Overcoming
the Bondage of Re-Victimization: A Response to "Overcoming
the Bondage of Victimization,"
by Robert and Gretchen Passantino
By
by Paul R. Martin, Ph.D. and Lawrence A. Pile
with Ron Burks, M.A. and Stephen D. Martin, M.Div.
GENERAL
COMMENTS
In their article
long-time cult researchers Bob and Gretchen Passantino
criticize the radical concept of cult conversion which
says that many people’s lives are drastically
and negatively altered by powerful and sophisticated
thought reform techniques. They assert that this is
an erroneous theory, but is used by exit counselors
and professionals to explain the changes seen in cult
members, and most people accept its validity without
question. The purpose of the Passantinos’ article
is, they say, to "look behind the assumption of
the mind control model and uncover the startling reality
that cult mind control is, at best, a distorted misnomer
for cult conversion and robs individuals of personal
moral responsibility." Then they go on to say,
"while mind-control-model advocates rightly point
Out that cults often practice deception, emotional manipulation,
and other unsavory recruitment tactics, we believe a
critical, well-reasoned examination of the evidence
disproves the cult mind control model and instead affirms
the importance of the informed, biblically based religious
commitment."
The present article,
however, will show that the Passantinos’ assertions
are incorrect and misguided. Specifically, this article
will demonstrate that mind control is more than cult
conversion; that, while mind control does not rob people
of moral responsibility, it mitigates it; and that there
is no conflict between biblical theology and the reality
of mind control.2 We contend that theological considerations
inform our understanding of the sociological and psychological
destruction caused by cults. Cults distort one’s
perceptions of both natural reality (sociological and
psychological) and spiritual reality. Since the former
is supposed to reveal the latter, as in the Christian
tradition, those interested in spiritual issues must
address both sides in order to minister adequately to
cultists.
The Passantinos’
article begins with a description of a fairly typical
exit counseling. The authors cite former Unificationist
and now exit counselor Steve Hassan as stating that
the average fee for exit counseling is $3000 plus expenses
for about four days of exit counseling. That is probably
not too far off the mark. In spite of the authors’
implication that exit counselors make good money, we
don’t know of any who has made over $35,000 a
year. Because of the nature of their work, exit counselors
have to be on call virtually 24 hours a day, like firemen
and paramedics. So if they make $3000-4000 they may
be on one case a week or a month. A lot of their time
is spent in research and preparation, and they have
to be willing to move when time demands. Considering
the total expenses necessary to a thorough exit counseling,
we believe the reaction to the fees charged by mind
control experts is a bit unwarranted.
The Passantinos
write, "Of course, there were no guarantees: some
ex-cultists needed additional inpatient counseling at
a special ‘recovery center’..." The
implication of this statement seems to be that exit
counseling is pretty unreliable, and maybe some other
method is preferable, namely what the authors describe
as "a scripturally legitimate response to cult
conversion: biblical apologetics and preaching the gospel"
(footnote 4). Aside from the inherent denial in this
statement of psychological distress that needs to be
treated professionally, our response is two-fold. First,
I [PRM] have conducted extensive research comparing
the psychological state of cult members both before
and after exit counseling. My research is conclusive:
we demonstrated that, as effective as exit counseling
is in persuading cult members to leave their cults,
it does not usually relieve all the psychological distress.
Though it may in some cascs, my evidence doesn’t
strongly support this. To my knowledge there has only
been one study done on deprogramming failure rates,
and it is based (I believe) on anecdotal evidence. No
previous studies have looked at the differential effects
of post-cult stress relative to method of exit. Recovery
typically entails more than exit counseling. Therefore,
it seems there is some ethical necessity on the part
of post-cult recovery providers to offer the necessary
follow-up care, or at the very least, to refer clients
to others who are qualified to provide such care.
Second, the Passantinos
imply that this entire field of post-cult recovery is
a very expensive undertaking. They state that post-cult
rehabilitation after exit counseling is an additional
expense, and imply that it is most likely unnecessary.
However, no one has become rich in the post-cult rehabilitation
business. In the case of Wellspring Retreat and Resource
Center, the expenses needed to pay four full-time and
five part-time workers, and maintain a lodge and office
building, has led to one conclusion — that there
is no great financial incentive for working in this
field. The financial picture of all previous post-cult
rehabilitation centers was typical. Sadly, due to the
financial difficulties of operating such rehabilitation
centers, all but Wellspring have ceased to exist.
One of the first
problems that impressed us in reading the Passantinos’
critique is the "all-or-nothing" fallacy.
This is all the more remarkable in that the Passantinos
discuss this fallacy in their book Witch Hunt. Under
the heading "It’s Not Always Either/Or"
they write, "Another problem Christians often have
in discerning between good and bad is the tendency to
miss some of the options."3 The article under consideration
in this response amply illustrates this point from the
Passantinos’ own writing. Primarily, this is expressed
by the authors’ discussion of those who hold to
the mind control model as though every one of them holds
the identical view, and specifically that they all believe
every cult member is completely under mind control,
and totally and always unable to think for him/herself.
This assertion is untrue, and is essentially a "straw
man" set up by the Passantinos as an easy target.
The following passage from their article is illustrative:
In this approach
sociological and psychological terminology has been
substituted for Christian terminology. Cult involvement
is no longer described as religious conversion but as
mind control induction. Cult membership is not characterized
as misplaced religious zeal but as programming. And
the cultist who leaves his group is no longer described
as redeemed but as returned to a neutral religious position.
And rather than evangelism of cult members, we now have
"intervention counseling."
Biblical apologetics
have been replaced by cognitive dissonance techniques.
A parent’s plea has changed from How can my adult
child be saved? to How can my adult child revert to
his/her precult personality? Biblical analysis and evangelism
of the cults has become overshadowed by allegedly "value
neutral" social science descriptions and therapy-oriented
counseling.4
Later the authors
write,
The cult mind control
model is based on a fundamental conviction that the
cultist becomes unable to make responsible and rational
choices or decisions (particularly the decision to leave
the group) and that psychological techniques are the
most effective way to free them to make decisions once
more. This foundation is nonnegotiable to the mind control
model and is at the root of what we consider so flawed
about the mind control concept.5
We know of no one
who holds the mind control model who would subscribe
to the version described by the Passantinos. At least,
prominent scholars Robert J. Lifton, Margaret Singer,
and Louis J. West hold no such view. In Thought Reform
and the Psychology of Totalism Lifton wrote:
Behind this web
of semantic... confusion [regarding the definition of
thought reform] lies an image of "brainwashing"
as an all-powerful, irresistible, unfathomable, and
magical method of achieving total control over the human
mind. It is of course none of these things, and this
loose usage makes the word a rallying point for fear.
resentment, urges toward submission, justification for
failure, irresponsible accusation, and for a wide gamut
of emotional extremism.
