Protecting Children and the Basics to Combatting Mind Control

As long as individuals are not allowed to think for themselves, it will be nearly impossible to protect children from sexual predators


The quasi-orthodox Jewish world compared to the "BITE" Model of Cult Mind Control (11/06/2013)

Ex-Chassidic Woman Speaks Out: Perl Prery on Dr. Phil

March 2, 2012

Growing Up in Cults: The Special Issues of Children in Cults

Growing Up in Cults: The Special Issues of Children in Cults
Philadelphia, PA, USA 

ICASA Cult Information - June 29, 2009

Advocating for Children's Rights - Workshop at the International Cultic Studies Association 2008 Conference 

Deprogramming, Exit Counseling, and Ethics: Clarifying the Confusion

© (1994) by Michael D. Langone and Paul R. Martin (Reprinted by Permission)

Please note this comes from a Christian based belief system

From the Viewpoint column of the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 46. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s increasing numbers of parents began to observe and report striking and frightening changes in their young-adult children. Formerly serious, high-achieving, well-adjusted students would suddenly drop out of school, shun their families and friends, and devote themselves completely to unusual groups that parents and others quickly identified as cults. In many cases, parents also worried about their children's physical well-being because of the groups' dietary, health, work, or sexual practices. Although evangelical parents obtained some information focused on doctrinal and historical issues from organizations such as the Christian Research Institute, parents who did not identify with evangelicalism had nowhere to turn and typically worried alone for long periods of time. Gradually, they began to find and help each other.

Occasionally, these individuals would find a mental health professional or clergyman who sincerely listened to their concerns. Parents would typically voice such observations as: "That's not my kid"; "He talks like a robot, as though he were programmed"; "She was fine, but now she seems like a different person." Soon, these parents and professionals realized that they were observing a process akin to what was popularly known as brainwashing. But they didn't know what to do. Their children wouldn't listen, or their responses to all questions and complaints seemed programmed. They sometimes succeeded in persuading their children to leave the groups, and the term "deprogramming" was used to describe the process of countering the cults' "programming." Partly because of these successes, the cults' antagonism toward parents hardened. Parents found they could no longer gain access to their children.

Seeing no other options, some parents -- with the help of former cult members -- began to take their adult children off the street, bring them to secure places, and detain them there until they had listened to a detailed critique of the cultic group. Frequently, these encounters lasted three days or more. But the process usually worked. Hundreds of cult members renounced their cults. In time, the term "deprogramming" came to be associated with this initially coercive process, even though originally "deprogramming" did not imply coercion. Soon, a network of deprogrammers developed, with some even earning their living as deprogrammers. Although most parents were ethically and emotionally conflicted over the deprogramming process, it seemed at the time to be their only option in a desperate situation. Hundreds of these parents felt as though deprogramming had brought their children back to life. The ex-members felt that they had been liberated from a psychological prison.

Because deprogramming had come to be associated with coercion and confinement and because it so often worked (about two-thirds of the time), it caused quite a controversy. Cults railed against it, in large part because it was effective in persuading their members to leave. But even some cult critics denounced it on legal and ethical grounds. Others additionally felt that a more sophisticated understanding of cults opened up alternatives to deprogramming. These persons -- some of whom were helping professionals or clergy -- believed that parents tended to let their emotions dominate their actions. They began to help parents with their distress and help them communicate more effectively, so that they would be able to persuade their children to speak voluntarily with someone knowledgeable about cults. The term "voluntary deprogramming" came to be associated with this process. It soon became clear, however, that the adjective "voluntary" did not remove the negative connotation "deprogramming" had acquired. Gradually, the term "exit counseling" replaced "voluntary deprogramming." (Some exit counselors prefer the term "cult education consultant," but that term has not as yet caught on.) Today, there are many exit counselings and few deprogrammings.

Exit counseling refers to a voluntary, intensive, time-limited, contractual educational process that emphasizes the respectful sharing of information with cultists. Because some persons who perform deprogrammings like to call themselves "exit counselors," the two terms are sometimes confused. A recent JOURNAL article on "exit counseling" angered many exit counselors in large part because it failed to stress the distinctions between exit counseling and deprogramming.

These distinctions, however, are important. Deprogramming entails coercion and confinement. In exit counseling the cultist is free to leave at any time. Deprogramming typically costs $10,000 or more, mainly because of the expense of a security team. Exit counseling typically costs $2,000 to $4,000, including expenses, for a three-to-five day intervention, although cases requiring extensive research of little-known groups can cost much more. Deprogramming, especially when it fails, entails considerable legal and psychological risk (e.g., a permanent alienation of the cultist from his or her family). The psychological and legal risks in exit counseling are much smaller. Although deprogrammers prepare families for the process, exit counselors tend to work more closely with families and expect them to contribute more to the process; that is, exit counseling requires that families establish a reasonable and respectful level of communication with their loved one before the exit counseling proper can begin. Because they rely on coercion, which is generally viewed as unethical, deprogrammers' critiques of the unethical practices of cults will tend to have less credibility with cultists than the critiques of exit counselors. Neither the authors, the organizations for which they work, nor the publisher of this journal endorse involuntary deprogramming.

