Office and the mainstream Churches. Its office is in the Theology and Religious Studies Department at King’s College, London. [It was formerly based at the London School of Economics.] The primary aim of Inform is to help people by providing them with information that is as accurate, balanced, and up-to-date as possible about alternative religious, spiritual and esoteric movements. …

Professor Eileen Barker is a sociologist. A small number of academics have questioned her standpoint on the question of “brainwashing” (aka “mind control”), which some critical ex-cultists consider a suitable term to describe the methods which they allege cults use to gain influence over members’ behaviour.

For example, Benjamin Zablocki, professor of sociology at Rutgers University in America, writes:

I argue that a majority faction within the discipline [of Sociology of Religion] has acted with a fair degree of success to block attempts to give the concept of brainwashing a fair scientific trial. This campaign has resulted in a distortion of the original meaning of the concept so that it is generally looked at as having to do with manipulation in recruitment of new members to religious groups. Its historically consistent use, on the contrary, should be in connection with the manipulation of exit costs for veteran members. [1]
— Benjamin Zablocki, Abstract to “The Blacklisting of a Concept”, Nova Religio, Vol. 2, No. 1, 96–121, October 1998

This ‘distortion of the original meaning of the concept [of brainwashing or mind control]’ is unfortunately what Inform, or at least Professor Eileen Barker, has fallen victim to. She writes, for example:

If people are the victims of mind control, they are rendered incapable of themselves making the decision as to whether or not to join a movement – the decision is made for them.
— Barker, “New Religious Movements – A Practical Introduction”, pub. HMSO London 1989, page 17

and similarly that:

The proposition (promoted by certain sections of the media and “anticultists”) to be tested was that irresistible and irreversible practices employed during the workshop would result in all those who had accepted the invitation ending up as compliant “Moonies”, ready to devote their lives to the every whim of their Korean Messiah, Sun Myung Moon.
— Barker, “And the Wisdom to Know the Difference? Freedom, Control and the Sociology of Religion.” Association for the Sociology of Religion 2002 Presidential Address. Sociology of Religion 64, no. 3, 2003, pp. 285-307

She displays the same misconception of the brainwashing hypothesis in the more recent (9 October 2014) video Gearty Grilling: Eileen Barker on Cults. (Conor Gearty is Professor of human rights law in the LSE Law Department, and is also a practising barrister.)

Much as Zablocki describes, Barker has fallen victim to a distorted understanding of the original meaning of the concept of brainwashing, seeing it as having to do with an alleged irresistible manipulation in the recruitment of new members to religious groups. She doesn’t appear to cite any source for her description of the concept of brainwashing, other than the rather unspecific “certain sections of the media and ‘anticultists’.”

Having unfortunately misunderstood the brainwashing hypothesis in this way, Barker then observed that not everyone attending a “Moonie” workshop was recruited into the movement, and also that many who did join left after a while. Therefore, she concludes, brainwashing must be a myth, because if it was real, all attendees would have been irresistibly and irreversibly recruited into the movement.

However, brainwashing doesn’t work like that. It is not a recruitment tool, as Zablocki points out, nor is it irresistible. Brainwashing only gradually begins to work after a person joins a group, and only while they remain active believers. (There is an outline of how this author thinks that brainwashing actually works, in Part 3 of this article, above.)

Having fallen victim to and promulgated this incorrect understanding of the concept of brainwashing, Barker has effectively if inadvertently contributed to blocking or blacklisting any objective scientific evaluation of the truth or falsity of the brainwashing hypothesis.

There are other sociologists who appear to share Professor Barker and Inform’s misunderstanding of the brainwashing hypothesis, for example David V. Barrett, author of “The New Believers: Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions”.

David Barrett appeared on the BBC radio programme “Beyond Belief”, presented by Ernie Rea (who mentioned that David Barrett used to work at Inform). The programme was broadcast on BBC Radio 4, 9 Aug 2004, with the subject title “Cults”. During the programme, David Barrett said:

I recognise the term “Brainwashing” as something straight out of science fiction, not out of reality. Nobody has ever shown any example of brainwashing actually happening, and there have been a huge number of studies which simply show that it is a myth. People might join a movement, they might be deceived into joining it, they might be given false information, but that isn’t brainwashing.

Equally, nobody has ever shown any example of free choice actually happening either, simply because it is not possible to see into a person’s mind to discern the processes going on therein. So following his own logic, David Barrett should also conclude that free choice is something straight out of science fiction.

There are other sociologists who are somewhat dismissive of the claims made by critical ex-members, for example, Dr J. Gordon Melton, a religious scholar based at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who testified as an expert witness in a lawsuit, that:

When you are investigating groups such as this [The Local Church], you never rely upon the unverified testimony of ex-members. To put it bluntly, hostile ex-members invariably shade the truth. They invariably blow out of proportion minor incidents and turn them into major incidents, and over a period of time their testimony almost always changes because each time they tell it they get the feedback of acceptance or rejection from those to whom they tell it, and hence it will be developed and merged into a different world view that they are adopting.
– From the expert testimony of Dr J. Gordon Melton in Lee vs. Duddy et al, a lawsuit involving the Local Church and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project.

Similarly, the late Bryan Wilson, Reader Emeritus in Sociology at All Souls College, Oxford, wrote about apostates (ex-members who become openly critical of the group they were once a member of):

Informants who are mere contacts and who have no personal motives for what they tell are to be preferred to those who, for their own purposes, seek to use the investigator. The disaffected and the apostate are in particular informants whose evidence has to be used with circumspection. The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame those who were formerly his closest associates. Not uncommonly the apostate learns to rehearse an “atrocity story” to explain how, by manipulation, trickery, coercion, or deceit, he was induced to join or to remain within an organization that he now forswears and condemns. Apostates, sensationalized by the press, have sometimes sought to make a profit from accounts of their experiences in stories sold to newspapers or produced as books (sometimes written by “ghost” writers).
— Bryan Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, p. 19

In Italy, there is Massimo Introvigne and the organisation CESNUR (Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni or Centre for Studies on New Religions), based in Turin, and like Inform, also founded in 1988:

Wikipedia reports that “Scholars and anti-cultists Stephen A. Kent and Raffaella Di Marzio consider CESNUR’s representation of the brainwashing controversy one-sided, polemical and sometimes without scholarly value.[8][9]”

These academics and organisations and their associates seem to constitute what Benjamin Zablocki describes as “a majority faction within the discipline [of Sociology of Religion]”.

Unfortunately, this majority faction seems to have a good deal of influence. Not only have they succeeded in obscuring and to a large extent discrediting the testimonies of critical ex-members of various groups, but they are often relied upon for advice by governments investigating possible problems with alleged cults.