In her recent book,
Cults in Our Midst, Margaret Singer writes:
Thankfully, these
[thought reform] programs do not change people permanently.
Nor are they 100 percent effective. Cults are not all
alike, thought reform programs are not all alike, and
not everyone exposed to specific intense influence processes
succumbs and follows the group. Some cults try to defend
themselves by saying, in effect, "See, not everyone
joins or stays, so we must not be using brainwashing
techniques." Many recruits do succumb, however,
and the better organized the influence processes used,
the more people win succumb.7
Finally, in an
essay entitled "Persuasive Techniques in Religious
Cults,"8 West wrote:
The persuasive
techniques used by totalist cults to bind and exploit
the members, while not magical or infallible, are sufficiently
powerful and effective to assure the recruitment of
a significant percentage of those approached, and the
retention of a significant percentage of those enlisted.9
But of course,
the "experts" cited by Bob and Gretchen perpetuate
the myth that mind control model advocates believe that
the Manchurian Candidate actually can be created by
cultic mind control. One of the "experts"
cited is British sociologist Eileen Barker, others are
David Bromley and Anson Shupe.
The Passantinos
failed to mention in their article, however, that Ms.
Barker has been co-opted by the Unification Church,
with the result that her former Organization, INFORM,
had its funding yanked by the British government after
a storm of protest from churches, parents and former
cult members. Singer’s book Cults in Our Midst
documents this, citing a press release from a member
of the Houseof Commons.10 Singer also refers to a 1989
Religious News Service report11 revealing that Barker’s
book The Making of a Moonie was actually funded by the
Unification Church, as were "all her expenses to
attend 18 conferences in Europe, New York, the Caribbean,
Korea, and South America. ‘My univer~ity and the
SSRC (a U.K. government grants council) regarded this
attendance necessary for my research,’ she said.
‘They thought if the Moonies paid the bills it
would be a big savings for the taxpayer.’"
Singer adds, "Not everyone felt that way. One member
of Parliament said, ‘Any academic who allows themselves
[sic] to be manipulated to lend credence to a cult does
harm to families all over the world.’" One
may say, "What’s the big deal?" The
big deal is that this is tantamount to permitting an
allegedly "independent expert" investigate
the Exxon Valdez oil spill on a grant from Exxon. Or
to allow an "outside researcher" prepare an
in-depth report on the Ku Klux Klan using money supplied
by the Klan. How objective can we really expect such
"researchers" to be?
Singer also refers
to Bromley and Shupe, who, in their book Strange Gods:
The Great American Cult Scare, point their accusing
fingers, not at the cults, but at former cult members,
for allegedly creating the "hysteria" concerning
cults. Bromley and Shupe, along with Barker and others,
seem to think that the only people who are truly reliable
to give the straight dope about the cults are those
who are current members. Again, this is as logical as
to believe that only members of the Nazi Party could
be trusted to tell the truth about what went on behind
the gates at Auschwitz.
The second paragraph
in the section headed "Assumptions of Mind Control"
in the Passantinos’ article contrasts biblical
apologetics with psychological techniques. The Passantinos
seem to be saying that post-cult recovery involves merely
getting somebody converted, but that those who hold
the secular mind control model are concerned only with
helping somebody recover his or her pre-cult personality.
The Passantinos imply that these two notions, the biblical
and the secular, cannot be reconciled. They assert that
mind control adherents do away with theological concerns.
Again, as cited above, the Passantinos write, "Biblical
analysis and evangelism have been overshadowed by allegedly
‘value neutral’ social science descriptions
and therapy-oriented counseling." We wish to state
here that this all or nothing dichotomy is not characteristic
of the program we offer at Wellspring, or that others
offer.
The Passantinos
proceed to list eight "categories" which they
say represent "the principal assumptions of the
cult mind control model’.. They then summarize
these eight assumptions, the first of which is:
"[c]ults’
ability to control the mind supersedes that of the best
military ‘brainwashers.’" In a footnote,
the authors mention two factors offered by proponents
of the mind control theory to account for the cults’
greater success: "(1) greater levels of sophistication,
technology, and psychological knowledge; and (2) the
addition of hypnosis techniques to the practice."
Not mentioned, however, is one factor we believe is
perhaps more significant than either of these two, namely,
that in military brainwashing the subjects were unwilling
participants, and in fact antagonists of the brainwashers
(at least in the most well-known instances, Chinese
Communist brainwashing of Korean War POWs), whereas
in cultic mind control the subjects are generally favorably
disposed toward the cult members and indeed toward the
teachings with which they are being indoctrinated. This
factor must not be ignored.
The second category
listed by the authors is: "[c]ult recruits become
unable to think or make decisions for themselves."
This is another example of what we might call "totalist"
or "all-or-nothing" expression. We reject
the implied assertion that we accept this statement
as it is written. We are well aware that many cult members
do retain the ability to think for themselves in many
areas of life, even perhaps in matters religious. We
have always recognized that there are many degrees of
mind control, depending on numerous factors. Among these
factors are (1) the type and severity of any pre-cult
spiritual or psychological problems; (2) the degree
of divergence of the cult’s teachings and practices
from the cult member’s prior religious affiliation;
(3) the intensity of the cultic indoctrination; (4)
the degree to which the cult severs the cult member
from his or her previous connections (family, friends,
activities, etc.); (5) the kind and degree of any corrective
or disciplinary measures exercised by the cult on members
who step out of line. Other such factors could be mentioned.
Having said this,
we hasten to add that in the nine years of Wellspring’s
operation we have seen enough ex-cult members who did
have difficulty thinking for themselves and making decisions
that we know it to be a real and serious problem, and
not one to dismiss as a "pre-cult problem."
One girl who came to Wellspring from a well-known "shepherding
movement" would sit at the dinner table and wait
until she received permission to eat any item on her
plate before she would do so. A great many cult survivors
we have seen have recognized this problem in themselves
and have requested help in decision making.
The Passantinos
list as the third category of mind control assumptions
"[c]ult recruits assume ‘cult’ personalities
and subsume their core personalities." Again, most
ex-cult members who come to Wellspring recognize this
very thing about themselves while they were in their
particular cult. They tell us that while they were in
the cult they became more aggressive or more passive,
more self-assured or more confused, more judgrnental
of others or more arrogant. They’ve told us they’ve
lost touch with their own feelings, become emotionally
numb, while putting on a happy front when with parents
or non-cult friends. We have seen these things ourselves
in ex-cultists, and we’ve seen the dramatic changes
when they’ve reverted to their normal, pre-cult
selves.
But again, we would
acknowledge degrees of this "personality replacement."
Not every cult member changes to the same degree, and
in fact some already have a personality that meshes
with the cult, and so they will not change much, if
at all.
Category four listed
by the Passantinos is: "[c]ultists cannot decide
to leave their cults." We don’t know anyone
who would make such a blanket statement. It is manifestly
contradicted by the hundreds or thousands of ex-cult
members who have left their cults of their own volition.
