DISCUSSION re Lifton's Mind Control Techniques

by Lady Lee 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    In another thread I mentioned my You Tube video regarding Lifton's Mind Control Techniques. This is a short 7 minute clip of an 85 minute long interview done in 2000. (I've been saying 2001 but that is wrong) Anyways djeggnogg had some comments abotu what he saw on the clip and what he knows about Lifton's Mnd Control Terchniques.

    I am taking that part of the discussion to a new thread. So to start are his comments:


    The reason I wanted to see the entire video is because the "sample" provided on the website to which your link pointed was about seven minutes in length, and doesn't discuss these eight criteria that you mention in the video, although you mention two of them and Robert J. Lifton. I am familiar with the article posted on February 8, 2009, on Freeminds.org, entitled "Eight Marks of a Mind-Control Cult," by Randall Watters, where he refers to the book, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China," written back in 1961 by Lifton, but this book has nothing at all to do with cults. Not a thing. And, I might add here that contrary to what you and others have been persuaded to believe about Jehovah's Witnesses, our organization is not a cult nor are those associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, whether baptized or not, members of a cult.

    The following are the eight (8) criteria that Lifton uses: (1) Milieu Control, (2) Mystical Manipulation, (3) Demand for Purity, (4) Confession, (5) Sacred Science, (6) Loading the Language (7) Doctrine Over Person, and (8) Dispensing of Existence. However, Watters changes (4) "Confession" to (4) "The Cult of Confession," and (5) "Sacred Science" becomes (5) "The 'Sacred Science'"; he also inserts the word "cult" in his definition of six of these eight items. Maybe Watters thought that no one would know that he had plagiarized Lifton's eight concepts to use in his own work. If you choose to ignore the fact that the man has piggybacked Lifton's work, and that Watters' ideas are no more valid than Lifton's, then you will have yourself become IMO a victim of mind control by Watters.

    But Watters uses these eight criteria you mention in your video in his Freeminds.org article as if Lifton had endorsed Watters' remarks about the use of religion to cults, when the focus of Lifton's work was on totalism and the brainwashing of POWs in war. This is called "piggybacking" to make it appear that someone else has vouched for your work. Anyway, @Lady Lee, the following is a transcript of what you stated in your video, which I'd like to discuss with you at length if you don't mind:

    [TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

    There were eight major techniques or criteria that were used to control people's minds and get them to change, and it's really interesting to see how these eight criteria can be used to take a look at how cults control and manipulate their own members. What I'll do is I'll go through each one so that you get a better idea of what it is, as Lifton defined it, and I'll see what I can do about applying it to how cults use it, and specifically how the cult I was in -- the Jehovah's Witnesses -- use it.

    Now a lot of groups will use one or two of these on occasion, of the eight criteria. Unfortunately groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses use all eight, and they use them all the time so that people do not have free will. Two of the things that are required for consent: The first is that person must know, have full information of what is involved in the cult, and second is that they have to have the real freedom to say "yes" and "no," and the reality is most cults do not fully disclose all of the rules to prospective members. They wouldn't say to somebody, 'Well, if you join as Jehovah's Witnesses, you'll never be able to celebrate holidays again, and if a family member leaves the group, you'll never be able to talk to them again.' The fact that there isn't that full disclosure, a lot of people are basically manipulated into thinking they're joining something different than what they actually get. And the other thing is, with all of the guilt and the rules, and the idea that all of this information comes from God, then the person's not really free to say "yes" or "no."

    The Witnesses will say they're not a cult, but any cult will say they're not a cult, and one of the things that a lot of groups say, 'Well, we're not a cult, because we don't follow people around, you know, people are free to come and go as they please. They've got jobs, they've got lives, they live in their own homes. But the very nature of mind control is that they don't need somebody following you around to monitor whether you're following the rules or not. They teach you to monitor your own behavior and your own thoughts, so you become afraid of doing things because somebody else might see you, but also afraid of your conscience. Then the only way to relieve that guilt is to tell somebody, and the people that you often tell are the elders and the leaders of the cult, or the elders in case of Jehovah's Witnesses, so your membership is no longer about love of God or a love of doing what it right. It becomes about fear of breaking rules. They lose their individuality.

