Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 69
theory and the CIA theory are identical. He fails to do so because all influence models that
posit a deconditioning stage and a reconditioning stage are not identical. An examination of
the particulars in his description of CIA deconditioning and reconditioning shows that they
do not match up with the particulars of these stages in my theory (see Appendix). In any
case, because this particular proposition is not disputational but merely descriptive of the
CIA model, it does not invalidate my theory.
Proposition 11. (Page 220) In terms of their original goals of improving interrogation and
coercive indoctrination tactics beyond that obtainable with physical coercion or other
traditional methods, [the government programs] were complete failures. Neither the
German nor the American program ever learned how to change people’s minds about their
political orientations much less turn them into so-called “deployable agents.”
X disputational relevant X correct
Here Anthony correctly disputes the validity of the CIA model. However, that model is not
relevant to my model. This irrelevance is evident by Anthony‘s failure to establish
equivalence between the two with any of his other propositions. It is also evident by direct
comparison of the two models. The CIA model attempts to take ordinary people and, using
operant conditioning techniques, change their ideologies and make them deployable. The
model I have outlined concerns attempts to take already-committed members of a religious
movement and, using techniques of charismatic persuasion and group pressures to
conform, change them from agents to deployable agents. Nothing about the failure of the
CIA model is necessarily applicable to the cult brainwashing model.
Cultic-Brainwashing Formulations: History
Proposition 12. (Page 221) ...cultic brainwashing formulations are ...actually based upon
the discredited CIA brainwashing model while they claim to be based upon generally
accepted research [by Lifton and Schein] upon Korean War era Communist indoctrination
practices.
X disputational X relevant correct
The model I have developed depends neither on the CIA failures nor upon the successful
explanations of Lifton and Schein. It stands or falls on its own merits and is a useful theory
only to the extent that it helps us understand charismatic persuasion in cults. I say this
because Anthony‘s repeated attempts to locate what he calls my ―authorities‖ in twentieth-
century research is on the wrong track and confusing. This comment does not diminish my
considerable intellectual debt to Robert Jay Lifton that I acknowledge in my writings. But
there are no ―authorities‖ lurking in my model waiting to be discovered. There are only
intellectual influences of varying degrees of importance.
Proposition 13. (Page 222) The core proposition of cultic brainwashing theory is that
brainwashing consists of the use of techniques which place its victims into a disoriented
state of consciousness in which their normal capacity to rationally evaluate social influence
has been suspended, and consequently in which they have become hyper suggestible and
therefore unable to resist propaganda advocating alternative totalitarian world views.
disputational X relevant correct
This nondisputational statement simply tries to describe the core proposition of my theory in
a way that can later be used to invalidate it. The statement is a mixture of correct and
incorrect statements that require some care to be disentangled. Although the theory does
discuss attempts to disorient the influence target, these disorientation attempts are only an
intermediate step of the process. The key term in Anthony‘s description of what he believes
is the core proposition is the phrase ―unable to resist.‖ If he can establish this, he can later
charge the theory with proposing the overthrow of free will and therefore demonstrate that
theory and the CIA theory are identical. He fails to do so because all influence models that
posit a deconditioning stage and a reconditioning stage are not identical. An examination of
the particulars in his description of CIA deconditioning and reconditioning shows that they
do not match up with the particulars of these stages in my theory (see Appendix). In any
case, because this particular proposition is not disputational but merely descriptive of the
CIA model, it does not invalidate my theory.
Proposition 11. (Page 220) In terms of their original goals of improving interrogation and
coercive indoctrination tactics beyond that obtainable with physical coercion or other
traditional methods, [the government programs] were complete failures. Neither the
German nor the American program ever learned how to change people’s minds about their
political orientations much less turn them into so-called “deployable agents.”
X disputational relevant X correct
Here Anthony correctly disputes the validity of the CIA model. However, that model is not
relevant to my model. This irrelevance is evident by Anthony‘s failure to establish
equivalence between the two with any of his other propositions. It is also evident by direct
comparison of the two models. The CIA model attempts to take ordinary people and, using
operant conditioning techniques, change their ideologies and make them deployable. The
model I have outlined concerns attempts to take already-committed members of a religious
movement and, using techniques of charismatic persuasion and group pressures to
conform, change them from agents to deployable agents. Nothing about the failure of the
CIA model is necessarily applicable to the cult brainwashing model.
Cultic-Brainwashing Formulations: History
Proposition 12. (Page 221) ...cultic brainwashing formulations are ...actually based upon
the discredited CIA brainwashing model while they claim to be based upon generally
accepted research [by Lifton and Schein] upon Korean War era Communist indoctrination
practices.
X disputational X relevant correct
The model I have developed depends neither on the CIA failures nor upon the successful
explanations of Lifton and Schein. It stands or falls on its own merits and is a useful theory
only to the extent that it helps us understand charismatic persuasion in cults. I say this
because Anthony‘s repeated attempts to locate what he calls my ―authorities‖ in twentieth-
century research is on the wrong track and confusing. This comment does not diminish my
considerable intellectual debt to Robert Jay Lifton that I acknowledge in my writings. But
there are no ―authorities‖ lurking in my model waiting to be discovered. There are only
intellectual influences of varying degrees of importance.
Proposition 13. (Page 222) The core proposition of cultic brainwashing theory is that
brainwashing consists of the use of techniques which place its victims into a disoriented
state of consciousness in which their normal capacity to rationally evaluate social influence
has been suspended, and consequently in which they have become hyper suggestible and
therefore unable to resist propaganda advocating alternative totalitarian world views.
disputational X relevant correct
This nondisputational statement simply tries to describe the core proposition of my theory in
a way that can later be used to invalidate it. The statement is a mixture of correct and
incorrect statements that require some care to be disentangled. Although the theory does
discuss attempts to disorient the influence target, these disorientation attempts are only an
intermediate step of the process. The key term in Anthony‘s description of what he believes
is the core proposition is the phrase ―unable to resist.‖ If he can establish this, he can later
charge the theory with proposing the overthrow of free will and therefore demonstrate that