What we would assert, however, is that many cult members
find it difficult to leave their cult, even when they
may want to. This is often due to fear of the threatened
consequences of leaving — e.g., forsaking God,
being condemned to hell, suffering divine wrath in the
form of accidents or disease, etc. Even the thought
"What if the cult leader really is a prophet of
God or the messiah?" can hold a cult member in
a cult long after the bloom has faded. One female member
of the Branch Davidians being interviewed for an Australian
television broadcast was asked, "Do you believe
David Koresh is the Messiah?" Her response as she
smiled up at the camera: "I hope so." She
was one who stayed and perished in the final conflagration.
As category five
the authors state that those who hold the mind control
model believe that "[a] successfull intervention
must break the mind control, find the core personality,
and return the individual to his/her precult status."
We would qualify this assertion by acknowledging that
most abusive organizations have some redeeming qualities
— few are all bad. In cults it is possible to
learn the value of giving oneself to a cause, to learn
the benefits of hard work, of getting along with others
in a working environment, etc. Further, we would emphasize
that if the cult in question is a Bible-based organization
on the order of the "shepherding" movement
or what we refer to as a taco (a totalist aberrant Christian
organization) which teaches orthodox biblical doctrine
while committing emotional, spiritual, and behavioral
abuses, then clearly not everything of the cult needs
to be stripped away. Whatever was accurate, orthodox,
and healthy can remain, while the inaccurate, aberrational,
and unhealthy must be excised. Probably no cult (except
some satanist cults) is all bad, therefore one of the
most important, and difficult, tasks of the counselor
is helping the ex-member winnow out the bad from the
good.
Category six is:
"[p]sychology and sociology are used to explain
cult recruitment, membership, and disaffection."
Another blanket statement, this is worded so as to exclude
other disciplines as sources for explanations, specifically
theology. While many secular proponents of the mind
control model might reject the role of theology in seeking
such explanations, we do not, nor do other evangelical
proponents of the mind control model with whom we are
familiar. later in the article the authors quote from
an official description of "Wellspring’s
Approach to Cult Rehab":
Martin asserts
that cult mind control renders its victims virtually
unresponsible for their actions or beliefs:
[T]he process whereby
he or she was drawn into the cult was a subtle but powerful
force over which he or she had little or no control
and therefore they need not feel either guilt or shame
because of their experience.12
While the Wellspring
statement might be slightly overstated, the Passantinos
overstate it further in their summary. By itself, the
Wellspring statement could be broadly interpreted, as
the Passantinos have chosen to do. However, the original
context is concerned specifically with joining a cult.13
It was not a blanket statement concerning anything and
everything Cult members may have done after they joined.
Regardless, our experience, as a result of treating
more than 300 former cultists and interviewing hundreds
more, is that most people who join cults think they’re
joining a good group, a righteous group, a moral group.
But this is largely because they have not been afforded
full information about the group they’re joining.
We would agree that those who join cults are "guilty"
of not asking all the right questions, of not examining
cult claims thoroughly enough against the records of
history and Scripture, and of not adequately applying
the rules of logic to cult teachings and explanations.
In other words, cult recruits are "guilty"
of allowing themselves to be deceived. But is that a
sin? Should we rebuke the victim of a con artist for
allowing himself to be victimized? Do we blame the battered
wife for continuing to love and protect her abuser?
In addition, we
feel it is crucial to distinguish between true guilt
and false guilt. Cult members are constantly made to
feel guilty for actions and thoughts which neither society
nor the Bible or other sacred scriptures would consider
sinful. In such cases the guilt is false and one needs
to understand and accept that and move beyond it.14
Where truly sinful, immoral, or illegal actions have
been committed they need to be acknowledged and owned
by the perpetrators. We insist, however, that to the
extent such actions are committed while under mind control,
to that extent the perpetrator must be held less culpable
(not totally innocent).
Under mind control
a man may be persuaded to believe or do things that
would have normally violated his conscience. His conscience
may tell him that such an action or belief is wrong,
but what the cult leader has persuaded him of has so
strongly influenced him that it may override his conscience.
He may be led to believe that the promptings of his
conscience are really of his "lower nature,"
"of the flesh," and that the mission of the
group is of a "higher purpose," that the thoughts
of his conscience are doubts that show lack of faith
or signs of rebellion. Thus he may still have a conscience,
but through the powerful influence of the group he has
reinterpreted it.
The Passantinos
seem unable to conceive of non-coercive mind control
that does allow for some measure of "free will."
No one drags people into a cult. They do join freely
most of the time — when they don’t, it’s
the rare exception rather than the rule. The point here
is not whether these people are acting as free, volitional,
rational beings. The point is they don’t join
a cult — i.e., they don’t see the group
as a cult. They don’t see the fine print. This
is why we have laws regarding defective products. That’s
why we have "truth in advertising" laws. This
is why law recognizes the concept of undue influence
and coercion. The same principles hold here. The ways
in which we are attracted to friends, how we are attracted
to groups, how we are attracted to religious groups,
don’t vary. The initial stages of cult conversion
are usually similar to other types of conversion.
The Passantinos
don’t seem to realize that human beings operate
by certain laws of human behavior. Consider the case
of a Christian college student who goes out and buys
a used car, considering herself to be very responsible.
Later she finds out that the car is not as "perfect"
as the salesman told her it was. In fact, it throws
a rod on her way to work. She goes back to try to have
the car fixed, but the salesman informs her that the
warranty is also not exactly what he told her when she
bought the car. So now the unfortunate girl is left
with a lemon on her hands. The Church would not castigate
her as having some sort of spiritual problem because
of this plight, would it? However, if the Passantinos
were entirely consistent, they would blame the girl’s
problem on lack of discernment.
If the same girl
would go out and start attending a Bible study that
later turned out to be a Way "twig," then
they would put a spiritual twist on it, impugning her
motives or her spiritual state that would lead her into
a "heretical" Bible study group. But if she
buys a car that breaks down, they would hold her innocent.
There seems to be double standard here.
One other thing
regarding the Wellspring statement quoted above by the
Passantinos. By broadly interpreting the statement they
have misrepresented us. I [PRM] have testified in a
criminal case15 of a cult member who participated in
the killing of five people. We didn’t argue that
the cult member was innocent and need not feel guilt
or shame. We argued that the young man was guilty. The
defendant was Danny Kraft, Jr., who had been a member
of a small cult led by Jeffrey Lundgren, who killed
a family of five in Kirtland, Ohio.16 Nevertheless,
in this case we agreed that Danny was guilty. But we
also argued that there were mitigating circumstances,
namely, that Danny was under the influence of Jeffrey
Lundgren through the process of mind control. Therefore
he was not acting entirely as a free moral agent because
he was suffering from a mental disorder. In other words,
he was made to believe something that was not true,
namely, that Jeffrey Lundgren was the prophet of God,
and thus whatever he said was divinely inspired.
