Skeptic Project

We will use the criteria from this site: http://www.caic.org.au/general/cultcrit.htm</p>

The cult is authoritarian in its power structure.

The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.

The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and domineering.

They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their followers' possessions, money, lives. The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life. For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special places to await a space ship.

Point number one is a pretty solid "yes." Point number two is a pretty solid "yes." Point number three I would have to say "no." I've never found any of the TZM leadership to be particularly charismatic nor determined. If anything, they lazily half ass everything. Domineering? Perhaps some of the more established leaders like VTV and Thunder, but I don't think this extends to every member of the administration team.

The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves.

Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles, and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.

I'd have to say "no" to this one as well. I think in a way Merola enjoys the hero-worship he receives from TZM, but I wouldn't say he keeps the focus of love, devotion and allegiance on himself.

The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members.

Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say. The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers. Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.

This is a pretty solid "no." TZM is such a clusterfuck that outside of the forums no real control exists. While I would agree that TZM has a double set of ethics: preaching love and peace unless you disagree with them, TZM simply does not meet the other requirements.

The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising.

Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such groups have the goals to better the lives of their members and mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.

I would say "yes" to the first and "no" to the second. While I do think TVP meets this criteria, I don't really think TZM does. Merola does not repeatedly ask for money from TZM members and aside from adding a donations link to his site I've never seen him ask members for money.

The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive.

The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.

Yes to the first, no to the second. I do not consider TZM to be very exclusive at all. Pretty much anyone can register an account on their forums and call themselves a member. Actually, someone who watches one movie while taking bongrips in his mom's basement can call themselves a member.

The third set of criteria has to do with defining other common elements of coercive psychological systems. If most of Robert Jay Lifton's eight point model of thought reform is being used in a cultic organization, it is most likely a dangerous and destructive cult. These eight points are:

1. ENVIRONMENT CONTROL. Limitation of many/all forms of communication with those outside the group. Books, magazines, letters and visits with friends and family are taboo. "Come out and be separate!"

This is a solid "no."

2. MYSTICAL MANIPULATION. The potential convert to the group becomes convinced of the higher purpose and special calling of the group through a profound encounter/experience, for example, through an alleged miracle or prophetic word of those in the group.

Solid "no."

3. DEMAND FOR PURITY. An explicit goal of the group is to bring about some kind of change, whether it be on a global, social, or personal level. "Perfection is possible if one stays with the group and is committed."

Solid "yes."

4. CULT OF CONFESSION. The unhealthy practice of self disclosure to members in the group. Often in the context of a public gathering in the group, admitting past sins and imperfections, even doubts about the group and critical thoughts about the integrity of the leaders.

Solid "no."

5. SACRED SCIENCE. The group's perspective is absolutely true and completely adequate to explain EVERYTHING. The doctrine is not subject to amendments or question. ABSOLUTE conformity to the doctrine is required.

Solid "yes."

6. LOADED LANGUAGE. A new vocabulary emerges within the context of the group. Group members "think" within the very abstract and narrow parameters of the group's doctrine. The terminology sufficiently stops members from thinking critically by reinforcing a "black and white" mentality. Loaded terms and clich_s prejudice thinking.

Solid "yes."

7. DOCTRINE OVER PERSON. Pre-group experience and group experience are narrowly and decisively interpreted through the absolute doctrine, even when experience contradicts the doctrine.

Solid "no."

8. DISPENSING OF EXISTENCE. Salvation is possible only in the group. Those who leave the group are doomed.

Solid "no." TZM has always had a revolving door problem, and I have never seen ex-members treated as if they're doomed for leaving.

-----

So is TZM a cult? I would say no, it is not. Its certainly an ideology/religion with some cult-like qualities, but I don't think it would be accurate to call it a cult.

I agree with this evaluation pretty hardily. Its not a cult, but maybe only because its so useless it cannot even achieve that dubious distinction. TZM is more like a petridish to grown conspiratorial, paranoid world views that perpetuates itself by engendering more misinformed fear and deferring any legitimate test of its ideologies. The movement is predicated upon lies and a fundamentally deficient world view and it does not actually move forward in any meaningful way. Maybe thats because actually testing their utopian fantasy would really prove their error and fallacy. TZM is no cult, its not even a movement.

Yeah I know me too I dont believe they are a destructive/negative cult. But they do exhibit enough markers to be close to other less dangerous cults, like cults of personality, cults of politics etc..

What Types of Cults Are There?

Cults come in different forms, and have different areas of interest. They promise to answer a variety of questions, and solve life’s problems.

