### MindNet is no longer active.

#### Back to MindNet Index

    ================================================================
         MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 66
    ================================================================
         V E R I C O M M / MindNet         "Quid veritas est?"
    ================================================================

    The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the
    views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editors unless
    otherwise noted.

    The following is reproduced here with the express permission of
    the author.

    Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for
    non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the
    copy remain intact and unedited.

    Editor: Mike Coyle

    Assistant Editor: Rick Lawler

    Research: Darrell Bross

    Editor's Note:

    Jeffrey A. Schaler is a psychotherapist and adjunct professor at
    American University's School of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C.
    He lives in Silver Spring, MD and is the listowner/coordinator
    of NUVUPSY@sjuvm.stjohns.edu.

    ================================================================

    CULT-BUSTING

    By Jeffrey A. Schaler, Ph.D.

    June 1995

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    ABSTRACT

       Psychological characteristics of cult membership are
    discussed. The cult nature of Alcoholics Anonymous and disease
    model of addiction ideology is examined. Patterns of response by
    individuals who believe strongly in the disease model of
    addiction when their ideology is challenged are analyzed.
       Cults serve diverse purposes for individuals, the foremost of
    which can be a positive sense of community where values are
    focused, affirmed, and reinforced. The relationship among
    individuals in a cult is also hypnotic (Freud 1959; Becker 1973).
    People disagreeing with an ideology binding individuals together
    in a group are likely to be criticized, punished, and eventually
    excluded or shunned by the group. This rule reads "thou shalt not
    disagree," for affiliation and membership in the cult rests on
    ideological consensus. In order for the cult to maintain its
    singular identity, the rule must be obeyed. Break the rule and
    break the spell. In order for a singular group identity to exist,
    individual identities must be minimized.
       The flip-side of this phenomenon concerns the impact of
    individual autonomy on the cult experience -- a kind of
    "psychological capitalism" in a psychologically-socialist world.
    The stronger an individual's confidence in self, the less likely
    an individual will succumb to demands for cult conformity.
       At least three dimensions to those ideas are worth considering
    here: (a) Individuals with a strong sense of personal autonomy
    are less likely to become involved in cults. (b) If they do
    become involved in a cult, they are more likely to recover from
    the cult experience in a way that preserves a strong sense of
    self (compared to those whose self-concept was considerably
    weaker prior to the cult experience). (c) What is also likely to
    be true is that individuals with a strong sense of self are less
    likely to feel threatened when cult members attack them.
    Moreover, individuals eschewing cult affiliation may elicit
    resentment from true believers (Kaufmann 1973). (1)
       Individuals with backgrounds involving chronic identity
    confusion, excessive guilt, and "totalistic" or dichotomous
    thinking, appear to experience more difficulty in re-establishing
    themselves in their post-cult life, compared to those individuals
    with a clearer sense of identity, less guilt, and more accurate
    sense of psychological perspective. Individuals exhibiting a
    strong sense of personal autonomy appear more resistant to
    criticism directed at them by a group of individuals at odds with
    their particular ideology. (2)
       In clinical hypnosis, the will of the subject becomes
    confluent with the will of the hypnotist. The subject does not
    have a say in the process. The sense of ego separateness between
    the two is purposely obscured by the hypnotist. In psychotherapy
    this experience is called "transference." As long as the client
    in either hypnosis or psychotherapy maintains an acute awareness
    of self, that is, he or she persists in appreciating the
    difference between self and environment, a point referred to as
    the "ego boundary" by Perls (1947), the hypnosis will fail. Some
    schools of psychotherapy may view this as an obstruction to good
    therapy, others view it as a means to achieving success (Szasz
    1965).
       Good contact and a hypnotic trance are opposing states of
    consciousness. Thus, good contact antidotes hypnosis. Moreover,
    good contact between therapist and client is not contingent upon
    cultivating transference. (3) Therapy fails when the client
    chooses to see the therapist as someone other than he or she
