1

The Cast of ‘The Brotherhood’ Docudrama

Since I have dubbed the film as being a variant of a docudrama it seemed appropriate that I

comment on the cast. In this document I explore how the interviewees (and the sub-groups of

the UBI referred in the film) have been represented as characters in a drama. The first

epitomised characterisations are those which I thought most viewers would gain, given the

bad-faith rendering of the filmmakers. After each of these depictions I have represented the

individuals and groups from my own perspective. While it could be said this is ‘only my

perspective’, it is mainly focused on verifiable facts and a researched position based on fair-

mindedness and good-faith. But of course both depictions include elements which can be

called subjective/objective. Perhaps I have been a bit harsh on occasions on both the

filmmakers and the interviewees; in any case it seemed important that I share my perspective

without treading to lightly or side-stepping issues as part of an exercise in diplomacy. This

document was written soon after watching the film and has not been much edited. It has

remained unpublished for well over two years while I completed my PhD. Had I released it

and my other Adjusting the Compass writings, my focus – the lives of the Robinsons prior to

the formation of the UBI – would have been compromised. Returning to this document now,

I have decided to leave it almost as I wrote it, as it retains the feelings and perspectives of the

time – and my disappointment in the way the filmmakers rewrote much of the history of the

UBI to suit their dramatic story.

———————

My 2009 Take on the Characters of the Film

In the spirit of robust discussion I write the following with an appreciation that I may have

some facts askew, and that my memories may have been distorted by subjective feelings. I

accept that my strong take on all this may be affronting to a reader with a similarly but very

different personal perspective and a dead-set-sure memory—this is likely to apply as much to

my interrogation of the film maker as the interviewee’s representations. I see all my writing

on the history and culture of the Universal Brotherhood as an ongoing responsive process.

Hopefully, something useful about the functioning of New Religious Groups like the

Universal Brotherhood will come out of the ongoing discussion with both my one-time

colleagues in the Universal Brotherhood, and my film-making friends who represented me

and the Robinsons’ movement in Compass’s ‘The Brotherhood’. In this sense the film has

kicked-off a valuable thread of invigorating inquiry. That the group is not functioning per

2

see, gives all reflectors/researchers a unique opportunity to asses it—without the problems

associated with public discussion about a presently functioning group—a problem that makes

much research on New Religious Movements too fraught to undertake successfully or

fruitfully.

Note to Readers

The first version in this upright type face is how I think the film represents the individual or

the groups depicted in the film.

The second italicised version is how I think the individuals and groups could have been

represented if the filmmakers had been more fair-minded—or allowed another alternative

perspective which questioned the anecdotes and testimony of the critics of the movement, by

allowing a more balanced right of reply either by the protagonist (myself) or the other more

positive interviewees who were not represented.

In the depictions of Fred and Mary Robinson, I have represented them as I believe they would have represented themselves. Since they are both deceased they had not reply. As their biographer I have presented my personal opinions elsewhere; however it seemed only fair to present them as I believe they saw themselves – they were both reflective people who understood their weaknesses even if they were not always able to control such tendencies. I have employed the Lucinda Calligraphy Font to typify some of Fred’s sayings, while using Freestyle Script Font for a few of Mary’s sayings.

3

Fred: The Lovely False-Prophet

The amiable lunatic and Space Captain of the 1970’s hippie space-cadets; the sincere but

deluded prophet of doom; the inspirational teacher of the movement with many ecological

insights to share; controlled by his wife and his first disciple—the ambitious, fêted, power-

hungry even more deluded young usurper-preacher; a hard-working liked-by-everyone

founder who was rejected by those who formed the community he inspired; was befriended

by some of those who had seen through the controlling leaders who had turned his well-

meant (even though outrageous) experiment into a controlling ‘cult’; died a lonely and

rejected man soon after the events portrayed in the film— a result of being ostracised by his

own wife and the ambitious preacher he had initially inspired to form the Community.

