Monday, April 20, 2026

Women Are Not Property

Epstein and his enablers. The online "rape academy" with 62 million views in one week. College athletes enabled by their coaches. No, it's not all men, but it's certainly a lot of men. A recent article quipped that "It's not all men but it's always men". And yes, there are women who enable rapists — Ghislaine Maxwell is as guilty as Epstein was — but even when women are involved it's always for the benefit of men. A critical step to attacking the rape culture is for men to speak up and confront other men. 

Why don't men confront other men who are abusing women? One reason is the suspicion that the abused woman will defend her abuser. This happens, as any cop who responds to domestic disturbance calls will attest to. I ran into this problem in my own life over twenty years ago, I heard some shouting outside my bedroom window and saw a family member assaulting his girlfriend. I ran outside and intervened. When the dust settled, the abuser claimed that I had attacked him, unprovoked, and the girlfriend backed him up. Other family members took his side. After everyone left I realized that there was one person besides myself who had witnessed the assault. When I asked him why he didn't intervene and had remained silent afterwards, he told me he didn't want to get involved. 

And that sums it up. Men don't want to get involved. Maybe it's fear of the abuser turning on them, maybe it's a cynical belief that as soon as they get home the abuse will continue. Maybe they just think that perhaps she provoked him. Whatever it is, it has to change. This is not to suggest that women aren't perfectly capable of defending themselves. A few years ago I witnessed a customer in the bar where I was sitting grab a woman bartender, before I even knew what was happening the other two women on duty intervened and threw the guy and his two buddies out. But it's a fact of life that the typical man outweighs and is stronger than the typical woman. A man determined to abuse a woman who is by herself has the advantage. 

One strategy that some men employ to assist a woman who is the subject of determined unwanted attention is to pretend to be her husband or boyfriend, whereupon the "bro code" kicks in and the woman is left alone. Women will often tells the creep that she has a husband or boyfriend to fend off potential trouble. I'm not going to suggest not doing this, but why does it work? The reason the "I'm her boyfriend" intervention works is that men will respect another man's property while not respecting the personhood and autonomy of a woman. It's definitely the mindset of the creep in this scenario. He has zero respect for the woman's disinterest, for her right to determine with whom she will interact, for her very rights as an independent entity; but once it is suggested that she belongs to another man, he backs off. But what does this say about the mindset of the intervening man? True, he is to be lauded for involving himself and getting the other guy to back off, but he is doing it by pretending that the woman in question is his property

Okay, maybe the term "property" is a bit harsh. Maybe "under the protection of" is more politically correct. But it can't be denied that in terms of the larger culture we are going backwards in the realm of women's rights. The right-wing "trad wife" movement is advocating for a barefoot and pregnant past. Members of Congress are suggesting that the husband be the one to cast votes for his entire family, disenfranchising women. 

This isn't going to change because I write a blog about it, but it has to change. 

Stupid Social Security Reposts (Again)

This stupid post makes its way around Facebook periodically. No, I do not copy and paste, because it's mostly bullshit. The original post in ARIAL, my comments in bold courier font

Concerning Social Security payments, my contributions have been made for nearly 40 years on every salary I received. I always had a job. The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment?" I'll be part of the one percent to forward this.

Well, it's probably more than 1% that forwards it — because people are dumb. Social Security payments have been called "benefits" for as long as I can remember. It's nothing new.

I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it. The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too. It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

One thing that I don't understand though, is what is the big objection to calling a Social Security check (more likely a direct deposit) a "benefit"?. I met the requirements by having payroll tax deductions taken out of my paychecks and I BENEFIT from my meeting of those requirements. I guess the idiots who make these up got tired of getting "entitlement" explained to them.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security. If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment. Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.
That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact).
And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.

I won't argue against the figures that indicate that privately invested money would have yielded more retirement income than what the typical person receives as Social Security payments, but seriously, how many people would do that? Investing 15% of their income? Especially in the early years of lower income? Many people living paycheck-to-paycheck find it very difficult to save, let alone invest.
Even as it is, I just calculated that if I live until 80 I will receive roughly twice what I and my employers were FICA taxed over the course of my working life (51 years). I don't argue that it would be more than if invested in something like a mutual fund, but it's certainly more than if there was no Social Security.