Bible based
Eastern Meditation
Therapy/self-awareness
Political
Commercial/corporate
New Age
Satanic
One-on-One (one leader, and one or two followers)
Scientific
Philosophical

Also this one :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

I had originally thought TZM was not a cult that the claims that it was cannot be determined because it was internet based. However when talking with Falkner in irc (and Muertos blogs) I came to the conclusion that cults on the internet can be just as effective in brainwashing individuals as physically based cults.

A person within TZM could self brainwash themselves by watching Peter's movies over and over again every single day (and I know people who have). These members have easy 24/7 access to materials Peter has made to idolize him; which if this was fifteen years ago things like video and audio records were not as easily accessible as they are now. You've got Peter who claims he's not the leader of TZM yet he still dictates what goes on, still gets his movies translated into different languages by the TZM linguistic team, still has people promote his movies within TZM, and when he attempted to step down from TZM a day later he decided to continue to stay in because he believed he was still needed.

I do think TZM is a internet based cult, however I originally did not. I disagree with some aspects of Matt's evaluation but other parts I agree in. I would of had more of those criteria points tacked yes than no.

After considering TZM as being a possible internet cult I started to do my own research checking through academic journals and using google of course. I realized that their was almost ZERO credible academic research on internet cults. Their are studies that indirectly talk about cults and their use of the internet but zero academic studies to my knowledge on purely based internet cults (could be one I just can't find it).

Trying to evaluate internet cults without any academic research backing up the claims is going to be hard. These "is it a cult or not a cult" academic criteria theory check points are based mainly on cults that physically meet in the flesh and blood and not in the virtual environment. Rick Ross for instance who is a expert in his field in my opinion does not have enough experience do to the lack of academic research given to say if a cult can form on the internet or not (same goes with me as well).

When I say TZM is a cult it's purely based more on opinion and to a lesser extent on academic criteria evaluation (that is based on academic research). Their simply isn't enough academic research to say that internet cults are even possible. So things I would define as internet cults like TZM and Desteni are purely opinion that is based somewhat on academic research on cults. Their just needs to be more academic studies on this at which the studies could conclude that internet cults are not possible or that they are very possible.

I think the more we look into what one believes to be a internet cult the more we will learn and the more credible and or ludicrous the idea that cults can form on the internet. Then eventually these observation can be studied and possibly turned into academic works to gain some academic credibility into this area.

Falkner: I agree with this evaluation pretty hardily. Its not a cult, but maybe only because its so useless it cannot even achieve that dubious distinction.

Although I think TZM is a cult I do think it's pretty useless. I'd be more concerned about Desteni only because their goals seem to be more attainable.

Purely Internet-based cults are such a brand new phenomenon that I doubt there would be much scholarly research on it yet.

Only in the last two years or so has online presence and social networking evolved to a stage where such a thing as an Internet-based cult is even possible.

Desteni is certainly the paradigm. I'm not aware of anyone who is not a Desteni member who doesn't think Desteni is a cult, and although they do have the ranch in South Africa the vast majority of their presence is Internet-based. So I think the definitions of cults (which are very hard to pin down in any event, as this debate evidences) are going to have to change a little in order to accommodate this new form of cult behavior.

@Muertos I think their needs to be different criteria set for internet based cults. Internet based cults can become really sophisticated and still carry how it's brainwashing objectives.

Purely Internet-based cults are such a brand new phenomenon that I doubt there would be much scholarly research on it yet.

Only in the last two years or so has online presence and social networking evolved to a stage where such a thing as an Internet-based cult is even possible.

I would agree with that. I think the main things that allowed internet cults to grow are internet audio and video streams. If you check the TZM website for instance or talk to your typical TZMer they always point to videos and audios people can listen to which to me suggest the majority of their information comes from video and audio's and not text formats. I rarely come across a CTer who actually points me to books unless of course it's a audio book.

About seven years ago for your average person to host a internet radio stream was consider a new, popular, and revolutionary idea. Back a few years ago not everybody had the know how or the sophistication to host their own internet stream but now you have websites that host the stream for a person and all the sophistication a person needs is the ability to to signup to a website and the website itself will handle the rest of it. As far as video streaming goes it's going through some major changes presently.

I suppose if we were all on dial-up still the internet environment would drastically change. Maybe for the better?

Purely Internet-based cults are such a brand new phenomenon that I doubt there would be much scholarly research on it yet.

