#avoiding radicalisation

Anyone can be indoctrinated into a high control group. No one is immune to propaganda or manipulation, and in the right circumstances, targeted by the right person/people, and fed the right info, anyone can be indoctrinated. Being intelligent or strong minded doesn't prevent this manipulation from taking hold. Lots of highly intelligent and very strong-minded people become very enthusiastic cult members, possibly even bolstered by their own self-perception.

Intelligent people are prime targets - cults need people who are useful to them: people with qualifications, job roles and titles, people who are knowledgeable in their field. They make good spokespeople, they inspire trust from outsiders, prospective recruits, and current members. Sometimes they can also be useful in very practical ways (scientists backing your claims, or having lawyers advising on or fighting legal battles). People who have been indoctrinated are victims, even if they then go on to victimise people themselves.

So it’s important to be aware of what high control groups are, how they control people, and what to look out for.

What is a high control group? Most groups will exert some kind of influence over members. There are rules, hierarchies, and a popular viewpoint in most organisations. High control groups tend to have a range of behaviours that mean their control over members is fairly extreme (even if it’s not always obvious to the members or to outsiders that that’s the case – after all, part of the point of mind control is that the victims are unaware just how much they’re being manipulated and controlled).

We usually think of high control groups as being the more stereotypical religious cults and extremist groups (like the Moonies, or ISIS), but it’s also possible for this manipulation and control to happen on less extreme or obvious levels and in less rigidly controlled ways. The internet makes it easier to get a wider reach and maintain control over long distances and without having to meet in person. There are cultish groups that operate almost exclusively via long distance, using extremely long video chats and phone calls to keep members exhausted, busy, and under the influence of the group. There are others that gain followers via vlogging, and then gradually move towards in person meetings, and setting up living spaces for members where they can exert more control over them. There are spaces on the internet where people are radicalised and propaganda spreads rapidly, with ease – nowadays the internet means that high control groups can bypass a lot of the physical aspects of control commonly employed by cult groups. For example, incel culture often spreads online.

Again, not all of this necessarily means that a high control group is obviously involved or people are being recruited into a cult. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a long debunked antisemitic hoax) was being spread around fairly recently on Tiktok as if it’s a genuine thing, and that didn’t involve viewers of those videos joining a group or doing anything other than viewing, believing and sharing. But it’s very easy for high control groups to use the internet, and to update how they recruit or how they spread their doctrine. So it’s important to be able to recognise these issues, and protect yourself (and people you know).

What might be the added risk factors for an autistic person? There are various traits associated with autism/neurodivergence that would make it seem that we’d be less likely to be unduly influenced. We often perceive ourselves as being strong-willed/stubborn, not following the crowd, having a strong sense of justice, being 'sensitive', or being hyper-empathetic. Whether or not these self-perceptions are accurate, they create a false sense of security and also allows people to excuse their behaviour based on how they perceive themselves.

'This mistreatment of someone we consider 'the other' must be justice, because I am big on justice.' 'I cannot possibly be doing or saying anything that's prejudiced or cruel because I am hyper-empathetic and that's just not something someone as empathetic as me would do!'

So self-perception might make it harder to accept that someone is being/has been indoctrinated.

There are also lots of neurodivergent traits that would make someone vulnerable to indoctrination. Lots of neurodivergent people are very friendly and agreeable, might lack confidence and not be very assertive so might be more likely to follow than lead, might want to fit in and so might be just as likely to follow trends/be influenced.

Some might have a poor sense of self due to masking and so a group might be able to impose an identity on those people. Hyper-empathy/being sensitive might make it easier for someone to manipulate your emotions. A strong sense of justice might also be manipulated by the right dis- or mis-information. Taking things literally and possibly being more likely to believe what you're told can play a part. Being loyal is a good thing, usually; loyalty to or trust in friends or to groups you're affiliated with might make it more likely you'll agree with them/follow them. Developing a social strategy that involves mimicking peers (so following their script) might lend itself to mimicking recruiters/other members of a high control group, and their more rigid and definite way of communicating and behaving might make it easier to mimic and make the scripts and rules quite appealing. Black and white thinking can be very compatible with a cult organisation's oversimplification of complex and nuanced issues/with strong us vs them dichotomies.

When someone is/has been a victim of bullying, is/has been excluded and ostracised, we tend to assume that they’ll be kinder to others, but lots of people who experience being left out or belittled will go on to do that to others because it makes them feel more powerful and because they want to remain on the inside (and sometimes, part of creating/maintaining/remaining in an ingroup, means ensuring that there are undesirables on the outside). Or someone might join in with bullying behaviours as self-preservation – to avoid being ostracised and victimised themselves.

