THE 'CULT' ACCUSATION
3. The Philosophy of the Cult Deprogrammers Exposed
Anyone can "cry wolf" and anyone can "cry cult". What's important to know is why they do this, what their psychological and spiritual makeup consists of, and what their undergirding belief system is.
The following extracts from an article are written by a non-NCCG sympathiser, 'Axroot', with input from my wife, entitled, "'NCCG-Concern', Rick Ross and the Deprogrammers:
Character Sketches" written in answer to an atheist, NCCG-Concern, out to prove that NCCG is a 'cult'.
The purpose of this writing is to make an organised presentation of the characteristics of a number of people who have shown surprising resemblance in many aspects. What these people have in common is that they are after "cults" claiming that this way they serve the public. The people who have been the material for this analysis are mainly the person who goes by the nickname "nccg_concern" (not otherwise identified, and who is the main object of my study on this homepage) and Rick Ross and those who agree with him, since "nccg_concern" is choosing to use their standards for his own work and obviously looks up to them.
The questions asked and which this analysis is trying to answer is "what is these people's agenda?" What's puzzling is why someone needs to resort to slander, or kidnapping, or defamation to allegedly serve the public. "Is this really service or is it something else?"
On Mr Ross's site one can find a list of what he defines as warning signs, and "nccg-concern" is using these signs to verify whether or not his objects of study are a cult or not. So we need to have a look at them to see what kind of people they are "protecting" society against.
What he uses as criteria look sensible at first glance but what are they really saying? A report attached to court documents relating to the incident of his grand theft show that Ross was described as an individual who has sociopathic inclinations and cannot see that what he does is socially unacceptable and dangerous. I think the readers will find that is actually quite correct: (Observations added in parenthesis)
Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader. (Notice that this statement is based on Mr.Ross's personal decisions about what he defines as 'unsafe')
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
(To whom then must the leader be accountable? To God? To state? Or perhaps actually, to Rick Ross who will judge him? Rick Ross will only be satisfied if the leader complies with his rules. Therefore, the person the leader is accountable to is Ross himself who also decides what 'meaningful accountability' implies)
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
(Who is meant to question or critically inquire until satisfied that their questions are tolerated? This, like the previous criterion, ensures Ross or the person using his standards to promote an investigation the right to ask until they get the answers they want)
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
(To whom? reported where? Similar as before, if you fail to disclose the total of your financial status, you might be found to be a "cult" according to this criterion - and this statement does nothing to exclude anyone like Mr. Ross himself - a convicted thief - from having a look into the group's financial situation)
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
(How does the critic know if the fear is unreasonable or not? Is unreasonable based on the observer's personal perception? If so we once again have judgement according to Ross.)
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
(Well how many people say you are right about your change of opinion and still keep believing in what they now believe is wrong? That way, if a former follower is negative, the group is a cult. In other words... if one disagrees, all must change???? If you disagree with those who disagree with you… you're cultic? In this way, if 2 or 3 former followers were indeed wrong in leaving, the title "cult" remains quite handy. The oxymoron is that if you are found to disagree with those who disagree with you, you seem to break this commandment)
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
(In this case, what does abuse mean? This definitely must be clarified. How does one draw a line between righteous grievances and the ones that are but a petty matter of taste or ego? How is it possible for someone to apply this criterion when these two key words have such a wide meaning which might include about every situation imaginable?)
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
(This looks very scientific, but it is not hard for a person to get media attention when accusing someone of being cultic because the media will always be on the outlook for a juicy story that sells, and not be too particular about how factual the claims are. Do the media always report the truth? And books… well books will be found supporting whatever faith anyone holds and any author of a book can decide to lie. To categorically state that bad media attention makes a group suspect is not reasonable)
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
(This is playing with words, trying to make people feel they should always have a great time in their setting, but if you look at it rationally what person does always feel they are good enough? What person feels that they are quite up to scratch about what is expected of them? And if a member of a group who tends to wish to be as good as possible within a religious group, would you say the whole group is a cult? Or does in fact a bunch of zealous members make a group a cult?)
9. The group/leader is always right.
(This statement is kind of an optical illusion, it makes the reader think: "Aha… dictatorship, this must be avoided", because we have heard that can lead to catastrophe. But in actual fact you will find that in any group that has followers the followers come to the group because of what the group stands for and don't expect the group to change into every aspect of their personal liking.. but rather to benefit from the groups standards and intentions. This results in the group being non-negotiable about it's agenda and members are free to stay and see it the same way or disagree or if disagreeing even more decide to leave. Look at a political party for instance and you will see how it goes)
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
(Sounds good… sounds like this way we get rescued from self proclaimed rulers who decide that they know better than others. Well yes it would take care of those, but then again it would also target those who actually do know better than others: People who have made discoveries and insist that they have found out something they wish others to learn about. Without someone having more truth than others, there would be no learning going on at all. If Ross were to follow this criterion he would not have written anything or spoken at all - everyone who has a message believes they have the right idea and that they have got to it the right way.)