The court unequivocally
concurred that these techniques were those of mind control.
The court agreed that Danny did indeed suffer a dissociative
disorder, identified by the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV as
scientific. The term "coercive persuasion"
is used in the DSM-IV to describe an established technique
also called mind control. The processes that constitute
coercive persuasion can produce a mental disorder cal
led "dissociative disorder not otherwise specified."
Typically, we hear former members lamenting what they
had done in the cult. At the time, they did not realize
what they were doing was wrong, but after they left
the cult they recognized their errors. Yet these same
people never intended to do such wrongs (lying, etc.)
when they joined. But through the thought reform process,
lying, for example, may appear to be justified.
Along this line,
the Passantinos write:
Hassan recognizes
that the cult mind control model (which he has adopted)
is incompatible with the traditional philosophical and
Christian view of man as a responsible moral agent:
First of all, accepting
that unethical mind control can affect anybody challenges
the age-old philosophical notion (the one on which our
current laws are based) that man is a rational being,
responsible for, and in control of, his every action.
Such a world view does not allow for any concept of
mind control.17
We are not so sure
we agree with Hassan on this point. First of all, "our
current laws" do recognize "diminished capacity"
in the commission of crime as exculpatory. Secondly,
the biblical world view also recognizes exculpation
by reason of diminished capacity due to mental under-development
(Deut.
1:39) or demonization. So neither Western secular
philosophy nor Judeo-Christian doctrine views man as
always fully rational and responsible for his actions.
In addition, the apostle Paul writes, "You foolish
Galatians, who has bewitched you...?" (Gal. 3:1,
New American Standard Bible) The word translated "bewitched",
baskaino, means "bewitch, as with the ‘evil
eye’",18 "to bring evil on one by feigned
praise or an evil eye, to charm, bewitch one, ...; hence,
of those who lead away others into error by wicked arts..."19
It is doubtful that in the Galatians reference Paul
is expressing belief that the Christians have
actually had the
"evil eye" directed at them. However, in conjunction
with the word "foolish" (anoetos = "not
thinking" or "mindless") it seems evident
that Paul recognizes that they have been victimized
to the point where they are no longer thinking clearly
or properly. In other words, the Galatians are under
a fornt of mind control!
But more B propos
to a discussion of category 6 is the Passantinos’
citing only the one sentence they did from the Wellspring
article, while ignoring the following:
When cult members
leave their cults voluntarily it is often because they
have recognized a few of the serious problems that exist
in the group, but have failed to aclcnowledge or come
to grips with others of equal or greater import. More
importantly, they usually do not recognize the fundamentally
invalid and harmful philosophy and methodology that
typically underlie the cult’s teaching and practice
and give it its reason for being. Thus such a person
may leave the cult feeling disgruntled or disillusioned
about some aspects of the cult, and yet still hold to
other, and more basic, ideas and thought patterns of
the cult that will continue to hamper them and prevent
them from enjoying a truly satisfying life. In addition,
those who have been in a "Bible-based" cult
are often So burned by their unpleasant experience that
they want nothing more to do with God, the church, or
Christians of any type. Some of these people still sense
a need for a spiritual dimension in their life, but
don’t know how to overcome their lack of trust
in God or ministers, and may actually feel that they
have failed, that somehow their own inadequacy prevented
them from being able to measure up to the high standards
of the group. For such individuals rehabilitative counseling
of one form or another is imperative.
The plight of people
like this was addressed during the International Congress
on Totalitarian Groups and Cultism held in Barcelona,
Spain on April 23-24 this year [1993]. One of the speakers,
"Hero Lucas, from Greece’s Egregorsis Educational
Society, cited the dangers of a totally non-judgmental
attitude towards the belief system of a destructive
cult and spoke of treating human beings as integrated
biopsychosocial-spiritual systems requiring a comprehensive
approach and the combining of psychiatry with religion."20
In other words, to be most effective, cult rehab counseling
must deal with the ex-cultist as a whole individual,
considering his or her biological, psychological, social,
and spiritual health and the interrelatedness of these
facets of the person. With over seven years of experience,
we at Wellspring are likewise convinced that a wholistic
approach works best in rehabilitating the victims of
destructive cults and spiritually abusive organizations.
The contents of this counseling and education deal with
the dynamics of abusive groups, how these dynamics affect
one’s personality and emotions, and how these
groups distort and abuse the teachings of the Bible
or other relevant sacred texts.
The core of Wellspring’s
program consists of psychological counseling and instructional
sessions on cultic dynamics and religious and spiritual
issues. We emphasize, however, that we fully respect
the client’s wishes with regard to any spiritual
content in counseling or workshops. The majority of
our clients thus far have been former members of "Bible
based" groups and have wanted to discuss biblical
doctrine with us, which we are happy to do.21
This should make
it obvious that Wellspring clearly recognizes the importance
of the spiritual dimension in cult involvement and takes
it seriously.
We accept categories
7 and 8 as written ("(7) Religious conversion and
commitment may be termed mind control if it meets certain
psychological and sociological criteria, regardless
of its doctrinal or theological standards" and
"(8) The psychological and sociological standards
which define mind control are not absolute but fall
in a relative, subjective continuum from ‘acceptable’
social and/or religious affiliation to ‘unacceptable’").
Bob and Gretchen
conclude this section by saying, "According to
most cult-mind-control-model advocates, no one is immune
to the right mind control tactics used at the right
time. Anyone is susceptible." After a quote Hassan,
they quote from my [PRM] book, Cult-Proofing Your Kids:
"But the truth of the matter is, virtually anyone
can get involved in a cult under the right circumstances....
Regardless of one’s spiritual or psychological
health, whether one is weak or strong, cultic involvement
can happen to anyone."
Claiming to state
the views of mind control model proponents, the Passantinos
write, "Cult mind control must be distinguished
from ‘mere’ deception, influence, or persuasion.
A main distinguishing characteristic at the core of
mind control is the idea that the individual is unable
to make autonomous personal choices, not simply that
his or her choices have been predicated on something
false."
This paragraph
is a further instance of the authors’ fundamental
misunderstanding of the mind control model as propounded
by most of those who hold it. Advocates acknowledge
that those under mind control can make autonomous personal
choices on occasion, but also that this ability differs
from individual to individual. The quote from Barker
included here compounds this misconception by attempting
to separate deception from mind control. But mind control
includes deception as one of. its common elements. It
is precisely because of this that the individual finds
it extremely difficult to make autonomous personal choices.
One’s ability to make such choices is diminished
by deception, but beyond this one’s environment
is also manipulated to this end. This is a crucial point.
We can’t put an either/or on mind control when
it is properly understood. It is not either deception
or inability to make choices. Mind control is deception
that affects making choices — i.e., the target
of the cult recruiter is gradually manipulated to the
point where other options are no longer considered viable.
