#cults and/or high control groups specifically prey on vulnerable people.

[ladyimaginarium]

btw as a cult survivor i've& been meaning to say this for a hot minute but: if you have friends even if it's just one and/or are in a group whether it's political or religious or literally just a seemingly mundane group and/or see an ideology that's completely black and white, completely good vs. evil, with no nuances allowed, us vs. them mentality (insiders vs outsiders), you're not allowed to question Anything, you're not allowed to ask any questions that might challenge the narrative, if they tell you there's only one "right way to live", if your group of "friends" are stalking you & telling you who & who not to associate with, if they only encourage "pure", "good" and/or "proper" thoughts with no room for forgiveness or else the friendship is over or you're shunned from the group (especially if there's a "main" friend or a leader in the group), if you give quite a bit of time energy & money to the group, your life is highly regulated by the group, if former members are ostracized or seen as "traitors", if they cut you off from other friends & family, if someone makes you constantly feel like problems are always your fault, if the group lovebombs you & make you feel like the most special person or you're doing something "for the greater good" & gas you up way too quickly in the sense of being too good to be true, if a group is dehumanizing another group they disagree with or don't like, instill dependency on them & obedience, discourage you to find your own answers or if someone implies that they'll report anything you say or do that doesn't line up with their ideology, & ESPECIALLY if they ever g-d forbid threaten to doxx, harass or hurt you or other people, i'm not even joking, you need to Get The Fuck Out.

[doomed-era]

RAMBLING ABOUT CULTS TIME!!!

HELL YES

OKAY SO! CULTS. if any of this is interesting to you and you like weird indie animation movies or comics uhh you could check out the final exit of the disciples of ascensia and joe vs. elan school nooo im not shilling things i like nooo

OKAY. LET ME MAKE A LISTICLE. though there are clear indicators of cultlike behavior, the way the word cult is used is often relative and ill-defined. as a fair warning, i'm not an expert on any of this; it's just a casual interest of mine. feel free to correct me if i get anything wrong!

ONE. i think it's generally agreed upon that there's not much of a difference between high-control groups and cults. however, i think when people think of a cult, their idea of what that is is a lot more nebulous and associated with religion. cults do not have to be religious! also, i think high-control group in general suggests that it's just controlling, and so idk cults seem more like a subset of high-control groups to me i'm not going to argue about this if someone actually told me they are synanonymous (haha gotcha) but

TWO. ANYONE CAN JOIN A CULT. anyone could be vulnerable to a cult; it doesn't matter if you're smart or cool or famous or whatever. the primary reason people join is to be part of something, for acceptance and community and joining others under a common banner. people in cults are just as human as everyone else, they are not stupid or crazy or inherently bad. oftentimes, even though they may do horrible things to others, they were preyed upon themselves.

THREE. okay so I know I was like "you should look at the BITE model" earlier but it is a flawed model </3 namely there's things about it that seem to apply more to western cultural norms and i don't know if i'd apply them to others (for example, some cultures are more communal and less individualistic. the definition for what is a healthy amount of individualist or collectivist behavior depends a lot on who you're talking to.) also though there are definitely controlling religions if a controlling religion is considered an acceptable mainstream belief generally i would not consider them cults. a lot of these things are still relative.

FOUR. cults are all about control!! this above all else is what sets them apart from any other type of gathering or organization. they will isolate you from others and attempt to control you by any means necessary. some of these are more obvious, like physical isolation, keeping you from accessing information that isn't approved by the cult (they'll usually give a reason for this), or frequent monitoring. some of them are more subtle, like sending you out to "see the outside world" for a specific task to reinforce how "bad" the outside world is. there's very much an "us vs them" mentality going on. think of cults as a bit like an abusive relationship, except on a broader scale!

FIVE. cults often have a charismatic leader and a strict hierarchy! also honestly the things cult leaders do sometimes can be just so goddamn funny like these guys will buy 27 yachts and watches and sex fifty people while the rest of their group lives in complete squalor but it's fine because Reasons!!! they frequently break their own rules it's kinda funny. people further up on the hierarchy will usually get more privileges than those at the bottom. also if the cult leader writes a book they get bonus points from me because lmao

uh i'm kinda out of things to ramble out for now unless its something specific hope u enjoy

[enthusiasticsobrietyabuse]

”Adolescent Attraction to Cults”  Originally posted on OnTheEmmis.com circa 2005.