A big myth is that what we "paid in" is our money setting in an account somewhere. The money that came out of our paychecks immediately was used to pay people who were then receiving benefits. OUR benefits are based on a formula that takes into account a portion of our lifetime earnings.
Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger "Ponzi scheme" than Bernie Madoff ever did. They took our money and used it elsewhere. They forgot (oh yes, they knew) that it was OUR money they were taking. They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently they've told us that the money won't support us for very much longer.
But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a "benefit", as if we never worked to earn every penny of it.
Just because they borrowed the money doesn't mean that our investments were a charity!

There's another big inaccuracy in this copy & paste job. The whole myth of "they took our money & used it elsewhere". Until just a few years ago the amount of revenue collected via FICA payroll deductions exceeded what was paid out in benefits. By law, this surplus was invested in US Treasury bonds, which paid interest into the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF). Right now it's reversed: the benefits being paid out exceed what is coming in, so the difference is being taken out of the SSTF. The SSTF balance will be down to $0 in around 7-10 years. After that payroll deductions of current workers will cover 70-80% of benefits payments. The whole "Congress raided Social Security myth" persists. Democrats blame the Republicans, Republicans blame the Democrats. But there's no blame needed, because it didn't happen. The Social Security Administration is required by law to invest any surplus in US Treasury Securities. This is what is meant when you hear about "the government" borrowing money from the Trust Fund. Look at what happens to your money when you deposit it in a bank. Even though there is a vault in every bank with cash in it, this does not represent all the bank's deposits. Once you put your money in a bank, a percentage of it is loaned out, and some is invested in interest-bearing securities. Currently, banks are required to have a cash reserve of 12% of assets. That means that 78% of what has been deposited in a bank isn't physically there in the form of piles of cash. It's earning its keep. This is similar, but not identical, to what happens to the surpluses in the Trust Fund. The Trust Fund, rather than sitting on a pile of cash, is freeing up the cash for current use, paying out benefits to current retirees. If, rather than investing in Treasury securities, the Trust Fund invested in private securities, it would be a similar situation, except that the cash would now be in the hands of private companies (or individuals), rather than the US Government. Having this cash in government hands, rather than private investors reduces the amount of borrowing needed to make up annual budget deficits.

Let's take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government.
Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it. Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income.
99% of people won't Cut and Paste this to their timelines. Will you?
Please, for the sake of our country, Copy & Paste. It's important. Then type Done!
This affects everyone! I don't know what the originator of this, or other Social Security posts, intends to accomplish. The problem isn't that Congress or a past president "stole" or "borrowed without paying back" our money, it's not that your direct deposits are called benefits or entitlements. What are the people who repost or share these posts demanding be done?

In reality, what needs to be done is to find a way to make up the 20-30% gap between revenue from payroll taxes and paid benefits that will exist when the Trust Fund is depleted in 8-10 years. Increase or eliminate the income cap? Increase FICA withholding by a percentage point? Means test benefits? Something that no one yet thought of? That's what we should be getting worked up about. Not these imaginary "raids", or whining about "our" money. Previous articles about Social Security: https://tjpolitics.blogspot.com/2020/01/social-security-tutorial.html










Friday, April 17, 2026

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XlVII - Division

"Can't we all just get along?"

If you're running a cult, or just in a cult, the answer is an emphatic "NO". Cults don't maintain their allure by being like everybody else, they do it by pointing out, without equivocation, that they are most certainly different, in all ways, from everybody else. An atmosphere of isolation, if not physical, than assuredly mental, is cultivated to accomplish two related goals. The first goal is to instill a feeling of uniqueness, of being special, set apart, in the followers. A second goal derives from the first  to portray anyone outside the group as being deficient in some way: ignorant, weak, stupid, or even evil. 

The goal of instilling a feeling of being special is often accomplished by presenting the followers with supposedly secret knowledge. People want to feel like they know something that nobody else knows, that they are privy to information that is not widely known. Consider how popular what we generally call conspiracy theories are. The Moon landings were fake; Obama was born in Kenya; 9-11 was an inside job and a plane really didn't hit the Pentagon that day; a Democratic Party run pedophile ring is being run out of a pizza restaurant basement (that doesn't have a basement) in D.C.; and of course, Trump (and Kari Lake) won their elections by a landslide. The cult that I was a part of accomplished this by finding the weak points in what most Christians believed about the Bible and pointing out what appeared to be contradictions. They then provided explanations that appeared to make more sense than what most denominations taught. This approach served to undermine any confidence in what orthodox Christians believed and cement the reputation of the cult leader as a teacher of The Truth. 