Furthermore, the
ultimate choice turns out not to be the ideal that attracted
the person in the first place. lii other words, the
full or real agenda of the group is concealed, and the
facts concerning other choices and options are distorted
by various techniques of thought reform — for
example, the restriction of information or the interpretation
of events to make them seem mystical. Over time one
is gradually drawn farther into the mind control environment
in which information is more and more controlled, in
which there is a systematic effort to restructure the
self, in which there is a clear program of rewards and
punishments, and in which there is a constant demand
to confess (via group and peer pressures) ideas, thoughts,
or actions contrary to group dogma, and as a result
choices are "funneled" or constricted The
broader arena of choices, then, for the cult member
is limited by a number of factors: lack of information,
fear of considering certain choices, and perceptual
narrowing due to the dissociative processes typically
practiced in such groups, e.g., prolonged singing, chanting,
tongue speaking meditating, listening to charismatic
speakers, etc.
OBJECTION:
THE BRAINWASHING CONNECTION
The Passantinos
begin this section of their article by alleging a "contradictory
embrace and rejection of the brainwashing connection"
to the mind control model on the part of its advocates.
The mind control model advocates say, according to the
authors, that the early methods of mind control were
ineffective; the later methods are more effective and
require less coercion and also employ techniques like
hypnosis. The Passantinos write, "However, it stretches
one’s credulity to believe that what highly trained
and technologically supported CIA, Russian, Korean,
and Chinese experts could not accomplish under extremes
of mental, emotional, and physical abuse, self-styled
modern messiahs like David Koresh (high school dropout),
Charles Manson (grade school dropout), and Hare Krishna
founder Prabhupada (self-educated) accomplished on a
daily basis and on a massive scale with control methods
measurably inferior to those of POW camp torturers."
In a footnote (number 20) the authors add that they
are not alone in their skepticism, citing Bromley and
Shupe as also sharing it.
However, the citation
from Hassan two paragraphs earlier offers the response
to this objection. Hassan points out that "[m]ind
control... is more subtle and sophisticated. Its perpetrators
are regarded as friends or peers, so the person is much
less defensive. He unwittingly participates by cooperating
with his controllers and giving them private information
that he does not know will be used against him. The
new belief system is internalized into a new identity
Structure..."22 The subtlety of mind control is
the key to its effectiveness, and "love bombing"
is the key to its subtlety; the overwhelming "friendliness"
of the cult recruiter tends to disengage the potential
recruit’s defenses, catching him off guard, and
luring him into the net.
The Passantinos
clearly would be absolutely shocked if they ever really
saw or heard the evidence that indicates that Manson,
Koresh, the Hare Krishnas and many others actually have
done a lot better job than these CIA, Russian, Korean,
and Chinese experts did. One factor contributing to
their skepticism is their failure to realize that the
early brainwashing literature didn’t concern only
prisons and torture and sleep deprivation. It also describes
the revolutionary colleges that operated in China and
the mass conversion of Chinese citizens to the Communist
system. Theodore E. H. Chen, for example, amply documents
that half a million Chinese Christians signed pledges
of allegiance to Mao.23 Lifton’s best-known research24as
actually largely about the effects of these revolutionary
colleges that practiced thought reform. There was no
physical restraint or confinement in those environments.
There was very little overt coercion, and yet there
was massive thought reform. Edward Schein also found
that the Communists effectively used thought reform
without using physical restraint or coercion.~ The Passantinos
seem to assume the earlier techniques of thought reform
were completely in the context of coercive physical
confinement and torture. However, there were some early
non-physically coercive methods like those of the revolutionary
colleges that were highly effective.~
Hypnosis as a factor
in cult involvement is dismissed by the authors in toto.
They miss an important point in their own references.
In their notes (footnote 5) they quote the Encyclopaedia
Britannica:
Altogether then
hypnosis should not be considered as a technique for
achieving supernormal performance or control. Rather
it is a collaborative enterprise in which the inner
experience of the subject can be dramatically altered.27
The dramatic alteration
of inner experience is precisely what cults hope to
effect by their efforts. A predictable internal experience
can be induced on willing participants and then cosmic,
supernatural or spiritual significance can be ascribed
to it. Then, what is actually a physiological process
takes on a cosmic perspective. This is essentially what
Lifton called "mystical manipulation": "If
you do what we say, this good thing will happen, to
you or in the universe." We would suggest that
mystical manipulation is a prime pathway to the other
seven criteria listed by Lifton. Profound control can
then be achieved and maintained by appealing to the
initial event of dramatically altered "inner experience.
It is thus not without reason that, for example, cult
recruiters tell their prospective converts to ask God
for a "sign" as to whether their movement
is the true path to enlightenment or their church the
true church. Those who see the "divine light"
or receive the "burning in the bosom" as a
result of their earnest prayer easily interpret it as
the sought-for "sign."
The Passantinos
conclude this section with an apparent attempt at humorous
sarcasm: "Do we really believe that what the Soviets
couldn’t do to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn during years
of forced labor and torture in the Gulag, Sun Myung
Moon could have done by ‘love bombing’ for
one week at an idyllic wilderness retreat?" In
their support, they once again cite Bromley and Shupe,
who express disbelief that "these diverse and unconnected
movements had simultaneously discovered and implemented
highly intrusive behavioral modification techniques."28The
techniques of mind control, however, are not such that
they must be studied and carefully and deliberately
applied. It is thus not necessary to assume that cult
leaders are more sophisticated than the "CIA, Russian,
Korean, and Chinese highly trained and technologically
supported experts." And more fundamental to thought
reform than "behavior modification" is "milieu
modification" (the former typically is brought
about by the latter). Perpetrators of mind control are
interested in followers who want to be under their control.
They cannot use sound reasoning, intellectual precision
of argument, and legitimate appeal to emotional sensibilities
to hold followers. They must employ psychological and
social coercion and manipulation of "inner experience"
in order to prepare the seeker to follow blindly. In
other words, those who have come to see must be blinded
before they can be led.
We insist the authors
have misunderstood the mind control model in their assertion
that (according to mind control model proponents) brainwashing
happens against a person’s will — that is
not in fact what proponents of the model argue. The
Bromley and Shupe quote only highlights this misunderstanding.
Especially telling is their reference to "claims
that such rapid transformation can routinely be accomplished
by neophytes against an individual’s will."
Again, the fact is the transformation is not against
an individual’s will. He no longer sees things
as he once did, he does not have adequate information
to make an informed choice, and he has been manipulated
emotionally to make the choice chosen for him by the
cult. The cult recruit is brought to the point where
he gives up his own will in order to be taught and directed
by someone (the cult leader) who knows better than he.
As former Children of God member Rick Seelhoff said
in the Moore Report program "Thy Will Be Done",29
wanted to put myself over onto someone that knew better
than I did... I willed to not will."