I'm writing term paper on Cult Deprogramming for my Psych class. I saw this (with several others), and thought it made for a good read here... (maybe @ the end of the semester I will submit my findings as well).

Warning: this is pretty long.

Title: ADOLESCENT ATTRACTION TO CULTS , By: Hunter, Eagan, Adolescence, 0001-8449, September 1, 1998, Vol. 33, Issue 131

Database: Academic Search Premier

ADOLESCENT ATTRACTION TO CULTS

Contents

REFERENCES

ABSTRACT

This article details the reasons behind adolescents' attraction to cults. It is recommended that parents, teachers, and counselors familiarize themselves with the warning signs. Suggestions are offered on how to make adolescents less vulnerable to cult overtures.

Adolescence is the transitional period between the dependence of childhood and the assumption of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. It is a time when young people attempt to understand who they are, what they can do, and why they are here. Their freedom to make decisions greatly increases, but, at the same time, certain adult privileges remain inaccessible. Their lives seem to be filled with possibilities, restrictions, and uncertainties.

New and unfamiliar situations quickly generate unrest and crisis, arising during an important period of identity development. To establish a coherent identity, adolescents draw from models and ideals found within their environment. They may seek out reliable standards to achieve a sense of security, only to find confusing, paradoxical social rules. They therefore may have difficulty distinguishing between heroes and anti-heroes, and may end up seeing themselves only in negative terms, producing a severe identity crisis. Having sought independence, they find that they fear standing alone.

Thus, it is not surprising that adolescents, having encountered conflict, confusion, and frustration, often feel disoriented and anxious. Fearing rejection by a society that they do not understand, they may retreat into isolation, or demonstrate inappropriate emotional outbursts, aggression, and rebellion, and embrace radical causes. All of these are youthful cries of pain, cries for help and understanding.

Traditionally, young people have been critical of, and impatient with, the established values and behavior patterns of society. They desire change, and experience frustration when it does not occur. Their ideal ism leads them to believe that those in power, as well as established institutions, have failed to meet the legitimate needs of various groups. To them, social problems and their solutions stand out in stark clarity.

In addition, during adolescence higher-order thinking skills become engaged; it is a time of intellectual curiosity, of seeking truth. Youths are intellectually and spiritually open to new ideas. Unfortunately, they have not achieved the balance of experience and maturity that would enable them to sort truth from illusion and reality from fantasy in all situations. They have not gained sufficient sophistication to evaluate --critically and methodically--complex philosophies.

Many youth movements play upon this naive idealism and intellectual curiosity. The young person may be challenged to answer the clarion call to join a group that professes to offer a vision of a perfect society, one in which all injustices are rectified. After all, how could any self-respecting person, caring for the world and its people, not be willing to give this "new way" a try?

Group membership can lead to either positive or negative outcomes. For example, the Peace Corps and various forms of community service and mentor programs are excellent ways for youth to achieve self-actualization. On the other hand, gangs and cults suppress individuality and foster estrangement from society.

The personality profile of an adolescent susceptible to cult overtures might include identity confusion or crisis; alienation from family; weak cultural, religious, and community ties; and feelings of powerlessness in a seemingly out-of-control world. Studies have indicated that a surprising number of cult members come from democratic and egalitarian homes and upper socioeconomic levels, rather than over-permissive, overindulgent, dysfunctional, and poor families. In fact, Andron (1983) reports that many cults focus on the recruitment of gifted and creative adolescents. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to delineate a precise portrait of potential adolescent cult members.