Fred: The Cosmic Visionary

A collator and distributor of Modern Revealed Knowledge; a prophet and catalyst whose

raison d’être was to inform seekers; to present the ‘cosmic point of view’ in regard to the

world and our place in it; an inadequate but willing servant; an instrument or conduit trying

to ‘get out of the way’ to allow the spirit to work through him; prepared to serve selflessly

to ‘meet the needs of the moment’ in the 11th hour prior to the economic collapse followed

by the cosmic shift; a person who found it difficult to communicate on a social and personal

level; a difficult person to live with; needed Mary (his ‘Soul Mate’) to start a ‘Fraternity’

following the blueprint of Oahspe; was grateful for Stephen’s involvement with his life and

his co-partnership with Mary (most of the time); was discombobulated by ‘The

Breakthrough’ and the ‘Breakthroughites’ (for want of a better descriptor); did not take sides

in the disagreements that caused the unfortunate split; admitted that he was not good at

discriminating relational issues; liked to focus on the cosmic issues; always saw the UBI

Community as his home; found his own old age frailty frustrating and extremely challenging;

still lived to get his message out to The World to ‘bash fresh ears’; in his final months and

death-bed hours (five years after the events referred to in the film) he was ultimately thankful

to his wife Mary for her tough-love and caring for him; was somewhat fulfilled in being a

respected grandfather figure to the Members, and great-grandfather to the young children of

the Community; appreciated the Community as a whole, seeing it as his legacy; more than

anything he did not wish to be a burden to either his wife or the Community – this being one

of the factors of his times away from the Community.

4

Mary: The ‘Nucleus’ Controller

The mystical and deluded, but politically-savvy arch controller of ‘The Brotherhood’; a Victorian kill-

joy; the battle-axe who ran her Brotherhood with an iron fist; a powerful uncompromising religionist

who inflicted punishments and unconscionable hardships, such as ‘silence fasts’, on the innocent

youths she brainwashed; who ordered those she ruled over to do her supposed divinely inspired will,

often arrived at through dreams—a proposition which is almost laughable for any sane person to even

consider; the person who also controlled he husband, marginalising him within the Community and

virtually expelling him; the person who had turned Stephen into a ‘henchman’ cum automaton; who

after The Breakthrough continued to follow her own guidance in the Community, but with little result;

was, after 1977 (the episode referred to in the film occurred), a spent force, and the Community

disintegrated.

Mary: The Burdened ‘Nucleus’

The ‘God listening’ and responsible adult co-founder; the initially unwilling but divinely

appointed nucleus/keynote of the Community and its ‘harmonic vibration’; her home

taken over by young idealists, she accepted the burden of responsibility for making them

better people; in the absence of anyone else took on the onerous job of finding a way to make

the Community happen at an organizational level; the initial organizer of the UBI

Community; intent on making sure the Community was not undermined by ‘negative

forces’, she was prepared to be unpopular and tough in her decision making; with the

good of everyone in mind she took on the thankless task of training seemingly willing

volunteers, only to see many of them turn against her—including myself; realized she made

many mistakes; in the last days of her life felt the burden of being a strong and often

uncompromising leader; a person who tried to

‘ do what she knew was right and not do what

she knew was wrong’.

5

The CentreCore: The Sycophants

The governing body of yes-people who rubber-stamped all manner of controlling evils and

supported the appalling power-toting and controlling regime of Mary Robinson and her

surviving henchman, Stephen Carthew; the CentreCore was also represented (for those who

knew the personnel) by the teary-eyed Rose Gilmore (née Woods) sitting next to Stephen at

the reunion, jointly making the apology for everything that had been said in the film; the

group who is rightly assessed as guilty of violating the natural human rights of those sincere

ex-Members, who were under its control – until they broke free.

The CentreCore: The Thoughtful Advisors

Mostly made up of the founding members of Carranya, later supplemented by intelligent and

qualified members who also harmonised with Mary; all ex-members of this group are likely

to admit that they were not able to consistently or clearly articulate concerns about some of

the guidance ‘coming through’ Mary as the God appointed ‘Nucleus’; both individually and

together the group checked, and often amended, Mary’s ‘guidance’ factor—as it was initially

designed by her to so do; was tougher on its own members—dishing out both needed and

appreciated ‘soul polishing’ – along with unnecessary and over-the-top admonishments; this

group worked hard at keeping the core vision of Fred Robinson’s alive; sidelined some of the

peripheral teachings of Fred (e.g. his prophecies) and some of Mary’s (e.g. separation from

locals) in line with the group’s more acculturated consciousness during the 1980s;

negotiated unsuccessfully with the uncompromising Breakthroughites; refused to

accommodate their insistent demands couched as threatening terms; was split in 1986 over

educational issues; two ex-members of this group continue to live on the Balingup site

making a major contribution to the secular, but religiously sympathetic, Brooklands

Community.