Lifton repeatedly
shows that coercive persuasion can occur in the absence
of physical restraint, and so the comparison between
Moon and the Gulag is inapt. The authors should be comparing
Moon vtith the revolutionary colleges in China discussed
at great length and detail by Lifton.
The citations the
authors offer throughout this section in evidence of
the alleged contradiction in the writings of mind control
model advocates do not support their contention. The
Langone quote is not a rejection of any connection of
mind control with brainwashing, as we read it; it is
only a rejection of the misrepresentation of mind control
model advocates as asserting that cult mind control
produces mindless robots B la The Manchurian Candidate.
Langone is not saying there is no connection, only that
the extreme view is not representative of mind control
model supporters. By the same token, the Passantinos
misread Dr. Singer if they think she is "embracing"
a brainwashing connection to mind control. We believe
she would agree that there are significant differences
between brainwashing and cultic mind control, while
at the same time there are similarities.
OBJECTION:
THE DETERMINISTIC FAULT
The authors’
objection as expressed in this section is also grounded
on their fundamental misunderstanding of the mind control
model. In short, the Passantinos misstate the fundamental
concepts of mind control, imply that many counter-cult
workers do not support the mind control theory and maintain
that the mind control concept is counter to or incompatible
with biblical Christianity. We have previously defined
what we believe mind control to be and have contrasted
this with the Passantinos’ formulation. And do
their claims that many counter-cult workers do not support
mind control have any justification? How have they determined
this? We do not know of any polls taken on what views
are held by counter-cult workers. In addition, truth
is not decided on the basis of majority vote. And as
for the position that the concept of mind control is
Counter to biblical Christianity, we have already offered
evidence, and will offer additional arguments, to demonstrate
why we believe the two concepts are not incompatible
at all.
Part of the marvelous
power of the human mind is its ability to analyze information
and make value judgments about that information. However,
as with electronic "minds" (computers), its
conclusions are only as good as the information it receives.
When the mind receives erroneous information about a
subject in the absence of correct information about
that same subject, it will make erroneous value judgments.
The mind can also discount its own abilities in favor
of the abilities of another mind it believes to be more
trustworthy. It will then tend to reject conflicting
data, not because it is illogical or fails to correlate
with previous experience, but simply because it does
not line up with the external mind it has "freely
decided" to trust. It has then made decisions about
itself and the nature of reality that leave it no longer
free in any meaningful sense.
The authors state
that "many cults have made deceptive claims, used
faulty logic, misrepresented their beliefs, burdened
their followers with unscriptural feelings of guilt,
and sought to bring people into financial or moral compromise
to unethical demands. Yet it does not necessarily or
automatically follow that these pressures, practices,
or demands remove an individual’s personal responsibility
for his or her actions."30 But choices that "have
been predicated on something false"31 are not truly
free choices. The outcome is predetermined by the skill
of the information provider, not the ethical or even
rational faculties of the agent making the "choice."
What sense can be made of "free agency" when
choices are based on false data? If "free choices"
result in the agent’s being Cut off from any further
source of information for a lifetime, is the agent free
in any meaningful sense? Further, in what sense can
an agent make a free choice to return to a life in which
it will continue to be deceived? Might the agent’s
capacity to make informed choices (his mind and will)
be under the control of the one who controls the information?
If an agent responds to personal experience or outside
data on the basis of false information about the consequences
of certain actions, is the agent making free choices
when he rejects true data on the basis of lies? In what
sense is such a person truly responsible for his or
her decisions?
We are reminded
of a couple of biblical passages. While hanging on the
Cross Jesus said, "Father forgive them for they
know not what they do."32 Jesus also said, "that
slave who knew his master’s will and did not get
ready or act in accord with his will, shall receive
many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed
deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."33
In other words, the moral responsibility taught in the
Scriptures is based on how much one knows. If one has
been deceived, if one has been pressured, if one has
been denied access to information, or if the truth has
been made to seem like a lie, then one is held either
completely guiltless or regarded as only partly culpable.
There is a degree of diminished capacity or less culpability
than with the person who knew what he was getting into.
We have yet to meet one person in 9 years of working
in this field full-time who says, "I knew what
I was doing; I knew I was joining a cult. I knew it
was wrong, but I did it anyway." That is exactly
what the Passantinos are attempting to force the ex-cult
member to admit — "I knew it was wrong"
and so if the ex-cult member denies that he knew it
was wrong then the Passantinos are faced with the unfortunate
dilemma of saying, "You are either lying or you’re
deceived." The morally realistic response is to
conclude that the Passantinos have defined mind control
in an extreme way that makes the defense of mind control
intolerable. As a consequence of holding this extreme
view of the mind control model, they turn around and
create an extreme view of human culpability with regard
to joining cults which in our view is frankly unbiblical.
The Passantinos’
position, by way of extrapolation, would hold every
battered wife responsible for ending up married to an
abusive husband. To be consistent, the Passantinos would
have to argue that these women knew what they were getting
into. I [PRM] have explained the dynamics of thought
reform to hundreds of former cult members and have asked
them, "Did you know that this was what your group
was doing when you decided to join?" The ex-members
have all answered "No." I then ask them, "Would
you have joined if you knew they practiced thought reform???
Again their answers were all "No."
We must take issue
with the authors? conclusion in their statement quoted
above. As already mentioned, there are degrees of culpability,
even in biblical tradition. If a person has been lied
to, defrauded, or pressured into doing something, there
are consumer protection and other anti-fraud laws that
offer recourse. There is major culpability on the part
of the con man or cult leader, only minor culpability
on the part of the person conned or the cult member,
in situations like this. lack of knowledge has, throughout
the history of law, been used to reduce a person’s
culpability, and the same is true in the case of cultic
deception and mind control. We feel Bob and Gretchen
have confused bearing responsibility with facing consequences.
An investor who is conned into committing resources
to a fraudulent enterprise must face the consequence
that those resources may never be recovered. The investor
is in every sense a victim of the con. It is, however,
not the investor but the con artist who is morally and
legally responsible for the investor’s flawed
decision. Those of us who are interested in encouraging
legislation believe that those who use the free marketplace
of ideas in a fraudulent way must also be held morally,
and eventually legally, responsible.
In the current
legal climate, a con artist who cheats investors out
of $20,000 faces prison, fines, and/or Court ordered
restitution, but a cult leader who precipitates wrongful
death by discouraging or prohibiting medical care on
the basis of false or misleading information faces no
legal penalty. It seems the Passantinos would absolve
the cult leader of his or her responsibility in such
a case, laying it completely at the feet of the follower.
The injustice of the present legal system, we hope,
eventually will be rectified in spite of such reasoning,
but the psychological damage caused by blaming the victim
may never fully heal.
