Beyond Jonestown – The Faces of Cult Leaders

Blind Faith:  How Mortals Become Gods

Cults have always fascinated me. How does a man (the majority are men but I will be including women in this series) lacking any spectacular attributes manage to persuade a crowd to follow him blindly and hang on his every word?

You certainly need charisma, even if this is merely faked. You don’t need film star good looks as the majority of my ‘chosen few’ will show but you do need a common theme. A common theme gives your followers a goal, a dream, a determination and if you tell it often enough then it becomes a reality whatever the actions needed to attain that end result.

If we view the current climate in the United States, it is hard for any of us with an ounce of intelligence to understand why people still venerate Trump when, to us, it is clear that their darling leader is not working in their best interests. And yet there they are believing every lie and every soundbite without any self-awareness or checking the facts.

Maybe it is because it suits their narrative, that it gives them permission to be themselves, to feel wanted, to feel a part of something. Their needs are simple. There is no need to look beyond the blinkers. They have everything they need.

There is no doubt that Charles Manson created his ‘family’ by attracting vulnerable, anchorless and drifting spirits whose needs were simple. ‘Fuck me, feed me and keep me high’ was the cry of a Manson follower as she swam on a sunny day unaware that Manson wanted far more from his followers than just an easy life.

Jim Jones gathered his flock in a self-sufficient commune, mesmerising them into submission to suit his dark ends. He created a ‘hole in the market’ that many disaffected souls were only too willing to fill. His teachings and master-manipulations resulted in that dreadful day of November 18 1978, a day that is still on everyone’s lips in the phrase ‘drink the Kool-Aid’.

However bizarre we view these cults or however misguided we believe the followers to be I do realise that this is still a complex and emotive issue and, in its way, an extreme variation on every human’s desire to trust. This portrait series of those more infamous leaders merely highlights the times when this trust has been misused and lead to tragic consequences.

EJ

Jim Jones Jonestown pencil portrait

Jim Jones

 

 

Charles Manson with a shaved head

Charles Manson

Anne Hamilton-Byrne: The Enigmatic Leader of The Family Cult

 

 

Anne Hamilton-Byrne

Anne Hamilton-Byrne

Marshall Applewhite: The Leader of Heaven’s Gate

 

 

Marshall Applewhite

Marshall Applewhite

Amy Carlson: The Self-Styled ‘Mother God’ of Love Has Won

 

 

Amy Carlson Love Has Won

Amy Carlson

David Berg: The Controversial Founder of the Children of God

David Brandt Berg (1919–1994) remains one of the most controversial religious figures of the twentieth century. As the founder and spiritual leader of the movement known variously as the Children of God, The Family of Love, and later The Family International, Berg constructed a complex blend of evangelical fervour, apocalyptic prophecy, and unorthodox sexual teachings that profoundly shaped, and ultimately destabilised, his followers’ lives.

Born in Oakland, California, into a devout Christian household, Berg was the son of travelling evangelists. His early years were steeped in the Pentecostal revivalism of the 1930s, where emotional expression and direct experience of the Holy Spirit were emphasised. However, even as a young man, Berg displayed a restless dissatisfaction with conventional religious structures. He struggled to find acceptance among mainstream churches and was dismissed from several posts within Christian organisations due to his abrasive personality and doctrinal disputes.

By the late 1960s, amid the turbulence of the counter-cultural era, Berg discovered a new audience. Disillusioned youth, searching for purpose outside materialistic society, proved fertile ground for his message of spiritual revolution. In 1968, he founded the Children of God in Huntington Beach, California. Presenting himself as Moses David—a modern prophet—Berg urged his followers to reject worldly institutions and dedicate themselves wholly to spreading God’s love.

At first, the group appeared as an energetic Christian mission, known for its communal living, street witnessing, and free distribution of literature. Members abandoned their possessions and families, moving into communal homes where they lived under strict religious discipline. Berg’s apocalyptic teachings warned of the imminent end of the world and the collapse of capitalist society. His charisma and prophetic confidence gave the movement a sense of divine urgency.

However, as the 1970s progressed, Berg’s control over his followers grew increasingly authoritarian. He communicated primarily through Mo Letters—a vast series of illustrated pamphlets that combined spiritual exhortation with personal revelations. In these writings, Berg introduced doctrines that blurred moral boundaries and redefined sexual ethics within the group. Most controversial was the practice he termed “flirty fishing”, in which female members were encouraged to use sexual relationships as a means of evangelism and recruitment. This policy, framed as an expression of God’s love, sparked outrage and accusations of exploitation.

Berg’s movement underwent multiple transformations to evade legal scrutiny and public criticism. Renaming itself The Family of Love and later The Family International, it continued to spread globally, establishing communes across Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Critics accused the group of coercive control, child abuse, and manipulation—charges that the leadership often denied or minimised. Former members have since provided testimonies describing traumatic experiences, isolation, and psychological conditioning.