In a review of the literature, Wright and Piper (1986) reported that alienation from family relationships precedes cult membership. Youths are compensating for unfulfilled needs (e.g., love, sense of belonging), the lack of which hinders the development of self-esteem, social competence, and mastery of life tasks. In turn, this generates attempts to gain approval and recognition. Wright and Piper indicated that the attraction to cults is strengthened by the fact that a cult's rules often are better defined than those of the family. Adherence to the cult lifestyle often results in radical behavior changes, along with "a loss of identity" compensated by an "enslavement to cult leaders" and further estrangement from family.

Parents, teachers, and coaches sometimes place excessive demands on youth. Such pressures frequently lead to undesirable outcomes, such as physical or intellectual burnout, drug use, or escape to what appears to be the safety of a cult. Adults must remember that there is a time for everything--a time simply to enjoy being young, and later, after normal adolescent development has progressed, a time increasingly for admission into the competitive, success-oriented adult world.

There has been a marked decline in the influence of the family and traditional religious beliefs, with a concomitant liberalization of personal values. The social climate has nourished rejection of cultural and moral standards. This has left adults and especially adolescents with the dilemma of finding values with which to fill this vacuum, so as to be able to resolve old problems and discover new solutions. Mike Warnke (1972), a former drug addict and satanic high priest who became involved in the anti-occult counseling program Alpha Omega Outreach, explains that a person "is constructed like a triangle, with one side representing his physical needs, the second his mental needs, and the third his spiritual needs. A person fulfilling only his physical and mental needs is not complete... [and] is consciously or subconsciously undergoing a search for spiritual fulfillment, wherever he can find it--in drugs, the occult." The loss of society's religious and social moorings leaves many youths adrift. The desire to become a complete person--to complete the triangle of their being--leads many, Warnke warns, into dangerous ways.

In the absence of authentic, stabilizing standards upon which youth can depend and trust, self-destructive tendencies quickly emerge. Adolescents become vulnerable to academic failure, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, risk-taking behavior, violence, and gang and cult membership.

Zimbardo and Hartley (1985) reported that approximately 50% of the high school students included in their survey had been approached to join a cult. Wright and Piper (1986) have indicated that cults are most successful in recruiting individuals between 18 and 23 years of age, when persons are most likely to be seeking "perfect" answers to life's questions and problems. Because of their immaturity, they fail to take into account the long-term consequences of cult membership.

Rudin (1990) defines cults as "groups or movements exhibiting an excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing. Such cults employ unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the determent of members, their families, or the community." Cults attract youths experiencing psychological stress, rootlessness, feelings of emptiness and of being disenfranchised, and identity diffusion and confusion. Such youths come from all walks of life and from all classes of society. Cults seem to offer confused and isolated adolescents a moratorium--a period of dropping-out, or a "time-out"-- as well as a highly structured sense of belonging and a means of escape from being "normless."

The terms "church," "sect," and "cult" should be distinguished. Church usually is applied to specific religious organizations. A sect is an offshoot of a particular religious body, whose members prefer to follow doctrines or teachings that differ from the parent group. A cult exhibits many of the characteristics of a sect. However, it represents a major and abrupt break with the past. A cult is viewed by its members as the climax of history, and often emphasizes devotion to a single person. Legitimate movements withstand the test of time to prove their authenticity.

A distinguishing characteristic of cults is that they prey upon a person's fears through a systematic process of "brainwashing" and "programming." They recruit aggressively. Strong efforts are made to separate members from family and former associates--to cut them off from their past--in order to establish new values and standards requiring total dependence on, and devotion to, the cult itself. There is usually an all-powerful authoritarian leader. Members may be psychologically, physically, or sexually abused, with discipline maintained through fear. Rudin (1990) states that "what makes a group a cult is the deception and manipulation of its members and the harm done to them and to society, not its ideals or theology." Notable examples have been the mass suicide of the followers of Jim Jones in Guyana (1978), the holocaustic climax of the disciples of David Koresh in Waco, Texas (1993), and most recently the group suicide of the Heaven's Gate believers in San Diego (1997).

Davidowitz (1989) has stated that an increasing number of adolescents are falling under the influence of Satanism. Evidence includes the desecration of cemeteries and the theft of bodies; the appearance of satanic symbols and themes in contemporary literature, art, and music; and in an extreme case, the satanic, ritualistic murders in Matamoros, Mexico. Belitz and Schacht (1992) have indicated that male youths from abusive families are especially vulnerable to satanic cult recruitment. Adolescents seeking a sense of power over their own lives as well as over others are susceptible.