    They also lose their ability to think. You don't say, 'Well, wait a minute. This doesn't make sense.' You just accept that that's the way of things. I'd say about 80-90% of my friends had been abused before they became Witnesses, and so, and this sets up a particular dynamic with the love bonding (?). People who have been abused and, you know, suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, well, people who come out of cults experience what has been defined as post cult trauma syndrome, basically the same thing with a spirituality element that -- and this is why women stay in abusive relationships.

    It's also why people stay in abusive cults, because there's this constant kind of dangling the carrot, that if you're good enough you will get everything that you've promised. And there's nobody to talk to, and even if you go for therapy, very few people are going to understand it. I went to a therapist; I was able to talk to her. But I knew it was way over her head. She didn't have a clue what I was talking about, really heavy-duty fears planted in there. I know as an adult I didn't allow myself to think about those issues, but, you know, here I am, reading it to my children.

    Despite the denials of the organization that abuse doesn't exist within the organization, I'd say it's probably rampant because, you know, who do you go to, if you're, you know, it's all old boys' gang, even, you know, within the congregations. They're only going to report what doesn't reflect badly on the organization. Let's face it: If an elder is or any brother in the congregation is abusing his family, it's not going to appear too great if it hits the media. My one time mistake, which turned out to be a rape, wound up being, you know, reason for disfellowshipping, and his 15 years like doesn't, there's not even a note in his files about it.

    And this whole issue of bloodguilt that they instill in people, that if a wife does not fulfill her sexual obligation to her husband, if he commits adultery, then she's responsible, and people would say, 'Oh, you have such a wonderful family. When I get married, I want a family just like yours.' And I want to be sick, but I'm just like know, 'Oh, well. Thank you very much.' And, again, you know, that pretense in not showing people what was really inside of me, 'cause that would have been totally inappropriate and not allowed to show that I was having problems, severe problems.

    I think it's really important for people to get counseling, and sadly it's really hard to find. Very, very few people understand the dynamics of abuse, never mind the dynamics of spiritual abuse. There needs to be crossover there, where the two, you can being to see the psychological impact of something that comes from religion. Spiritual abuse can be emotional, physical, psychological, sexual -- it can be any of those -- but there's an added element of using a higher power, higher authority, god, however that is defined by a group. Whether it's the individual saying, 'I am god,' or, you know, like the Witnesses, the governing body is the mediator between people and god. So there's this added element of spirituality or higher power that is used to control and manipulate people, and in doing so, it robs people ultimately of their spirituality because if somebody's controlling it, then you don't have your spirituality any more; someone else has it.

    [END OF TRANSCRIPT]

    Watters explains in his article on Freeminds.org that Lifton's book was a treatise on "the effects of mind control on American prisoners of war under the Communist Chinese." Watters uses Lifton's work in this book in making a connection of it to Jehovah's Witnesses, by asserting how Lifton had outlined eight major factors that can be used to identify whether a group is a destructive cult or not, but Lifton work focused on effect of war on prisoners, like those Iraqi prisoners held in Abu Gharib prison, and not on whether or not "a group is a destructive cult or not." Lifton also wrote the books, "Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima" (1967), "Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans-Neither Victims nor Executioners" (1973), and "The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide" (1986), and notice the theme in each of Lifton's books are about psychological behavior or brainwashing used in wartime environments.

    I wanted to point out to you that the fact that Lifton was used by the Hearst family, along with Dr. Martin Theodore Orne as defense witnesses back in 1976 to help explain Patty Hearst's psychological behavior -- the mind control used on her during her association with the SLA (Symbionese Liberation Army) -- serves to illustrate that Lifton's eight points weren't the focus of Lifton's work on the methodology of brainwashing. The fact that Watters uses these eight points in his Freemind's article to push an anti-Jehovah's Witness agenda is telling, since, were you to actually read Lifton's book, you would see for yourself that Lifton wasn't talking about how religion might be used to brainwash anyone (unless Watters would be willing to make the argument that Lifton had argued in court on the witness stand that religion was used by the SLA to brainwash Hearst). You have to be able to see Watters' agenda at work here; it's nonsense.

    Despite the above, Watters goes on to write in his article that "[a]ny authoritarian religion should be held up to the light in order to determine just how destructive their influence is on their members," as he then goes on to plug his book, "Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses." Quite frankly, there is no connection between Watters' book and Lifton's many books, and it was disingenuous on his part to piggyback his own ideas about cults to Lifton's work, including the use of Lifton's own phrase, "thought-terminating cliches," in applying this phrase to Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Watters' plagiarization of Lifton's "thought-reform procedure," which Watters calls "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults," and he urges you to read his Understanding Mind Control book instead of Lifton's "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China." There is no connection whatsoever between the two books, but you would find this out for yourself by comparing the contents of Watters' book with the contents of Lifton's book.