Once the reputation for promoting "accuracy" is established, cult control takes two parallel paths: one is the demonizing of outsiders by claiming that what the cult teaches is godly, so everything else must be devilish, evil; the other path promotes the idea that the cult leader is never wrong in his pronouncements. I'll tackle infallibility in my next post, but this demonization is critical to maintaining division between the cult and "the world", i.e. everybody not in the cult. 

Once the idea of this sharp division between the cult and "the world" in solidified, loyalty to the cult and its leader becomes the only option, even in the face of red flags and even irrefutable evidence of abuses. Cult members may recognize that something is wrong, that they are being taken advantage of or abused, but they believe that the alternative, returning to the evil outside world, is worse. True believers don't even get as far as doubting  they simply refuse to accept that anything bad has occurred and chalk it up to attacks from demonic forces trying to "take down" the cult and its leader. 

Anyone who is even minimally politically engaged will notice how this describes the supporters of former president Donald Trump. From the beginning of his political career, promoting division was his method of securing loyal followers. Democrats and liberals have been assigned the role that Satan normally plays in religious cults, and Trumpists credulously believe whatever their leader tells them to believe. They ignore clear criminal activity, preferring to think (I use the word "think" very loosely) that the "Deep State" or the Media the media is out to "take him out". Any evidence that refutes what their cult leader says is called "fake news". Trumpism is a cult, and appears to have taken on a life of its own even if Trump himself appears to be losing influence. 

A side effect of the division that is promoted in a cult is that even personal relationships get redefined in this good vs. evil paradigm. If there is a disagreement between friends or family members or spouses, the argument can quickly become seen as a reflection of cult vs. the evil, demonic world. The individual who is more locked into the cult mindset, convinced that they are right, views the other person as evil in some way, "devil possessed", and incapable of being right. There is no place for consensus or compromise in a cult. The cult that I was part of went through a long period of purges, where strict adherence to the cult's beliefs were more important than recruitment; purity was valued above growth. People became quick to accuse others of being possessed, rather than work out their problems. 

An enforced division between "us" and "them" is essential to a cult maintaining its control of its members. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

Thursday, April 16, 2026

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLVI - How Do Cults Retain Members?

What anyone who seeks to understand the workings of cults and why people are drawn to them need to understand is that it's not always obvious that there is anything bad going on. Anti-cult people often point at "wacky" beliefs without being aware of any actual abusive or harmful actions. 

People who have seen friends and family members get involved with cults often assume that their loved one has been brainwashed. Brainwashing, when mentioned by cult opponents, is often misunderstood, not only in how it works, but in its actual effectiveness. People assume that just because an individual changes their apparent focus or loyalties resulting in perceived changed behavior then there must be some malign influence causing this abrupt break. The truth is that for most people a cult, at least in the early stages is offering the recruit something that they want. They see the cult as a positive in their life. This becomes something that the cult can use to retain members. The new recruit sees what they believe are the obvious positives of cult membership while family and friends, believing that they see something that the new cult recruit doesn't, invest a lot of time and energy trying to convince their son, daughter, or friend, of the dangers of being involved, even suggesting that brainwashing is involved. This is bound to cause resentment and inevitably, a rift. In many cases the well-meaning family and friends don't really have a clear idea about why the cult is a cult, other than a vague suspicion of "the other". The cult plays up this rift, often predicting that it would happen as evidence that they're on the right path. Christian-derived cults point to similar statements by Jesus in the Gospels to "prove" that separating from one's family and "the world" is the way to godliness. You see this in politics as well, with the MAGA cultists often able to point to the opposition by "the Left" as evidence that they're right. 

In extreme cases, family members engaged in deprogramming. I don't know if this happens these days, but it was quite common in the seventies and eighties. My own parents, according to one of my siblings, consulted a deprogrammer while I was part of a Way program in Western Nebraska. The deprogrammer himself cautioned them that if it didn't take, they would lose me completely. 

I was aware of several attempts to deprogram people when I was in The Way, some successful, some not. Typically a deprogramming would begin with an invitation for the cult member to meet with parents for an innocuous reason, like a birthday or anniversary. The cult member would be told to meet his family at a hotel or at an out of the way location. Instead of his family he would be greeted by professional deprogrammers who would hold him against his will, often physically restraining him. The specific methods would vary, but the deprogramming target would be subject to non-stop attacks on his cult beliefs, his cult leader and his cult friends. Techniques like sleep deprivation would be employed. Most of these deprogramming attempts sounded more like brainwashing than what the cults did. It shouldn't strain the imagination to see how an unsuccessful deprogramming attempt would do more damage to the familial relationship than would staying in the cult. The existence of frequent deprogramming attempts, as well as societal anti-cult hysteria, served only to solidify an us against them mindset that cult leaders jumped on to justify continued membership. You must be involved in something good if "the world" is against you.

