The social impact of cult groups

Allen Tate Wood argues that destructive cult groups are exerting unjust control over their members -

The impact of cult groups on society and the influence they exercise cannot and should not be underestimated. For anecdotal proof of this assertion, I refer the reader to a famous picture of former President Ronald Regan holding up a copy of the Washington Times circa 1982. The quote below the boldly claims, “This is the only newspaper I read”.

The Washington Times, however, was the brainchild of Sun Myung Moon. Had Regan taken the time to do more than the crossword puzzle and paid attention to more than just the cartoons, he might have discovered that Sun Myung Moon, a Korean industrialist and self-proclaimed saviour of the world, had spoken at length of his plans to end democracy in the United States. Ironically, Mr. Moon has been one of the chief supporters of Ronald Regan, George Bush and George W. Bush.

The Thirteenth Amendment put a formal end to slavery in the United States and its territories. In the last quarter century, however, many groups in the United States, i.e. paramilitary organizations, destructive cults, gangs, and criminal organizations have used the mantle of religion and along with it the protections and guarantees of the First Amendment in a deliberate strategy designed to defraud the innocent, the unwary, and the unsophisticated out of the protections guaranteed by the Thirteenth Amendment.

These same malefactors, in carrying out the mandates of their ends-justifies-the-means philosophy, have perverted the intent of the First Amendment by using it as a shield against criminal prosecution .The smoke-screen diversion is always the same: a battle cry against “religious persecution.” Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grants immunity from prosecution to religious leaders or groups who violate the laws of the land. On the contrary, fraud laws, banking and currency laws, as well as immigration and naturalization laws all work together to indirectly promote involuntary servitude, a type of slavery that serves as the lifeblood of many destructive cults.

Increasingly sophisticated technology of influence and persuasion is falling into the hands of destructive cult leaders, pyramid sales organizations, gang members and criminal organizations. To make matters worse, the social and economic conditions all over the world have people looking for easy answers, which leaves them vulnerable to the quick-fix philosophy espoused by cults and other groups. The denial attending this wide spread social phenomenon is baffling, heartrending and frightening .

The justice department’s failure to prosecute monolithic pseudo religious organizations, which continue to operate with impunity, only contributes to the growing cynicism of the youth culture, which increasingly sees government simply as the handmaiden of wealth and power.

For further information, please visit the following sites:

http://www.allentwood.com/

http://www.freedomofmind.com/

Allen Tate Wood has spent the last 30 years helping cult victims and their families overcome the negative influence of destructive cults. An authority on the subject, Wood has been invited to speak at universities all over North American and Europe.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all

The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”.  (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t  worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy. 

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.