    really is, and when therapists encourage clients to see them as
    someone other than who they really are.
       An extreme example of this ability to resist hypnosis and
    brainwashing is seen in the movie of a few years ago entitled The
    Ipcress File. By deliberately pressing a metal nail into his hand
    actor Michael Caine used his experience of pain to force an
    awareness of self. He avoided listening to the hypnotic voice of
    an "other," an "other" seeking to make Caine's will confluent
    with his own -- against Caine's will. Caine's character found a
    way to maintain autonomy in the face of that psychological
    coercion. He was able to fight the psychological influence of an
    other intent on dictating a particular self concept. The point
    intended here is that by focusing on himself in such a way, he
    was able to resist the attempt by the other to force a
    psychological merge -- a merge that is coerced by one onto
    another. (4)
       There are ways of applying this idea to individuals under the
    "spell cast by others" (Becker 1973). One way of testing the cult
    nature of a group is by challenging the ideology binding the
    group together. We can discover something about the nature of a
    group by how well its members tolerate opposition to the ideology
    that holds the group together. How well do members tolerate
    difference of opinion, opinion that challenges the very
    ideological heart of the group?
       Members of the cult are like a colony of insects when
    disturbed. A frenzy of activity and protective measures are
    executed when core ideologies are challenged. The stronger the
    evidence challenging the truthfulness of the group ideology, the
    more likely members of the cult are to either lash out in a more
    or less predictable fashion, fall apart, or disband into separate
    cult colonies.
       The purpose of this brief essay is to present certain
    characteristic responses to "cult busting," or, the challenging
    of ideology that assists in binding members of a particular cult
    together. That cult is Alcoholics Anonymous, (AA), (Kurtz 1988;
    Antze 1987; Leach and Norris 1977).
       Over the years the writer has been involved in investigating
    claims made by politicians, drug users, people in "recovery,"
    members of the addiction-treatment industry, and
    addiction-research field regarding the disease model of
    addiction, particularly the alleged role of involuntariness in
    explaining addiction. Extensive research supports the idea that
    addiction is a voluntary process, a behavior that is better
    explained by individual psychological and environmental factors,
    than physiology and the chemical properties of drugs, (Alexander
    1987, 1990).
       Presenting those findings to people holding opposing points of
    view, i.e., addiction is a disease characterized by "loss of
    control" (Jellinek 1960), often elicits a vituperative response.
    That response aroused the writer's curiosity as to the cult-like
    nature certain groups within the addiction field hold dearly. The
    bolder the presentation of ideas in opposition to the prevailing
    disease-model ideology, the clearer the characterizations of
    criticism directed back in return. Patterns of response are
    clear.
       The writer has had many such encounters over the years and
    will not elaborate on their details (e.g., Madsen et al., 1990;
    Goodwin and Gordis 1988). Those exchanges occurred on the
    editorial pages of large and small newspapers, live radio-talk
    shows, scientific journals, local political settings, and most
    recently on Internet.
       Conceding a confrontational style, it is a mistake to
    attribute the nature of critical response solely to a personal
    way of delivering the bad news. Colleagues present their ideas
    regarding similar issues in what are perhaps at times more
    sensitive and tactful ways, and they have met with similar forms
    of denunciation and character assassination, the typical form of
    rebuttal. Ad hominem rebuttals are the standard, (Fingarette
    1989; Peele 1992; Searles 1993; Madsen 1989; Wallace 1993a,
    1993b).
       Is AA a cult? There's plenty of evidence supporting the idea
    that it is. Greil and Rudy (1983) studied conversion to the world
    view of AA and reported that:

    [t]he process by which individuals affiliate with A.A. entails a
    radical transformation of personal identity in that A.A. provides
    the prospective affiliate not merely with a solution to problems
    related to drinking, but also with an overarching world view with
    which the convert can and must reinterpret his or her past
    experience....Our analysis suggests that the central dynamic in
    the conversion process is coming to accept the opinions of
    reference others, (p. 6). [I]t appears...that contact with A.A.
    is more likely to be accompanied by a greater degree of coercion
    than...most cases of religious conversion (Greil and Rudy 1983,
    p. 23).