OBJECTION:
THE DOUBLE BIND
The first paragraph
in this section is puzzling. The authors write, "Hassan
provides no means of knowing, testing, or proving whether
people who are under emotional pressure, personal Stress,
or actual deception are in fact not responsible for
their actions or are not making free choices."
It seems to us that it should be self-evident that such
people are not making free choices. How can one make
a free choice "under emotional pressure, personal
stress, or actual deception"? Do we really need
a test to determine this? This section on the double
bind or circular reasoning is rather curious. The Passantinos
assert that the exit counselor provides no proof to
the cultist that his or her group uses coercive persuasion.
The authors say, "If you leave the cult as a result
of deprogramming (or exit counseling), that proves you
were under mind control. If you return to the cult,
that proves you are under mind control."
To illustrate the
weakness of this objection let’s say there is
documented, scientific proof that the local swimming
hole is contaminated — there are chemical toxins
in the water that will be absorbed through the skin,
and if the local kids continue to swim there they will
develop some serious neurotoxicity that may render them
brain damaged or paralyzed. So you get the neighbors
together and present them with evidence that they are
in danger of being poisoned, and as a result of your
information a lot of people leave the pond. The ones
who don’t leave but go back and swim in it do
so for various reasons. Maybe they don’t believe
the evidence, even though it was overwhelming; or they
say, "I don’t care, I like the swimming hole.
I’m going to die anyway, I might just as well
die here"; or, "Yeah, I know it’s poisonous,
but so what, they’ll find a cure for it someday";
or, "I’m pretty tough. I don’t get
sick much and it will probably kill everybody else,
but it won’t kill me." The point is that
the reasons people go back to the swimming hole are
similar to the reasons an exit counselor would say cult
members return to their cult — they still don’t
see the danger.34
One problem with
the Passantinos’ argument is that it assumes the
exit counselor does not present objective facts when
he asserts that the group in question does indeed practice
mind control. In other words, the implication is that
the exit counselor simply makes accusations without
the kind of hard evidence to back them up that Robert
Lifton had when he described the techniques and practices
of the Chinese Communists. However, this implication
is simply an assumption (or perhaps a presumption) on
the part of the authors that is itself unsupported by
evidence. It is the role of the exit counselor to provide
the evidence that the organization in question has created
an environment in which mind control does exist, and
that the group member is being manipulated by that environment.
The authors are
simply mistaken when they say, "The standard for
determining mind control is not some objective evaluation
of mental health or competency, but merely the assumed
power of mind control the critic accords to the cult."
However, exit counselors arrive on the scene with suitcases
full of evidence. Good exit counselors will have documentation
on the practices of the group and how those practices
relate to principles of mind control. Such documentation
may take the form of personal testimonies of former
members of the group, relatives of members or former
members, or of law enforcement officials who have investigated
the group or otherwise had dealings with it. The documentation
may be from news reports on the activities of the group,
or the case notes of mental health professionals. Exit
counselors will also have a history of how the cult
member has changed his/her personality since joining
the cult. Exit counselors will note the member’s
reactions to their presentation of information about
the group and its practices. For example, contrary information
may be met by the cult member with a response such as,
"All this stuff is just a bunch of lies of the
devil." A good exit counselor will show the cultist
that such remarks really do not settle the issue of
whether the information is correct. The exit counselor
will challenge the cultist to examme the evidence, to
put the evidence to the test of veracity.
The next part of
this section in the article has to do with definitional
issues. The authors say that Ronald Enroth’s 1977
book, Youth, Brainwashing, and the Extremist Cults,
reflects a basic acceptance of the mind control model,
and then they quote a recent letter from Enroth to the
effect that he has not "had time nor inclination
to update" his position in this area. We are a
little troubled here by the Passantinos assertion that
what they identify as Enroth’s "reluctan[ce]
to be perceived as a mindcontrol-model-advocate"
indicates that he has "problems reconciling a classic
cult mind control model with other religious considerations..."
We question this representation of Enroth’s position.
In the next few
paragraphs the Passantinos quote some of the authors
from the book Recovery From Cults, edited by Michael
Langone35 — namely, Zimbardo, Andersen, and Galanti,
Zimbardo, et al. do seem to muddy the waters a bit.
It appears that sometimes they imply that mind control
is a synonym for persuasion, and at other times it’s
persuasion plus manipulation. The Passantinos are on
target when they complain that we don’t define
our terms well. We would insist that mind control is
not simply a matter of influencing someone to do something
against his will. It does include persuasion and manipulation.
There is an element of deceit involved, and there’s
an element of restricting information. We must not simplify
the concept of mind control, because if we do we create
something that will invariably get us into the dilemma
of having, on the one hand, nothing but persuasion,
or, on the other hand, nothing but some sort of technique
that takes away the will. There is something in the
middle, and it’s called mind control.
In regard to Galanti’s
visit to a "Moonie indoctrination center, where,
contrary to expectations, she was allowed plenty of
sleep and food," etc., this is also what we would
expect to find were we to make a similar visit, particularly
if the Unificationists knew who we were. The visitor
or new recruit is not usually permitted to observe the
inner workings of most cults right away. Mind control
is not only subtle, it is also gradual. The cult conceals
its true nature from visitors and new members at first.
In the case of the Peoples Temple newcomers were escorted
into a separate room for introductory sessions, rather
than to the sanctuary where Jim Jones was. Thus the
new members could not witness what Jones was doing to
the longer-term members, who had been subtly and gradually
deceived and manipulated over a period of time.36
The Passantinos’
next paragraph is worth quoting:
A definition of
mind control that removes its involuntary component
is intrinsically at odds with the prevailing teachings
of Singer, Hassan, Martin, and others that cult victims
are unable to think for themselves or make decisions.
Instead, it is more in agreement with the case we have
been arguing — that cult members are capable of
independent thought and rational choice, but because
of factual arid spiritual deception, faulty presuppositions,
fallacious reasoning, and improper religious commitments,
they make unwise choices and adopt false beliefs instead.37
Again, there is
a little truth with error here. We reiterate: we do
riot believe Singer, Hassan, and others hold this robotic
view of mind control that the Passantinos attribute
to them — certainly, we do not. Further, the authors1
description of cult dynamics in the above quote fails
to recognize that through spiritual deception cult members
have been taught that "independent thought and
rational choice" are "rebellious," "factious,"
"divisive," and/or "of the devil."
This is not to say that cult members are totally incapable
of independent thought — on the contrary, in many
areas most are still able to make their own decisions;
but these are typically areas in which the cult has
not made rules or pronouncements. We would also expand
the authors’ description of cult dynamics to be
more specifically applicable to spiritually legalistic
or restrictive cults. Such groups present a form of
religious legalism (rule-keeping) which, through cunning
and clever reasoning, a "spiritual leader"
is able to persuade his followers is indeed the will
of God. The cult member, convinced that this is of God,
is driven by guilt and fear to the point of exhaustion.
