Saving your family from the Manson Family

Cult expert and exit counselor Allen Tate Wood continues his series by explaining how you can help a

The family of a cult member has a tough row to hoe. Coming to terms with a member of one’s family joining a cult group is a complex and difficult task. Many find themselves asking questions like “Why has my child, husband or wife joined this group?” or “Why won't they just snap out of it?”

The education of the family is paramount in addressing the dilemma of cult membership. The family, in order to provide the nourishment and strength necessary to turn a cult member into an ex-cult member, needs to shed the kind of polarized posture that is so common during the initial stages of involvement with the cult group. The shaming and blaming has to stop. Family members can supply invaluable aid by assuming a receptive, supportive and non-judgmental attitude, and by simply listening to cult members' accounts of their behaviour while they were with the group.

For those families who have a child in a destructive cult, there are a host of perspectives, attitudes, postures and strategies which may variously be assumed or employed in an attempt to come to terms with the painful facts. I cannot help but formulate the problem in its general terms as a question of love. The family can see that something is obviously wrong with their son or daughter, and wants the best for him or her. The cult group, on the other hand, says the family is evil and accuses the family—and anyone with authority outside the cult—of being deceptive and self-serving in their feelings for the cult member.

Emotional tension is heightened when children, guided by their cult mentors, lash out at their parents and families, erroneously seeing them as enemies. Parents might feel as though they no longer have any influence in their children's lives, but I believe that saving children from the thralldom of destructive cults is the right and responsibility of parents. It is an expression of their love. It can represent, in the deepest sense, a reaffirmation of a husband's and a wife's commitment to each other and to their children. It is a test of their love. To fight for the life of one's child in the face of the systematic accusation of a destructive cult is one of the most challenging tasks of this age.

For further information on the subject, I highly recommend the work of my friend Steven Hassan. His two books, “Releasing the Bonds” and “Combatting Cult Mind Control” are far and away the best resources for those trying to understand this complex issue.

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.
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.