       Alexander and Rollins (1984) described how Lifton's (1961)
    eight brainwashing techniques used by the Communist Chinese
    operate in AA. "[T]he authors contend that AA uses all the
    methods of brain washing, which are also the methods employed by
    cults," (Alexander & Rollins,1984, p. 45).
       Galanter (1989) has written:

    As in the Unification Church workshops, most of those attending
    AA chapter meetings are deeply involved in the group ethos, and
    the expression of views opposed to the group's model of treatment
    is subtly or expressly discouraged. A good example is the
    fellowship's response to the concept of controlled drinking, an
    approach to alcoholism treatment based on limiting alcohol intake
    rather than totally abstaining. Some investigators and clinicians
    have reported success with this alternative to treatment. The
    approach, however, is unacceptable within the AA tradition, and
    the option is therefore anathema to active members. It is rarely
    brought up by speakers at meetings and suppressed when it is
    raised. As an inductee becomes involved in the group, the sponsor
    monitors the person's views carefully, assuring that the recruit
    adheres to the perspective into which the sponsor was drawn;  any
    hint of an interest in controlled drinking is discouraged.
    Similar constraints would be applied if a recruit questioned the
    importance of any of the Steps or the need to attend meetings
    regularly. The issue here is not the relative merit of controlled
    drinking...it is the way communications are managed in AA. As a
    charismatic group, AA is able to suppress attitudes that could
    undermine its traditions," (Galanter 1989, p. 185). (5).

    Sadler (1977) writes to that effect when she stated that "AAers
    seek a relationship with the supernatural in order to cease
    managing their own lives....The AA concept of control differs
    significantly from the concept of control presented to drunkards
    by the rest of society....AA...tells the newcomer that his life
    is unmanageable and that it is ridiculous for him to try to
    manage it....By deliberately denying the ability to control their
    lives, AAers' former drunken situations are brought under
    control....Most importantly, abstinence is not considered a kind
    of control. The individual who comes to AA in order to control
    his drinking will be disappointed. AAers insist that abstinence
    is possible only when powerlessness is conceded. AA offers
    supportive interaction in which powerlessness comes to be
    positively valued," (Sadler 1977, p.208).

       When ideas regarding voluntariness, responsibility, and
    addiction are introduced to members of AA and devout adherents to
    the disease concept of addiction, people who are usually involved
    with AA in some way, the following responses are likely to occur
    (in no particular order):

    NAME-CALLING

       The person introducing the taboo ideas (the heretic) is
    belittled and laughed at. Mocking occurs. Derogatory comments are
    leveled. Name calling often ensues, e.g., the writer was recently
    called a "thoughtless dweeb," told "you are your own worst
    enemy," that the writer was a "crackpot psychologist, the kind
    that can't get tenure because they are always bullying peers and
    students," a "fascist," "doctor baby," an "arrogant son of a
    bitch," "contemptible," "immature for a guy with a Dr. before his
    name," and a person engaging in "highly unscientific behavior,"
    who has embarked on a "personal vendetta."

    ACCUSATIONS OF MURDER

       After the initial mocking and belittling, the criticism
    appears to take a more serious turn. The ideas presented by the
    heretic are considered potentially dangerous. People who do not
    know better will misuse them and kill themselves or others. Thus,
    the heretic should be held accountable for murder, or the death
    of another.
       The accusation of heretic-as-murderer or potential murderer
    can be leveled as an unintended result of the ideas presented by
    the heretic, in which case forgiveness by some cult members is
    still possible; or it can evolve into rhetoric in which the
    heretic is described, or alluded to, as someone who has a
    deliberate interest in endangering the lives of cult members in
    this way. The heretic then personifies evil in the eyes of cult
    members. It is at this point that the exchange could become
    physically dangerous. (6)

    YOU'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY

       The heretic may also be accused at this point of having an
    economic investment in his particular point of view. For example,
    the writer has been accused of trying to pirate potential
    psychotherapy clients away from AA on more than one occasion in
    order to make money off of them.

    DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL ILLNESS

       Another tangent the cult members often take is to accuse the
    heretic of being "mentally ill." The taboo ideas are alleged to
    stem from personal trauma the heretic has not dealt with, and his
    or her statements in opposition to the group ideology are
    considered "projections," the function of "denial," an
    "unconscious" process that is said to be a "symptom" of his or
    her mental illness. The heretic may be accused of expressing an
    emotional need to receive negative attention in order to feel
    good about himself or herself.
       Here, the heretic may be confronted on a paternalistic basis:
    "He is sick. He needs help." At times, cultists may yield and
    take a more compassionate posture in relation to the heretic at
    this point, trying to convince the heretic that he/she is sick,
    and that he/she needs to come to his/her senses.

    IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE

       There is often an attack on the validity of the heretic's
    ideas. The heretic's ideas are termed invalid because he or she
    is not a drug addict. Frequently, the heretic is asked, "have you
    ever had a drug problem?" Whereas in the DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL
    ILLNESS case the motive driving apparent concern is that the
    heretic's inappropriate behavior is likely to stem from a mental
    illness, in this case, if the heretic has not had a drug problem
    or shared in the problems-of-living experienced by cult members,
    he or she is said to be incapable of speaking from legitimate
    experience, as it is only by this experience that someone can
    "know" what the truth is regarding their cult ideology. (7)

    INVOKING AUTHORITY

       A demand for scientific evidence to support the heretical
    ideas always emerges. In AA, members often cite scientific
    findings to support their claims regarding involuntariness. That
    certain medical organizations have endorsed their ideology is
    brought forth as evidence of the veracity of their ideas. When
    scientific evidence to the contrary is presented by the heretic,
    the research is said to be too old to be valid, not extensive
    enough, subject to diverse interpretations, and ultimately no
    match for personal experience. At times, when scientific
    information is brought into the discussion by the heretic, other
    scientists will accuse the heretic of unethical use of knowledge
    and influence, and threaten to report him or her to some
    professional association in hopes that he or she may become
    professionally censored.
       When the demand for scientific evidence is met by the heretic,
    a retreat to IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE may occur. One person wrote
    recently: "You sight [sic] science. I sight experience, strength,
    hope." A favorite demand is "don't criticize what is unless you
    can propose a better way." Another is "your sources are not
    scientific enough," and "your understanding of science is not
    sophisticated enough."

    SHAMING

       The assault on the heretic is based on the idea that facts are
    cruel and insensitive to people who have done him or her no harm.
    "Is this the way you treat your friends, (or patients)?"

    REDUCTIONISM, TAUTOLOGY, CONTRADICTION, AND NON SEQUITUR

       The counter-argument to the heretic involves scientific and
    philosophical reductionism to the point that few, if any,
    conclusions regarding the issues at hand can ever be reached.
    Circuitous arguments evolve. Blatant contradictions emerge, e.g.,
    "the alcoholic cannot willfully control his drinking, therefore,
    he must be abstinent." Yet, people choose to abstain from
    drinking alcoholic beverage. The alcoholic allegedly cannot
    choose to control his drinking, therefore, he should choose to
    control his drinking. (8)
       Using analogies that don't work is a favorite tactic of
    cultists. The analogies are often not reciprocal. For example,
    the alcoholic is seen as like a diabetic. Yet diabetics are not
    like alcoholics.
       Here is a particularly graphic account of the illogical
    analogy, often employed as non sequitur, by a psychotherapist
    attempting to "counter resistance to acceptance of the disease
    concept in alcoholic families," (Henderson, 1984):

    Counselor: We are dealing here with an illness. We know it is an
    illness because it is predictable (it follows a course which we
    can describe in advance), it is progressive (it gets worse unless
    it can be brought into remission), and, if untreated, alcoholism
    is 100% fatal.

    Family: All he has to do to straighten up is to want to do it.
    He just doesn't want to stop drinking. I don't buy that he has
    a disease.

    Counselor: So you see him as just weak-willed. And when he
    chooses the bottle instead of his family, you feel he doesn't
    care about you.

    Family: Yeah,[t]hat's right. He'll step all over you. He makes
    promises he doesn't keep, and I don't believe he means to keep
    them when he makes them.

    [Illogical transition occurs here.]
    Counselor: Have you ever had diarrhea?

    Family: (Laughing a little and looking at the counselor rather
    strangely), of course.

    Counselor: Did you ever try to control it with willpower?

    Family: No. I mean...you can't (still chuckling).

    Counselor: Why not?

    Family: Well, its a bacteria or something. There's nothing you
    can do about it...Oh...

    Counselor: You have the idea. Your Dad has an illness he can't
    fix with willpower because that doesn't stop it. There are
    things you can do to get diarrhea to stop, just as there are
    things you can do to stop the active part of alcoholism. But
    all you can do for both is to set up the conditions under
    which getting well is possible. It depends on what disease you
    have. There is a specific treatment for alcoholism...[.]
    (Henderson, 1984, pp. 118-119)

       Something is not an illness simply because it is predictable,
    nor because it is progressive, nor necessarily fatal if
    untreated. Not wanting to stop drinking is a sign of an "iron
    will," not a weak will. The counselor contradicts herself by
    saying he "chooses" the bottle instead of his family, for on the
    one hand she asserts the drinker does not have a choice regarding
    his drinking, and then on the other hand she says he chooses the
    bottle over his family. Diarrhea is a physical illness. Drinking
    is a behavior. The two are not the same. People with diarrhea are
    not like heavy drinkers. The fact that this psychotherapist is
    unwilling to acknowledge the difference here is a sign of her own
    problems, problems that masquerade as treatment for the
    "psycho-pathology" of the family. (9)
       For some, those confrontations are enough to shake them out of
    their hypnotic daze, arouse their curiosity, and assist in
    getting them to leave the group. Occasionally, a member of the
    cult may yield suddenly to the heretic, attempting to practice a
    "turn the other cheek" portion of the ideological doctrine. If a
    personal dialogue can be achieved and continued between a cult
    member and the heretic an emotional catharsis may occur for the
    cultist and this can become a major event in breaking the
    hypnotic spell.
       Humor is useful in further diffusing volatile contacts, along
    with divulging of personal information on the part of the
    heretic. Those intent on preserving the cult will often go
    underground and avoid any contact with the heretic whatsoever.
    (10)

    CONCLUSION

       These patterns of response may be useful in analyzing and
    interpreting exchanges involving vituperation directed at one or
    several individuals who have either intentionally or not stepped
    into a nest of vipers, i.e., the cult, a volatile experience, to
    say the very least.
       Many psychologists regard AA as no more cult-like than
    numerous other organizations. They consider that it does more
    good than harm. The purpose of this analysis is not to gather
    evidence that AA serves a destructive rather than constructive
    purpose in the lives of its adherents, but rather that as a cult,
    good or bad, there are certain characteristics of its members
    that may be drawn out when they are confronted with incompatible
    ideology.
       This essay is a commentary based principally on the writer's
    personal (rather than clinical) experiences. It has not
    considered the individual's need for cult conformity, an issue
    that may be explored further. The defensiveness of cult members
    should also be considered in light of these needs, (see also
    Berger, 1991).

    NOTES

    1. Some members are definitely split in their involvement with
    the cult. They may value the ideology and not the affiliation, or
    vice versa. In the former case they hold fast to the ideology,
    yet do not attend cult functions. In the latter case they hold
    fast to the affiliation and know very little about the ideology,
    nor do they seem to care to.

    2. These ideas are from Lifton's (1961) study of "brainwashing"
    in Communist China.

    3. Clearly, psychoanalysts have established a cult around the
    ideas of transference and the mythical "unconscious."

    4. That idea was suggested to me by Amos M. Gunsberg, as was the
    idea of "iron will."

    5. The idea of controlled drinking is anathema to members of AA
    because it completely undermines the role of involuntariness, the
    cornerstone upon which the disease model of addiction rests.

    6. One particularly irate male, over 2000 miles away,
    persistently "fingered" the writer on Internet, a computer
    process whereby the login identity of the bulletin-board poster
    may be ascertained along with a brief biography. Each time it is
    conducted, the person being "fingered" is alerted, and his or her
    work is interrupted while on-line.

    7. The research on vicarious or observational learning shows that
    people learn through the experience of others. As one
    psychotherapist describes this: "Have you ever put your hand in a
    rattlesnake pit? Why not?" The point here being that people don't
    have to put their hands in a rattlesnake pit to know there is a
    good chance they will be bitten should they choose to do so, (A.
    Gunsberg, personal communication, July 1993).

    8. The idea here is similar to Lifton's (1961) discussion
    regarding the "thought-terminating cliche."

    9. This is a projection of the therapist's.

    10. On computer bulletin boards this may involve a group
    consensus to establish a "kill file." A kill file automatically
    keeps their computers from printing anything by the heretic on
    screen. Thus, they are protected from anxiety.

    11. I am grateful to several anonymous reviewers at the Bulletin
    of the Menninger Clinic for their comments regarding an earlier
    draft of this essay.

    REFERENCES

    Alexander, B. K. (1990). The empirical and theoretical bases
      for an adaptive model of addiction. _Journal_of_Drug_Issues_,
      20, 37-65.

    Alexander, B. K. (1987)  The disease and adaptive models of
      addiction: A framework evaluation. _Journal_of_Drug_Issues_,
      17, 47-66.

    Alexander, F., & Rollins, M. (1984). Alcoholics Anonymous:
      The unseen cult. _California_Sociologist:_A_Journal_of_
      Sociology_and_Social_Work_, Winter, 33-48.

    Antze, P. (1987). Symbolic action in Alcoholics Anonymous. In
      M. Douglas, (Ed.), _Constructive_drinking:_Perspectives_on_
      drink_from_anthropology_ (149-181). New York: Cambridge
      University Press.

    Becker, E. (1973). _The_denial_of_death_. New York: Free Press.

    Berger, L. (1991). _Substance_abuse_as_symptom_: A
      psychoanalytic critique of treatment approaches and the
      cultural beliefs that sustain them. Hillsdale, N.J.: The
      Analytic Press.

    Fingarette, H. (1989). A rejoinder to Madsen_. _The_Public_
      Interest_, 95, 118-121.

    Freud, S. (1959). _Group_psychology_and_analysis_of_the_ego_.
      New York: Norton.

    Galanter, M. (1989). _Cults:_Faith,_healing,_and_coercion_.
      New York: Oxford University Press.

    Goodwin, F. K., Gordis, E., Hardison, D. L., & Hennigan, L. P.
      (1988, November 5). Alcoholism most certainly is a disease
      [Letters to the editor]. The Washington Post, A21.

    Greil, A. L., & Rudy, D. R. (1983). _Conversion_to_the_world_
      view_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous_: A refinement of conversion
      theory. Qualitative Sociology, 6, 5-28.

    Henderson, C. D. (1985). _Countering_resistance_to_acceptance_
      of_denial_and_the_disease_concept_in_alcoholic_families_:
      Two examples of experiential teaching. Alcoholism Treatment
      Quarterly, 1, 117-121.

    Kaufmann, W. (1973). _From_decidophobia_to_autonomy_without_
      guilt_and_justice_. New York: Delta.

    Kurtz, E. (1988). _AA:_The_story_ (A revised edition of
      Not-God: A history of Alcoholics Anonymous). New York:
      Harper & Row.