As a result of these two factors (the public’s lack of understanding about the way that cults operate, and the dismissive attitude of some academics), the public credibility of critical ex-cultists and whistleblowers seems to be very low, which greatly hampers them in their efforts to warn of the dangers posed by cults.

Dr. Barker, Inform, and their associates are sometimes accused of being “cult apologists”, which seems rather unfair. It seems unlikely that they are knowingly and deliberately acting as cult apologists, or that they have deliberately blocked attempts to give the concept of brainwashing a fair scientific trial.

It seems more likely that, because none of them have actually been in a cult themselves (so far as this writer knows), they have no experience of having been brainwashed, and so they have no basis of personal experience on which to base an understanding of the brainwashing hypothesis.

On the positive side, apart from the above important limitation, Inform does gather and make available quite a lot of useful information about various minority religious groups. They have assembled a considerable database of material, including details of controversies and complaints made against various groups, and they make their information available to enquirers. An outline of the sort of assistance Inform can provide is given on their page titled “Examples of How Inform Can Help”:

Part 5. Conclusion

Benjamin Zablocki wrote that:

I am convinced, based on more than three decades of studying new religious movements through participant-observation and through interviews with both members and ex-members, that these movements have unleashed social psychological forces of truly awesome power.
— Page 4

The brainwashing hypothesis offers a possible explanation of how certain individuals and organisations are apparently able to exert a powerful undue influence over some of the people who become involved with them.

It may be argued that the brainwashing hypothesis cannot be empirically tested or proved. Equally, the free will (or free choice) hypothesis cannot be empirically tested or proved either. [2] An impartial perspective would not exclude or blacklist either hypothesis, but would attempt to compare the validity of both hypotheses, judging them on the basis of a balance of probabilities, having regard to how well each hypothesis was able to explain the observed behaviour of certain organisations and of individuals who become involved with those organisations.

In the view of this writer, brainwashing is effectively what defines a cult. It is what enables a cult to exercise systematic undue influence and to exert “insidious forms of spiritual tyranny”.

Brainwashing is not irresistible. It is quite easy to resist, provided a person can recognise it as brainwashing. It is quite easy to resist, if a person even slightly suspects that an individual or organisation might be trying to con or brainwash them.

However, brainwashing can be quite powerful, if a person does not realise they are being drawn into a brainwashing environment. The most effective brainwashing is the kind that isn’t recognized by the victim as manipulation. They don’t feel it; the victim believes that they are in control.

The danger for someone who may unwittingly become involved with a cult, is that they will be exposed to the cult belief system, which can become psychoactive, like a drug, if a person gives any significant degree of credibility to the belief system. Over time, a cult belief system can become addictive and disorientating, and is dangerous even to experiment with. Once involved, it may not be all that easy for someone to escape from a cult belief system.

A cult is somewhat similar to quicksand, in that both can appear benign from the outside, unless a person is able to recognise some of the danger signs. An unwary explorer may easily stray into a cult or into a quicksand, and in both cases, may find it quite difficult to extricate themselves.

The greatest protection against being drawn into a cult and then brainwashed, is being able to spot some of the tell-tale signs of a potential brainwashing situation.

The main tell-tale sign of a potential brainwashing situation is probably a “Sleepers Awake!” type of belief system, which offers to transform a person’s life. A personality cult around the leader or founder of the group is also a bad sign. Of course, cult leaders can read articles like this one which warn about cults, and may use them as guides about how to avoid appearing obviously cultish.

Not all minority groups use brainwashing to achieve undue influence, but it is possible that some do. If some groups do in fact use brainwashing, then the lack of impartial information about the nature of brainwashing (or the brainwashing hypothesis) greatly increases the difficulty of making informed choices about certain types of minority groups (which may be secular or religious).

Various anti-cult individuals and organisations do their best to promote public awareness and understanding about brainwashing and cult issues, but face a number of difficulties, some of which this article has attempted to identify. What the way forward might be, is difficult to say.

Perhaps government intervention. Perhaps a successful court case against a cult, which sets a legal precedent by identifying the use of brainwashing as a means of exercising undue influence. Or perhaps some new and as yet unidentified factor. But in the meantime, the odds seem stacked against whistleblowers, and in favour of cults, which leaves cults largely free to prey on innocent members of the public, without any real accountability for any harm they may cause.

Notes

Note [1]

Manipulation of exit costs for veteran members.

As regards the “manipulation of exit costs for veteran members” which Benjamin Zablocki refers to, this tends to have two aspects, the practical and the psychological.

On the practical side, veteran members may have become dependent on the group for accommodation and income. And they may have broken off contact with their old, pre-cult friends, and even with their families. So they may not have any outside friends, or career, to go back to.

The psychological exit costs can be quite complex. Psychologically speaking, leaving the group essentially means disentangling themselves from the group’s culture, belief system and worldview. The process of disentanglement may not be all that straightforward.

Rejecting the cultish belief system in its entirety may not be easy, or even desirable. Even after physical contact with the group has ceased, elements of the cult belief system are likely to linger in the mind of an ex-member for some time, depending how deeply and for how long they were involved. They may experience feelings of anxiety and disorientation, as they try to rid themselves of the unwanted remnants of the cult belief system and worldview, while simultaneously trying to regain some confidence either in their old, pre-cult belief system and ways of relating to the world, or alternatively, in some new, post-cult belief system.

In trying to rid their minds of the unwanted remnants of the cult belief system and set of attitudes, an ex-member is effectively trying to use their own thought processes to disentangle their own thought processes. This can be quite a difficult task, rather like trying to lift yourself up by your own shoelaces.

For a while, an ex-member may exist in a sort of limbo between the cult world and the outside world, unsure which to believe in. To the extent that the cult belief system retains any degree of respect or credibility within an ex-member’s mind, then to that extent leaving the group will seem like abandoning the ideals and aspirations of the group’s belief system, and therefore like a failure.

On the other hand, to the extent that the cult belief system fails to retain credibility and is eschewed, to that extent an ex-member may tend to feel shame at their foolishness and gullibility in having once adopted beliefs and aspired to ideals which they now regard as unrealistic.

So in their own mind, either they are a failure, or a gullible fool. Either way their self-confidence takes a knock, and they may find it difficult to have any faith in their own judgement, or in their ability to make sensible decisions. For a while, they may not know what to believe, or who to trust.

Those are some of the difficulties or exit costs an ex-member may face during the process of leaving the group.