Summary:
It's like if Ross expects the group members to become cult-researchers but in truth, these signs are so all-including, vague and unspecified that any group can be called a cult. This way people will find the cultic tendencies no matter what group they belong to if they look with this in mind.
When reading this it was striking to see how bombastically these 'rules' are stated and it gives the feeling that one has to obey in order to be a sensible person who is not naïve or easily tricked. Let's have a look at the unwritten commandments that these 'signs' of 'sin'… er I mean 'cult' are based on, and recall that if you are disobedient to those commandments you are most definitely mad, dangerous, gullible and worthless according to nccg_concern, Rick Ross and others who make use of the above definitions of a cult and condemns them as they do. These commandments have been arrived at by simply reading the message behind the 'signs' above just compare sign one to the first commandment, sign two with the second, and so on and you will see that it is their hidden message. Here they are:
Once again, please compare this with:
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always right.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
Seeing this makes one wonder. Why would anyone want to promote such ridiculous and impossible rules? What are these people after?
In observing Rick Ross and his associates and nccg_concern, a common pattern becomes apparent, which is two-fold. Firstly, they all seem to be quite passionate about what they do. Rick Ross has even been dragged to court for his practices and has not given up. His associates seem to be very devoted to the "cause". In stories of deprogramming, some of them have been talking/yelling at the "cult victims" for long periods of time, sometimes 10-12 hours according to victims’ testimonies. One of them testified they can go on for even 2 or 3 days. Rick Ross also uses techniques such as sleep deprivation, physical violence and restriction of the individual's freedom of choice to be subjected to the programming or not. It is quite interesting to see that what nccg_concern classifies as cultic behaviour complies perfectly with what Rick Ross does. Nccg_concern has spent hours and hours to pick up every piece of dirt he can find to throw at the group he has named himself after and seems to follow them similarly to how stalkers behave towards their victims.
The second point is, the people they are after, the alleged "cult victims" or "cult members" are too quite passionate about their own belief system. Many of them have been kidnapped, threatened, tortured, and they remained fixed to their own "cause".
The question is why Rick Ross and those associated with him are so passionately after these people? Why aren't they, for instance, against racial discrimination, or environmental pollution, things which are widely acknowledged as universal problems? Is it for the common good? But then there are so many ways to be a benefit for the public. Is it for the money? But there are many ways of making money. Why did Rick Ross and his associates and nccg_concern choose THIS particular passion? Why did they continue to choose this even after losses in lawsuits, going bankrupt, being humiliated or discredited?
The answer is in their objective: the passion of others. You see, in Ross's 10 anti-cult commandments, the thing which is most of all condemned is the refusal to stay a part of the "flock", and rather to remove oneself from the mass-mentality in any way possible. People who are collectively "different" (i.e. what he calls cults) do this by conviction. They choose to remove themselves by devoting themselves to something, a God, a leader, maybe even a lover (which they term as a one-person cult). What Ross and nccg_concern so strongly advocate against and try to quench is the passion for something off the beaten track. What agrees with the cult-watcher's eyes is common and therefore benign. What does not, is a cult. The same pattern is seen in families. What agrees with the parent's eyes is acceptable. What does not is dangerous and must be stopped at all costs. However, it is one thing to condemn the practice and another to forcibly try to reverse it.
So what is it that drives them to take charge in people's lives who did not invite them and not welcome them? Obviously they are in disagreement with something that is commonly respected by people all over the world: An individual’s freedom of choice. Why would someone treat this freedom as something so petty and insignificant, and even declare it harmful, in the name of "freedom from cult oppression?"
The Stockholm Syndrome
The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in a hostage, in which the hostage exhibits seeming loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed in reference to other situations with similar tensions, such as battered person syndrome, child abuse cases, and bride kidnapping.
The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. Two of the women hostages eventually became engaged to the captors.
The term was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.
As becomes obvious from the above, the Stockholm Syndrome is bound to develop between a kidnapper and a victim, a deprogrammer and a "cult-member". Rick Ross and his associates are aware of this tendency because many of the deprogrammed people are now loyal deprogrammers or if less active about it many at least feel a sense of gratitude for having been "set free" and recommend that it be done to others they feel are in the same position as they were. Even those who are unsuccessfully "deprogrammed" and remain in their convictions will wonder if there might be truth in something that was said, because of the sheer force of the assault. This is why they have to dominate each situation.