    BTW, I am posting this here, not to hijack @yknot's thread, but just to explain my reason I had asked you for a link to your video, and to let you know that I read the three articles you posted (which answers some questions and raises more of them). I have not asked you any specific questions in this post, because I suspect you would think it more prudent to start a new thread.

    To be honest, @Lady Lee, I thought I should tell you that I think it rather lame that you are telling me here that the only copy you have of your entire video is on a video tape, when I would think (and do think!) that what with folks blatantly ignoring the WTS copyright on the new textbook that "you guys" could care less about the rights of the copyrightholder of your video, so that it wouldn't be impossible for you to PM me a copy of the video. You may not like it, but this is how I see things. You don't want me to see a copy of your video and I don't want to pay for a copy, and so it seems we have an impasse.

    @djeggnog

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    dgeggnogg

    In Chapter 22 of the book it says (bold is mine):

    A discussion of what is most central in the thought reform environment can lead us to a more general consideration of the psychology of human zealotry. For in identifying, on the basis of this study of thought reform, features common to all expressions of ideological totalism, I wish to suggest a set of criteria against which any environment may be judged - a basis for answering the ever-recurring question: "Isn't this just like 'brainwashing'?"

    These criteria consist of eight psychological themes which are predominant within the social field of the thought reform milieu. Each has a totalistic quality; each depend upon an equally absolute philosophical assumption; and each mobilizes certain individual emotional tendencies, mostly of a polarizing nature. In combination they create an atmosphere which may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which at the same time poses the gravest of human threats.

    Lifton himself said the research and his theory could be applied to other social groups. And most often the word zealotry is applied to religions so I don't think Randy's application is off the mark here. BTW Randy posts here as "dogpatch"

    Under Milieu Control Lifton makes some interesting points:

    The most basic feature of the thought reform environment, the psychological current upon which all else depends, is the control of human communication. Through this milieu control the totalist environment seeks to establish domain over not only the individual's communication with the outside (all that he sees and hears, reads or writes, experiences, and expresses), but also - in its penetration of his inner life - over what we may speak of as his communication with himself. . .

    . . . At the center of this self-justification is their assumption of omniscience, their conviction that reality is their exclusive possession. Having experienced the impact of what they consider to be an ultimate truth (and having the need to dispel any possible inner doubts of their own), they consider it their duty to create an environment containing no more and no less than this "truth." In order to be the engineers of the human soul, they must first bring it under full observational control.

    The Watchtower Society most definitely attampts to control every aspect of communication that Jehovah's Witnesses have, most especially what they read. Repeated counsel if given to them to watch out for apostate material and to control thier own thoughts.

    Under the heading Mystical Manipulation Lifton says:

    Ideological totalists do not pursue this approach solely for the purpose of maintaining a sense of power over others. Rather they are impelled by a special kind of mystique which not only justifies such manipulations, but makes them mandatory. Included in this mystique is a sense of "higher purpose," of having "directly perceived some imminent law of social development," and of being themselves the vanguard of this development. By thus becoming the instruments of their own mystique, they create a mystical aura around the manipulating institutions - the Party, the Government, the Organization. They are the agents "chosen" (by history, by God, or by some other supernatural force) to carry out the "mystical imperative," the pursuit of which must supersede all considerations of decency or of immediate human welfare. Similarly, any thought or action which questions the higher purpose is considered to be stimulated by a lower purpose, to be backward, selfish, and petty in the face of the great, overriding mission. This same mystical imperative produces the apparent extremes of idealism and cynicism which occur in connection with the manipulations of any totalist environment: even those actions which seem cynical in the extreme can be seen as having ultimate relationship to the "higher purpose."

    Lifton himself brings in the issue of God. Randy didn't make that application himself.

    Under the Demand for Purity Lifton says:

    In the thought reform milieu, as in all situations of ideological totalism, the experiential world is sharply divided into the pure and the impure, into the absolutely good and the absolutely evil. The good and the pure are of course those ideas, feelings, and actions which are consistent with the totalist ideology and policy; anything else is apt to be relegated to the bad and the impure. Nothing human is immune from the flood of stern moral judgments. All "taints" and "poisons" which contribute to the existing state of impurity must be searched out and eliminated.