I did not attend the negotiations with my detractors, it was thought that it may not be helpful for me to be present when I was spoken about.

6

Stephen Carthew: The ‘Henchman’ Preacher

From a privileged background; explored the ‘hippie trail’ in India; became Fred’s press agent

and promoter; soon became enamoured of his own importance; fêted by the press and

celebrity glitterati, he developed delusions of grandeur; usurped Fred’s role as teacher and

preacher; became aligned with Mary against Fred, giving himself to her so completely he

became Mary’s mouthpiece; in the process ostracising and marginalising the founder Fred; he

is seen to acknowledge what he became; apologises for his part in it all; in so doing finds

some level of redemption; is writing a history of the community likely to be a whitewash

definitive history of his part in the cult; a salesman and personable talker is tagged as the

biggest victim of the cult; is currently selling roses for a living – likens selling Fred with

selling anything … such as roses; now a likeable older, wiser and sincere scammer who is

taking the medicine of his confrontation with the group he once controlled by eating full

helping of humble pie; the viewer feels for him in his kangaroo court appearance.

Stephen Carthew: An Untrained Executive

A sportsman type in his youth; went to Knox Grammar School, Sydney; a filmmaker and

traveller until 23; a practitioner and enthusiastic proselytiser of the Age of Aquarius to his

contemporaries a year or so prior to meeting Fred Robinson; while never agreeing with all

of Fred’s stances, joined forces with him in 1971; organised big-venue public talks in Sydney,

Melbourne and Adelaide; accompanied Fred back to Perth with a dozen strong entourage; a

sincere but untrained counselor appointed by the Robinsons as the founder and leader of the

Carranya Community; prepared to amend his own more counter-cultural positions in the

service of the greater good—the building of New Age Community/Fraternity ‘for the

children’ — Fred’s vision; expected too much of both himself and other volunteer alignees;

admits to some maverick manipulation of people and situations believing it was for the good

of the whole; one of the few appointed spokespeople of the Universal Brotherhood; was the

master of ceremonies at internal ‘fun nights’; ran most religious celebrations; gave most

Sunday sermons; was the ostensible cause of 1977 ‘Breakthrough’ schism in the UBI;

continued as a an executive in the CentreCore until 1985; renounced his position of

‘Principal’; with the help of some CentreCore members in opposition to Mary and other

CentreCore members took part in the process of finding another form of governance more

democratic than theocratic; left the Community with his spouse and two children in 1987 at

7

40; assisted his wife in marketing her craft products; became a financial advisor through

much of the 1990s; made a series of films on pilgrimage 1998-9; 2000-2006 undertook

undergraduate studies followed by an Honours Degree in Communications-Writing;

currently has a PhD under examination (about the before-story of the Universal

Brotherhood; believes he and the UBI Community he helped to start was grossly

misrepresented and that the deceased Mary was (in varying degrees) made the scapegoat of

disaffected ex-members’ inadequacies; is not content to have the Compass documentary

accepted as part of the definitive history.

8

The Brotherhood Adherents: The Controlled Members

All those who lived in the Community under their ‘rulers’ prior to the 1977; taken advantage

of by those went who wielded power over them, inculcating them with the weird ideas of the

guru/prophet on one hand, and the intra-Community political power of Mary and Stephen on

the other; always in danger of becoming just mouthpieces of the CentreCore of ‘The

Brotherhood’; grossly manipulated by Stephen and Mary; the schism known in the UBI

Community as ‘The Breakthrough’ split this group into two camps: those who had seen what

was wrong with the Community, and those who continued to be under the thrall of their

controllers/rulers; the film does not acknowledge any real membership of the Community

after the Breakthrough—just the ‘bewildered’ controlled remnant. As one of the members

who stayed on commented ‘we were depicted as the boobies’.

The Community Members: The Sincere Pioneers

Those who aligned themselves with the Robinsons basic positions of creating an alternative,

spiritually aware back-to-the land community/fraternity; all those who contributed to the

running of Shalam (Fred and Mary’s home unmentioned in the film); who helped build the

Carranya Community (unmentioned in the film); who took part in the moving and

centralising of the Community in the Balingup district; who put up with an inadequate

infrastructure to create the Community; agreed to the rules and regulations of the new

religious movement named the Universal Brotherhood Incorporated; went through some

media persecution; lived an invigorating dedicated life; was split in half by the 1977

Breakthrough insurrection/mutiny; after the departure the mutineers, the members continued

to support the agreed original principles of the Community and recognise the CentreCore as

its Governing Council.

After the 1977 events the film represents the continuing membership of the UBI quite

differently than it had before the Breakthrough.

9

The Followers: The Bewildered Boobies

Those who lived on in the Community and are seen as taking no action to change the status

quo; controlled and inculcated, they simply stayed on in (the shell of) the group after the

1977 Breakthrough; as bewildered boobies and dummies who couldn’t see what was

happening around them, they ‘felt safe’ being controlled, but were blinded by the powerful

controlling CentreCore who had usurped their freedom and forced them into all sorts of weird

practices they were unable to identify for themselves; this group is can be pitied; lacking the

courage of the freedom-fighter-dissenters, they weakly and meekly refused to see the truth of

their unfortunate situation. While not overtly represented, this group is depicted by the

Narrator and the dissenter interviewees, and via the cameo grabs of Margie Miskimmin.

The Stayers: The Considerers

Those who survived the general unpleasantness, lobbying, philosophical battles, and in some

cases mental insatiability which occurred in the Community in 1977 to stay on to consider

how to implement the initial inspirations of the Robinsons; those who refused to be taken-up

in the thrall of the supposed ‘breakthrough in consciousness’ claimed by the

Breakthoughites; prepared to refuse the attractive laissez-faire proposition of the dissenters;

suspicious of the way in which the disaffected members were pushing for immediate changes,

even while appreciating the value of many of the changes suggested; prepared to let the

Community evolve under the founder/leaders they trusted; considered their position

carefully; assessed the motivations of the spokespersons for the dissenting ‘Breakthrough’

propositions—and then decided to stay.

This group is represented by one person – Margaret Miskimmin – and she was

misrepresented.

10

Margie Miskimmin: The Bewildered (ex) ‘Hippie’

A single ex-drug taking Californian hippie single-mother; who was ‘hitching around

Australia with her daughter’ until she ‘stumbled across’ the Brotherhood; compliant with the

prayers, disciplines and rules of the Community she sees the place as a ‘refuge’ where ‘you

felt safe’; is bewildered by the overnight changes that occurred when the courageous

freedom-fighters sought to put an end to the ‘despicable things being done’; the archetypal

follower of the controlling leaders of this unhealthy and weird cult; still lives in Brooklands

Community as one of the presumably still bewildered, or at least ‘haunted’, handful of ex-

members.

Margaret Miskimmin: The eclectic philosopher

Involved in the experimentation with drugs in California during the 1960s; an early seeker

and practitioner of the alternative lifestyle movement in far Northern Queensland; a strong-

minded single mother; heard Fred and saw the need for personal change; wanted to take part

in the building of a responsible, alternative spiritually-focused intentional community; made

the decision to come to Shalam and Carranya in 1973; travelled to the Shalam-Carranya

Community with other potential members—did not ‘hitch’ with her child (as misrepresented

in the narration); saw through the sophistries of the arguments of those wishing to radically

change the Community without a better plan; helped to democratise the Community in its

new incarnation as the Brooklands Community; two of the Miskimmins’ three children have

married locals; Margaret was office-administrator to the local Greens Member of the

Legislative Assembly of Western Australia for 8 years; continues to serve both the

Brooklands Community and the wider community, amongst other things as Secretary of the

Golden Valley Tree Park, the largest arboretum in Western Australia. The Miskimmins were

disappointed in the film and insulted by the manipulated representations; with not a word

said about her present life, she was so under-represented she is almost persona non grata; it

appears that she was included in the film for only one reason – to prove the existence of a

remnant of ‘bewildered’ followers.

The out of context use of Margaret’s dialogue is an insult to her. I suspect that all ex-

members (from either side of the 1977 schism) are unhappy with the way Margaret

Miskimmin was represented. Margaret is the gracious host of all who come to revisit the

Community from both sides of the 1977 schism. She also hosted the film crew.

11

The Leavers: The Courageous Dissenters

The innocent ones who came to find a better way of life and found themselves under the

control of power-hungry ‘rulers’; admitting their gullibility they put themselves under their

controllers; but saw through the tactics of the lazy leadership, identified mental cruelty; broke

free of their shackles; cast-off their inculcation; courageously found their own voices and

effectively disempowered the leadership and ended the dream which had become a

nightmare; came to the reunion to confront the representative controller in a ‘showdown’;

they generously forgive the surviving leader/controller.

The Breakthroughites: The Disgruntled Complainers

The four recitations of the allegations against the Universal Brotherhood are made by Linda

Ward, Anita Chauvin, Susan Allwood and Matt Taylor.

As I have already shared my perspective about Linda, Anita and Susan in the Transcript

Document ‘Making a ‘Cult’ Film’ my longer Critique of ‘The Brotherhood’ documentary, I

will focus here only on Matt Taylor who is represented as the most credible of the

interviewees—for he was not a teenager at the time (as were Linda and Anita), and revealed

no anger or emotional wounding (as did Susan). Matt comes across as the most articulate

interviewee in show – he is the show’s guru, while having the highest public profile.

Proclaimed himself as the instigator of the Breakthrough uprising, Matt seems to have

substance, it seems he has been abused and he seems to be honest and philosophical.

In a sense Matt represents this group of interviewees —the most represented sub-group in the

film—four leavers verses one stayer. At the reunion the viewer is led to assume that almost

all the people at the reunion were the once ‘controlled and manipulated ’.

The group of interviewees most represented in the film—four courageous leavers, one psychologically damaged leaver, verses one controlled stayer, and one arch-controller—until the end of the film where one is left to assumes that almost all the people at the reunion were the once ‘the-controlled’ members.

12

Matt Taylor: The Rock-Philosopher Freedom Fighter

A true spiritual seeker; is more than a rock star; is seen a few times throughout the film

singing; is unselfish enough to empty toilets; a person almost free of ego; nearly had his

music controlled by those trying to take away what was really his—his creative integrity;

stood up against the repressive ‘Nazi-like’ regime; helped to uncover all the manipulations

and inequities of the corrupt system; the leader of the necessary mutiny; makes wise

statements about ‘good people doing despicable things’—alleging that ‘mental cruelty’

occurred in the Community; being philosophically inclined, and generous of spirit, he

graciously forgives Mary’s henchman, Stephen, seeing him as a ‘the biggest victim’.

As the celebrity of the show he is depicted as a key player in the Community—a major

misrepresentation.

Matt Taylor: The Celebrity Agitator

Introduced to Fred when Hans Poulsen asked other rock performers of the day to play at the

Meyer Music Bowl to present Fred to Melbourne’s youth; following Fred’s ideas he and

some friends started a Community near the Strathbogie Ranges (Victoria); decided to come

to Western Australia with his family; kept up occasional professional tours during his few

years in the Community—he ostensibly remained a rock star and did not give up his career as

he suggests in the film; a person who never quite got what the Community was about as

indicated by his comment about it being ‘a convent for married people’; was never chosen to

be in any leadership position; was appreciated for his many fine qualities and creative

contributions; had a piercing voice that Fred and Mary found hard to take at close quarters

(somewhat easier for Fred—he just turned hearing aid off); depicts himself in the film as a

selfless-servant and genuine seeker for God; unfairly and without knowing the truth of the

matter, complains about Stephen never emptying toilets; was unable to be selfless enough to

sing a few songs from the Readers Digest Song Book for Fred and Mary, claiming

manipulation and control of his creative life; was unable to face Stephen about this ‘learning

old songs’ travesty; instead agitated and instigated an anger ridden-mutiny; helped to

suggest that a supposed ‘breakthrough in consciousness’ had occurred and with others used

this as a trump card in a blackmail-like ‘change or we leave’ proposition; while the gamble

failed; this disgruntled celebrity agitator used his power in the local press to spread the bad-

13

word about the Community; helped to create the myth that the UBI Community was finished

and that Fred had been disowned/expelled by the Community; the film presents him as the

wise-old-rocker-guru who has the answers; makes unsubstantiated claims that border on

slander: stating that ‘mental cruelty’ occurred without proffering evidence; is able to come

across as generous in a back handed gesture of forgiveness which suggests Stephen Carthew

was the biggest victim; is probably much more sympathetic to a range of perspectives than

appears in the documentary; took part in a genial but lively debate with me at his home—

never used; provides a key element in the film: the freedom fighter and the mirror image of

the protagonist-controller Stephen.

14

Jason Hart: The Mentally Disturbed ex-Member

A miner amongst hippies; a sincere man fully convinced of Fred’s cosmic point of view and

beliefs about the Space Peoples imminent arrival; appreciated the spiritual meditations and

the following the inner spirit; had profound spiritual experiences around the time of The

Breakthrough; admits he lost the plot and began ‘spinning like top’ a line used as prelude to

the Narrators explanation: ‘Their world had crumbled—but the Elder Brothers in their space

ships never came’; the living example of one of the ‘many’ who lost their minds courtesy of

living in the Community, and particularly as a result of being controlled by those who

practiced the mental cruelty.

Jason Hart (AKA Malcolm Irving):

One of a number of members who were never hippies; a wholly sincere person; dedicated to

Fred’s message and loved him dearly; was treasured by the Community as a unique person;

had the most infectious and hearty laugh in the Community; being away during the first days

of The Breakthrough he became intensely confused by the changed situation and the

supposed ‘breakthrough in consciousness’ being promoted by the dissenters; needed to be

taken to the local hospital for psychiatric treatment; since recuperating and controlling his

mental instability has been often in touch with many of the members—whether leavers or a

stayer; usually a fair-minded and understanding person; tends to take the side of dissenters.

15

The Narrator: The Historian and Clarifier

The factual, wise voice of reason and understanding; the one who leads the audience through

a supposedly impartial story; who explains what happens; who takes us on a fascinating

journey of beautiful visions, weird ideas, inculcation and lost dreams; who introduces the

viewers to the participants; who exposes the awful underbelly of control and power behind

the veil of smiles; who leads the absorbed audience through an onscreen trial to find the

protagonist guilty as charged; who helps the audience resolve the conflict via his apology for

all that was alleged; finds restitution for the somewhat redeemed ex-cult leader; reveals the

gracious forgiveness of those who were the victims of mental cruelty and abuse; concludes

and summarises the theme of control and abuse by the group’s leaders over their followers;

the overarching knowledge-holder who points towards true north while revealing what

happened to a Community that went spiritually south on account of Mary Robinson and her

CentreCore cohorts represented by the erstwhile preacher cum present day rose-seller

protagonist—Stephen Carthew—who seems to be happily learning his hard lesson about

abuse of power.

The Narrator: The Modifier of History

The ill-researched narrator who leads the viewer on the Director’s view of the Community;

who creatively re-configures a new history of the movement to fit the director’s own less

complex but more dramatic script; who rewrites the history pertaining to an important (but

not defining) schism which occurred in the Universal Brotherhood in 1977; who overlays a

blanket of dark narration to guide the viewer to reframe the positive experiences of all the

participants as a veil of smiles; who employs interviewees as henchwomen and henchmen in

a smear campaign of the leaders of the movement.

The Director (as the alter-ego of the supposedly fair-minded Narrator) chose not to tell me

about any specific allegation, choosing instead to present me as a representative of the

deceased scape-goated leader; then through the editing cleverly facilitated an apology from

me for all the allegations made in the film; then reinvented me as a rose-seller; she did not

have the courtesy to mention any other aspect of my present life or academic endeavours,

16

which qualified me as a serious public commentator on New Religious Movements and one of

only two academic commentators on the Universal Brotherhood.

The other is Patricia Sherwood (then Black) who presented her thesis, The Fashioning of the Earth Anew: An ethnography of the Universal Brotherhood, a religious utopian community (1984, unpublished) to gain her Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Western Australia, in the Anthropology Department. Sherwood was contacted but not used as an interviewee for the film. Her research alerted me to a number of the unhealthy dynamics that had evolved in the Community, including the unintentional manipulations of people and situations by myself, Mary and the CentreCore.

17

The Film as a Whole: Reifying the Anti-Cult Stereotype

It is not really fair to blame the directors/producers for the way they treated the UBI. While

they bear individual responsibility for the production, they are simply part of a much larger

hegemonic negative stereotyping of ‘cults’; a view that has become emplotted in almost all

media representation of New Religious Movements (NRMs). Appearing to take the high

moral ground: telling the story of supposed victims, while also telling the stories of their

assumed controllers, the media have become entrenched in biased readings of NRMs, based

almost solely on the ex-members negative experiences—something which could be called

true-believer-remorse (an uncle of buyer’s remorse). In some cases born-again-Christians

also employ anti-cult rhetoric believing their truths to be under threat. It is useful to haave a

quick look at what has become known as the ‘cult-wars’.

The following notes relate the substance of an article by a Californian journalist who in May

2000 reported on the thawing of the so-called ‘cult wars’. This watershed ‘Camp David of the

cult wars'’ was a largely peaceful gathering of defectors, devotees, heartbroken families and

assorted cult experts. J Gordon Melton, Director of the Institute for the Study of American

Religion in Santa Barbara, and someone long labelled as an ‘apologist’ by leaders of the

‘alarmist’ anti-cult movement said, ‘We’ve reached the point where we’re no longer throwing

bricks.’ The two camps had been having little to do with each other since the cult wars

reached a high water mark in 1997 when lawyers and others linked to the Church of

Scientology sued the Cult Awareness Network into bankruptcy. Civil libertarian scholars and

current members of NRMs argued that religious sects were relatively harmless and that anti-

cult crusaders violated religious freedoms.

Prior to this meeting, which heralded some détente in these ‘cult-wars’, the anti-cult activists

warned of ‘brainwashing’ and ‘mind control’, while their opponents told tales of violent

kidnapping and coercive ‘deprogramming’. One of the main differences between the two

camps is they are asking different questions about the dynamics of NRMs. Many of the

scholars studying NRMs focus on more abstract questions, such as how religions are born

and evolve over time, while groups like the American Family Foundation, and the Cult

Information Service, focus on the harm done to some people who join authoritarian groups

(which they insist on calling ‘cults’ a pejorative that has almost no real meaning other than as

a stereotype).However, they deal with the real anguish of fractured families whose loved ones

18

are thought to have been subjected to ‘mind control’ framed as life-changing religious

conversions.

Further complicating these weekend peace talks over a decade ago, was the joint presence of

true believers and recent defectors from the same religious groups. One evening session was

punctuated by a screaming match between past and present Scientologists. Janja Lalich,

director of the Centre for Research on Influence and Control, and a former member of a

radical political cult, said bringing peace to the cult wars would not be easy: ‘We’re dipping

into forbidden waters here’, said Lalich, ‘For many of these people, this is not some abstract

academic argument. They’ve really been harmed’ (Lattin D, ‘Combatants in Cult War

Attempt Reconciliation: Peacemaking conference is held near Seattle’, San Francisco

Chronicle, 1.5.2000).

Jonestown’s Part in Stereotyping ‘Cults’

The anti-cult stance which comes through in Critchley’s ‘The Brotherhood’ is understandable

considering that it has, in contemporary times, grown out of spectacularly despicable acts –

mainly against their own members. Jonestown particularly, defines ‘cults’ in the cultural

consciousness.

However, it has become clear, via some fair-minded, less stereotyped, less docudramatic

reflective documentaries such as Jonestown: The life and death of the Peoples Temple

(Nelson 2005), that the problem of any form of abuse of power in New Religious

Movements is as much tied up in the inherent responsibilities of the followership, as it is in

the sacred trust of the leadership. It is unfortunate that we always seem to revert to the value

of assumed binaries that misread dialectic discussion. In the domain of the NRM the

leader/follower; teacher/disciple; guru/devotee binary fails to identify that leaders are also

Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple was an award winning film made by Stanley Nelson, Marcia Smith, and Noland Walker. It revealed the true, tragic story behind the enigmatic preacher Jim Jones and his promise of a world of economic and racial equality that ultimately led to the largest mass murder-suicide in history. This documentary tells the story of the people who joined Peoples Temple, following Jones from Indiana to California and ultimately to their deaths in Guyana in November 1978. Jonestown was an official selection of numerous 2006 film festivals, including Tribeca, Silverdocs, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/jonestown/introduction(Accessed 2.11.09)

19

learning (‘soul polishing’ if you like); and that teachers are often well-disciplined; and that

they were one-time disciples; that gurus are, more often than not, devoted to fine ideals and

were once devotees of someone else. Working back the other way, it is also true that

followers are often in the process of becoming leaders; that the more disciplined disciples are

the most likely to become teachers later in life; and that an astute and fair-minded devotee is

likely to become an astute and fair-minded guru. In daily life as well, just as over a lifetime,

the positions leader and follower are often reversed. A sound leader has to be able to trust

that followers are taking personal responsibility for their decision to support any group

initiative. The complexity of such relationships is avoided by the simplistic concept of the

leader/follower oppositional binary. I say this to make it clear that I am a true believer of

nuance and complexity in the discussions of religious leadership and followership.