Lacking social skills and a desire for belonging might make an autistic person vulnerable to the ‘love bombing’ of a high influence group. In the initial stages, recruiters and other members will act like they’re your friends, to convince you to attend events and to convince you that you are valued and respected by the group. Being praised for doing and saying the right things might feel good, and later it might feel bad to be criticised for questioning or doubting the doctrine.

What should we look out for? There are cultish aspects to almost any kind of group that's pitted against another in some way. Not everything 'cultish' is the sign of a cult. People become very tribal when they align with groups - whether it's a political group, a football team, or even something like iPhone vs android or Coke vs Pepsi! It's very easy to adopt an 'us vs them' dichotomy without it necessarily meaning that someone is bring indoctrinated into a high control group that will cause them or others damage. However, in some groups, these aspects of human behaviour are manipulated and become tools for control. The dichotomy will be absolute/extreme. There will also be other factors in play, like the group controlling what information their members access, whether that’s by banning certain books or access to media, not allowing someone to visit friends or family, or whether it’s ensuring that you distrust outsiders/anyone who doesn’t follow the cult doctrine (so that if you do engage with outsiders you will not do so in good faith - you will not listen to outsiders and so won’t allow them to make you doubt the doctrine). Members of cults are routinely and intentionally deceived by those above them and often don't know the actual intentions of the organisation.

Here I break down some of the criteria of mind control/thought reform, so that you might be better able to recognise it. The more of these things you notice, the more likely the group is a high control group that it might be best to avoid. Some of these things might be subtle enough that it’s hard to identify them. Steven Hassan's BITE model of mind control: Behaviour Control In more stereotypical ‘cults’, this often involves members being told where to live, who to live with, having their sleep schedules and diets controlled, etc. People who are tired and malnourished or overworked are easier to control. Members are kept closed off from others in some way (whether physically or mentally), and are often told what to spend their time doing. There's lots of chanting and 'meditation' type activities that create the perfect mindset for indoctrination. In some groups people are told what to wear – this might be a uniform of sorts, or some limit on what kind of things are allowed (colours, fasteners, etc). Members are indoctrinated to control their own behaviour, and often go on to control each other's behaviour by ensuring there are consequences for not saying or doing the right things, not following the doctrine closely enough, etc.

Information Control Any source that isn't cult-approved is seen as unreliable and is rejected. Many more powerful high influence groups have members who work on editing Wikipedia entries about anything that might be linked to the group or the group’s dogma in some way, and might own organisations under different names to ensure that the top online search entries are all positive (and any information they don’t want you to have is buried under lots of positive, cult-approved entries). The sources people most rely on for quick info (and that comes up at the top of searches) is therefore full of propaganda and misinformation. This prevents members or prospective members from seeing anything that might cause them to have doubts. The high control group controls the narrative.

Thought Control Members are 'indoctrinated so thoroughly that they internalize the group doctrine, incorporate a new language system, and use thought-stopping techniques to keep their mind "centred".' They chant (even phrases that they don't understand the full meaning of, and even in languages they don't understand), give words new meaning (loaded language) to create barriers between communication with anyone outside of the group (who doesn’t use the words in the same way/doesn’t understand the group language).

'Since language provides the symbols we use for thinking, using only certain words serves to control thoughts. Cult language is totalistic and therefore condenses complex situations, labels them, and reduces them to cult cliches.' (Hassan) We see the same words repeated over and over and over, and it does exactly that - oversimplifies and prevents critical thought or good faith discussion that would lead to the cult losing power over its members.

Emotional Control They use the emotions of their members to manipulate them. This might vary from inducing euphoria to create a sense of belonging using rage bait to rally members to ‘the cause’, or using guilt and fear to control how members behave.

Euphoria: Members are amped up and unified in various ways depending on the individual group, via acts like marching, meditating, chanting, call-and-response, or praying.

Rage: Members might be taught to be angry at a certain person, certain groups of people, or world events, so members can rally against ‘the other’ or the group can present itself as the solution to the problems.

Guilt: For not believing or behaving as the doctrine says they should, for being in a privileged class of some sort, for not doing enough for ‘the cause’, for doubting or questioning. Fear: If you dissent in the slightest, you're evil and wrong and they dehumanise you. So there's also fear - fear of not living up to that standard, of being impure, of being rejected from the group, of having your ‘confessions’ shared. Personal feelings and struggles are also seen as selfish and unimportant because everything should be about the cause. Sometimes the group will convince people that awful things will happen if they leave, and these fears can be deeply embedded even if they seem obviously false (to outsiders who haven’t experienced the level of control the member has experienced).

Group conformity and obedience Even without behaviour modification techniques, group conformity and obedience to authority are powerful influences. Experiments have repeatedly shown this. If people are put in situations where the most confident people around them give the wrong answers, the majority will doubt their own perceptions and will accept those answers. The majority of people will be obedient to authority, even if it means causing harm to someone else. In a crisis people will often hesitate, waiting for someone else to take charge, or will follow others (even if the other person also doesn't know where they're going). People often don’t want the responsibility of having to make decisions so it’s easier to have someone else make those decisions and give you permission to enact them.