I will agree on this point but will add one strong caution. I believe we, as a society, have a tendency to try and manipulate new phenomenon through old words. I do believe that the internet offers a unique possibility for cults, by the stricktest definition, to persist and even expand in new ways. I believe this is the case with Desteni. However, TZM, as Matt shows, does not meet the criteria of a cult outside of the internet and thus I have very strong reservations about calling TZM a cult. That suggests it has more central organization than it really does. Now, there are strong authoritarian forces in TZM, which I have commented on as being both explicit and implicit, but they are not extending into authority over the user him or herself. Put another way, imagine that you really were two people- you as a biological person and you as an internet person. Desteni, and other cults, can exercise direct power over both aspects of your life. TZM has a hard enough time exercising that power over internet personas. So Billl's insistence on careful classification of Internet cults is spot on, in my opinion. Because TZM lacks authority over the person, proper, I cannot in good faith call it a cult. Now maybe they are an Internet Cult with some strong stipulations, but even that, I think, is really contestable.

Kaiser, I can understand your position, but I think eventually we get into a zone of hair-splitting. Is there a difference in degree between a purely Internet-based cult and one that exists in the physical world? Sure, there probably is, but the degree depends upon the characteristics of the group in question. Every one is going to be different.

As I said, there is a lot of room for legitimate disagreement on this point. All the points made by you, Matt etc. are well taken.

I am uncertain if it really is a question of hair splitting because i think the test of a cult is in its outcomes. The outcome of any cult has to manifest itself in the behavior of adherents and followers, something that is very limited in followers of TZM. Rather, we have Zeitgeisters who do not centralize and follow a central plan, but instead promote conspiracy theories and a utopian model without hard, physical steps in trying to attain it. Now, this is not to say every cult needs its "drink the kool-aid" moment, only that it needs to really exist in action and deed and follow the guidelines above. What TZM is good at doing is creating zealots online who effectively lock out logic and reason, and instead devolve into conspiratorial, paranoid, and delusions of grandeur. Are Alex Jones' listeners in a cult? Would you say the tendency to call them a cult lies in the zealous defense of their erroneous world view rather than their brainwashed obedience to PJ? It seems that they serve a nebulous idea, not a central character.

Doesn't matter, Anti. Desteni is *mostly* internet based and they are a cult, fit Lifton's 8, and those experts in the field who have looked into it has agreed it's a cult. You can still use thought reform methods remotely, it's nothing new.

What came first the paranoia or conspiracy theory?

@Kaiser Falkner That is interesting that you would differentiate between the internet persona and the in the flesh persona. I suppose to elaborate as to what I mean when I say a internet cult versus your meet and greet cults is that a internet cult origins and startups are online, and their main communication and networking is online with some meet and greet scenarios. Your meet and greet cults may have compounds or a environment where your around them or their material most the the week.

imagine that you really were two people- you as a biological person and you as an internet person. Desteni, and other cults, can exercise direct power over both aspects of your life. TZM has a hard enough time exercising that power over internet personas.

If I were talking about ones biological self and internet self I'd agree that Desteni has more influence to their members biological self versus TZM. However I think if one were to live by a TZM ideology or adopt it to their biological self I think it is more harmful to a individual versus Desenti. I think if a person adopts even a little of TZM ideology as to make an attempt to live by it be it a RBE or no money I think it can have very harmful mental as well as physical long term affects on a person versus the Desteni ideology. Therefore I think most TZmers don't live by their ideology just preach it however Desteni members can live by most of their ideology (which in return makes their ideology even more real and attainable to them) and from the looks of it their goals are relatively attainable which makes them more of a threat versus TZM.

However just because one groups goals/ideology are more attainable than another doesn't make them not a cult. However until more academic research is put forth on the possibility of internet cults labeling such any groups for instance Desteni and TZM internet cults on a academic level is hard to do because not enough academic research is out there. So it's based more on opinion than academics research for the time being in my opinion of course.

However I think if one were to live by a TZM ideology or adopt it to their biological self I think it is more harmful to a individual versus Desenti.

But this is precisely my sticking point. My third year research project was on the ontologies of Internet/Biological life. Now, there was a huge body of literature I couldn't deal with in 10 weeks, but I did feel like I got a better grasp on the possibility of such meaningful divisions. The point here is that you have to rest on an "if then" scenario with TZM. But TZM's control is so limited to internet personas that they are incapable of making that breach over to totalitarian control over the biological individual. People who adopt "TZM" in real life do so individually and through their own interpretations, not under direct control of the leaders. But online, there is a definite deferment to the group "experts" like PJ and an explicit and implicit authoritarian control over their cyberspace. Because TZM has not exhibited this leap from internet personas to biological personas I find fault with them being a cult outright.

@anticultist But I think its not that they have cult like tendencies so much as that many members exhibit personality traits that make people attracted to cults in the first place.

People with anxiety disorders are more likely to believe in Conspiracies and feel threatened by them, but not all people do (myself included)

Fine, then Bronies and Trekkies are a cult.