Throughout these controversies, Berg remained a reclusive figure. He rarely appeared in public and communicated with his followers through letters and audio tapes, portraying himself as a persecuted prophet in exile. His writings mixed Biblical interpretation with apocalyptic visions, conspiracy theories, and a fixation on divine sexuality. Followers revered him as “Dad” or “Grandpa”, viewing his pronouncements as the direct word of God. This insularity deepened the cult-like atmosphere of the movement, where dissent was often equated with spiritual rebellion.

Berg died in 1994, reportedly in Portugal, leaving behind a legacy that continues to divide opinion. After his death, The Family International sought to reform its image, renouncing many of Berg’s teachings and apologising for the movement’s past abuses. Yet his influence remains embedded in its origins and in the lives of those who once followed him.

To some, David Berg was a visionary who attempted to create a community of faith outside a corrupt society. To others, he was a manipulative leader whose self-proclaimed prophecies masked psychological control and abuse. His story stands as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked charisma and the fragility of idealism when entwined with absolute authority. In examining Berg’s life and movement, one sees both the allure and the peril of spiritual revolution untethered from accountability.

David Berg pencil portrait

David Berg

Why the MAGA Movement Can Be Described as a Cult

The question of whether the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement qualifies as a “cult” invites serious reflection. While the term “cult” carries heavy baggage and technical definitions among psychologists, there are compelling parallels between MAGA’s dynamics and markers traditionally associated with cult-style movements. Below I outline the reasons why one might describe MAGA in cult-like terms — while also noting caveats.

1. Charismatic leadership and personalised loyalty
One of the hallmark features of cults is the presence of a charismatic authoritarian figure around whom loyalty becomes not just political but quasi-religious. In the case of MAGA, the role of Donald Trump is central: many supporters treat his statements as beyond reproach and place his persona at the heart of the movement’s identity. Cult-expert Steven Hassan has argued that MAGA’s loyalty to Trump is akin to “authoritarian mind-control cult” behaviour.  The very slogan “Make America Great Again” becomes less a policy programme and more a badge of belonging. This fusion of leader-devotion and identity provides a strong cult-like template.


2. Us-vs-them mentality, information control and echo chambers
Cult movements often thrive on a worldview divided between an enlightened “us” and a corrupt, conspiratorial “them”. For MAGA, there is frequent invocation of narratives like “the deep state”, “fake news”, “election stolen”, and an external media elite that cannot be trusted.  Sociological analyses note that MAGA adherents often dismiss mainstream sources and prefer alternative media ecosystems: one article describes the movement as creating a “closed feedback loop, a psychological echo chamber” that blocks criticism. Cults also emphasise behaviour and rituals tied to loyalty. In MAGA, visible markers such as the red cap, rallies, specific slogans or chants serve as rites of belonging.


3. Suppression of doubt, ostracism of dissenters
In many cults, doubters are labelled traitors, removed from the in-group, or pressured to conform. Within the MAGA movement, critics within the Republican fold (for example those who opposed Trump or his election claims) have been ostracised, disciplined or excluded. Studies note that MAGA’s internal culture discourages open criticism and that leaving the movement may incur social cost. Such mechanisms reinforce conformity and identity entrapment, which are classic cult attributes.


4. Emotional mobilisation, existential framing
Cults typically offer a story of existential significance: an imminent crisis, a hidden enemy, a special group that has truth and must act. MAGA frequently frames its narrative in apocalyptic terms (“our country under siege”, “the election stolen”, “patriots vs. traitors”), which cultivates high emotional arousal, fear, urgency and identity fusion.  This intensity shifts support beyond policy preference to emotionally driven allegiance.


5. The BITE model and behavioural indicators
Hassan’s BITE model (Behaviour, Information, Thought and Emotional control) is often applied when assessing cults. Some analysts argue that MAGA shows many of these features: behavioural expectations (attendance, visible signage, rally actions), information control (discrediting external media, promoting aligned outlets), thought control (black-and-white ideology, “with us or against us” framing), emotional manipulation (fear of outsider threat, praise for loyalty). These parallels make the “cult” descriptor more than rhetorical flourish.


6. Why the label is contested
That said, many experts caution against simplistic labelling. For instance, cult specialist Rick Allen Ross has argued that while Trump shows traits similar to cult leaders, MAGA as a movement lacks the full structure of an authoritarian cult: there is no isolated compound, no single rigorous hierarchy, and participation remains voluntary rather than coercive. Moreover, millions of supporters identify for diverse reasons (economic anxiety, cultural identity, political beliefs) rather than purely leader-worship. Thus, the term “cult” may obscure those complexities.


7. Concluding reflection
In sum: describing MAGA as a cult is defensible in so far as the movement exhibits multiple key cult-like dynamics: charismatic leadership, information control, identity rituals, emotional mobilisation, suppression of dissent. These traits signal that some supporters experience MAGA not just as a political affiliation but as an immersive worldview. However, using the term in an academic or technical sense may overstate the case, given the differences in scope, structure and voluntariness compared with classic destructive cults.

Donald Trump pencil sketch

Donald Trump