Will there ever be a world without cults?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi all. I want to introduce you to a great YouTube channel that I have recently be getting into. He's called Telltale. He makes a lot of educational videos about religious cults and how to identify a cult.

One of His Videos
VVV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGPK_gAiEi8

This has gotten me thinking. Will there ever be a world without cults? A lot of people raised in cults suffer long-term psychological damage.

Perhaps the cure for this is education. I've learned so much from this guy's videos. There is a lot that people don't know, but need to know.

Perhaps public schools should teach kids how to identify a cult. What do you think?

I think that if kids learned how to identify cults by the 3rd grade, that most of them would soon refuse to attend any religious function at all, and the State would lose one of its most-used and insidious means of mind-control over the younger generations. With that in mind, I present this ...

CULT EVALUATION TOOL
The purpose of this evaluation tool is to help both amateur and professional observers, including current or would-be members, of various organizations (including religious, occult, psychological or political groups) to determine just how dangerous a given group is liable to be, in comparison with other groups, to the physical and mental health of its members and of other people subject to its influence. It cannot speak to the "spiritual dangers," if any, that might be involved, for the simple reason that one person’s path to enlightenment or "salvation" is often viewed by another as a path to ignorance or "damnation."

As a general rule, the more "High" scores for a given group, the more dangerous it is likely to be. Though it is obvious that many of the scales in the frame are subjective, it is still possible to make practical judgments using it, at least of the "is this group more dangerous than that one?" sort. This is if all scoring is based on accurate and unbiased observation of actual behavior by the groups and their top levels of leadership (as distinct from official pronouncements). This means that the scorer needs to pay attention to what the secondary and tertiary leaders are saying and doing, as much (or more so) than the central leadership -- after all, "plausible deniability" for central leadership is not a recent historical invention.

This tool can be used by parents, reporters, law enforcement agents, social scientists and others interested in evaluating the actual dangers presented by a given group or movement. Obviously, different observers will achieve differing degrees of precision, depending upon the sophistication of their numerical assignments on each scale. However, if the same observers use the same methods of scoring and weighting each scale, their comparisons of relative danger or harmlessness between groups will be reasonably valid, at least for their own purposes. People that cannot, on the other hand, view competing belief systems as ever having possible spiritual value to anyone (the "Religious Reich"), will find the evaluation annoyingly useless for promoting their theological agendas. Worse, these members and their fellow theocrats will find that their own organizations (and quite a few large mainstream churches) are far more "cult-like" than many of the minority belief systems they so bitterly oppose.

It should be pointed out that the evaluation is founded upon both modern psychological theories about mental health and personal growth, and my many years of participant observation and historical research into minority belief systems. Those who believe that relativism and anarchy are as dangerous to mental health as absolutism and authoritarianism, could count groups with total scores nearing either extreme as being equally hazardous. As far as dangers to physical well-being are concerned, however, both historical records and current events clearly indicate the direction in which the greatest threats lie. This is especially so since the low-scoring groups usually seem to have survival and growth rates so small that they seldom develop the abilities to commit large scale atrocities even had they the philosophical or political inclinations to do so.

FACTORS
Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.

External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.

Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.

Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.

Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and “situational ethics.”

Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones.

Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden.

Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.

Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.

Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups.

Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).

Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.

Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.

Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.

Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.

So what constitutes a cult?

• The Hard Sell: Beware of any kind of pressure to make a quick decision about becoming involved in any intensive kind of activity or organization.

• Extraordinary Claims: Be wary of any leader who proclaims him or herself as having divinity, special powers, or special insight.

• Isolative: The group is so closed so that, although there may be outside followers, there's usually an inner circle that follows the leader without question, and that maintains a tremendous amount of secrecy.

• Secretive: Cultic groups tend to try very hard to remain secretive. They don't want a lot of notoriety or negative attention. Most cults are extremely small and very deliberately try to to stay "under the radar". Unless they commit a crime, unless they do something that draws attention to them -- negative attention and criticism -- Law Enforcement generally doesn't know about them.