Note [2]

Free will

Free will (or free choice) cannot be empirically proved or disproved. Philosophers and scientists have debated the question of free will for many years. Some believe in free will, others do not. Among the sceptics is, for example, Einstein:

In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everyone acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer’s saying, that “a man can do as he will, but not will as he will” has been an inspiration to me since my youth up …
– From p.2 of Albert Einstein’s Autobiography “The World As I See It” trans Alan Harris pub Bodley Head 1935 ISBN 0-8065-0711-X

Similarly, Thomas Hobbes wrote:

Nothing takes a beginning from itself, but from the action of some other immediate agent, without itself. Therefore, when first a man has an appetite or will to something, to which immediately before he had no appetite nor will, the cause of his will is not the will itself, but something else not in his own disposing. So that, whereas it is out of controversy that, of voluntary actions the will is the necessary cause, and by this which is said, the will is also necessarily caused by other things, whereof it disposes not, it follows that voluntary actions have all of them necessary causes, and therefore are necessitated.
– From p.76 of Schopenhauer’s “On the Freedom of the Will” translated by Konstantin Kolenda pub Basil Blackwell, quoting from Thomas Hobbes “Of Liberty and Necessity” The English Works of Thomas Hobbes – London 1840

35Comments

Add yours

1

suzanne o'meara on August 3, 2018 at 7:14 pm
Reply

cults are difficult to oppose because not enough people get together to form an authority , cults start by being an authority & control over others .the feed off victims . but after so many decades of cults the real worry is that still no solution & maybe becoming even worse. thee could be something worse happening soon as result of the victim never getting 100% HELP HEALING. so the problem can escalate . whatever help has been provided is not complete . the only way to get help would be from a dumb animal .these powers refuse to teach the humble ignorant students or it becomes a problem & uncomfortable for all concerned so no progress is made & so many people oppose the victim every move they make & they get accused of causing a schism. but after decades of cults & all written about – still no complete solution & they begrudge you everything. this means the entire world is taken over by evil cults & seems so…
- 2
  
  tenpel on August 5, 2018 at 7:25 pm
  Reply
  
  Hi Suzanne, I don’t think so, that “the entire world is taken over by evil cults” …
3

Brian on August 6, 2018 at 6:55 pm
Reply

One reason these organizations thrive is due to tax free status which to an extent fosters misguided philanthropy.
For example, a total $230,000 US was granted to the New Kadampa “charity” from the Ed & H Pillsbury Foundation based in St. Louis, Missouri.

$30,000
2008
KADAMPA MEDITATION CENTER

$20,000
2012
KADAMPA MEDITATION CENTER
Religious Support

$20,000
2012
KADAMPA MEDITATION CENTER
Religious Support

$53,000
2014
Religious Support
KADAMPA MEDITATION CENTER

$52,000
2014
Religious Support
KADAMPA MEDITATION CENTER

$25,000
2015
Religious support
KADAMPA MEDITATION CENTER

$30,000
2015
Religious support
KANCHA NKT BUDDHIST CENTER (Sasasota, Florida)

The Foundation also donated lesser amounts to Doctors Without Borders.

http://www.bigdatabase.com/Big-DB/USFoundation-profiles/ED%20&%20H%20PILLSBURY%20FOUNDATION-431699917.HTML
4

Bruno on August 27, 2018 at 6:16 pm
Reply

Dr. Alexandra Stein is survivor of a political group The Organisation or The O that she writes about in details. She is concerned with others to create educational knowledge and materials to help persons recognise the ways that an organisation, a cultic or cultish one, is able to gain control over someone who is eventually recruited in as a serious follower. It is worth to do search of her books, videos and lectures. She is writing about and talking about brainwashing in similar way to Mark Dunlop. She covers political, new religious and self development groups and makes aware of when and how followers become vulnerable and compliant to hierarchy and the norms of the new group.
I recommend people to read and hear her.
5

Brian on August 28, 2018 at 10:32 pm
Reply

To my point: it is very easy to get religious tax exemption in America. Never having to face being audited by the IRS, the New Kadampa Tradition will continue to expand unchecked.
- 6
  
  Mark Dunlop on September 27, 2018 at 2:48 pm
  Reply
  
  Brian wrote:
  ‘To my point: it is very easy to get religious tax exemption in America. Never having to face being audited by the IRS, the New Kadampa Tradition will continue to expand unchecked.’
  
  I do agree that religious tax exemption can be quite a racket, as your video illustrates. However, Scientology has faced being audited by the IRS, so “religious” organisations are not necessarily immune:
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_the_United_States#Legal_status
  “After being recognized as a tax-exempt religious organization in 1957, Scientology’s tax-exempt status was lost in a 1967 IRS audit.” But they regained tax exemption in October 1993.
  
  In the UK, the Charity Commission has the responsibility to “register and regulate charities in England and Wales, to ensure that the public can support charities with confidence.”
  https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/charity-commission/about
  
  But in the case of a religious charity, the Charity Commission is legally barred from “interfering in doctrine”. So if an organisation is registered as a religious charity, they can twist the doctrines to quite a large extent. For example, the Guardian newspaper reported about Triratna, that:
  
  “He [Lingwood] thought that it might be a good thing for them to get over their fixed self-view, and one of the things they might try doing [to achieve this] is having sex with other men,” explained Triratna’s safeguarding officer, who goes by the single Buddhist name of Munisha.’
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/19/buddhist-sexual-abuse-triratna-dennis-lingwood
  
  Did the Buddha ever teach that disciples might try having sex with other men in order to get over their fixed self-view? But here we have Triratna’s safeguarding officer, Munisha (Catherine Hooper?) apparently endorsing Sangharakshita (Dennis Lingwood)’s twisting of Buddhist teaching in order to provide a justification for sexual abuse by himself, and by other members of the order. Highly ironic that she is called a safeguarding officer.
  
  I do agree that religious and tax free status to an extent fosters misguided philanthropy, which the video is quite amusing about, though it is a serious point really. Buddhism is ideal for religious charity status, because it still seems to have a good reputation for kindness, compassion and trustworthiness, despite all the scandals. Triratna has dozens of charities, and owns a property empire which one order member estimated must be worth at least £100M.
  
  Among other charities, Triratna has The Karuna Trust (formerly Aid for India), which pulled in £1.8M last year, and which has attracted celebrity support from a number of respected British actors:
  
  Karuna Trust
  https://www.karuna.org/
  ‘Inspired by Buddhist values, we exist to end caste-based discrimination, poverty and inequality in India and Nepal.’
  
  https://www.karuna.org/about-us/our-patron
  Patron Dame Judi Dench, Celebrity Support from Sir Ben Kingsley, Felicity Kendal, Dame Maggie Smith
  
  http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?subid=0&regid=327461
  Income for financial year ending 31 March 2018 £1.8M
  
  Some of the actual Indians that The Karuna Trust supposedly benefits have been less supportive:
  
  http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/MumbaiResign.htm
  ” … those funds raised by your disciples in the UK through Karuna Trust for supposedly carrying on some social activities for the benefit of poor and backward people are grossly misused by you for the propagation and preservation of your cult. Indians working full-time in these social projects are humiliated and forcefully repressed by threats of sacking and the withdrawal of funds. …”
7

tenpel on September 26, 2018 at 10:14 pm
Reply

To broaden the discussion and perspectives with respect to the term and meaning of “brainwashing”, an academic I corresponded with explained their understanding of Inform’s position as follows (with kind permission to share).

The academic said at that Inform and Mark “actually agree on a lot of the details of the mechanisms of psychological manipulation in a dysfunctional group. The difference in opinion (I think) is largely on the term ‘brainwashing’ itself and if this particular word is helpful or not for a particular purpose and in the popular discourse as a whole.”

Inform’s objections to using the term ‘brainwashing’ is basically:

1. For most people this is not a critical term and is a short hand for an ideology they don’t like/feel scared of. Better outcomes of all sorts can be obtained by being more specific about behavior and beliefs which cause problems.

2. No current member of a religious group will ever describe themselves as ‘brainwashed’ and by accusing them of such this shuts down communication with groups and reduces the possibility of changing groups through dialogue.

3. As a legal defense, brainwashing as proved highly problematic when tested several times in US courts. Most (all?) court judgements have considered individuals ultimately responsible for crimes committed under the influence of highly coercive groups. Would we want to absolve terrorists of their crimes due to the ‘brainwashing’ that they experienced (according to the media)?

4. As a sociological term, to explain behaviors of groups of people, it’s not very satisfactory. Eileen Barker was specifically working in a media environment in the late 1970s which was asserting in Daily Mail articles that all members of the Moonies MUST be brainwashed to join. It doesn’t really work like this as most people who are introduced to a particular ideology don’t find it interesting, most who attended a weekend where sensory deprivation and other ‘classic’ brainwashing techniques (described originally in the context of Prisoners of War or the Patty Hurst trial) did not join – and most of those who did joined left within two years. The last 2% who did stay did not appear to be the most mentally ‘vulnerable’ by psychological measures.

There is certainly a constant play of social and psychological manipulation going on which can cloud individual judgement – an make an individual do things they will later regret and not understand how they could believe was justifiable – but by exploring that more completely rather than taking away individual responsibility for the actions, Inform would argue that more change is possible.

That said, as a term for an individual in understanding how they were manipulated by a group through a combination of socialization and ideological pressures, ‘brainwashing’ can sometimes be a useful term as part of a process of leaving the group.

It is not the victims fault when they are abused/manipulated, but ‘brainwashing’ often avoids more critical thinking about the specific situation which can be more of a catalyst for both personal and social change.

The academic acknowledged and appreciates the nuances of how the term is been used in the post above but suggested: “I don’t think that it’s likely the existing popular associations and legal presidents of the ‘brainwashing defense’ will disappear – I would promote more exploration and use of the idea of ‘coercive control’ and education about how socialisation works so individuals can be educated to make more conscious choices.”

Interestingly, the next ICSA conference will be in the UK at the University of Salford and it will be about ‘coercive control’. Here their recent newsletter:

Call for Papers – ICSA International Conference

Coercive Control and the Psychology of Influence across Comparative Contexts – Implications for Policy, Practice and the Criminal Justice Process

University of Salford,
Greater Manchester, UK

July 4 – 6, 2019

The International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) is conducting its 2019 Annual International Conference jointly with Info-Secte/Info-Cult of Montreal and the Directorate of Psychology and Public Health and the Criminal Justice Hub and Connected Lives Diverse Realities Research Group at the University of Salford, UK, from July 4 – 6, 2019 (preconference workshops on Wednesday July 3, 2019).

The conference theme is coercive control and the psychology of influence across comparative contexts and the implications for policy, practice (across psychology, counselling, social work, public health, law and other professions) and for the criminal justice process (across jurisdictions). Papers and panels will focus on subjects such as coercive control, abuse and persuasion in domestic and familial settings, human trafficking, and gangs, and in radicalization, extremist groups, and cults/sects. The conference will also focus on community-based solutions to prevent and reduce extremism, violence, and oppression and will examine contemporary practice developments in the prevention of and exit and recovery from coercion, abuse, and extremism across a range of cultural contexts.

The conference committee is especially interested in proposals related to the conference theme. However, the committee will consider proposals on all aspects of the phenomenon of coercive control and cultic influence, including victims’ perspectives, psychological and social manipulation, religious fanaticism, domestic abuse, trafficking, radicalization, terrorism, law enforcement, treatment, prevention, and legal, social, and public-policy aspects of manipulation and victimization. The conference will address the needs and interests of ICSA’s four main constituencies: former group members, families, helping professionals, and researchers

ICSA is firmly committed to freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. Consistent with these values, ICSA’s policy with regard to conferences has been to encourage a wide range of viewpoints. Opinions expressed are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of ICSA’s directors, staff, or supporters.

Attendees and speakers at past conferences have been diverse, including academicians, researchers, helping professionals, former and current group members, families, clergy, educators, and others. Individual presenters at ICSA’s annual conference will have up to 45 minutes for paper delivery and audience discussion. Panel organizers have 90 minutes for the panel and audience discussion. It is recommended that no more than three people will normally speak on a panel.

If you wish to submit a proposal for a paper or panel, complete and submit the Call for Papers form. Go here and look left for a link to the submission form: http://www.icsahome.com/events/callforpapers

Submission Deadline: October 31, 2018.

PO Box 2265, Bonita Springs, FL 34133, USA ◊ icsahome.com ◊ mail@icsamail.com ◊ PH: 1-239-514-3081 ◊ FAX: 1-305-393-8193

HTH
- 8
  
  Mark Dunlop on October 9, 2018 at 5:13 pm
  Reply
  
  I will respond to some of the points raised by the academic who Tenpel has corresponded with. I will put each response to a particular point in a separate post, to avoid responses becoming too long and unwieldy.
  
  Tenpel reported that: “Inform’s objections to using the term ‘brainwashing’ is basically:
  
  ” 1. For most people this is not a critical term and is a short hand for an ideology they don’t like/feel scared of. Better outcomes of all sorts can be obtained by being more specific about behavior and beliefs which cause problems.”
  
  My response:
  
  “Brainwashing” is of course a rather controversial term, but to me “brainwashing” has quite a specific meaning, and I don’t know of any other term which has the exact same meaning. I would be perfectly happy to use an alternative term, if I knew of one which had the same meaning. The nearest term is probably “undue influence”, but this has a much more limited meaning, at least as that term is used within a legal context in the UK. “Thought reform” is quite close, but is not as evocative as “brainwashing”.
  
  I think for most people, “brainwashing” is a highly critical term, albeit they don’t know how it works. I don’t think people generally use it as a shorthand for an ideology they don’t like/feel scared of, rather they use it as a shorthand description for an unexplained radical change of beliefs and behaviour in a family member or friend whom they have known for some time.
  
  For example, parents of individuals involved in or convicted of terrorist offences often seem to say the individual was brainwashed. Googling “parents say terrorist was brainwashed” (without the quote marks) brings up numerous examples, the first four being:
  
  https://www.rferl.org/a/bin-laden-s-mother-says-terror-leader-was-brainwashed-/29410503.html
  August 03, 2018
  Bin Laden’s Mother Says Terror Leader Was ‘Brainwashed’
  
  https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-uncovered/generation-isis-when-children-are-taught-be-terrorists-n812201
  Oct.21.2017
  ‘Abu Shahed first realized his 11-year-old son was being brainwashed by ISIS when he saw the fourth-grader’s textbooks.’
  
  https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/936632/isis-brainwashed-children-jihadis-syria-terrorism-daesh
  Mar 27, 2018
  CHILDREN of ISIS jihadis in Syria have been brainwashed by the sick cult to such an extent that a two-year-old still shows a terrifying interest in guns and “shooting people” despite returning to the UK, it has been reported.
  
  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/04/manhattan-terror-suspect-sayfullo-saipov-brainwashed-says-sister/
  4 November 2017
  Manhattan terror suspect Sayfullo Saipov ‘brainwashed’ says sister as she pleads for ‘fair trial’
  
  The International Cultic Studies Association has the following to say about the use of the term “cult”, and I think that what they say applies equally to the use of the term “brainwashing”:
  
  ‘Even though the term “cult” has limited utility, it is so embedded in popular culture that those of us concerned about helping people harmed by group involvements or preventing people from being so harmed cannot avoid using it. Whatever the term’s limitations, it points us in a meaningful direction. And no other term relevant to group psychological manipulation (e.g., sociopsychological influence, coercive persuasion, undue influence, exploitative manipulation) has ever been able to capture and sustain public interest, which is the sine qua non of public education. If, however, we cannot realistically avoid the term, let us at least strive to use it judiciously.’
  
  ~ From: On Using the Term “Cult”, by Herbert L. Rosedale and Michael D. Langone
  http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_term_cult.htm
  
  I completely agree about the necessity for being as specific as possible about behavior and beliefs which cause problems. In the article “Why are cults so difficult to oppose?”, I have given specific examples of “Sleepers Awake!” type beliefs promulgated within Triratna. Elsewhere, such as in the http://www.ex-cult.org/fwbo/ site, there are details of problematic teachings in Triratna, together with personal testimonies about experiences of damaging behaviours within the group . And in this blog, and elsewhere on the Internet, and in books written by various ex-members of various groups, there is a wealth of detailed and specific information. Indeed, the problem, if anything, is too much information, to the point that it all sometimes becomes rather overwhelming.
  
  My use of the term “brainwashing” is not intended to replace or substitute for detailed information about behavior and beliefs which cause problems, rather it is intended to complement such information. The intention is to offer an explanation (or at least a hypothesis) about why people adopt certain types of problematic beliefs and behaviours, and to point out some of the underlying characteristics and structures of cultish belief systems, and how such belief systems can engender and facilitate problematic behaviours.
  
  The academic who Tenpel has corresponded with said that “Better outcomes of all sorts can be obtained by being more specific about behavior and beliefs which cause problems.” It might be helpful to the discussion if Tenpel’s correspondent could provide some specific examples where better outcomes have been obtained through being more specific about behavior and beliefs which cause problems, if they feel able to do so.
- 9
  
  Mark Dunlop on October 11, 2018 at 5:37 pm
  Reply
  
  Tenpel reported that the academic he has been in contact with, made the point that:
  
  3. As a legal defense, brainwashing has proved highly problematic when tested several times in US courts. Most (all?) court judgements have considered individuals ultimately responsible for crimes committed under the influence of highly coercive groups. Would we want to absolve terrorists of their crimes due to the ‘brainwashing’ that they experienced (according to the media)?
  
  My response to point 3:
  
  A major difficulty is that brainwashing is impossible to prove empirically or scientifically, because it leaves no direct evidence. Equally, free will (or free choice) is also impossible to prove empirically or scientifically, again because it leaves no direct evidence.
  
  The default assumption is that people act out of their own free will, and therefore can be held accountable for their actions. It is quite a heavy burden to be required to prove that a person did not act out of their own free will, given that it is impossible to prove either way.
  
  I do not know of any such US court cases where the prosecution has accepted that crimes were committed under the influence of a highly coercive cult-type group. The defence may have alleged that was the case, but weren’t able to prove it. However, it seems the prosecution is rarely if ever required to prove the defendant did act out of their own free will, the prosecution has the benefit of the default assumption of free will.
  
  It also partly depends what is meant by “coercion”. The online Oxford dictionary defines coercion as:
  
  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/coercion
  coercion – The action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.
  
  As I understand it, under US law, that kind of coercion is a legal defence:
  
  https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/coercion-and-intimidation-defense/
  “Coercion and intimidation defense is a defendant’s stated reason that the act was not voluntarily done, but due to force or coercion in the form of intimidation and fear of death or serious bodily harm or injury to the defendant or to his/her family. However, to accept this defense and excuse the act which would have been otherwise criminal, the intimidation or coercion must be present and immediate, and a well-founded fear of death or serious bodily harm should be present. Also, the defendant should be left with no other reasonable opportunity other than to participate in the crime in order to escape coercion.”
  
  But that kind of physical coercion is rarely if ever used by groups which brainwash their members. Brainwashing does not depend on coercion, it is considerably more subtle and insidious than that. As I put it in my article: “The most effective brainwashing is the kind that isn’t recognized by the victim as manipulation. They don’t feel it; the victim believes that they are in control.”
  
  That is part of the reason I favour the term “brainwashing” rather than a term like coercion, because brainwashing doesn’t imply physical coercion. Even terms like “psychological coercion” or “emotional coercion” can be misleading in my view, because brainwashing doesn’t really depend on any form of coercion, brainwashing is more akin to grooming or seduction.
  
  It is true that cult recruits may experience bullying or psychological coercion during their membership, but it seems to me that any such bullying or coercion tends to occur only *after* brainwashing has taken effect, only after the member has been hooked in to the cult’s belief system and worldview. If it takes place before a person has been hooked in, it risks alienating the person and driving them away.
  
  Rather than being a coercive process, brainwashing is more a process of (deceptive) inspiration. Again, as I put it in my article:
  
  ‘At times, believers may become inspired or even intoxicated with the ideals of the belief system, seeing themselves as members of an elite group of spiritual pioneers. As the psychologist William James observed:
  
  “Religion brings a new zest, which adds itself like a gift to life, taking the form either of lyrical enchantment or of appeal to earnestness and heroism.”
  — William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature
  
  (James’ comment also applies to conventional, bona fide religions and belief systems, except that members of such bona fide belief systems don’t tend to have an elitist “us” and “them” type of outlook, don’t tend to see themselves as separate from and superior to mainstream society, and nor do they tend to behave in a sociopathic way.)
  
  As regards the question “Would we want to absolve terrorists of their crimes due to the ‘brainwashing’ that they experienced (according to the media)?”, that is quite a difficult issue. Ultimately it would be for a court to decide, based on the evidence.
  
  If there is such a thing as brainwashing, then it could be argued that victims of brainwashing (including people radicalised and persuaded to engage in extremist or terrorist acts) are just pawns, they are not the controlling minds moving the pieces around the board.
  
  Or to change the metaphor, they are just puppets, not the puppet master. It seems somewhat unjust that the puppets would be held responsible for their actions, but not the puppet masters; and also of limited effectiveness in terms of public protection, if the puppet masters are simply left free to recruit new puppets.
  
  Of course, it can be quite difficult to track down the puppet masters, not least because brainwashing people is not currently a recognised criminal or civil offence.
  
  My purpose in writing about and trying to explain the brainwashing process is not so much to absolve terrorists of their crimes, but rather to analyse and understand how radicalisation occurs, in order to, so far as possible, prevent it happening in the first place. To the extent that radicalisation and the ensuing terrorist acts can be prevented, to that extent the question of ascribing responsibility for terrorist acts would not arise.
  
  There are a number of people putting forward the view that some extremists and terrorists may be the products of cult brainwashing.
  
  For example, former UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke has been reported as believing that there is no point in seeing extreme Islamists in the “classic” mould of revolutionaries fighting for a political cause, and that a closer parallel is with recruits to cults, who often come from educated backgrounds and are “brainwashed” into renouncing society.
  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1499694/Clarke-wants-terrorists-treated-like-victims-of-cult-brainwashing.html
  
  And former Mujaheddin member and now author and academic Dr. Masoud Banisadr stated in a May 2005 speech in Spain:
  
  “If you ask me: are all cults a terrorist organisation? My answer is no, as there are many peaceful cults at present around the world and in the history of mankind. But if you ask me are all terrorist organisations some sort of cult, my answer is yes. Even if they start as [an] ordinary modern political party or organisation, to prepare and force their members to act without asking any moral questions and act selflessly for the cause of the group and ignore all the ethical, cultural, moral or religious codes of the society and humanity, those organisations have to change into a cult. Therefore to understand an extremist or a terrorist organisation one has to learn about a cult.”
  
  http://www.banisadr.info/speechSpain.htm
  ‘Combating Terrorism and Protecting Democracy: The Role of Civil Society.’ Centro de Investigación para la Paz, Madrid, May 19-20, 2005
  
  To summarise, as I put it in my article:
  
  “The brainwashing hypothesis offers a possible explanation of how certain individuals and organisations are apparently able to exert a powerful undue influence over some of the people who become involved with them.
  
  “It may be argued that the brainwashing hypothesis cannot be empirically tested or proved. Equally, the free will (or free choice) hypothesis cannot be empirically tested or proved either. [2] An impartial perspective would not exclude or blacklist either hypothesis, but would attempt to compare the validity of both hypotheses, judging them on the basis of a balance of probabilities, having regard to how well each hypothesis was able to explain the observed behaviour of certain organisations and of individuals who become involved with those organisations.”
  - 10
    
    tenpel on October 11, 2018 at 9:53 pm
    Reply
    
    Thank you Mark for your comments and input. I’ll read and reply to them hopefully at the weekend.
    Thank you very much for your effort, thoughts and engagement!
11

Stardust on November 14, 2018 at 11:36 am
Reply

This article covers among other the distinction between so called brainwashing versus so called mind control.

It is interesting indeed to ”remember that mental control is a process and that cult members have reached where they are one step at a time. Their reality has been shifted because of their membership of the group.”

”Even when they are presented with contradictions, unreasonableness and incongruencies in what they say and do, they will often argue to maintain their belief systems intact, for the very reason that they believe that they have chosen and have made their own decisions about it. And indeed, in their new, imposed reality, very often there are no contradictions or incongruencies for them! (Remember their critical thinking abilities have been repressed).”

”Mind control is more subtle and sophisticated because the person doing the manipulations is often considered a friend or a teacher, so the victim is not actually trying to defend themselves.”

https://www.decision-making-confidence.com/mind-control.html
12

Stephen on November 28, 2018 at 7:16 pm
Reply

https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/twisted-faith
I wish to express gratitude to Mark Dunlop for dedicating himself to cult awareness and to warning others. This television documentary brings together cult survivors and those seeking to assist them. The similarities in the way a charismatic, highly intelligent leader manipulates others comes across fully. It is good to see Mr. Ian Haworth and Dr. Alexandra Stein as well as all others contributing to a vital discussion on how cults operate and how cults harm.
- 13
  
  tenpel on November 29, 2018 at 12:05 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you Stephen. I agree with your gratitude.
  
  Someone sent me recently a link and quote to this article. Note, its not about whitewashing but as far as I remember, that people who join such groups strived in the beginning for the best and wanted to do or achieve good. (But in the long run all this gets twisted…)
  
  the current popularity of cult stories presents an opportunity for these stories to be told differently – more sympathetically, with an emphasis on the humanity of followers rather than just the bloodshed and crazy-charismatic leaders
  
  https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/nov/19/the-c-word-what-are-we-saying-when-we-talk-about-cults
14

Sangharakshita Obituary – Tibetan Buddhism – Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues on December 4, 2018 at 10:37 pm
Reply

[…] Why are cults so difficult to oppose? – Mark Dunlop on “brainwashing” 2018/08/01 […]
15

Kata on July 2, 2019 at 3:21 pm
Reply

I don’t have to read it to know that this is what happened to me. I own my part in it the so called Lama who was involved hasn’t. I’m not hear to out him but I could right a book on this subject. The difficulty is it would be filled with personal experiences and due to me requiring anonymity they would loose their meaning and message if changed. My only hope is that I can somehow stop it from happening to anyone else.
- 16
  
  tenpel on July 2, 2019 at 3:24 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you Kata. Is there anything you need or I could do for you?
  - 17
    
    Kata on July 2, 2019 at 4:28 pm
    Reply
    
    Thanks Tenpel. You may be able to help. Is there is a way I can contact you?
    - 18
      
      tenpel on July 2, 2019 at 4:46 pm
      Reply
      
      Great. You can contact me via my email address tenzin at gmx dot org. Please use the same email address you use for the comments for a first contact so that I know it’s really you.
      - 19
        
        Kata on July 2, 2019 at 5:24 pm
        Reply
        
        The email I use here doesn’t work. I will email you using a new address from the same email account provider.
        
        20
        
        tenpel on July 2, 2019 at 5:27 pm
        Reply
        
        Ok. Thank you. I was initially sceptical seeing your email provider because I receive a lot of spam by that provider which is much used by Tsem trolls. That’s why I waited to see how the discussion unfolds…
      - 21
        
        tenpel on July 4, 2019 at 1:38 am
        Reply
        
        Hi Kata, I am not sure where your email is. I released one from the spam folder which had a protonmail address. Note, protonmail is much used by Tsem trolls to spam me and others. When checking my InBox I only found emails from Tsem trolls which I didn’t note nor deleted. However, I could not found any email by you. Can you send it again or tell me here the subject so that I can easily find it via search function? Thank you.
        
        I received another email which I guess is from Amy. I will answer it asap.
22

Kata on July 4, 2019 at 7:17 am
Reply

I’m not sure what happened. The email didn’t bounce back. Thanks for your offer of assistance. I’m not sure how you could help. Like I said the written word is insufficient. My experiences have allowed me to see the whole system differently. More so, it allowed me to understand the system from a psychological stand point. The recent public exposure of Lama”s has confirmed my conclusions in relation to the systemic problems and the problems related to an individuals participation in the system. My story is not unique in the sense that what I experienced could be called archetypal. I understand the big picture and looking at the system from the outside makes it even clearer. Like I said, my experiences could fill a book. In some sense the story has been written before. Nothing is new under the sun. I guess all that needs to be done is use the story to help others not make the same mistakes. The key is to develop critical thinking and to understand when one is using reasons and logic to condition one’s self.
- 23
  
  tenpel on July 4, 2019 at 7:36 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you.
  If you want, you could just send the email again.
24

Kata on July 4, 2019 at 7:49 am
Reply

It’s ok. I won’t send it again. I posted a comment related to the Dalai Lama and one related to Dzongsar Khyentse a while back but they have not been published yet. You said some Shugden practitioners hassle you with emails etc. I am not a practitioner of Shugden and I don’t have any interest in it. I’m not against the Dalai Lama either. My criticism of some of his actions had nothing to do with the Shugden thing. I am just pointing out where he has made mistakes or is wrong. And it needs to be done. I understand if you don’t want to publish criticism of him. It’s your web site. But no one should be immune to analysis and critique. The reasons why are self evident. If you don’t wish to publish critique of certain people or subjects then it would be beneficial if you state your reasons why. That being said. Maybe you have not published the lists because you are busy. Lol.
- 25
  
  tenpel on July 4, 2019 at 8:15 am
  Reply
  
  Ok. It’s your choice of course.
  
  Where did I say in any way the Dalai Lama can’t be criticised or that I don’t publish criticism about him?
  
  I criticised the Dalai Lama’s silence regarding Sogyal Lakar here in a post in 2012.
  
  Here is a polemic by Elliott Sperling of the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way Approach on my website: https://www.info-buddhism.com/Self-Delusion_Middle-Way-Approach_Dalai-Lama_Exile_CTA_Sperling.html
  
  I think you have misunderstood me or something; or some comments insinuated that that the DL can’t be criticised here on the blog etc.
  
  It’s totally out of context and the reality to assume I “don’t wish to publish critique of certain people or subjects”.
  
  How did this misunderstanding develop? Where is it coming from?
  
  It has nothing to do with me or my blog. In general however, I stress informed, well thought out criticism, using good arguments.
- 26
  
  tenpel on July 5, 2019 at 11:55 am
  Reply
  
  I found it now in the spam folder of my laptop email program. before that it was in the spam folder of the provider (gmx).
  Just sent you a reply, Kata.
- 27
  
  Private on July 1, 2021 at 9:08 pm
  Reply
  
  Kata if you are wishing to publish about the NKT from an anonymous position I am in the NKT and seeking to gather information to request change. I think when the Dalai Lama and those other elitist monks were around him, being monks they did not have good communication skills and so did not just sit down together like adults and sort these things out. As a result you have a huge mess and loads of people arguing with each other.
  
  The only way to clean it up is for people who Do have lifeskills, who have not lived in caves or spent decades in solitude to use their maturity that they got from marriage, raising children and working in complicated social environments.
  
  We are capable of adult conversation without this ridiculous oriental hysteria you sometimes see and oppression. The Dalai Lama is probably more averse to China because it reminds him of his monastic youth when he had to just shut up and obey like a drone. He came to the West and was relieved to be able to relax & express himself I think without some oriental superior screaming in his face or trying to make him feel ashamed of himself.
  
  Now we in the West are trying out Tibetan Buddhism & we also find that demonic face screaming at us and ask ourself how does this fit into Buddhas life story. He didnt do this. Why is this coming into Buddhism. It it some sort of secret lineage? Is this what the bulging eyes and flaming eyebrows are? We need answers and Tenpels blog is a start but its just as divided discussion at the moment that is very rigid.
  
  Im very disappointed that i cant link up my own blog with my own take on things. Because Im not spouting the doctrine like a robot or abandoning my guru, noone wants to link up with me.
  
  You either have to abandon your guru or just be a talking NKT book. Theres no interest in new ideas or connecting websites. Nothing will ever come of this deadlock. Its not a discussion that can evolve.
  
  Inside the NKT you have to be a talking Dharma book. Noone wants to hear your voice. The Survivors dont want to hear your voice. All they care about is getting you to abandon your guru. The only people who want to hear my voice are non Buddhists.
  
  That doesnt really say much for Mahayana Buddhism does it?
  
  Do you think the Dalai Lama would like my voice or find it repugnant and worthless like all the other mahayanists do
  
  MAHAYANA the religion of LOVE haha!! Its a joke the whole thing.
28

Kata on July 4, 2019 at 8:28 am
Reply

I haven’t seen the posts published so I assumed it was because I critiqued both Lama’s. Thanks for clearing that up.
- 29
  
  tenpel on July 4, 2019 at 11:40 am
  Reply
  
  Oh, I approved everything by you as far as I remember.
  