To strengthen a follower, giving him/her the confidence to be true to her/his own conscience,

is better than blaming a leader for being excessive and in some cases abusive; and this is so

particularly in the domain of Religion—and even more so in ‘start-up religious

movements’—which axiomatically tend to be fervent.

Those ex-members of a NRM who focus only on anti-cult literature and see only biased

electronic-media artefacts such as Critchley’s ‘The Brotherhood’, tend to reify their own

reading of their personal/subjective experience, thereby intensifying their perspective on their

‘experience’—thus justifying and further reifying the stereotype—and from the ‘inside’.

Being a one-time member, and then an whistle-blowing-insider, bestows an air of genuine

authority to the allegation-making informants, convincing journalist ‘outsiders’, the public’s

allegation-publishing informers, of the truth of alleged abuse. The leaders and their loyal

adherent-defendants (usually still on the ‘inside’ and often family members) have a tendency

not to respond publicly (the Church of Scientology being an exception). This refusal to

respond with a denial can be interpreted as arrogance. While there is nothing new in this

dynamic, for the same is true of the media-representation of leaders in most domains of life, it

is particularly obvious in the stereotyped domain of New Religious Movements.

Journalists are almost by nature on the look-out for contentious and ‘exclusive’ stories about ‘cults’ as they seem to fascinate the public—perhaps as an exotic whipping-posts, sometimes deserved, but, judging by my experience, often not.

20

Media analysts and commentators within the religious domain, such as ABC’s Compass,

should, for the plethora of reasons I have enunciated in these various critiques, be wary of the

practice of stereotyping leaders as, ipso facto, the ones to blame for internal schisms and

associated allegations of abuse within such groups. Especially should media-producers be

careful not to engage in dramatic cut-and-paste kangaroo-court trials, without allowing the

right of reply to their ‘accused’, but still cooperative participants, lest the stereotyping of New

Religious Movements is reified en bloc.

Challenges in these Adjusting the Compass Documents

While the Laurie Critchley, the producer/Director of ‘The Brotherhood’ documentary, had

the freedom and right to tell the story as she saw it, she also had the responsibility to tell her

story ethically, giving all participants represented a fair hearing. As I claim to have been the

‘misrepresented protagonist-participant’, I also have the freedom and the right to tell my story

of where, how and why I claim to have been misrepresented. As an researcher of the

Universal Brotherhood I also have a duty to interrogate the films accuracy as a historical

document. As a critic of the film I question the ethics of the filmmakers in regard to

following the ABCs own guidelines. I can also draw on my ‘insider’ experience of the

making of the film. My other right and responsibility as the ‘surviving leader’, is to call my

accusers to account, while remembering that their statements too were cut-and-paste selective

statements, often out-of-context with what they may have said in a two hour filmed interview.

Something they know happened to me. In all, it is a delicate and difficult task to be fair and

considered in response to what I see as an unfair and ill-considered artefact. I have attempted

these critique documents, not just in my own defence, but also in the defence of Mary

Robinson—the maligned, deceased co-Founder and Principal; and of the CentreCore—the

governing body of the Community which the film ignorantly represents as yes-people.

It is almost useless to say, ‘I didn’t like the film because it was unfair and biased’, unless I

can show the same in detail through a studied critique that makes a sustained argument. This

cannot be done in a short document. My response has had to be a detailed close reading of the

film as well as a personal and historical document. I have tried not to engage in an ad

hominem attack on the Director, Laurie Critchley—on the contrary, because I like her as a

person, it has been difficult for me to be as strong as I have been about the artefact she made.

21

I do not accuse her of making an ad hominem attack on me either, just a faulty one, based on

stereotyping and her own gullible acceptance of the biased, self-interested interviewees she

chose to believe, without even hearing my side of their individual stories. There are many

positive things that I would like to say about her as both a filmmaker and a person, but this

paper is not about those, it is about the misrepresentation in her artefact ‘The Brotherhood’.