    Concepts of good and evil are religious ideas. Again Randy didn't make that application himself.

    Under Cult of Confession Lifteon says:

    Closely related to the demand for absolute purity is an obsession with personal confession. Confession is carried beyond its ordinary religious, legal, and therapeutic expressions to the point of becoming a cult in itself.

    Going to the elders with things you need to "confess" to would clearly fall into this category even if you don't call it "confession" or do it in the manner that other chuurches do.

    Under Sacred Science Lifton says:

    The totalist milieu maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic dogma, holding it out as an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. This sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself. While thus transcending ordinary concerns of logic, however, the milieu at the same time makes an exaggerated claim of airtight logic, of absolute "scientific" precision. Thus the ultimate moral vision becomes an ultimate science; and the man who dares to criticize it, or to harbor even unspoken alternative ideas, becomes not only immoral and irreverent, but also "unscientific." In this way, the philosopher kings of modern ideological totalism reinforce their authority by claiming to share in the rich and respected heritage of natural science.

    The assumption here is not so much that man can be God, but rather that man's ideas can be God: that an absolute science of ideas (and implicitly, an absolute science of man) exists, or is at least very close to being attained; that this science can be combined with an equally absolute body of moral principles; and that the resulting doctrine is true for all men at all times. Although no ideology goes quite this far in overt statement, such assumptions are implicit in totalist practice.

    There is no doubt here that Lifton is referring to religion. Have you read this book? Or just taken a quick look at something on the internet and made assumptions? You do see where Lifton is going with this, don't you? To continue. . .

    Under Loading the Language Lifton says:

    The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. . . Totalist language then, is repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical, relentlessly judging, and to anyone but its most devoted advocate, deadly dull. . .

    . . . The loading is much more extreme in ideological totalism, however, since the jargon expresses the claimed certitudes of the sacred science. Also involved is an underlying assumption that language - like all other human products - can be owned and operated by the Movement. No compunctions are felt about manipulating or loading it in any fashion; the only consideration is its usefulness to the cause.

    The language of JWs is filled with words and phrases that would mean nothing or be confusing to non-Witnesses. In reality when preaching JWs need to remember not to use many of those words because people just won't understand them. It definitely serves to identify who is and who isn't a JW

    Under Doctrine over Person Lifton says:

    . . . characteristic feature of ideological totalism: the subordination of human experience to the claims of doctrine.

    The inspiriting force of such myths cannot be denied; nor can one ignore their capacity for mischief. For when the myth becomes fused with the totalist sacred science, the resulting "logic" can be so compelling and coercive that it simply replaces the realities of individual experience. Consequently, past historical events are retrospectively altered, wholly rewritten, or ignored, to make them consistent with the doctrinal logic. This alteration becomes especially malignant when its distortions are imposed upon individual memory as occurred in the false confession extracted during thought reform.

    The same doctrinal primacy prevails in the totalist approach to changing people: the demand that character and identity be reshaped, not in accordance with one's special nature or potentialities, but rather to fit the rigid contours of the doctrinal mold.

    The underlying assumption is that the doctrine - including its mythological elements - is ultimately more valid, true, and real than is any aspect of actual human character or human experience. Thus, even when circumstances require that a totalist movement follow a course of action in conflict with or outside of the doctrine, there exists what Benjamin Schwartz described as a "will to orthodoxy" which requires an elaborate facade of new rationalizations designed to demonstrate the unerring consistency of the doctrine and the unfailing foresight which it provides. But its greater importance lies in more hidden manifestations, particularly the totalists' pattern of imposing their doctrine-dominated remolding upon people in order to seek confirmation of (and again, dispel their own doubts about) this same doctrine. Rather than modify the myth in accordance with experience, the will to orthodoxy requires instead that men be modified in order to reaffirm the myth.