As I stated at the outset of this article, in most cults there's nothing obviously bad happening, at least initially. On the contrary, nobody joins an evil, controlling, abusive cult. They join groups that provide something that they value. Any problems are either not visible, or are ignored. It's only later that they realize that they did in fact join an evil, controlling, abusive cult. Most people, if they stick around through the honeymoon period, are in it for the long haul. This is true, not only of cults, but, for example, many jobs. At my last job, it was often said that if you made it to five years, you're a lifer. We had a lot of turnover among new people, but there's also many people who have been there for 30, 35 or 40 years. Cult leaders know this and typically refrain from coming down too heavy on new recruits so as not to drive them off before they have internalized the perceived benefits. While a new recruit is basking in whatever perceived benefits are accruing, the cult is also busy hammering home the message that what the cult has, nobody else can offer. For me it was the claim of Biblical accuracy. I was won over initially because I desperately wanted, not just to believe, but to know. The Way did a good job of convincing me that they were the only ones that were interpreting the Bible correctly  which was important to me. Once I was convinced of that, I was hooked. 

Once a cult member is hooked, convinced of the correctness and importance of the cult's central claims, a species of the sunk cost fallacy helps keep the momentum going (or inertia if you prefer). In economics "sunk cost" is the money or time that you spent that, no matter what else happens, you're not going to get back. The sunk cost fallacy comes into play when an individual uses the fact of those irretrievable expenditures as a rationale for continuing to expend time or money on the initial investment. For example, you buy a used car for $5,000. You soon realize that it's a lemon and spend $1,000 one month, $450 the next, and another $800 later on to repair its many problems with no end in sight. The sunk cost fallacy tells you that you've already spent so much on this bomb that you will have wasted all that money if you sell it now for $2,000. The victim of this fallacy doesn't consider that she may yet spend much more to repair the car and that taking $2,000, even if it's technically a loss, would put $2,000 in the bank and save untold future dollars. She is focused on the money that she will never get back, rather than preventing future expenses. 

Cult members often think like this, after a number of years they may notice problems - abuses and control issues  any number of red flags, but wave them off because they think that all the the time invested in the cult would be wasted, and even worse, their family who warned them that they were getting into a cult, would be able to say "I told you so". Pride is a powerful thing. Cult leaders hardly have to do anything to encourage this thinking. It's so intrinsic to human behavior that they just have to sit back and watch it unfold. 

Even when the red flags get too numerous to ignore, many cult members still hold on, balancing in their minds the perceived benefits against the abuses. This is similar to the dynamic that you see in an abusive relationship. The abused spouse often sticks with the partner who physically and mentally abuses, forgiving and repeatedly returning to the abuse. There's many reasons for this, but it comes down to a calculus where the bad and the good are put on a metaphorical scale and the good is imagined to outweigh the bad. This may seem insane and incomprehensible to an outsider, but it's a fact of human nature. A more prosaic example involves employment. How many of us continue in jobs that we hate? I would guess quite a few. Why would that be? The money outweighs the sexually harassing boss; the flexibility outweighs the long commute, could be any number of things, but it's math that we do every day with all aspects of our lives: we tally up the positive and the negative; if we decide that the positive carries more weight than the negative  even by a tiny bit  we stay with it. Cult involvement is no different. It only looks crazy to someone who hasn't been in the midst of it (but is in the midst of their own craziness). 

In short, cult retention of members isn't something magical; it doesn't involve brainwashing or blackmail, it's just a simple understanding of how people think and feel. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLVII

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLV - How Do Cults Recruit?

"Sincerity is the key, if you can fake that, you can achieve anything"  ~ Attributed to various people

Cults appeal to that part of ourselves that is searching. Sometimes what's being searched for is love, or a sense of belonging. Sometimes what's being searched for is answers, knowledge of the world: the mundane or the spiritual. Sometimes people are attracted to "secret knowledge". Cult recruiters have to be sincere  not appear as con men and women. Even if they are. 

Contrary to widespread belief you don't have to be stupid, or a broken person to get caught up in a cult. Shortly after I left The Way I was friends with a woman with whom I had many religious and philosophical discussions. When I revealed that I had been in a cult, her attitude toward me changed; she couldn't believe that someone whom she viewed as intelligent and discerning would be foolish enough get involved in a cult. She didn't realize that part of what made me discerning was that I had gotten out of a cult and knew their tricks. 

The recruiting tool that I am most familiar with, having been on the receiving end as well as employing it on others, was the search for answers, the search for knowledge. Love bombing, or overwhelming a potential recruit with attention and offers of friendship was something that I had heard about, and saw rarely, with hardly any success. Someone who is just looking for a friend, or who has a crush on one of the cult recruiters has, in my opinion, a shallow attraction to the cult itself. If there isn't enough commonality to maintain a friendship, or the crush proves to be not interested, that usually ends the involvement. I saw this with the family member who first introduced me to The Way. When her friendship with the local Way leader soured, her involvement ended. Seekers after knowledge, once hooked, tended to stick around, ignoring potential red flags. 

A cult recruiter who is offering answers though, is relying on the recruitee having just enough information to see the plausibility of the cult's doctrine, but not enough to be able to see through the subterfuge. They have to be able to undermine faith in the reliability of mainstream sources of information in order to strengthen the cult's position as the arbiter of truth. My initial exposure to The Way indicated that they at least thought that they had all the answers, and as I stuck around and enrolled in their classes, what they were teaching seemed to make sense and fit together. Of course, if I had any background in studying the Bible I may have spotted the weakness and contradiction in many of their positions. Unfortunately no one in my circle of family and friends had the knowledge to contradict what I was being taught. Once I was hooked, I became invested in their doctrines and was willing to overlook red flags because they were providing something I craved  knowledge of the Bible. Having access to that knowledge outweighed the problems that I encountered along the road, even in the early days. And it made me feel special  I enjoyed the feeling of possessing secret knowledge, that I was among the spiritual elite. 

And that's an important key to cult recruitment and retention: providing people with something that they want, and making them feel like they are part of something greater than themselves. Whether or not any of it is true. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLVI

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLIV - What IS a Cult?

There's no universally agreed upon definition of for cults. But there are some common features: 

  1. Shared unquestioning commitment to a charismatic leader or ideology
  2. Belief that the group has all the answers
  3. System of behavioral control, including isolation
  4. Dissent is not tolerated
Google "cults" and you'll likely find more characteristics, but the four I have listed are the main overarching categories. Note that I haven't mentioned unorthodox beliefs. Mainstream Christians often categorize groups such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (The Mormons) and Jehovah's Witnesses as cults based solely on their beliefs which deviate from the majority of Christian denominations. I won't argue with an ex-Mormon or former Jehovah's Witness if they tell me that they left a cult, but a Catholic or Protestant who accuses those groups of being cults is likely doing so based on what they heard about their beliefs. 

Sure, a belief that Joseph Smith received his revelation by translating the divine message that was inscribed on gold plates, or that the "Lost Tribes of Israel" moved to North America or that in the afterlife there's the possibility that we get to be gods of our own planets, just like God was once a mortal before his becoming God  sounds crazy. But does a virgin birth, a man ascending bodily into the heavens after being raised from the dead, talking donkeys and one family with a boat full of animals repopulated the world after a year-long flood make sense? No religion makes sense to those outside that religion. 

Among the four main indicators of cultishness that I cite, there is definitely a continuum. Many groups believe that they have all the answers, systems of control vary in seriousness and differ among different cultures, and how much dissent is tolerated can be situational. I grew up a Catholic, in my opinion there is some mild cultishness involved in being a Catholic. Most Catholics that I know would never even consider being anything but a Catholic, and if they think about it at all, consider that as far as religion goes, "The Church" has all the answers, but as long as one isn't too overt or obnoxious about it individual Catholics pick and choose what aspects of Catholic doctrine to adhere to. The dominant behavioral control among Catholics is peer or family pressure. 

A cult does not have to have a religious focus. A contemporary example of non-religious cult behavior is the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) followers of Donald Trump. There's an inarguable unquestioning commitment to a leader who is followed no matter what; they believe that in the realm of politics and governance, Trump has all the answers and dissent is most assuredly not tolerated. Even the behavioral control and isolation applies. Although they still have whatever jobs they had before becoming a Trump supporters, and are often involved in their communities, they have willingly isolated themselves from anyone who isn't 100% on board with their views. Anyone who differs is branded a socialist, anti-American, a traitor or even a pedophile. Not that different that a religious cultist claiming their opponents are devil-possessed. 

Cults come in a variety of shapes and sizes, but it's a cult's actions, their behavior, that defines their cultishness, not necessarily their beliefs. 

