Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 24
Freedom of Mind Foundation
New England Institute of Religious Research
Maine Cult Information Network
Cult Hotline and Clinic of the New York Jewish Board of Family and Children‘s
Services
Cult Awareness and Information Center (Australia)
Cult Awareness Center
Cult Information &Family Support (Australia)
Edmonton Society Against Mind Abuse
Ex-Cult Resource Center
FACTNet
FAPES (Argentina)
Forum Against Cults (Israel)
Free Minds
Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center
reFOCUS
Religious Movement Resource Center
REVEAL
The Ross Institute (RI)
Saskatchewan Citizens Against Mind Control
Mind Control Research Center (Japan)
I have not listed the dozens of organizations that fall under Dr. Barker‘s ―Countercult
Groups.‖ Nor have I listed European organizations that are members of FECRIS (Fédération
Européene des Centres de Recherche et d‘Information sur le Sectarisme – European
Federation of Centres of Research and Information on Sectarianism) and other European
organizations. Moreover, I could have listed hundreds of individuals who have written about
cultic groups and/or who offer services to people believing such groups have harmed them.
Hence, scholars who generalize about ―the‖ ―anti-cult movement,‖ when they have had at
best superficial contact with only a few organizations and individuals, make the same error
as laymen and helping professionals who generalize from their limited experience to the
wide world of cults/NRMs, in which there are thousands of groups.
What is clearly needed is systematic and reliable research on individual cult awareness
groups. As Dr. Barker has noted, even though it may be difficult, ―to have direct access to
certain groups or members of the ACM does not excuse us for characterizing them by the
very methods that we accuse them of using in their characterization of us and the NRMs‖
(Barker, 1995, p. 307). In addition, any such study should take into account the socio-
cultural-linguistic milieu of each group. For example, someone who does not understand
French can miss important information when undertaking an in-depth study of a group that
operates in the province of Quebec, Canada.
4. Know thyself!
In making a fair and informed evaluation about an individual or group, we should first ask
ourselves the following questions:
1. To what extent have we accepted the accusatory assessments made by certain
individuals or groups, about the ―ACM‖ or ―PCM‖ without checking for ourselves and
critically evaluating the accuracy of allegations made? Do we ask for documents or
other empirical facts in order to make an informed evaluation?
2. Do we readily accept allegations against those with an opposing point of view
because we believe they are capable of what they are accused of?

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2003, Page 25
3. Do we assume that those involved in the ―ACM‖ or ―PCM‖ are the same today as they
were in the past?
Cult critics should ask these questions when evaluating cultic groups.
It is apparent that individuals and organizations with opposing positions would be able to,
and do, make the argument that their research and work has been unfairly stereotyped or
has been the victim of poor or non-existent research.
5. Create more opportunities to dialogue.
We need to create more opportunities to dialogue, such as occurs at the AFF conferences,
which bring people of different perspectives and disciplines together for the exchange of
ideas, the examination of views, and the breaking down of stereotypes. Over the past few
years there have been several productive small gatherings of individuals from the ―two
camps‖. We need more of these. We also need more cross-fertilization of ideas by having
members of the two camps speak at each others‘ conferences. Again, some of this has
occurred, but more dialogue is needed.
Seeing the Same Thing with Different Eyes
It is ironic that much of what I advocate in this paper has also been urged by ISKCON
(International Society for Krishna Consciousness). Nobody likes to be stigmatized unfairly,
whether they be academicians accused of being cult apologists, cult critics accused of being
religious bigots, or cults/NRMs accused of being crass exploiters of their members. Of
course, there undoubtedly are cult apologists, religious bigots, and crass exploiters among
our numbers. Nevertheless, we ought not to hurl generalized accusations at those with
whom we may disagree without due diligence. Hence, I find myself endorsing the following
words of advice excerpted from Subhananda dasa (1979, p. 16):
 When researching or writing, please try to be sensitive to the possibility of personal
bias.
 Please get our side, too. (It‘s only fair.)
 Please be sure to speak, also, with experts (academic scholars, psychologists,
sociologists, and so forth) who may not have taken an ―anticult‖ stance. They can
provide an articulate, responsible counterbalance to negative views.
 Please try to let the facts speak for themselves, rather than letting them slip into
what may be stereotyped patterns.
 Please avoid ―lumping.‖
Info-Cult as a Case Study
Info-Cult, an organization of which I am the founder and Executive Director, has been
subjected to many of the distorting errors about which I write. An examination of these
distortions can illuminate this discussion. First, however, I need to give some background
on Info-Cult.
History of Info-Cult
Info-Cult, a resource centre on cultic thinking, was founded in 1980 in Montreal, Canada
following my personal experience with the Unification Church (UC) in 1977 and specifically
that involving my close friend, Benjie Carroll. After the story about Benjie‘s kidnapping and
deprogramming from the UC was featured in a series of six newspaper articles written by
Josh Freed in the Montreal Star (Freed, 1977 December, 1978 January), his close associates
and I received numerous requests for further information. In response, several friends
organized a part-time volunteer public information service.