    The individual person who finds himself under such doctrine-dominated pressure to change is thrust into an intense struggle with his own sense of integrity, a struggle which takes place in relation to polarized feelings of sincerity and insincerity. In a totalist environment, absolute "sincerity" is demanded; and the major criterion for sincerity is likely to be one's degree of doctrinal compliance - both in regard to belief and to direction of personal change. Yet there is always the possibility of retaining an alternative version of sincerity (and of reality), the capacity to imagine a different kind of existence and another form of sincere commitment. These alternative visions depend upon such things as the strength of previous identity, the penetration of the milieu by outside ideas, and the retained capacity for eventual individual renewal. The totalist environment, however, counters such "deviant" tendencies with the accusation that they stem entirely from personal "problems" ("thought problems" or "ideological problems") derived from untoward earlier influences. The outcome will depend largely upon how much genuine relevance the doctrine has for the individual emotional predicament. And even for those to whom it seems totally appealing, the exuberant sense of well-being it temporarily affords may be more a "delusion of wholeness" than an expression of true and lasting inner harmony.

    If these things alone don't scream WTS at you I don't know what will. But then if you are a JW you won't see it because you are "under the influence". I could just highlight the whole thing.

    Under Dispensing of Existence Lifton says:

    The totalist environment draws a sharp line between those whose right to existence can be recognized, and those who possess no such right.

    . . . Yet one underlying assumption makes this arrogance mandatory: the conviction that there is just one path to true existence, just one valid mode of being, and that all others are perforce invalid and false. Totalists thus feel themselves compelled to destroy all possibilities of false existence as a means of furthering the great plan of true existence to which they are committed.

    For the individual, the polar emotional conflict is the ultimate existential one of "being versus nothingness." He is likely to be drawn to a conversion experience, which he sees as the only means of attaining a path of existence for the future. The totalist environment - even when it does not resort to physical abuse - thus stimulates in everyone a fear of extinction or annihilation. A person can overcome this fear and find (in martin Buber's term) "confirmation," not in his individual relationships, but only from the fount of all existence, the totalist Organization. Existence comes to depend upon creed (I believe, therefore I am), upon submission (I obey, therefore I am) and beyond these, upon a sense of total merger with the ideological movement. Ultimately of course one compromises and combines the totalist "confirmation" with independent elements of personal identity; but one is ever made aware that, should he stray too far along this "erroneous path," his right to existence may be withdrawn.

    According to the WTS only JWs will survive Armageddon. Others will be destroyed.

    That addresses the part regarding Randy Watter's application of the book to religion. Randy didn't make this up. It was Lifton's idea and it is valid for any group as a way to determine if they have crossed the line into being a totalitarian group

  • djeggnog
    djeggnog

    COPIED FROM PREVIOUS THREAD:

    @djeggnog wrote:

    To be honest, @Lady Lee, I thought I should tell you that I think it rather lame that you are telling me here that the only copy you have of your entire video is on a video tape, when I would think (and do think!) that what with folks blatantly ignoring the WTS copyright on the new textbook that "you guys" could care less about the rights of the copyrightholder of your video, so that it wouldn't be impossible for you to PM me a copy of the video. You may not like it, but this is how I see things. You don't want me to see a copy of your video and I don't want to pay for a copy, and so it seems we have an impasse.

    @Lady Lee wrote:

    Well whether you believe it or not all I have is a VHS tape that was given to me shortly after the tape was done. Other than the person who owns the interview and the VHS tape (and who has made them into digital copies only available recently on the internet) I don't know anyone who has the digital copy. I was never sent one to replace the VHS tape. And I have never figured out how to copy VHS tapes to a CD.

    Just to be clear, it's not that I don't believe your statement to the effect that you do not have a digital copy of your interview, it's not that I don't believe that the only copy you have of your interview is on VHS tape, but what you have sought to communicate to me (or so it seems) is that you have no line to any of your friends here that has actually purchased a copy of the video containing your interview from whom you can ask to send you a digital copy, whether in .MP3 or .WMA, or .MP4, .WMV or .AVI format.

    You indicate that it's "a short 7 minute clip of an 85 minute long interview done in 2000," so why it is you want me to believe that you know no one on this forum that would be kind enough to send you just the compressed audio joint stereo portion of your interview (e.g., 11025/16 kbps [sample frequency/bit rate]) suggests you have no friends here that would be willing to do this for you is just lame. (I really just want to listen to the interview!)

    @djeggnog

  • Curtains
  • Curtains
    Curtains

    I think I'm going to order Randy's book. when did he publish it? is it new?