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLIV

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part XLIII - The Ethics of Deprogramming

I'll argue that cults are generally bad things and people shouldn't get involved in them, but is it justified to forcibly remove cult members from the a cult?

Not usually. 

Of course, those cults that involve adult men with multiple teenage girls as their "wives", or if there is definite physical abuse going on, there should be intervention. But most cults are pretty boring. 

During my involvement with The Way International my parents considered "deprogramming" me in order to "free" me from my supposed mental imprisonment. They went so far as to consult with a deprogrammer, who actually talked them out of the attempt, pointing out that failure would mean that I'd likely never want to have anything to do with them ever again. They chose not to risk it. Mom and Dad never spoke of it, but many years later one of my sisters spilled the beans. At the time there was a lot of media focus on cults in the wake of the forced mass suicide at The People's Temple in Guyana. Parents whose children were in cults assumed that all cults were potentially going to end up like Jim Jones' followers. The cults that attracted the most attention also tended to have beliefs or practices (or both) that were far enough outside the mainstream as to appear "weird". The assumption was that the only reason that anyone would get involved in a cult was that they were brainwashed. Mind control was the only way to explain it. If you didn't think about it too deeply. 

Family members often point to how their loved ones "changed" after getting involved with a cult, not only their beliefs, but their behaviors and loyalties. But is that so unusual when new recruits to a cult are more likely to be young and actually looking to change their lives? Many people who have had family members join the military, especially those who have seen combat, could attest to the changes in the outlook of their loved ones. People change their political orientation all the time. A new cult member typically is looking for some meaning in their life and a cult often provides that meaning. Is it any wonder that they are often exceedingly gung-ho about their new life's focus? 

What about when the honeymoon period of cult involvement has ended and the cult member begins to experience some of the abusive treatment? Surely that's brainwashing? Not so fast! We can compare someone who stays in a harmful cult to someone who stays with an abusive spouse, sure that she loves the man who beats her every day, or is afraid that she won't be able to survive on her own. Or someone who hates their job but won't look for a new one. Justified or not, logical or not, people continue in harmful situations either because they fear that the alternative is worse, or have made the calculation that the perceived benefits outweighs the downside. I personally have done both  I stayed in a marriage that was mentally abusive because I was afraid that I'd lose my children and afraid to be perceived as a failure, rather than get out; I continued in a job that was terrible on many, many levels because I judged that the financial benefits outweighed the negatives that I had to endure. 

People join cults because they make a decision to get involved in something that they believe gives them what they want — whatever that may be. People stay involved in cults because they make a decision that staying in is the better alternative to getting out. Are they making the "right" decision? Who knows? Unless one knows all the variables in another's life, how can you decide what is best for that person? Spoiler alert: you can't. 

So what about deprogramming? You don't hear too much about deprogramming these days, or cults for that matter. But back in the eighties there were a lot of people making big money from the families of young people involved in cults. I know of several people who were the target of deprogrammers, some succumbed and left their cult, some escaped the deprogrammers and went back. What did deprogrammers actually do? Their first step was kidnapping the target of the deprogramming. Kidnapping! Often violently. The head deprogrammer sent hired muscle to abduct the target who would then be locked away from the world, often in an isolated farm house of hotel room. The abductee didn't usually even know what city they were in. They were allowed no contact with their fellow cult members, were not allowed to leave and sometimes were physically restrained. In one case that I know about personally, he had his shoes and socks taken away to deter escape! In extreme cases they were sleep deprived and subject to what could be described as torture. Various psychological methods of persuasion were also employed  the cult's beliefs were questioned and mocked, accusations made about the cult leader, and in one case that I am familiar with, the abductee's fiancĂ©e, who was also a cult member, was accused of cheating on him! The methods used by deprogrammers appear closer to what would be consider brainwashing than what the cults actually engaged in. 

If cults, in particular the one I was involved in, had brainwashed their members, it would stand to reason that it would be difficult for someone to leave. Yet during my own involvement I saw people freely walk away, new people, as well as those who had been in for decades. My own cousin, who got me involved, walked away within a year, presumably because she decided that it wasn't providing anything that she wanted or needed that she wasn't getting anywhere else.

Finally, in the United States we have the right of free association, as well as the right to the religion of our choice. No one has the right to forcibly convert (or de-convert) someone else...even if they think the other's beliefs are harmful — or weird.

Start from the beginning: Part I

Go to: Part XLIV

Review article on Brainwashing: Part IX - Brainwashing