This can also occur because of trust in specific people or groups of people. Generally, we tend to assume that the people we are aligned with, and who we usually agree with, are probably right about everything else, as well. And we usually don't want to agree with people we dislike. So the politician we detest? If that politician says or does anything that we agree with, we are uncomfortable and might doubt ourselves. Whereas that politician or influencer we like and look up to says something we perhaps didn't agree with previously, we're more likely to be swayed into agreeing with them. Even though there are people who are hero worshipped and thought of as being very good and pure, who turn out not to be. No ones politics or identity makes them infallible.

Universities are prime places for cult recruitment - university students are separated from their usual home and their usual people; they might also be disillusioned, or desperate to make a difference, and stressed from studies and trying to fit in, trying to figure themselves out. Humans are also often primed to trust experts or people they believe to be more intelligent/more knowledgeable about a subject (there is a term for this phenomenon called Captainitis – there can be(and have been!) fatal results if other crew of an aircraft defer to the captain even when they recognise the captain might be making a wrong decision). And cult recruiters might offer all the answers. Or an escape. They provide meaning or belonging or ‘the truth’.

Lifton's Eight Criteria of Throught Reform: Mileu control This happens in various ways, but ultimately most people indoctrinated into a high influence group will heed their peers and leaders and isolate themselves (to some extent) from anyone who doesn't comply with the cult doctrine fully enough. Various other organisations or companies, professors or classmates, strangers online etc., are impure and not to be trusted, so a barrier is created between members and non-members.

Sometimes physically (through members all living or staying in the same place) or through encouraging members not to fraternise with non-members, to distance themselves from family or specific groups of people that might challenge the doctrine (or at least not to listen to others when it comes to discussing concerns with the cult or with issues the cult is concerned with). A campaign of disinformation, loaded language and emotional manipulation that’s successful enough will mean that the influential figure/group doesn't need to physically isolate people in ranches in the middle of nowhere, or control where they work and study, because people are so primed to react to the language and ideology that it's still powerful even over huge distances and spreads effectively via online discourse and other various mediums. Mystical manipulation (or planned spontaneity) Many groups have a defined ‘leader’ who is almost godlike, and in this case all the messages and occurrences are somehow supposedly coming from a higher power (not the careful planning of the ‘leader’ who is presenting themselves as a prophet or a kind of messiah).

Cultish movements don’t always rely on a mystical ‘leader’, however. Many are designed to look like a grassroots movement, created or initiated by 'the people', but if you follow the trail up the pyramid there'll often be big money and lots of organisation behind it all. The wizard is hidden behind a curtain (or two or three curtains).

Because it looks (and feels) spontaneous and organic (when events are put together and crowds gather, and people sing or chant of pray together) mob mentality kicks in. Speeches, chanting, etc. gets people fired up. it all feels like they're a part of something big, powerful, and real.

The demand for purity This demand for absolute purity enforces a strong us vs them divide. The cult and its members are pure, good, right, innocent, and anyone who opposes them or does not surrender to the cult completely is impure, evil, wrong, guilty. Bearing in mind there are good and bad people in all demographics, no group is a monolith, yet in the eyes of the 'ingroup', nothing bad they do is ever condemnable, and nothing good an outsider does is ever good enough.

The realistic and reasonable idea that there are good and bad people in every demographic – that all humans have hopes, dreams, doubts, fears, and all are fallible and capable of both good and bad, like the rest of us - does not align with the demand for purity. Anything anyone does or says that does not align completely with the cult rhetoric is deemed impure.

Feeling justified and right is quite a powerful feeling, and unfortunately that often hinges on having people who are ‘wrong’ to berate and judge. It’s also quite human to feel superior and to enjoy this dynamic, and the flip side of it is that the judge fears becoming the judged and so ascribes even more completely to the cult rhetoric to ensure they never have to become the judged.

The cult of confession Somewhat similar to the above. In some cults confession is used to gain useful info on members that can be used against them, and to make members more vulnerable, but it also has another function…

Guilt is a powerful deterrent (people feeling guilty for their own wrongdoings and privilege will work extra hard to become morally pure) and by 'confessing' and cleansing themselves, people feel they have more right to judge others.

Focusing on specific issues also excuses you from having to face up to the things you might actually need to work on. No self-improvement is necessary, no genuine self-reflection has to be faced, because you can 'confess' to the less personal failings, or confess and be cleansed by the purity of the cult. You can also focus on the perceived guilt of The Other to lessen your own guilt. The confessor then gets to become the judge, having confessed and basked in how aware and disgusted with themselves they are for their privileges or wrongdoing. [This also feeds into the demand for purity – people who feel guilty want to offload their privilege and they can do this by believing in The Other is an all-powerful entity (even if, in reality, The Other is a vulnerable and/or minority community. For example: antisemites (which specifically refers to Jew haters) claim that Jewish people (who make up only 0.2% of the world’s population) are supremely powerful and control the media (regardless of all the evidence to the contrary); transphobes often claim that there is a ‘trans lobby’ that is somehow taking over and has the power and influence to somehow make children transgender.]

People enjoy feeling superior and getting to criticise others, and many people will actually become quite gleeful and excited when they are being hateful towards 'The Other'.

Sacred science The world is simplified into a sacred set of dogma. Often the dogma won’t make sense to anyone outside the group, and might even seem ridiculous. Members might seem to just be regurgitating catchphrases and nonsensical conspiracy babble, but they've accepted it as the absolute truth.

There might be an ‘end times’ plan, where the group members will either survive or will ‘ascend’ to a higher plane. Or the group’s cause might involve acting to bring about a better era (which might be as innocuous as selling flowers and/or proselytising for the ‘cause’), or eradicating an evil that will apparently fix all the world’s problems, and supposedly create a utopia where people live in peace (basically it will being a messianic age, even if the group is not overtly a religious group, and even if group members do not consider themselves or the group to be religious). The Other is solely to blame for all the world’s ills (or primarily to blame, to the point that nothing else really matters).

Loading of the language The above feeds into the loading of the language. Everything is extreme and yet oversimplified. No critical thought is needed (or possible). The language is appealing and powerful and absolute - it's emotive. The same arguments are used for everything, whether fair or logical, and whether accurate or not.

Much of this language is made up of thought terminating cliches; it shuts down discussion and prevents facts or reasoning from challenging the cult doctrine. For example, saying that someone is brainwashed is in itself a thought terminating cliché. You’ve already rendered that person’s words not worth listening to because that person has already been labelled incapable of rational thought. By using extreme terms to label someone, they are effectively ostracised from the conversation, and/or the conversation is derailed (the labelled person now has to argue against the label or prove themselves, instead of being able to engage with the original topic).

The language is so extreme and false that you often can’t even argue with it effectively, and that’s the point. ‘I’m not listening to a [insert extreme label]!’ They don’t want a good faith discussion, they don’t care about the facts, they want to control the narrative by making discussion impossible. Whether that’s shutting things down completely, or creating a situation in which the non-member is forced to defend themselves against baseless accusations.

Words are given new meanings to weaponise them and render connection and understanding with outsiders impossible. This language also makes group members feel special and connected to each other (and to the sacred science), but creates a bigger divide between them and anyone outside the group who either doesn’t use those words, doesn’t use them in the same context, or uses those words correctly/differently. The same often goes for chants and slogans that might mean different things to members than non-members, or might be used in place of more accurate or understandable language (so that group members repeat things that they don’t really understand the meaning of, and that might not even have any particular meaning).

Doctrine over person The doctrine is everything - your thoughts, feelings, your previous morals (that the doctrine might contradict) are meaningless. If you do experience any doubt or guilt because of how the doctrine misaligns with your ethics, that's just evidence that you are guilty/impure. There is no nuance, no room for critical thinking or trying to understand someone else's perspective. Your suffering, the suffering of friends or family who are concerned about you, the suffering of ‘The Other’ are all unimportant compared to the doctrine.

Dispensing of existence Anyone who does not pass the purity test, and is not a part of the cult's movement, ceases to deserve to exist. The cult members are pure and elite (which feels quite good!) but, actually, even the members lives are less important than the doctrine. If the doctrine states that in order to achieve the end goal (whether that’s peace on earth, ascension to a higher plane, or protecting leaders from accountability) the lives and freedoms of members are expendable.

Everyone is a tool for the 'greater good'. Because...

The means justify the ends. However horrific or morally corrupt those means are, whoever those means are enacted upon, as long as it's done in the name of the cause it's magically purified.

In cults, anything can be justified. For a higher power or a greater good, anything goes. Deceit, mind control, slavery, human trafficking, all forms of domestic abuse. Leaders can lie to followers, followers can lie to prospective recruits or outsiders, because it's for a good cause. It's all somehow justified, then becomes normalised. And if someone has been taken in and has engaged in anything that they might not be quite so proud of if they really thought about it, the cognitive dissonance would be too much. So it becomes easier to continue to justify it.

[Most people who end up involved in high control groups probably start out with good intentions, and with optimism that the group is good and will help find the answers to all their problems. But the cultish nature of these groups or 'movements' (mind control, thought reform - limiting access to information, disinformation, loading language, a strong us vs them dichotomy, etc.) leads most people away from the well intentioned and caring place they started at into a radicalised, dogma driven mindset.]