Cult leaders, in religion and politics, demand fealty

I watched a documentary the other night on Jonestown, the cult enclave in Guyana led by Jim Jones, who fled San Francisco 30 years ago along with more than 1,000 of his followers in order to build a "new life" in the jungle. The documentary struck me because my new book, "Beyond Belief," is about cults, healers, mystics and gurus -- and why we believe in them.

It seems that nearly all cults follow a predictable program: There is the charismatic leader, who is dynamic and promises love and paradise for his adepts. He has a mission that he inveigles the followers to embrace; it doesn't matter if there are casualties because the mission is all and because he, too, is caught in the rhetoric of paradise, of a place where all is love and, for him, all is power.

Soon, however, the mission falters -- because there are the enemies (you're either for us or against us) who stand in the way and won't let the mission be accomplished. Paranoia sets in; the infidels must be destroyed because they are out to destroy us. What exacerbates the paranoia are the depths of suspicion that the leader becomes mired in. He must build up defenses -- against his fears. He sees enemies everywhere, and he imagines it is a coherent plot among them. Even a benign move by them becomes interpreted as a threat. There is no talking to them anymore because they are the enemy. This ultimately leads to a confrontation and finally combat.

It is not hard to imagine the big leap to some government leaders who run cults writ large (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il). In these "cults," the casualties matter little and there is hardly any emotion wasted on the suffering of the followers, nor the enemy for that matter, nor the bystanders (collateral damage), for they must accomplish the mission that exists in the collective head of the "guru."

Whether the leader of a cult or the leader of a government, what better position for that leader than to convince the followers that they need protection? The evidence is all around them. What better position than to order arms at will, no matter what the cost? Cost never enters the equation. Defeating the enemy is all. If no enemy exists, one will be created. What is amazing is how little it takes to bring people along for the ride.

Cults appear in many guises and disguises. But the dynamics never change. The leader wants your money and possessions, your body (the army), and then your mind.

The military is an organization that tells you how to dress, when to get up, when to eat and what, when you can go out on liberty. It attracts the obedient ones, in the same way that cults attract them. Military intelligence then becomes an oxymoron because those uncreative, unfree types are in the saddle running the show. The focus is always on the enemy, not on our suffering soldiers. The mission: uber allies. Those who would wish to end the war are accused of aiding the enemy -- except that the worst enemy is inside, not outside.

That logic operated in Nazi Germany, where to utter the word "defeat" was a crime and was punished by death. First the leader must start a war, even with no evidence of a threat. Then he castigates those who don't agree as enemies. This is particularly true of those who find other truths; Valerie Plame comes to mind. It doesn't matter that she was a highly secretive employee dedicated to protecting our country. What mattered was to stifle dissent; democracy took a backseat. Hitler managed to get tens of millions to invade other countries and go to war on the flimsiest pretext -- the need for more breathing space.

When we defer to external regulation of our own lives and minimize the value of personal efforts in affecting problems, the result is rule by the cognoscenti, rule by a knowing elite who knows what is best for us. It applies to politics. When people feel powerless, they prefer government by experts over government by the people.

It is not the content of a belief system that matters, but what draws us toward ideas and beliefs, and what makes beliefs so important to us. The brain does not care if it is, say, the Republican Party, est or the Branch Davidians, just as the brain does not care what brand of whiskey the alcoholic uses.

The leader has inculcated an ideational net inside the follower, which is the most effective possible means of control. Control is in place, and the follower does the dictates of the ideological net. The net is enveloped by the need. Fulfilling his own archaic needs, the leader becomes more dictatorial, and the followers become more and more needy for guidance. They lose all perspective as to right and wrong, moral and immoral. They simply follow their leader, who assures them that they are doing the right thing and that everything is for their own good. Obey me if you want a better life. I will bestow upon you justice, protection, caring, understanding, love. "You have the chance to learn my salvation." We get it.