-Caveat Lector-
"ric carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> @ Cult mind control - The 10 themes of cult membership:
> http://members.aol.com/SMARTNEWS/Sample-Issue-08.htm
>
> 1) The Doctrine is Reality - The cult's beliefs allow no interpretation,
> or opposing views to be valid.
> 2) Reality is Black and White, Good Versus Evil - no outside group is
> valid, "no room for interpretation or deviation".
> 3) Elitist Mentality - they are the chosen ones.
> 4) Group Will Over Individual Will -"the self must submit to the group";
> "individuality is bad"; "conformity is good".
> 5) Strict Obedience: Modeling the Leader - the leader is imitated by all.
> 6) Happiness through good performance - behaviors are controlled by
> shaming, competition; friendships are discouraged.
> 7) Manipulation through fear - "each group has its devil... around the
> corner waiting" to kill you or whatever.
> 8) Emotional highs and lows - from great productivity to crashing
> (always due to the individual's inadequacies, according to the cult).
> 9) Changes in Time Orientation - pre-cult life is bad, the present is
> crucial (pressure to meet quotas, etc.) the future is known by the
> leader, reward or punishment, the world will end, etc.
> 10) No Way Out - "there is never a legitimate reason for leaving"
> A) Cults also use "love bombing," lots of flattery early on to "suck
> people in." This disappears later once a person is in deeper.
>
> : What's your favorite cult? Who's your favorite cult leader? Do you lead a
> cult? Is it fun? Do you enjoy sex & drugs & adulation? Does one or more god
> speak thru you? What do they say? Do you ever edit them? Are they pleased??
http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.HTML
The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame 2.0.1
Copyright � 1979, 1996 c.e., Isaac Bonewits
Introduction
Events in the last few decades have clearly indicated just how dangerous some
religious and secular groups (usually called "cults" by those opposed to them)
can be to their own members as well as to anyone else whom they can influence.
"Brainwashing," beatings, child abuse, rapes, murders, mass suicides, military
drilling and gunrunning, meddling in civil governments, international
terrorism, and other crimes have been charged against leaders and members of
many groups, and in far too many cases those accusations have been correct.
None of this has been very surprising to historians of religion or to other
scholars of what are usually labled "new" religions (no matter how old they
may be in their cultures of origin). Minority groups, especially religious
ones, are often accused of crimes by members of the current majority. In many
ways, for example, the "Mormons" were the "Moonies" of the 19th century -- at
least in terms of being an unusual minority belief system that many found
"shocking" at the time -- and the members of the Unification Church could be
just as "respectable" a hundred years from now as the Latter Day Saints are
today.
Nonetheless, despite all the historical and philosophical caveats that could
be issued, ordinary people faced with friends or loved ones joining an
"unusual" group, or perhaps contemplating joining it themselves, need a
relatively simple way to evaluate just how dangerous or harmless a given group
is liable to be, without either subjecting themselves to its power or judging
it solely on theological or ideological grounds (the usual method used by
anti-cult groups).
In 1979 I constructed an evaluation tool which I now call the "Advanced
Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame," or the "ABCDEF," a copy of which was
included in that year's revised edition of my book, Real Magic (Samuel Weiser
Pub., 1989). I realize its shortcomings, but feel that it can be effectively
used to separate harmless groups from the merely unusual-to-the-observer ones.
Feedback from those attempting to use the system has always been appreciated.
Indirect feedback, in terms of the number of places on and off the Net this
ABCDEF has shown up, has been mostly favorable. For example, it was chosen by
and is now displayed on the website of the Institute for Social Inventions,
who paraphrased it for their "Best Ideas -- A compendium of social
innovations" listing.
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 higher the numerical total scored by a given group (the
further to the right of the scale), 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 numerical
assignments are 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 you need 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" 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 who cannot, on the other hand, view
competing belief systems as ever having possible spiritual value to anyone,
will find the ABCDEF annoyingly useless for promoting their theocratic
agendas. Worse, these members of the Religious Reich will find that their own
organizations (and quite a few large mainstream churches) are far more
"cult-like" than the minority belief systems they so bitterly oppose.
It should be pointed out that the ABCDEF 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 (I suppose) count
groups with total scores nearing either extreme (high or low) 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Advanced Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame
(version 2.0)
Factors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low High
1
INTERNAL CONTROL: Amount of internal political power exercised by leader(s)
over members. 1
_____________________________
2
WISDOM CLAIMED by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied
about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations. 2
_____________________________
3
WISDOM CREDITED to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or
doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s). 3
_____________________________
4
DOGMA: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility
or "fundamentalism." 4
_____________________________
5
RECRUITING: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing.
5
_____________________________
6
FRONT GROUPS: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of
main group. 6
_____________________________
7
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. 7
_____________________________
8
POLITICAL POWER: Amount of external political influence desired or obtained;
emphasis on directing members' secular votes. 8
_____________________________
9
SEXUAL MANIPULATION: of members by leader(s); amount of control exercised
over sexuality of members; advancement dependent upon sexual favors or
specific lifestyle. 9
_____________________________
10
CENSORSHIP: Amount of control over members' access to outside opinions on
group, its doctrines or leader(s). 10
_____________________________
11
DROPOUT CONTROL: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning
dropouts. 11
_____________________________
12
VIOLENCE: amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or
leader(s). 12
_____________________________
13
PARANOIA: amount of fear con- cerning real or imagined enemies; perceived
power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. 13
_____________________________
14
GRIMNESS: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its
doctrines or its leader(s). 14
_____________________________
15
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). 15
_____________________________
16
HYPOCRISY: amount of approval for other actions (not included above) which
the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the
group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate group's declared
principles for political, psychological, economic, or other gain. 16
_____________________________
A German translation of this is available at: Isaac Bonewits' Sektengefahr
Checkliste.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Low High
Copyright � 1979,1996 c.e., Isaac Bonewits. This text file may be freely
distributed on the Net, provided that no editing is done, the version number
is retained and this notice is included. Note: this is one of my most popular
essays, so if you want to mirror it, that's fine with me, but please check
back regularly for updates. If you would like to be on the author's personal
mailing list for upcoming publications, lectures, song albums, and
appearances, send your snailmail and/or your email address to him at PO Box
1021, Nyack, NY, USA 10960-1021 or via email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(P. E.) Isaac Bonewits, Adr.Em./ADF
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Snailmail: PO Box 1021, Nyack, NY, USA 10960-1021
This webpage is copyright � 1999 c.e., Isaac Bonewits
Most recently updated: February 17, 1999 c.e. (formatting)
This page's URL is http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.HTML
My Homepage URL is http://www.neopagan.net
=================================
Robert F. Tatman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove "nospam" from the address to reply.
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
POSTING THIS MESSAGE TO THE INTERNET DOES NOT IMPLY PERMISSION TO SEND
UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL (SPAM) TO THIS OR ANY OTHER INTERNET ADDRESS.
RECEIPT OF SPAM WILL RESULT IN IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF THE SENDER'S ISP.
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