Ethical concerns obviously are much greater with regard to deprogramming than exit counseling. Deprogramming advocates maintain that its coercive aspect is a regrettable but necessary step in freeing people from evil groups. They point out that the law has long recognized that competing rights and needs can sometimes produce situations wherein an undesirable action might be necessary to prevent something worse. This has often been called the "necessity" or "choice of evils" defense. An example would be running a red light in order to get a bleeding person to a hospital. Running the red light is a legal violation, but in such an emergency it would likely be deemed to have mitigating circumstances. Obviously, with regard to deprogramming the central question is whether the evil to be countered is terrible enough to mitigate the culpability of the coercion.

Determining the ethical defensibility of a particular deprogramming is not always simple. Generally speaking the most defensible cases will involve minor children, especially when the cult prevents parents from seeing or communicating with their child. With regard to adults in cults, a reasonable likelihood of imminent danger to the life of the cultist is probably a critical factor in ethically defending a deprogramming. Imminent danger, however, may not always be a sufficient justification of deprogramming because other interventions may be reasonable to pursue (e.g., obtaining a court order to remove the endangered person from the group).

Whether a particular judge or jury will accept the necessity defense for a deprogramming is a matter that is independent of, though related to, the ethical defensibility of the deprogramming. A parent, for example, may believe that his or her child is in imminent danger, that an exit counseling is not possible, and that there is not sufficient time to obtain a court order. The parent's opinion may be sufficiently reasonable, based on the facts of the case, to be ethically defensible. However, a judge might reject the necessity defense because he or she believes that there had indeed been time to obtain a court order, or that it was reasonable to first attempt an exit counseling. The judgment of the legal system determines the acceptability of a necessity defense, regardless of the ethical defensibility of a particular deprogramming, although the more ethically defensible a deprogramming is the more acceptable is the necessity defense likely to be.

Historically speaking, when deprogrammings have resulted in lawsuits or criminal charges, judges and juries have in many cases decided in favor of parents and deprogrammers. In other cases courts have exonerated the parents but held the deprogrammers liable. Occasionally, both parents and deprogrammers have been held liable. Although there have been attempts to pass laws that would essentially sanction deprogrammings in advance, these attempts have failed repeatedly, in large part because many believe that such laws would create more serious problems than they would solve. Thus, the ethics and legality of deprogramming have been and continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

In order to evaluate the ethical and legal implications of intervening on behalf of a loved one, we suggest that families consider the following questions:

1. Is the family's decision based primarily on the welfare of the cultist, rather than entirely on their own psychological needs?
2. Do they have adequate information to conclude that their loved one is indeed imperiled by a cultic group and that an intervention is warranted? Have they consulted with experts, including legal experts, if warranted? Before they implore their loved one to make an informed decision about cult affiliation, they ought to make surethey have made an informed decision about intervening.
3. Have parents contemplating an ethically defensible deprogramming carefully considered whether there are any less restrictive options with a reasonably good chance of eliminating the imminent danger? The greater the danger and the lower the probability of success of less restrictive alternatives, the more ethically defensible will be the deprogramming.
4. In the case of deprogramming, is the family's decision sufficiently well informed that they would be emotionally and intellectually able to defend it in court if need be? Families should remember that they may have to demonstrate that the deprogramming was necessary, not merely that the cult is harmful. Because not all jurisdictions and judges will accept the necessity defense, parents and/or deprogrammers may be charged with a crime regardless of the apparent "necessity" of the deprogramming.
5. Have they carefully checked on the competence and integrity of those who may conduct the intervention? Although many helpers are ethical and competent, we have heard reports indicating that some have exploited vulnerable families and/or may not be as competent as they claim, at least with regard to certain cases. If families fail to check out a prospective helper, they may be led to participate in an unethical and possibly illegal and ineffective intervention.

Ethical helpers will not rush families to a decision (whether for deprogramming or exit counseling) merely because it meets the financial or emotional needs of the helper. Most deprogrammers and exit counselors work hard to help cult members make informed decisions about their group affiliations. Some, unfortunately, do not pay as much attention to their ethical obligation to make sure that the families with which they work have made truly informed decisions. If they did, there would, in our opinion, be even fewer deprogrammings than currently occur.