Such an environment can lead to severe depression, anxiety,
or even, in some cases, nervous breakdown and attempted
or successful suicide.38
In addition, how
do the Passantinos know that cultists’ problems
are solely because of spiritual deception, faulty presuppositions,
fallacious reasoning, improper religious commitments,
and unwise choices? Have they interviewed hundreds of
ex-cult members? Do they have evidence? Where do they
get this list? This sounds incredibly like "blaming
the victim." If a person joins a cult, according
to the Passantinos, he’s been spiritually deceived.
Well, how do the authors know? Have they talked to him?
The Passantinos may respond, "Well, yeah, we did,
but he denies he’s deceived." So the Passantinos
could end up in circular reasoning themselves. If the
ex-cult member admits he was spiritually deceived, then
the Passantinos are right. But if he denies he was spiritually
deceived, the Passantinos are still right because it
seems like they have embraced these beliefs about how
people are lured into cults on the basis of their own
presuppositions. Bob and Gretchen would say, "Well,
they must be spiritually deceived." Maybe the question
of why people join cults is an empirical issue that
has to be decided by looking at the facts. If one looks
at the facts in these cases, as I [PRM] have for nine
years, these people are not simply spiritually deceived.
They were searching for God, many were born-again Christians
from good Christian homes, raised in evangelical churches.
Some were graduates of some of the finest seminaries
in our land, and yet they ended up in cults or abusive
churches. We believe this poses a problem for the Passantinos.
The last paragraph
in this section says that "mind-control-model advocates
want to have the best of both worlds. They want to distinguish
cult recruitment from normal socialization activities...
But as soon as anyone asks for concrete evidence and
qualitative definitions, mind control becomes just another
term for the myriad forms of noncandid persuasion. To
one degree, mind control is non-candid persuasion, but
it entails much more than this, namely, a systematic
program of changing one’s beliefs and behavior
in a controlled environment through subtle and unethical
manipulation. When people ask me [PRM] what a cult is,
I give a very simple definition: a cult is a group that
practices mind control, that has all the criteria of
thought reform.
OBJECTION:
THE BRAINWASHING EVIDENCE
In this section
the authors argue that all the relevant literature shows
that brainwashing is not particularly effective. This
is very curious. Are the Passantinos saying there is
no such thing as brainwashing, or are they saying there
is brainwashing, but it doesn’t work very well?
Are they saying, "Brainwashing does work, but only
on a few people"? It seems like they have jumped
from one thing, saying there can’t be any brainwashing
because people have free agency, but on the other hand
the research evidence says, "Yes, it works, but
it doesn’t work ver" well." If it works
on one in a million people, then there must be something
to it. In other words, it seems like the Passantinos
are suddenly jumping from presuppositional arguments
against brainwashing of any kind to admission on empirical
grounds that there is brainwashing of an involuntary,
robotic Manchurian Candidate type, but that it doesn’t
happen very often. Which way do the Passantinos want
it? Do they discount brainwashing on biblical and other
presuppositions? If so, then they can’t allow
for even rare cases of brainwashing on the basis of
empirical evidence.
They go on to State
that basically a lot of the Koreans and Chinese used
extreme forms of physically coercive persuasion, but
very few individuals changed their basic worldviews
and commitments. However, the footnote attached to this
remark (number 36) quotes psychologist Gary Collins
as writing, "Fewer than 15% of the prisoners in
Korean detention camps collaborated with the enemy.
When the war was over and prisoners were given their
freedom, only a few chose to remain in Communist China.
Of these, several later rejected the Communist way of
life and returned home."39 The figure of 15% seems
to us, however, to be staggeringly high considering
that this was a time when the older brothers and uncles
of these same soldiers had just overcome the "evil"
Axis Powers. It was a simpler time when Americans "could
do no wrong." In fact, so effective were these
techniques that in Vietnam twelve years later, military
intelligence warned troops not to resist them. Instead
GI’s were told to do whatever it took to stay
alive.40
Further, what about
the huge numbers who were radically transformed in the
revolutionary colleges mentioned earlier? What about
the large segments of the Chinese Christian community
that succumbed to Mao? What about the classified military
experiments that were discontinued because those conducting
them could not devise effective means to resist brainwashing?41
Why would mothers in Iran during the Ayatollah Khomeini’s
regime send their eight-year-old children into the mine
fields to explode mines so that the soldiers could then
cross the fields? History is replete with examples of
this horrendously irrational behavior that people engage
in when under the influence of mind control. We have
talked to many women who, while members of the Children
of God, willingly engaged in "flirty fishing"
at the urging of their leaders. When they came Out of
the group’s mindset they said, "I just can’t
believe I did that. I wasn’t in my right mind."
Any historian can document the most radical things that
have ever been done in history, especially current history,
had been done by men who had put masses of people under
mind control. We only have to look at Hitler, Stalin,
Khomeini, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Jeffrey Lundgren.
I [PRM] have heard hundreds of desperate parents tell
me, "Our son isn’t the person we once knew.
We don’t know what has happened to him."
If mind control doesn’t exist or is ineffective,
I would hate to see something that is effective.
The Passantinos
state further that Korean and Chinese "techniques
of torture, beatings, and group dynamics", and
the CIA experiments with drugs, all failed to produce
even one potential Manchurian Candidate, and the CIA
program was finally abandoned. They have chosen the
most infamous examples of failed attempts of using mind
control, and then try to use them to debunk the effectiveness
of all methods of mind control. This seems like another
instance of the authors’ violating one of their
own cautions from their book Witch Hunt, namely, "Similar
Does Not Prove Same."42 They have failed to take
account of West’s study of downed American pilots
in Korea and how many of those were led to believe that
the US was engaging in germ warfare — well over
50% of the American pilots not only signed statements
that America was engaging in germ warfare over Korea,
but they believed it. We don’t call 50+% success
ineffective. If the Passantinos are going to Cite the
mind control literature, they should cite all of it,
including the studies that point to the remarkable successes
of some mind control programs.
The Passantinos
say, "Some mind-control-model advocates bring up
studies that they feel provide objective data in support
of their theories. Such is not the case. These studies
are generally flawed in several areas: (1) Frequently
the respondents are not from a wide cross section of
ex-members..." This is not true in my own [PRM]
studies; in fact, they never cited mine. I have now
studied more than 300 people. I have people in my samples
from a wide variety of different categories. The data
is limited because controlled experiments would not
be ethical. However, I have cited a number of good studies
in the article "Post-Cult Symptoms as Measured
by the MCMI Before and After Treatment."43
The Passantinos
continue: "[A] disproportionate amount [of those
included in studiesj are people who have been exit-counseled
by mind-control-model advocates who have told them that
they were under mind control" — again, not
true. A good third to half of the people who come to
Wellspring are walkaways and they know hardly anything
about mind control. They just sort of figured out on
their own that they were in a cult.
|