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    dj

    I have no control over who buys the interview. Therefore I have no idea who has bought a copy. No one has told me they have it or that they have even heard it. In fact I know only 2 other people (other than the makers of the interview) who even have the VHS tapes. As far as I know there isn't a compressed audio version of the interview but that might be something to ask the owners about. Thanks fo rthe idea

    And just like I asked people not to post links to copyrighted WTS material on this site I am certainly not going to ask anyone to post links to other copyrighted material that quite frankly I consider to be far superior to WTS material. And since I have a VHS tape why do I need to pay for a digital version just to watch what I know I said.

    you know dj I have been more than willing to defend your right to post here but this attitude is really wearing thin. It comes across as sarcastic and condescending and I really thought you were above it.

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    In the other thread curtain said:

    I've looked at Randy Watters article on freeminds. He makes it clear that Lifton wrote a book on Brainwashing and that the points from that book can be used to identify whether a goup is a destructive cult or not. THis is not plagiarism. Plagiarism is when the source material is not referenced. Randy Watters clearly tells us where he got his material and he tells us how he is going to use the material. Adapting the paragraph headings to suit his purposes is not plagiarism because he has already told us he is going to do this. Here is how Randy opens his essay

    to which you responded:

    @Curtains:


    I have to ask you again if you have the book? I have read it. And Randy is not adding anything that Lifton didn't say first.

    Plagiarism is when the source material is not referenced. Randy Watters clearly tells us where he got his material and he tells us how he is going to use the material. Adapting the paragraph headings to suit his purposes is not plagiarism because he has already told us he is going to do this.

    This is not all the man does. First of all, do you have a copy of Lifton's book, "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of 'Brainwashing' in China"? Yes or no? Secondly, do you have a copy of Watters' book, "Understanding Mind Control of Jehovah's Witnesses"? Yes or no? If you cannot answer "yes" to both of these questions, then I'm curious how it is you can come back here and tell me how you compared the contents of Lifton's book with Watters' book and didn't find Lifton's "thought-reform procedure" to not essentially be what Watters has renamed "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults."

  • Lady Lee
  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    What's the point?

    You have a knot up your butt because people in the 80s used Lifton's studies to compare to techniques used by cults?

    Mybe if you can give 4 or 5 main objections without all this effort to say that Lifton wasn't writing about modern day cults (duh!) I can answer them for you. I went to all the CAN (Cult Awareness conferences) in the 80s when the video was done, and Lifton's points were quite applicable to those used by extremist cults. But certainly not the SAME, as very few cults, including the Watchtower, went to such extremes as the Communist party did in China. But the effects were the same as long as the indoctrination continued. Once you were away from the environment, like Lifton makes clear, most of it disappears. My goal has always been to clean out the leftover controlling mechanisms the cult has implanted in your head but is still there. His book was not our "bible." Hassan makes it clear he likes to use four points, not eight. Big deal.

    That is the point of Steven Hassan's book, "Releasing the Bonds," to eradicate the bad effects POST experience.

    Back then all the deprogrammers and exit-counselors knew each other. We met together regularly. How can you possibly know our real take on this unless you sat in and listened to these lectures for hours?

    Here's a question for you:

    Did you ever get to meet and talk with :

    Margaret Singer

    Louis Jolyon West

    Steven Hassan

    Cynthia Kisser

    Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman

    Ted Patrick

    Pricilla Coates

    or any of the early anti-cult people? If not, your points aren't worth 5 cents.

    In 25 years We have all gone on to gain a much better and more through understanding of such matters, and this is reflected in modern articles such as you will find at ICSAS's website.I have changed some of my thinking; we all have. But it doesn't make what we said wrong.

    I venture to say you are an armchair bully who likes to pick fights but has no idea what really went on in those formative days, and how many discoveries were made. If you can prove that you were there and could feel the pulse of thought and the amount of information we had and went to the assemblies and met these people, and THEN present your case, I would listen to what you have to say.

    Otherwise you are simply clueless. You are also a coward hiding behind an icon - let's hear a little about you. Who are you? What experience have you had? Are you a JW? Or are you afraid that if you really expose your ignorance YOU will be vulnerable. Otherwise you have no case.

    Randy

  • djeggnog
    djeggnog

    @Lady Lee:

    That addresses the part regarding Randy [Watters'] application of the book to religion. Randy didn't make this up. It was Lifton's idea and it is valid for any group as a way to determine if they have crossed the line into being a totalitarian group

    It seems that you have become one of Watters' disciples. I won't ask you why it is you've become a disciple of Watters, but I thought that I would post something here without comment that presents each of Watters' "eight "marks" in such a way that makes it quite easy to discern which ideas are Lifton's based on Lifton's book (in blue) and which ideas are Watters' own ideas based on Watters' book (in red). I believe a fourth or fifth grader -- that is to say, a 9- or 10-year-old -- would be able to discern that Watters users ideas gleaned from Lifton's book, and although these ideas are not Lifton's, but are ideas exclusively "made ... up" by Watters, I'll leave it to you -- since you're an adult! -- to judge as you will, and will return to this thread in a day or so.