Cults, Mind Control, Sex Crimes and the Jewish Community

Cults, Mind Control, Sex Crimes and the Jewish Community

Masada

_______________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet their own personal needs.

Table of Contents: 

Jewish Resources

Online Videos 

• The Strategic Interaction Approach to Helping Cult Members (2008) - Steven Alan Hassan, M.Ed., LMHC, NCC 
• Releasing The Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves (2010) - Steven Alan Hassan, M.Ed., LMHC, NCC  
• Roseanne Barr opens for Cathy O'Brien on MKULTRA Mind Control  (2012)
• MK ULTRA Mind Control Revealed - The True Story (1998)  
• Growing Up in Cults: The Special Issues of Children in Cults (2009) 
• Ex-Chassidic Woman Speaks Out: Perl Prery on Dr. Phil (2012) 

_______________________________________________________________________________

Articles 

1. Background Information and The History of Rabbinical Ordinations (0719//2007)
2. AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA: Stop Manipulating Our People -- Allow Them to Them To Think For Themselves!
3. Are some Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Kiruv Organizations Feeder Groups for Cults? (10/22/2012)
4. Deb Tambor and the Quasi-Chasidic Town of New Square (10/01/2013)
5. In death of Ex-Hasid estranged from her religious children, a mirror for trauma of many  (10/02/2013)
6. The quasi-orthodox Jewish world compared to the "BITE" Model of Cult Mind Control (11/06/2013)
7. Jewish Survivors of Spiritual Abuse 

_______________________________________________________________________________

Cults / Mind Control

1. Biderman's Chart of Coercion
2. Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised
3. Characteristics of a Destructive Cult
4. Children and Cults
5. CULTS: Deception, Dependency & Dread
6. Cults on campus  (09/01/1999)
7. Getting Better
8. It Hurts Leaving A Cult
9. How to know when someone is trying to convert you
10. Mind Control 101: Being told what to do (09/02/2012) 
11. Protecting Children and the basics of combating mind control (09/09/2012) 
12. Marshalling the News Media - False Memory Syndrome Foundation (04/1995)
13. Mind Control: Stockholm Syndrome (09/14/2012)
14. Missionaries Impossible  (2002)
15. A Mother Experiences the KLC (The Kabbalah Learning Centre) (2002) 
16. Questions Regarding G-d, Mind Control and "Truth"  (03/01/2010) 
17. Question Agudath Israel of America (05/12/2012)
18. Soul Searching: Sexual Abuse, Cults, and Missionaries (2003)
19. Storming Heaven - The Perils of Jewish Messianism  (05/1999)
20. The right to heal from child sexual abuse  (11/28/2012)
21. Common Coping Mechanisms Used by Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse (1994)
22. When A Family Member Molests: Reality, Conflict, and The Need For Support (2003)
23. Storming Heaven: The Perils of Jewish Messianism: The Rise and Fall of Shabbetai Zvi (05/01/1999)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Cases Involving Cult Like Practices / Mind Control within Jewish Communities

