Nexus - 0222 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

A self- appointed cult-busting group has been found to have sinister roots. Part 1 n recent decades a new type of mercenary has appeared on the social landscape: Like others, these too are available for hire, and if put under the spotlight will argue that they fight not for money but in pursuit of a ‘worthy’ cause. Known as ‘deprogram- mers’ or ‘exit counsellors’, their claims warning of the dangers of so-called ‘cults’ are widely accepted by a poorly-informed public—even though more aware individuals often notice with some alarm that the methodology employed by these mercenaries to ‘liberate’ their targets is more than a little unorthodox, and often violent and oppressive. Dig a little deeper and you will discover that behind the veneer of Orwellian double-speak generated by this new Inquisition, a much darker truth is hiding. Any serious investigation of the anti-religious movement reveals that its foundations and functions are primarily political, and that many of its highest profile members are allies of clandestine government agencies which regularly employ covert tactics to manip- ulate the political processes of entire nations and undermine the personal autonomy of their individual citizens. Similarly, the techniques used by ‘anti-cult’ organisations paral- lel those employed by such agencies and are justified with other emotive labels such as the ‘fight against Communism’ or the ‘war against drugs’, namely: (1) a problem is covertly created; (2) it is blown out of proportion with a healthy dose of propaganda; (3) a tough but ‘necessary’ solution is offered to the frightened public by the creators of the problem; and (4) laws are subsequently introduced which further reduce personal freedoms and rights under the guise of protecting us. The real danger of the growing ‘cult awareness’ industry is that it is not a movement concerned with human rights. It is simply another expression of the smiling face of fas- cism. In 1993, the Cult Awareness Network's (CAN) Executive Director, Cynthia Kisser, told newspapers: “Cults also hurt society when their members undermine the democratic process by voting in solid blocks [sic] or by providing free voluntary labour to campaigns in return for favours from candidates." Concemed lawyers have warned: "To most people this would serve as a model description of healthy participation by an interest group or party in representative democracy. But apparently to CAN, only groups of which it approves should be allowed to vote in “blocks” and volunteer for polit- ical campaigns. When groups CAN doesn't like (‘cults’) participate in electoral politics, it ‘undermines the democratic process’. “Frighteningly, the FBI appears to share this way of thinking. In 1988 and again in 199] the Bureau launched investigations of the New Alliance Party, a left-wing electoral party, rationalising this harassment by labelling NAP a ‘political/cult organisation’.'* by Glenn Krawczyk PO Box 1504 Burleigh Heads, Qid 4220, Australia Gienn Krawczyk is a freelance writer with a focus ' ‘on frontiers of science and mind. A former © researcher for the TV science show Beyond 2000, | in 1992 he produced the acclaimed 'Big Brother’ documentary, You Have No Secrets. His articles : ‘on mind control conspiracies and techniques have been published by NEXUS Magazine. Fuelling the Engines of Control The problem inherent in considering the question of individual religious (and political) freedom is that by defining any target as a ‘cult’, organisations such as CAN and their international associates automatically ensure reasonably widespread public acceptance of any action they take against such a group or its members simply because the label has such sinister connotations. Events such as the Jonestown massacre in 1978 have permanently implanted such a response in most people old enough to remember that tragic event, and more recent events at Waco achieved a similar result in much of the younger generation as well as reinforcing it amongst the general public. NEXUS © 17 The Politics of Religion OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 1994