According to Rudin (1990), this process has several stages. Initially it begins as a fun experience, with adolescents involved in fantasy and role-playing games based on occult ideology and incorporating an obsession with violence. These adolescents are usually deeply involved in heavy metal rock music and, frequently, brag about their activities to boost their self-image. This type of involvement tends to make the individual receptive to satanic activities. A "dabbler" stage follows, in which satanic literature and paraphernalia are acquired. The transition from fun-and-games to serious interest opens the door to satanic recruitment through clubs, hangouts, and private parties. As involvement deepens, cruelty to animals, rape and molestation, drug use, and even murder may follow.

It is the responsibility of society in general and the family in particular to be alert to the danger signs, especially during the early stages of youth involvement. However, with society fractured and unable to fulfill this role, educators, social workers, and psychologists must rise to the occasion. In addition, the cooperation and support of religious institutions, civic organizations, and government agencies must be enlisted.

School and youth organizations can be particularly helpful. The sensitive teacher or counselor can be watchful for the warning signs--confusion, alienation, sudden changes in personality or behavior, withdrawal from home and social activities, the development of antisocial attitudes, a decline in academic achievement, the assumption of an unusual style of dress, and preference for music with satanic themes--and intervene in a timely fashion.

However, caring adults must be proactive rather than merely reactive. They can help adolescents to develop a strong self-concept, one that is not vulnerable to the harmful attractions of a cult. They can assist youths to formulate positive, realistic life goals, and ease the emotional impact of inevitable frustrations. Adults must be willing to discuss--knowledgeably, frankly, and honestly--the various personal and social issues confronting adolescents, such as substance abuse, AIDS, teenage pregnancy, as well as the insidiousness of cults.

Adolescents seek self-identity and acceptance as unique individuals. They search for standards and values upon which to model their behavior. Educational and social institutions must be made welcoming places in which young people feel a sense of belonging, places of understanding and trust, places of stability in a rapidly changing world. Adolescents should be shown ways to achieve a richer and more meaningful life, to attain their natural potential, and to become contributing members of society. The meeting of these challenges and opportunities is what education for life--not for death--is all about.

[carriesthewind]

Got some "fun" responses from radfems on this one before I realized I had tagged it "radfems." But in the interests of fairness:

First, a clarification: my use of the term "cult" here was casual and, I will admit, a bit sloppy - most definitions of that term require a leader or at least central organizational structure, and that is not present in radical feminism as a whole. (However, I have seen credible claims of examples of more traditional high control groups occurring within radfem spaces, and would argue that at a minimum it is an environment that is extremely vulnerable to such groups.) It would be more accurate to say that radical feminism, as it exists today, appears to share many of the harmful characteristics present in high-control groups.

Second, to be specific in my basis for that claim: As I noted above, there is a difference between an ideology and the manifestation and enactment of that ideology. So while any comments on this post about the evils of men and porn and sex are part of an abhorrent ideology, they are also relevant to the post at hand. However, as I lay out above, the comment I discuss here was not at all relevant.

There's a few important distinctions to make before I go further: first, this example on its own is of course not sufficient to sustain a claim of high-control group like behaviors, and it's not intended to be; it is an example from a larger pattern of behavior. Second, there's nothing necessarily wrong or unusual about making connections that aren't relevant to a text - trust me, I get it, I am autistic and can bring basically everything back around to my special interests.

What is wrong and unusual about the example here is twofold: first, it creates an intense in-group/out-group dichotomy, with a strong implied threat; second, it works to prevent meaningful connection and communication with people outside the group.