    [1] Milieu Control

    This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

    Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"

    Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China

    [1] Milieu Control

    "Milieu" is a French word meaning "surroundings; environment." Cults are able to control the environment around their recruits in a number of ways, but almost always using a form of isolation. Recruits can be physically separated from society, or they can be warned under threat of punishment to stay away from the world's educational media, especially when it might provoke critical thinking. Any books, movies or testimonies of ex-members of the group, or even anyone critical of the group in any way are to be avoided.

    Information is carefully kept on each recruit by the mother organization. All are watched, lest they fall behind or get too far ahead of the thinking of the organization. Because it appears that the organization knows so much about everything and everyone, they appear omniscient in the eyes of the recruits.

    Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"

    Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses

    [2] Mystical Manipulation

    There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.

    Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"

    Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China

    [2] Mystical Manipulation

    In religious cults, God is ever-present in the workings of the organization. If a person leaves for any reason, accidents or ill-will that may befall them are always attributed to God's punishment on them. For the faithful, the angels are always said to be working, and stories circulate about how God is truly doing marvelous things among them, because they are "the truth." The organization is therefore given a certain "mystique" that is quite alluring to the new recruit.

    Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"

    Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses

    [3] Demand for Purity

    The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

    Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"

    Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China

    [3] Demand for Purity

    The world is depicted as black and white, with little room for making personal decisions based on a trained conscience. One's conduct is modeled after the ideology of the group, as taught in its literature. People and organizations are pictured as either good or evil, depending on their relationship to the cult.

    Universal tendencies of guilt and shame are used to control individuals, even after they leave. There is great difficulty in understanding the complexities of human morality, since everything is polarized and oversimplified. All things classified as evil are to be avoided, and purity is attainable through immersion into the cult's ideology.

    Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"

    Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses

    [4] Confession

    Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.

    Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"

    Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China

    [4] The Cult of Confession

    Serious sins (as defined by the organization) are to be confessed immediately. The members are to be reported if found walking contrary to the rules.

    There is often a tendency to derive pleasure from self-degradation through confession. This occurs when all must confess their sins before each other regularly, creating an intense kind of "oneness" within the group. It also allows leaders from within to exercise authority over the weaker ones, using their "sins" as a whip to lead them on.

    Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"

    Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses

    [5] Sacred Science

    The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.

    Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"

    Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China

    [5] The "Sacred Science"

    The cult's ideology becomes the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. The ideology is too "sacred" to call into question, and a reverence is demanded for the leadership. The cult's ideology makes an exaggerated claim for possessing airtight logic, making it appear as absolute truth with no contradictions. Such an attractive system offers security.

    Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"

    Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses

    [6] Loading the Language

    The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.

    Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"

    Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China

    [6] Loading the Language

    Lifton explains the prolific use of "thought-terminating cliches," expressions or words that are designed to end the conversation or controversy. We are all familiar with the use of the cliches "capitalist" and "imperialist," as used by antiwar demonstrators in the 60's. Such cliches are easily memorized and readily expressed. They are called the "language of non-thought," since the discussion is terminated, not allowing further consideration.

    In the Watchtower, for instance, expressions such as "the truth", the "mother organization", the "new system", "apostates" and "worldly" carry with them a judgment on outsiders, leaving them unworthy of further consideration.

    Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"

    Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses

    [7] Doctrine over person

    Member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.

    Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"

    Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China

    [7] Doctrine Over Person

    Human experience is subordinated to doctrine, no matter how profound or contradictory such experiences seem. The history of the cult is altered to fit their doctrinal logic. The person is only valuable insomuch as they conform to the role models of the cult. Commonsense perceptions are disregarded if they are hostile to the cult's ideology.

    Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"

    Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses

    [8] Dispensing of existence

    The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also. (Lifton, 1989)

    Dr. Robert J. Lifton's, "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform"

    Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of "Brainwashing" in China

    [8] Dispensing of Existence

    The cult decides who has the "right" to exist and who does not. They decide who will perish in the final battle of good over evil. The leaders decide which history books are accurate and which are biased. Families can be cut off and outsiders can be deceived, for they are not fit to exist!