  If the extreme rare case occurs that I don’t approve a comment, usually I delete the content and write in the comment that it has been deleted and why. An exception was when in the FPMT thread the discussion got heated over accusations of racism.
  
  I will check the spam folder and the bin folder.
  
  I remember vaguely that there was a very insulting comment about DKR which I approved and later received two email complaints about the approval. That comment I deleted right away due to lack of time. But this is quite a while ago when this happened.
  
  It could be also that – because of your protonmail email provider – I deleted comments, misunderstanding you are a Tsem Tulku troll.
  
  Tsem Tulku trolls usually use protonmail (or st. google mail) and have quite diligently tried to not only spam me, FPMT leadership and FPMT centres with spam newsletters or spam emails or spam mail but also added comments here that aimed solely to heat up the discussions. Such comments I delete right away.
  
  I should mentioned that their spam attacks have been to a degree successful in making parts of the FPMT believe that I am a “Shugden spy”, who wants “to destroy the FPMT from within”, that it was me who set up the attacking website http://www.dagririnpoche.com or that I recommended to read and visit it to get informed. This is all totally untrue and ridiculous accusations. So, the trolls’ fanatism and deceptive, bad motivated behaviour got into the mind of (or poisoned) some FPMT people. Some of these FPMT people didn’t check the accusations or just asked me etc., allowing it to confuse their minds, and then they wrongly believed the trolls’ wrong claims. The trolls’ poison triggered also some FPMT people’s own fanatism and they started to go quite nastily against me.
  
  So there was a tsem tulku troll created cyberwar with some real life consequences in the background and it might be in that context I – being overtly busy to reduce the heat – misjudged two of your comments as stemming from them and deleted it.
- 30
  
  tenpel on July 5, 2019 at 11:38 am
  Reply
  
  Hi Kata, I just checked and didn’t find any comment by you in the spam nor the bin folder. It could just be I misperceived them to be from Tsem Trolls and deleted them right away.
  I apologise and will be more careful in the future.
31

tenpel on March 14, 2020 at 12:23 am
Reply

Here is a new video with Jon Atack and Dr Michelle Haslam about Triratna and safeguarding:
32

Geert on November 4, 2020 at 2:33 pm
Reply

Hi, I am a budhist, following the dharma – but I discovered that all by myself, and travelling and living in China and Taiwan.
A number of years ago, I met my wife, a Triratna mitra. In the beginning I suspected nothing, but from the moment there was mentioning of her becoming a member of the order the troubles started: interference of order member, even stating that I should have other partners to talk to and take medication, if there would be a conflict with my wife, that she would talk with me (all comments shocking me, because e.g. if there is an issue in the relationshiop with my wife, it is up to her and I to solve it, I don’t want Triratna order members to interfer).
She just got in the order, and they tried to kept me out of the public ordination (until I stated that this is non-dharmistic and cult like to refuse me to join), and after reactions of the order memebers and my wife, it felt ike I lost my wife. Ever since, three days ago, I even did not hear anything from my wife.

Then I started to investigated on internet and find articles on mind controlling techniques, all to familiar, I presume in her case there is no sexual abuse.

So I am in shock, and I do not know what to do. I had a brief talk to my wife, and even giving proof on paper that the order pushed me out, away from her, she simply refuses to see the evidence.

So I do not know what I can do, or should do, does anybody have a experience? My wife is free to choose whatever she choses, but not under mind controlling techniques.

My apologies if my wording is not that good – English is not my native language.
Any help or ideas is welcome.

Ik believe n the Dharma, and I follow it as good as it can – but I have the idea that Triratna is really abusing this, using to attrackt people, and made a hideous monstreous order out of this.

Any reply and ideas are welcome.
- 33
  
  tenpel on November 16, 2020 at 10:24 pm
  Reply
  
  Dewar Geert, I didn’t reply, hoping that ex-Triratna will do so – which Mark and just now Jan did.
  
  I am very sorry that you lost your wife / relationship to Triratna.
  Sadly, it is not uncommon and it is a common pattern respectively for cults to control relationships; and especially within Triratna – as far as I learned – to interfere.
  Though, to be honest, this can happen also in non cultish Buddhist groups but then it is not based on a type of indoctrination and a rather unhealthy structure.
  
  A former ex-member of Triratna and her husband offered that you can have an exchange with them if you want so.
  In case you are interested, just drop me an email at tenzin at gmx dot org. I can forward the email address to you for this contact, if you are interested.
34

Mark Dunlop on November 7, 2020 at 8:25 pm
Reply

Geert, sorry to hear of your experience with Triratna. In my time, in the 1970s / 80s, Triratna had a very much “us and them” type of outlook. People in the group were seen as on a spiritual path, and as part of the “higher evolution”, while people outside the group were worldly and mundane, part of the lower evolution.

Triratna members were encouraged to spend as much time as possible with their “spiritual friends” (= people in the group), and as little time as possible with wordly people outside the group. Triratna like to claim that things have changed nowadays, but from what you say, they don’t seem to have changed all that much.

Be a bit careful about suggesting to your wife, that she might be in a cult. If you say that, it might tend to confirm the group’s warnings about the outside world and its negative, unspiritual influence, and might actually drive her further into the group.

There is a Facebook group called “Art of Truth & Reconciliation (Triratna)”
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TAOTAR

It currently has 418 members. The group’s purpose is described as:

“This forum is intended for people to explore their own personal responses to issues around Triratna. It is open to anyone whose life has been impacted by Triratna, including those who have left, or who never joined. The intent of the forum is to support each other as we explore our own, personal issues and responses to and around Triratna with the ultimate goal of moving towards healing and reconciliation. …”

You could join that group, and post about your experience, you should receive an understanding and supportive response. If you want to join, you will have to answer a short questionaire about who you are, why you want to join, etc.
35

Jan on November 16, 2020 at 9:16 pm
Reply

Geert – I am sorry to hear that you have also been harmed by triratna. I have recent experience of same and know of other man and women in same situation due to influences of triratna to separate members from couple relationships and family life.

	Tenpel on A Timely and Important Book…
	tenpel on The Monk Who Had No Confidence…
	Mike on The Monk Who Had No Confidence…
	tenpel on Fact-finding results in respon…
	tenpel on The Monk Who Had No Confidence…
	Mike on The Monk Who Had No Confidence…
	crazyplantwomanakama… on Fact-finding results in respon…
	Tenpel on Fact-finding results in respon…