Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 16
perceived opponents—they nonetheless allow researchers to connect group conflict with
group structures and ideologies that reflect the biospsychosocial issues of many group
leaders.
Among the clearest attempts to connect the mentality of a leader with potentially dangerous
group conflict appeared in a 1984 court decision against Scientology. In his ―Memorandum
of Intended Decision,‖ California Superior Judge Paul Breckenridge, Jr., concluded that the
Scientology
organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre
combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH [L. Ron Hubbard].
The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when
it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and
documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for
power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by
him to be disloyal or hostile.... Obviously, he is and has been a very complex
person, and that complexity is further reflected in his alter ego, the Church of
Scientology (Breckenridge 1984b:7-8).
While part of the "diagnosis" that Breckenridge gave almost certainly was incorrect
(Hubbard was far more likely to have been bipolar with paranoid tendencies or narcissistic
than schizophrenic), the connection that the judge made between the mind of the founder
and Scientology‘s organization and its aggressive policies rings true. He reached these
conclusions in a case in which the organization had "fair gamed" former member Gerald
Armstrong, and Breckenridge saw a direct connection between Hubbard‘s paranoia and the
organization‘s reaction to someone whom leaders perceived to be an enemy.
Scientology applies the same "fair game" policy to organizations, including governments,
against which it struggles. As the author of a review of Scientology‘s litigation strategies
concluded, ―[m]uch to the Church‘s chagrin, opponents frequently cite its own founder, L.
Ron Hubbard, for the ‗fair game doctrine,‘ a revealing statement that may explain the
ferocity and zeal of the organization‘s litigation stance‖ (Kumar 1997:748). While providing
examples of that ferocity against individuals, the author (J.P. Kumar) also reported that
Scientology‘s application of fair game ―can frustrate the largest of adversaries. Large media
defendants and multinational corporations have learned that even a successful battle
against the Church is something of a Pyrric victory after the costs of litigation are tallied‖
(Kumar 1997:750). Even the American government has experienced the force of
Scientology‘s ―hardball‖ tactics (Kumar 1997:747-748). Persons suffering from paranoid
personality disorder often are ―litigious and frequently become involved in legal disputes‖
(American Psychiatric Association 1994:635), but this characteristic also fits the
organizational alter ego of Scientology‘s founder.
Other examples of (what appears to be) organizational paranoia that originated in the minds
of leaders have led to dire consequences. Jim Jones‘s paranoia escalated (with fatal
consequences) when some members tried to defect and leave with visiting Congressman
Leo Ryan, and the assassination squad that killed five members of the departing party
foreshadowed the mass murder and killing of 913 people that soon followed in the
compound (Reiterman and Jacobs 1982:527-529, 556-560). In yet another group example,
by 1994 the apocalyptic warning of Aum‘s leader, Shoko Asahara, led a former foreign
correspondent to conclude that the mindset of that organization ―was a classic paranoia in
the making, striking out at an imagined enemy before the enemy has a chance to strike
first‖ (Brackett 1996:105). In part, a delusional Asahara and Aum leaders saw the sarin
attack in the Tokyo subway as a preemptive strike against enemies (i.e., Japanese and
American officials) who were poised to assault their organization.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 17
Oregon‘s Rajneesh community grew increasingly paranoid in the 1980s, but this paranoia
was not necessarily the direct result of its leader‘s narcissism. Ashram leaders‘ pattern of
frequent lying to officials certainly reflected a behaviour common to narcissistic individuals
(Clarke 1988:41-42 Carter 1990:137-139 see American Psychiatric Association
1994:658), but the commune‘s paranoia was a response to increasing challenges from
Oregonian officials over the constitutionality of their settlement as a city (Carter 1990:194).
As leaders‘ concern grew over Rajneeshpuram‘s future, they ―appear to have believed that
they could yet secure the commune by desperate tactics. These took three forms:
heightened security, provocative rhetoric, and what appear to have been initial and
tentative attacks on others (later becoming more general and demonstrable)‖ (Carter
1990:196). Rajneesh‘s narcissism likely explains the bombastic, incendiary rhetoric that he
so often used, and ―[p]erhaps in emulation of the controversial Bhagwan, Rajneesh leaders
tended toward inflammatory rhetoric‖ as external pressures and internal weaknesses
increased (Carter 1990:198). Moreover, his narcissism probably explains his laissez-faire
attitude toward ashram management (until moments before its imminent collapse). As long
as devotees idolized him, he essentially stood ‗above‘ the mundane operations of the facility
(see Clarke 1988:38-39).
―Defiant counterattack‖ is another narcissistic feature (American Psychiatric Association
1994:659), and certainly this term amply describes the behaviour of many Rajneesh
members, especially in the commune‘s final days. In the end, sixty-three Rajneeshees faced
charges on eleven different types of criminal offenses, many of them directed at perceived
opponents both outside and inside the group. These offences included lying to federal
officials, criminal conspiracy, burglary, racketeering, first-degree arson, second-degree
assault, first-degree assault, and attempted murder. Leaders had carried out the assaults
and attempted murders through poisoning, which included the salmonella illnesses of some
750 people caused by salad bar contaminations in 1984 (Carter 1990:224, 235-238).
Paranoia in the Children of God/The Family organization certainly reflected the attitudes of
its founder, David Berg, but his fears probably were not based in mental disorder but rather
in a realistic appraisal of legal and social consequences he would have had to face if
authorities could have held him accountable for his teachings about pedophilia and
ephebephilia. Many of these teachings appeared in publications that leaders restricted to
trusted disciples, and in April 1989 Family leadership published an ―emergency notice‖
about security leaks. It reminded members that ―in order to avoid unnecessarily
endangering the Family Homes or members by either antagonizing our enemies with the
New Wine [i.e., Berg‘s teachings] or even revealing the methods &tactics of our spiritual
warfare or life style, Dad [i.e., Berg] has laid down very definite rules &security guidelines
for each of our Homes &Members that receive DO [Disciples Only] lit[erature]‖ (World
Services 1989:1). Despite these efforts, the material about the ―life-style‖ that Berg
encouraged continued to leak out. The eroticized information about children and teens
sufficiently alarmed government officials around the world (Argentina, Australia, France, and
Spain) about children‘s safety that they led a series of controversial raids against Family
homes during the late 1980s and early 1990s. None of these raids led to child-abuse
convictions, which has allowed the Family and many supportive academics to condemn
these actions as an unfortunate consequence of anti-cult propaganda (see, for example,
Richardson 1999:179, 182-183). However poorly conceived and executed many of these
raids appear to have been, the fact remains that authorities who encountered Berg‘s
teachings about child sexual abuse felt compelled to act. Having obtained various copies of
the Family‘s more explicit publications and videos, child-welfare agents in various countries
would have been negligent in their duties if they had not removed children from the care of
adult Family members. Rather than laying blame on the shoulders of the group‘s opponents,
therefore, for the Family‘s government confrontations, the final responsibility for them must
rest upon Berg himself.