1. Cases Involving Cult Like Practices / Mind Control 
   1. Case of Rabbi Yoram Abergel (Netivot, Israel)  (AKA: Rabbi Yoram Aberjil.  Accused of cult like practices and sexual harassment of young women and threatening the lives of the survivors and those who support them.)
   2. Case of Rabbi Eliezer Berland (Accused of cult like practices.  Allegations made that Rabbi Eliezer Berland sexually assaulted a woman.)
   3. Case of Rabbi Elior Chen (Jerusalem, Israel) (Accused of cultic type practices)
   4. Case of Werner Erhard (AKA: John Paul Rosenberg) Founder EST (now called Landmark Forum) (Accused of incest, which were later recanted.  Also accused of cult like practices)
   5. Case of Rabbi Jacob Frank (AKA: Yaakov Frank) and the Frankist Movement   (Convicted of cult like type practices and various forms of sexual offenses including clergy sexual abuse and incest)
   6. Case of Rabbi Marc Gafni  (New York, FL, Israel Fairfield, CA) (AKA: Mordechai Gafni, Marc Gafni, Mordechai Winiarz, Marc Winiarz)  (There is a Call for Action on this case.  Accused sexually abusing teenage girls, attempted sexual assault of a young adult, and also accused of cult like practices).
   7. Case of Rabbanit Bruria Keren (AKA: Burka Wearing Mother) (Beit Shemish, Israel) (Arrested on charges of child sexual abuse and physical abuse of her twelve children. She has also been accused of cult like practices)  
   8. Case of Rabbi Harlan Kilstein (AKA: Tsvi Kilstein) 
   9. Case of Michael Lytton (Ilford, England, Essex, England)  (Convicted of sexually assaulting a woman after posing as a clinical psychologist and utilizing mind control techinques).
   10. Case of Rabbi Yaakov Menken (Baltimore, MD)  (There is a Call for Action on this case. Serious allegations have been made against Rabbi Yaakov Menken which include sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and sexual assault. Menken's alleged modus operandi (M.O.) is of becoming a father figure to vulnerable young women and eventually allegedly sexually assaulting them.  Accused of cult like practices and mind control)
   11. Case of Foye Minton, Jr. (Foye C. Minton plead guilty to second degree assault on December 19, 2013. He received twenty years probation).
   12. Case of Goel Ratzon (Tel Aviv, Israel) (Arrested on charges of incest, sexual assault and cult like practices)
   13. Case of Michal Schwartz Shenbaum (Jerusalem, Israel) (AKA: Unnamed Abusive Mother From Jerusalem.  Arrested on charges of child abuse.  Allegations were made of cult like practices) 
   14. Rabbi Ben Zion Sobel (New York, NY; Jerusalem, Israel)  ("Rabbi Ben Zion Sobel is one of the most notorious pedophiles he has known, leaving hundreds of boys he has victimized. At one point Rabbi Shach made a rabbinic decree stating that Rabbi Ben Zion Sobel could NEVER teach again." "Ben Zion has left survivors in both the United States and Israel." "His modus operandi was extremely violent and barbaric." )
   15. Case of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler (AKA: Mordechai Tendler) (Monsey, NY) (Accused of innappropriate sexual behavior with women in he counseled, along with cult like practices).
   16. Case of Rabbi Isadore Trachtman (Chicago, IL and Jerusalem, Israel) (Accused of cultic type practices and sexual offenses)
   17. Case of Rabbi Matis Weinberg (Baltimore, MD, Santa Clara, CA and Har Nof, Israel)  (There is a Call for Action on this case.  Accused of cultic type practices and sexual offenses).
   18. Case of Rabbi Hershel J. Worch (Manchester, England, Mbale, Uganda; Melbourne, Australia; Pawtucket, RI; Chicago, IL; Istanbul, Turkey)  (There is a Call for Action on this case. Formerly known as the Case of the Unnamed Rabbi in West Rogers Park).  Accused of cult like practice which include BDSM (Bondage, Domination, Sadism, Masochism).  The alleged offender originially mmets his victims on line. Allegations include using a mixture of kabbalah, hypno-eroticism and other manipulative techniques to enagage his potential victims prior to sexually assaulting them.  
   19. Case of Sabbatai Zevi  (Accused of cultic type practices and sexual offenses.)

_______________________________________________________________________________


Articles

1. How to know when someone is trying to convert you. - By Author Unknown
2. Missionaries Impossible - By Rabbi Avi Shafran

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Secular Resources

1. Cults
   • Articles
     1. Biderman's Chart of Coercion
     2. Checklist of Cult Characteristics
     3. Children and Cults
     4. Coping With Trance States: The Aftermath of Leaving
     5. Coping With Triggers - By Carol Giambalvo
     6. Characteristics of a Destructive Cult
     7. Deception, Dependency & Dread - By Michael Langone, Ph.D.
     8. Deprogramming, Exit Counseling, and Ethics - Clarifying the Confusion  - By Michael D. Langone and Paul R. Martin (Please note this comes from a Christian Based website)
     9. Getting Better - By Kathy Ward
     10. Evaluating Your Cult Involvement
     11. Influence - Robert B. Cialdini, Ph. D.
     12. "It Hurts" (Leaving a Cult) By Jan Groenveld
     13. The Manipulation of Spiritual Experience: Unethical Hypnosis in Destructive Cults - By Linda Dubrow, M.A. and Steve K. Dubrow Eichel, M.S
     14. Post-Cult Trauma Syndrome
     15. Reflections on Post Cult Recovery - By Michael Langone, Ph. D.

         
         

   • Books
     1. Combatting Cult Mind Control - By Steven Hassan
     2. Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves - By Steven Hassan
     3. Satanism and Occult-Related Violence: What You Should Know - By Michael D. Langone and Linda O. Blood
     4. Recovery from Abusive Groups - By Wendy Ford

        
        

   • Organizations
     1. Carol Giambalvo's Cult Information and Recovery
     2. Freedom of Mind Resource Center, Inc.
     3. reFOCUS: Recovering Former Cultists' Support Network
     4. Cultic Studies: Information about Cults and Psychological Manipulation
     5. Ex-Jews for Jesus

_______________________________________________________________________________

FAIR USE NOTICE

Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. 

 

I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 

 

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 

_______________________________________________________________________________