    Leach, B., & Norris, J. L. (1977). Factors in the
      development of Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) . In B. Kissin
      and H. Begleiter (Eds.), _Treatment_and_rehabilitation_of_
      the_chronic_alcoholic_: The biology of alcoholism, (Volume
      5, pp. 441-543). New York: Plenum Press.

    Lifton, R. J. (1961). _Thought_reform_and_the_psychology_of_
      totalism:_A study of "brainwashing" in China. New York:
      Norton.

    Madsen, W. (1989). Thin thinking about heavy drinking. _The_
      Public_Interest_, 95, 112-118.

    Madsen, W., Berger, D., Bremy, F.R., & Mook, D. G. (1990).
      Alcoholism a myth? _Skeptical_Inquirer_: Journal of the
      Committee for the Scientific Investigations of the
      Paranormal 14 , (Summer), 440-442.

    Peele, S. (1992). _Alcoholism,_politics,_and_bureaucracy_:
      The consensus against controlled-drinking therapy in
      America. Addictive Behaviors, 17, 49-62.

    Perls, F. S. (1947). _Ego,_hunger_and_aggression_: A
      revision of Freud's theory and method. London: Allen &
      Unwin.

    Sadler, P. O. (1977). _The_'crisis cult'_as_a_voluntary_
      association_: An interactional approach to Alcoholics
      Anonymous. Human Organization, 36, 207-210.

    Searles, J. S. (1993). _Science_and_fascism_: Confronting
      unpopular ideas. Addictive Behaviors, 18, 5-8.

    Szasz, T.S. (1965). _The_ethics_of_psychoanalysis_: The
      theory and method of autonomous psychotherapy. New York:
      Basic Books.

    Wallace, J. (1993a). _Fascism_and_the_eye_of_the_beholder_:
      A reply to J.S. Searles on the controlled intoxication
      issue. Addictive Behaviors, 18, 239-251.

    Wallace, J. (1993b). [Letters to the editors]. Addictive
      Behaviors, 18,1-4.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    MindNet Journal Archive Filename: [mn166.txt]
    ================================================================

    To receive the MindNet Journal via email:

    Send message: [subscribe mindnet] to: .

    To unsubscribe:

    Send message: [unsubscribe mindnet] to: .

    Back issues of the MindNet Journal are available at our
    FTP Archive site:

     [/pub/users/vericomm/mindnet/]

    MindNet Journal Publication Index: [mnindex.txt]

    Submission of articles for publication within the MindNet
    Journal on the subjects of mind control, directed-energy
    weapons, non-lethal weapons, ritual abuse, UFO abductions,
    bioelectromagnetics, hypnosis, and other related topics
    will be accepted with the author's statement of permission
    to publish. The editor reserves the right to accept or
    reject for publication. The publisher disclaims all
    responsibility to return unsolicited matter. Send articles
    for submission to:

    , or VERICOMM BBS 510.891.0303, or VERICOMM,
    POB 32314, Oakland, CA 94604-2314 USA.

    VERICOMM / MindNet and its agents disclaim any and all
    responsibility or liability for any and all claims and/or
    guarantees, express or implied, and delivery of products,
    merchandise, and/or services offered for sale by
    advertisers and/or authors within the MindNet Journal.

    The MindNet mailing list is owned and maintained by Mike Coyle,
    , VERICOMM / MindNet, POB 32314 Oakland, CA
    94604-2314 USA.

    The MindNet Journal is published by VERICOMM / MindNet in
    cooperation with the Freedom Of Thought Foundation, POB 35072,
    Tucson, AZ 85740-5072 USA.

    ================================================================

    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    ||||  ||||  |      |       |  |      |      |   |   |   |   ||||
    |||||  ||  ||  |||||  |||  |  |  |||||  ||  |  | |  |  | |  ||||
    ||||||    |||  ,,,,|      ||  |  |||||  ||  |  |||  |  |||  ||||
    |||||||  ||||      |  |||  |  |      |      |  |||  |  |||  sm||
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||  VERICOMM / MindNet : MindNet@c2.org  |||||||||||||
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||