    Randall Watters, "Lifton's Eight Criteria of Mind Control Cults"

    Understanding Mind Control Among Jehovah's Witnesses

    I have no control over who buys the interview. Therefore I have no idea who has bought a copy.

    So you cannot get someone to make an audio copy of the VHS for you, @Lady Lee? Certainly there exists a computer savvy friend in your community that wouldn't mind doing this for you (or, better, showing you how to do this for yourself).

    And just like I asked people not to post links to copyrighted WTS material on this site I am certainly not going to ask anyone to post links to other copyrighted material that quite frankly I consider to be far superior to WTS material. And since I have a VHS tape why do I need to pay for a digital version just to watch what I know I said.

    My tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I made that statement to you, @Lady Lee. I don't know if you would take offense were I to suggest that you relax, but, like I said, I think it to be "lame" to learn that you don't have an audio copy of your own interview. Maybe you know a kid that wouldn't mind creating one (using your VHS tape) and giving it back to you on a flash drive. My "frustration" over your telling me that you didn't have an audio copy of your own interview prompted me to say exactly I said to you, and I continue to think it lame that here we are in the 21st century and you're telling me you don't have a digital copy of your interview.

    you know dj I have been more than willing to defend your right to post here but this attitude is really wearing thin. It comes across as sarcastic and condescending and I really thought you were above it.

    I don't care how what I said came off quite frankly. I think you should already have a copy of your own interview. I don't want to have to buy a copy just to hear what you said, @Lady Lee. Maybe I wasn't making myself clear, so sarcasm, condescending or however you wish to characterize my comments doesn't matter to me. I'm talking about communication and a bar to effective communication is someone not communicating with someone else during a discussion. Don't you have even a written transcript of your 85-minute long interview. @Lady Lee? If not, why not?

    BTW, I don't care if you're upset with me that I said what I did about @Dogpatch's work; I regard it as being plagiarism even if you don't, ok? He took someone else's words -- and yes, he basically indicates that he had copied his remarks and made them his own, but they were not Randy's words, but Lifton's. This is discernible from just comparing what each man states in their respective books. I'd like to see him take any of J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books, and then go on and put together your own novel, give an attribution in to Rowling, and distribute his "Harry Potter" novel whether for free or for sale. I would anyone doing this as a plagiarist.

    @Dogpatch:

    What's the point?

    What? Do you wish me to repeat what I've already said in this thread for your benefit. If so, the answer is no.

    [Maybe] if you can give 4 or 5 main objections without all this effort to say that Lifton wasn't writing about modern day cults (duh!) I can answer them for you.

    Why on earth would I do this? If I have objections to any opinion that someone might post here, I have no problem posting my own opinion here and any question(s) I think to be pertinent. Thanks for letting me know though.

    Back then all the deprogrammers and exit-counselors knew each other. We met together regularly. How can you possibly know our real take on this unless you sat in and listened to these lectures for hours?... In 25 years [w]e have all gone on to gain a much better and more through understanding of such matters, and this is reflected in modern articles such as you will find at ICSAS's website. I have changed some of my thinking; we all have. But it doesn't make what we said wrong.

    Why should I care about how "you guys" may have been spending your time over the past 25 years? I don't care, and I didn't say a thing to you or to anyone here to the effect that you, or any of the folks you mention in your post, were wrong, did I? If I disagree with you point of view, then in my mind you're wrong, but you are free to believe otherwise; I accept that folks that different points of view, that people may proffer different opinions on various matter with which I may or may not agree, ok?

    You are also a coward hiding behind an icon - let's hear a little about you. Who are you? What experience have you had? Are you a JW? Or are you afraid that if you really expose your ignorance YOU will be vulnerable. Otherwise you have no case.

    I'm the "clueless" one, the ignorant one here, but it is you that don't seem to have your own words. These are my own words, but I'm wondering whether these words I'm reading here in your post yours? So let me ask you this before I forget: Are these your words I'm now hearing or are they someone else's words you've pasted into this post so that I'm really speaking to someone else that isn't here to defend their original comments that you're here only embellishing? Send the person you're representing to this forum (if there is such a person!) so that this "coward" might converse with that person. I don't want to talk to someone that might just be this person's "proxy." Otherwise, to use your words (I'm assuming that these were your words), what's the point?

    @djeggnog

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit