It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


When "Cult Deprogramming" goes wrong - does it take a cult to deprogram a cult?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:51 AM
I was just reading Brainwash: The secret history of mind control (Dominic Streatfield, 2006).
In the 1970s it seemed to many concerned parents and families that their loved ones were being reduced to slaves by certain cults.
The practice of kidnapping cult members and "deprogramming" them then gained wide social acceptance (even amongst law enforcement).
However, it seemed that cult deprogrammers often had conversion motives of their own, and used techniques very similar to the cults.

Streatfield writes:

Deprogramming even assumed a macabre sense of the absurd. New York deprogrammer Galen Kelly - who was sentenced to seven years in jail in 1993 for staging a kidnap on a Circle of Friends devotee, and mistakenly snatched the wrong girl off the street - apparently told a story about how a deprogrammer "snapped" a young girl out of her "cult mind" and returned her home. "You'll be glad to know", crowed the triumphant deprogrammer, that your daughter is a Christian again.
"But", gasped the parents, "she used to be Jewish".

Do the parents get a refund, or will she be "programed" again?
So religion is that easy to instill with some stress factors?

Since a lot of work on cults is done by competing cults (not always obvious, but Streatfield discusses how at least one "parental resource center" on cults was bankrupted and purchased by a cult), is there a neutral space of original humanity to be programed to?
Wait, that sounds so cult-like!

Perhaps normal means to believe something cult-like, but to be very wishy-washy about it.
edit on 17-12-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 02:10 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

I first thought the following was a bit lame and dated.
However, it really got me thinking.
Yeah, I suppose most churches I've seen are at least "semi-cults".
They certainly "love-bombed" at first, and they "loaded the language" with sect jargon to narrow critical thinking.
Handing over cash so that the pastor could buy himself something nice was mystified as "tithing" and "planting seeds".
As shown in the clip it became very important to talk about one's former "wicked and unhappy life", and how it is now so much better (usually not).

It becomes hard to distinguish between cult and religion.
Since socialist totalitarianism uses similar techniques (often the very same) I suppose it is hard to distinguish between cults and any extreme ideology.
But what is "extreme", and what is ideology"?
It sure seems like the same knowledge is behind it all - it's all so similar.

I wonder sometimes whether there are Internet cults?
Some talented people may only need some encouragement to reinvent themselves on hate sites, and so forth.

edit on 17-12-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-12-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 03:55 AM
CBS report on how Scientology (about which I don't know much) bought the CAN (Cult Awareness Network).

But honestly, who do anti-cult campaigners expect to answer the phone on anti-cult hotlines?
Maybe Catholics or Anglicans with their cult histories of uniform dress and flagellation?
Who can judge?

It's probably fair to say that many new mass religions started as "cults".

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:11 AM
Yes and some of those churches have voted some shady members into governments, at all levels.
Whom do they vote for? Whomever their church tells them to vote for.
Shady. And not very God-like at all.

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by ItsEvolutionBaby

Cults, mainstream religions and politicians do have some striking things in common.
Take the word "family" - one will find misleading uses of this word in politics, cults and religion.
However, when they label shady institutes (who use bogus research and statistics) or secretive movements (that for example, meddled in Uganda) after "the family", the last thing one can expect is pro-family unit activities (unless rejecting gay family members and confining women to the kitchen equals being "pro-family").
I think "family" here is cult-code for a secret society that demands allegiances similar to family loyalties.
It's very similar to what Charles Manson meant when he called his followers "The Family".
Every time I hear the terms "family research institute", or a plethora of "family organizations" for American families (blah, blah) a chill runs down my spine.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:56 AM
I think it's a shame that they tried to brainwash a Jewish girl to become a Christian.
It's just rude to assume a majority faith is the default faith

I'm also so yawning at the fact that a religion does something wrong, and instead of correcting it they divert attention to other religions.

If people think child-abuse and other things are happening and wrong, then first tell me what you plan to do about it in your religion.

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:28 PM
All religions ARE cults. Cult has a negative connotation, and there are many bad cults. However, the definition of cult includes all religions.

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:36 AM
reply to post by Ghost374

Perhaps it's fair enough to say that all religions are cults.
However, some seem to practice more cult-like behavior than others.
I'm still trying to list "true cult" behavior".

top topics


log in