Rick Ross and the Non-professional Deprogrammers "… acted recklessly in a way that is so outrageous in character and so extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." – From verdict issued by jury about Rick Ross
Here we have the profile of a man who, for some reason that is hidden to a casual observer, recklessly hunts down religious groups, exploits media defamation and vulnerable families in order to DESTROY. This man has no intention of DOING but of UNDOING. He has no intention of bringing things or people together but to do whatever he can to split them apart. He makes no effort to correct, but if one window is faulty, the whole house will be set on fire. This becomes obvious by his 10 "hints" as to a dangerous cult. Rick Ross wrote these things, obviously out of sheer inspiration. Each and every one of them implies that if you are found to think separately from the popular opinion, you are a danger and you must be destroyed.
Rick Ross has been found by psychologists to lack the ability to sympathise with people and bring himself to understand their predicament. Therefore, it is not mercy or benevolence that is the undercurrent of his motivation, but rather a self-appointed authoritative position. If you look at the 10 "signs" again you will see that all 10 deny from a person the right to be one’s own master or to bow to someone else (be it a cult-leader or God himself).
What is interesting is that there is no one who does not get influenced or adhere to the ideas of someone else. Each and every one of us is persuaded daily by the TV, the magazines, the media, our friends and our parents. This persuasion may vary from light influence to downright manipulation and brainwashing. The catch is that if the influence or brainwashing is done by a "benign" source, such as the media, no one so much as winks at it. For instance, if a 16-year-old is convinced that shaving his head and listening to metal music will give him self-worth and identity, this is fully acceptable in the eyes of a secular watcher because so many other 16-year-olds follow the same pattern. This irrational course of thinking advocates that the tendency of the majority is always right, even if it is harmful or even deadly for the individual.
What is never acceptable is the influence from a person that does not have authority which has been acknowledged by the majority (see the 1st "sign"). This is frowned upon and considered suspicious, without evaluating the nature of the influence itself. For example, if 2 men follow a 3rd man’s rules and advice in a way that it defines them and alters their lives to a considerable extent, this is considered dangerous. The way this man influences them will not be examined thoroughly or objectively, but only under the biased spectre of the "cult watcher".
So we come to what is a cult to Rick Ross, nccg-concern and their kin in honesty, and now what Ross has written down for the eyes of the world. A cult, according to Rick Ross, is ANY group of people (or particular persons) who will choose to submit parts of their life and a big proportion of their energy to someone who either isn’t popular enough or teaches things that the majority would perhaps disagree with. To put it simply, if you choose to change your worldview in a radical, or original way which is little known to the public and you actually stick to it and call others to it because you believe that is the best way to be, you are setting up a cult.
Rick Ross seems to have dedicated his life to this cause. What does it offer? It offers money, fame and acknowledgement, but most importantly of all, it offers authority. What Rick Ross is really after is this exactly. It is the taste of power that they get when they watch themselves becoming a turning point to another person’s life. If you compare him to his own profile of cult-leader, you will see it matches perfectly.
It is a perverted instinct but it makes perfect sense, if you consider the people he hates the most (people with authority) and the practices he uses (imposed authority). The deprogramming has this goal exactly, as is shown by the example of the Stockholm Syndrome. What it wishes to accomplish is the shift of loyalty from the "cult" to the deprogrammer. This is obvious as the only way a "cult member" will let go of his (or her) own worldview and probably a cause that he has sacrificed a lot to achieve, is to fully trust and bow – so to speak – to the deprogrammer. Consider torture victims, victims of rape and abuse and kidnapped people and the Stockholm Syndrome. What happens is that the victim gives in unconditionally to exactly what their abuser imposes: full control.
As then a rapist imposes full control over another’s body, and as a kidnapper imposes full control over one’s freedom, similarly Rick Ross imposes full control over one’s beliefs. The difference between a cult and Rick Ross is that the cult has earned the authority over its members lives (as the cults Ross is after don’t pull in people by their necks, but rather use persuasion, promises, hope, etc) whereas Ross claims this authority 100% by force without any grounds whatsoever. When looking at it through this scope, cults are less dangerous than Rick Ross and he in his turn is as cruel as a rapist.
I mentioned before that the thrill of this, the grand prize of the deprogrammer’s efforts is the taste of power. Let us consider it again. Let us consider the moment a "cult member", after probably being removed from his or her home (they are usually women), taken to an unknown place and been yelled at and humiliated for 48 hours finally decides to give up. She pulls down her defences and begins to reconsider the deprogrammer’s words, despite the fact that this is the person who is now denying her freedom. After all this argument and effort she says "yes" to the deprogrammer. Can you picture the thrill this man or woman feels right then to know that another person’s heart and mind are under their full authority to do what they please with? It’s like owning the person, it’s like being their god, their saviour, their mother and father, their best friend.
This is exactly what Rick Ross has devoted his life to accumulate. Sadly, these "highs" don’t last very long. It’s similar to telling a good joke to your friends. You will feel very good as long as everyone laughs, but after all, that wasn’t such a big deal. Someone might say a better joke, you never know. If you take a look at Ross’s website you will see that he has come against MANY people. You will also see that he has gone to great lengths to dig out just about every cult he can find. Is he trying to save the world?
APPENDIX
Sexual Abuse and Perversion among Rick Ross's Cult-Hunters
Q's: Lawyer, A's: Rick Ross
Q. So, therefore, [Scott's treatment] was homosexual, sir, yes or no?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. Did you disclose to Mrs. Tonkin prior to deprogramming Scott that you had a homosexual background?
A. Mr. Bowles, I think that at this point you really have to ask yourself what the purpose is of this deposition, and for you to sit here and make nasty remarks -
[…]
Q. Are you going to refuse to answer the question?
A. I refuse to answer the question.
This is from Rick Ross's deposition in the Jason Scott trial from a website which provides a lot of evidence about Rick Ross: http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/index.htm and http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/homosexual.htm. According to the evidence, he is in all probability homosexual. The website is clearly anti-Rick Ross, but evidence is evidence. I think it's worth a read.
Another independent source, however, verifies that sexual abuse has occurred during deprogramming sessions: http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm
You will be interested to find that Mary Alice Crapo (a.k.a. Chrnalogar - a 'Christian' deprogrammer) has participated in such occasions by mocking someone's sexuality:
During the five-day abortive coercive deprogramming of Henry Kuegel, a member of the Church Universal and Triumphant, deprogrammers Mary Alice Chrnalogar, Galen Kelly, and Rory Ingalls (among others present) displayed the usual "commode insensitivity" and mocked Kuegel’s sexuality.
The person in question had adopted the doctrine of the church he was a member of to be celibate until marriage and this is what he was mocked about.
The author of the article mentioned above is an independent source. He writes:
Sexual tactics refer to two types: (1) forced sexual intercourse, or rape (of men and women); and (2) sexual demeaning or intimidation of a person or refusal to permit reasonable hygienic care. Since sometimes the drug use and sexual abuse occurred together, we make no attempt to separate them out in the following illustrative testimonies.
In this link below you can read many cases of victims of "deprogramming" undergoing sexual assaults varying from being watched while using the bathroom (by more than one persons usually) and fondled under dresses to downright rape. Among others, the story of a lesbian who was being raped for a week into "normality" as part of her deprogramming. In all stories, the deprogrammers involved were members of the former C.A.N. (Cult Awareness Network).
http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN/appendix_A.htm
Sexual abuse, whether it is mild or goes as far as forced intercourse, continues to be sexual abuse and indicates mental instability to say the least. This matter is presented here as it links to the "power surge" and the "highs" that deprogramming gives. It does not surprise this author to read reports of such phenomena. Nor does it surprise me to find that persons like Rick Ross are in all probability confused about their sexuality.
Something which has been observable about nccg_concern is the lengths he went to prove to a male member of NCCG that NCCG's leader is a false prophet. Nccg_concern has in fact written what is estimated to be about 45% of all his writings which have come to my attention. At the same time, he claimed all this work was "inspired" by that member, and sent him many e-mails inviting him to read it. In one of these letters, we find nccg_concern being extra gallant, apologising for the size of the letter and reassuring its recipient that the purpose is not to harass him.
Finally, in the statement I quoted under the section about him, he characterises impersonating a woman as "challenging". You are invited to draw your own conclusions.
CONCLUSION
A careful study of most of the "cult deprogrammers" clearly reveals who and what they are and what they are after. Even the so-called 'Christian' ones are not safe. The undergirding philosophy may, with considerable justification, be classified as anti-Christian, anti-religious and Satanic. These 'experts' are not interested in people but in themselves and what they can get out of what can only be described as a shameful trade in human souls.
The best and only way to deal with the real cultists - those violating Yahweh's laws - is the Gospel of Yah'shua the Messiah. If you have got involved with the "cult deprogrammers" just consider what you might be getting yourselves and your loved ones into. They are not, for the most part (and there are, of course, always genuine exceptions) the benefactors of society but simply add to the gross wickedness that is already here. We need a world filled with restored and healed souls, not ones broken even more.
Pass this message out: BEWARE OF THE CULT DEPROGRAMMERS!
This page was created on 9 April 2008
Last updated on 26 July 2009
Copyright © 1987-2009 NCCG - All Rights Reserved