The first element stems from the commenter's creation of an in-group vs. out-group between "women and children" and men "with their dysfunctional sexuality fueled by testosterone;" these two groups are defined in terms of danger, on both sides. One side is threatening, "men," to the point that the other side needs to actively defend themselves ("become unruly"). However, it doesn't stop there. Notice that there is nothing to indicate the gender of "the second person," and that again, they are clearly NOT referring to rule 34. The out-group being created here isn't just "men who prey on women and children" or even just "men," but anyone who can be conceived of as not supporting the radfem's conception of sex and gender politics. And that last bit is the critical point that makes this a high-control group like behavior: the dangerous out-group is constructed and defined not by the actual actions or behaviors of members of the out-group, but by the conception of the in-group. That is to say, the "second person" is considered a threat not because of anything they have done, but because the radfem can characterize them (in this case, completely baselessly) as having supported something out of line with the radfem ideology. Since any innocuous comment can be perceived as part of a corrupting blight, the circle of "safe" people is narrowed to other members of the in-group - other radfems.

The second element also stems from the misreading of an innocuous comment to make a connection completely irrelevant to the text of that comment. As I said, I am intimately familiar with the experience of making connections that other people don't to bring conversations around to my preferred topic - however, because of that, I am also intimately familiar with how this can alienate the people around me and make it difficult for me to make social connections. If you only ever talk about your in-group's preferred topic and ideology, you will struggle to make and maintain meaningful social connections outside your in-group. The more you are unable to frame and discuss things outside of that ideology, the more isolated to that in-group you will become, even if you are still technically talking to - but not communicating with - people outside that in-group. The social isolation performed in high-control groups can take many forms. It's not necessarily cutting people out from society all together - in fact, high-control groups might deliberately expose their members to hostile viewpoints to enhance the sense of threat. The important element is preventing meaningful communication and connection with anyone outside the group. While the element of "control" is lacking in this instance, you can hopefully see how the misreading being done here creates barriers to real communication.

Even if someone agreed with the commenter's point about rule 34, no reasonable person could find that to be an appropriate reading of "the second person"'s comment, nor could they find the commenter's viscous response to be an appropriate reaction to that misreading. The comment closes off communication to anyone who is not already part of the radfem in-group, and illustrates, since the commenter did apparently think it was an appropriate reading and reaction, that the commenter is not open to communication from anyone who is not already part of the in-group.

In today's demonstration of "radfems are a cult" (obvious tw for transphobia and hatred of men):

A bunch of radfems found one of my posts, and before I turned off reblogs one of them left an absolutely fascinating collection of tags on it.

For context, my original post had nothing to do with gender or sex. It started with "There needs to be a name for the internet law..." and went on from there. Someone reblogged it with the comment, "Okay but if you name it… on the internet…" (this is "the second person" referenced in the radfem's tags below).

The meaning of their comment is pretty clear, right? It's a suggestion that since I wrote the post, I should name the "internet law" I discuss, or perhaps that it should be named after me. (And just to be super clear - that was the entirety of their comment.) But one of the reblogging radfems added the following tags:

Rule 34, for those unaware, is, to quote wikipedia, "an internet maxim which asserts that Internet pornography exists concerning every conceivable topic."

So there's a few things going on here. First, there's the absolute lack of reading comprehension. The meaning of "the second person"'s comment was extremely clear. Second, there is the absolute brainrot of specifically misreading the comment to bring Rule 34 into it. There was zero suggestion of gender or sex in either my original post or their reblog. Third, there is the vicious and disgusting transphobia and hatred of men (and, bluntly, of human sexuality in general). Finally, there is the implied threat to the reblogger - the radfem might "have to become unruly." (Just to be clear - I don't think this is a real threat, but it is unsettling given the rest of the language the radfem is using in these tags.)

All of this combines to show a perspective that has been absolutely poisoned by a community. Because this isn't just an ideology - although the radfem ideology demonstrated here is vile, it is the social conditioning that causes people to start reading that ideology into every single innocuous thing. It's a demonstration that people seeped in the radfem perspective and community must see danger and violence everywhere; that everything is a reminder that they are constantly under threat from "men"*, that they must always be prepared to respond with (in their view, defensive) threats and violence. Ironically, it is a demonstration of how the radfem worldview preys on people, "corrupting innocuous things."

*in quotes here b/c the radfem conception of "men" is of monsters, not of people.