• Deceptive: The group uses deceptive means to recruit new members; and then once recruited will subject its members to an organized program of thought reform, or what most people refer to as brainwashing.

• Exploitive: Typical cults also exploit their members. Within the group, they'll exploit members financially, psychologically, emotionally and sexually.

• You Can Never Leave: A very important aspect of cult is the idea that if you leave the cult, horrible things will happen to you. This is important, and it's important to realize that people outside of a cult are potential members, so they're not looked upon as negatively as people inside the cult who then leave the cult.

Here are some examples of what experts on cults believe represent mind-control and cult warning signs:

• A single charismatic leader.

• People always seeming constantly happy and enthusiastic. Especially if you discover that they have been told to act that way for the potential new recruits.

• Instant friends.

• If you are told who you can or cannot talk to or associate with.

• They hide what they teach.

• Say they are the only true group, or the best so why go anywhere else.

• Hyped meetings, get you to meetings rather than share with you.

• Experiential rather than logical.

• Asking for money for the next level.

• Some cults travel door-to-door during times when women are home alone. They (and this is rather sexist) think that women are easier to recruit and once they have the woman then it will be easier to snare the husband or partner.

• Saying that they have to make people pay for it because otherwise they will not appreciate it. This is of course a very silly reason, plenty of people are able to appreciate things which they did not pay for.

• They do not allow their teachings or practices to be questioned. If you question, then automatically the group assumes that something is wrong with you. It can never be the case that anything is wrong with the group's practices or teachings. Often they will try to shut you down by accusing you of having a "bad attitude".

• They will push you to obey by using guilt. They will demand complete "submission" to the group, its leaders and its teachings. They will do this by making you feel absolutely rotten about yourself. They will ridicule you and attack any weakness you might have (or invent weaknesses you might have if they can't find any). Their goal is to break your will by causing you mental anguish.

Humans are inherently easy to manipulate and exploit. That's how it's always been, that's how it always will be. I don't know who coined the phrase, but it's apt: "Sheeple". Those of us that are suspect of authority and question it are in the minority to be sure. Since childhood and starting with my parents, if a person or authoritative body tells me to do something I don't agree with, I automatically have an urge to resist.

Cult following and mentality can go far beyond small clusters of a religious nature for sure.

Environmentalism
Feminism
Survivalists/"Preppers"
Social Justice
Yoga proponents

The list is exhaustive but with the few examples above, people absolutely can have a cult like devotion, virtue signal to others in their same "group", etc.

There are even people that have such a strong devotion to nutrition and their local food cooperative that I consider it cult like.

I've said for many years that food co-ops are like the new churches to their frequent patrons. Most of the devoted patrons think alike, virtue signal to each other, tithe in the form of dues, receive not only physically restorative products (food, etc) but they are also rejuvenated spiritually by the time they exit ("I'm doing good for my community and the planet. I'm a good person!"). There's even a feeling of reverence exuded by patrons when you walk the aisles. The people giving out free samples of their locally produced fermented pickle products for $8.50 per pint that rattle off the litany of how and why their product is good for you and for the environment? You just heard scripture.
When you take that sample and eat it, you've just had communion. Patrons who whip out their carry bags to fill them rather than take new paper bags is the equivalent in that setting to public prayer/communal prayer.

Whole Foods corp owned by Amazon has some of the above, not quite as much, but maybe would be parallel to the more corporate mega-churches. Patrons are going there and leaving with some level of spiritual renewal they don't get from the chain grocery store.

Last edited by Magna on 02 Aug 2018, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Gach! Food cults! The anti-GMO, anti-meat, anti-sodium, anti-sugar Vegans can take a long fall off a tall cliff, for all I care. There was a recent story about a woman who ordered a Vegan sandwich "with mayo" at Subway. When the counter-person informed her that mayo contains eggs, she was shocked and in denial. She still bought the sandwich, however. Then, when the news went public, she was attacked (in print) by "real" Vegans who treated her like an immoral heretic.

Source: Fox News Article.

Bingo. Cult-like.

I must admit I take pleasure in telling telling the cashier at the co-op that I'm NOT a member.

"Member number?"
Me: "No."

Or

"Are you a member?"
Me: "No."

Sounds a lot like hard core Donald Trump supporters.

SJW's do not have any real leader and don't identify as SJW's but they insist on identifying others as bieng part of oppressed or privilaged groups.

I hope so.

Lots of kids who were (and are) raised in cults (like myself) are highly sheltered and often homeschooled. They are taught to fear the outside. They are discouraged from thinking critically. They are taught that their way is the only right way - “the Truth.” They often have no social support outside of the cult.

Leaving is really hard.

Fear keeps people in cults. The one unforgivable sin in the cult I was in is apostasy, so people were afraid to question anything.

Being able to access information by using the internet can help wake people up and allow them to ultimately leave. Of course, they have to allow themselves the freedom to do so.

It's good to know that I am not the only one who thinks this way.A leaderless cult, sorta like the New Age movement -- no single leader, but a lot of BS doctrine that everyone follows anyway.

I agree. There are many movements and ideologies that may not have a central leader but the supporters, proponents of such things act cult-like in their allegiance.

I witnessed this in gay culture as an outside observer.

In the early 1990's I worked at a restaurant as a waiter in a very popular metropolitan area. A number of my co-workers were gay. After the restaurant would close the staff would sit around for hours sometimes drinking and talking. I ended up getting along pretty well with some of them and went to some of their parties. They were a rather guarded and secretive group at the time, almost like a private club with their own inside jokes, etc. The gay bars they would hang out in were also largely exclusive.

One of my co-workers was a very small framed gay man in his 40's. He had HIV and was a drug user. He had a great dry sense of humor and that's why I think he warmed up to me when his friends were more aloof and standoffish at least initially. They did accept me in their group eventually and respected me being hetero. He and I would crack each other up during our shifts and he had a hilarious way of comically imitating some of the more annoying patrons. I looked forward to working a shift with him because I knew it would make the time go fast and be more fun. Unfortunately his partner was physically abusive to him.

He confided in me about that and had said he wanted to break up with his boyfriend and get away from it all (not from being gay, but from the lifestyle, clubbing, drugs, the friends he had at the time, etc). I asked him why he didn't do just that? He said he would be shunned and ridiculed harshly.....

His "group" was a close knit group, "secretive"/underground in many ways but without a central leader. While not a cult, there were aspects of his life that were cult-like.

I'm very glad I got to know him. He was sadly in a bad situation but he was a very kind person.

This thread sure went into the biased crapper fast.

After a certain point every post on this thread amounts to "I scientifically define a cult as being anything that I personally don't like".

Anytime humans band together with enthusiasm to accomplish ANY thing it has some "traits of cult".

Cults are misfiring of the human instinct to collaborate in group endeavors. So as long humans form positive groups they are also going to susceptible to cults as well.

NASA has traits of cult, so does Walmart, so does the scientific method, so does democracy. But none of those projects have ALL of traits of cults.

I don't much like the creed that "the planet is only six thousand years old", but just because folks adhere to that belief, and just because I think that its whacky and irrational does not make YECism a cult as such. Though there may be groups that are cults that employ it as part of their belief system (and just like there are groups who oppose YECism that might be cults as well). Same with Indigo children, chiropractic, and whatever. Folks flirt with, and even adhere to whacky beliefs, but that doesn't mean that belief in whackiness by itself is a "cult".

Good points.

When talking about groups that could be defined as true "cults" most often, and I think rightly so, we view the cults in regard to how they can harm the individual members of the "cult".

When someone is enthusiastic about any ideology, belief, movement, policy, etc and may, in their level of enthusiasm, exhibit cult-like traits, they can run the risk of being myopic, fanatical and ultimately irrational to the point of "putting blinders on" and refusing to believe facts which may be counter to their fanatical belief.