General

Cult De-programmer Steve Hassan’s BITE list fits Nxivm to a ‘T’

04/13/2019·

Frank Parlato

A reader, who uses the moniker, AnonyMaker, advises us to have a look at cult deprogrammer and mental health counselor Steve Hassan’s BITE model in analyzing Nxivm.

Hassan has been helping families and cult members get their lives back for decades. He has worked with Nxivm members as well.

AnonyMaker writes, “I’d suggest consideration of Steven Hassan’s BITE Model of Undue Influence and Cult Mind Control. Many of the first steps of behavior control will sound quite familiar from NXIVM, Raniere’s inner circle and DOS.”

This is from Hassan’s Freedom Of The Mind resource center website:

“Many people think of mind control as an ambiguous, mystical process that cannot be defined in concrete terms. In reality, mind control refers to a specific set of methods and techniques, such as hypnosis or thought-stopping, that influence how a person thinks, feels, and acts.

“Based on research and theory by Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Singer, Edgar Schein, Louis Jolyon West, and others who studied brainwashing in Maoist China as well as cognitive dissonance theory by Leon Festinger, Steven Hassan developed the BITE Model to describe the specific methods that cults use to recruit and maintain control over people. “BITE” stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control.”

The BITE Model
I. Behavior Control
II. Information Control
III. Thought Control
IV. Emotional Control

Behavior Control

Regulate individual’s physical reality

Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates

When, how and with whom the member has sex

Control types of clothing and hairstyles

Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting

Manipulation and deprivation of sleep

Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence

Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time

Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet

Permission required for major decisions

Thoughts, feelings, and activities (of self and others) reported to superiors

Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative

Discourage individualism, encourage group-think

Impose rigid rules and regulations

Instill dependency and obedience

Threaten harm to family and friends

Force individual to rape or be raped

Instill dependency and obedience

Encourage and engage in corporal punishment

Information Control

Deception:

Deliberately withhold information

Distort information to make it more acceptable

Systematically lie to the cult member

Minimize or discourage access to non-cult sources of information, including:

Internet, TV, radio, books, articles, newspapers, magazines, other media

Critical information

Former members

Keep members busy so they don’t have time to think and investigate

Control through cell phone with texting, calls, internet tracking

Compartmentalize information into Outsider vs. Insider doctrines

Ensure that information is not freely accessible

Control information at different levels and missions within group

Allow only leadership to decide who needs to know what and when

Encourage spying on other members

Impose a buddy system to monitor and control member

Report deviant thoughts, feelings and actions to leadership

Ensure that individual behavior is monitored by group

Extensive use of cult-generated information and propaganda, including:

Newsletters, magazines, journals, audiotapes, videotapes, YouTube, movies and other media

Misquoting statements or using them out of context from non-cult sources

Unethical use of confession

Information about sins used to disrupt and/or dissolve identity boundaries

Withholding forgiveness or absolution

Manipulation of memory, possible false memories

Thought Control

Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as truth

Adopting the group’s ‘map of reality’ as reality

Instill black and white thinking

Decide between good vs. evil

Organize people into us vs. them (insiders vs. outsiders)

Change person’s name and identity

Use of loaded language and cliches which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words

Encourage only ‘good and proper’ thoughts

Hypnotic techniques are used to alter mental states, undermine critical thinking and even to age regress the member

Memories are manipulated and false memories are created

Teaching thought-stopping techniques which shut down reality testing by stopping negative thoughts and allowing only positive thoughts, including:

Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking

Chanting

Meditating

Praying

Speaking in tongues

Singing or humming

Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism

Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed

Labeling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful

Emotional Control

Manipulate and narrow the range of feelings – some emotions and/or needs are deemed as evil, wrong or selfish

Teach emotion-stopping techniques to block feelings of homesickness, anger, doubt

Make the person feel that problems are always their own fault, never the leader’s or the group’s fault

Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness, such as

Identity guilt

You are not living up to your potential

Your family is deficient

Your past is suspect

Your affiliations are unwise

Your thoughts, feelings, actions are irrelevant or selfish

Social guilt

Historical guilt

Instill fear, such as fear of:

Thinking independently

The outside world

Enemies

Losing one’s salvation

Leaving or being shunned by the group

Other’s disapproval

Extremes of emotional highs and lows – love bombing and praise one moment and then declaring you are horrible sinner
7. Ritualistic and sometimes public confession of sins
8. Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authority

No happiness or fulfillment possible outside of the group

Terrible consequences if you leave: hell, demon possession, incurable diseases, accidents, suicide, insanity, 10,000 reincarnations, etc.

Shunning of those who leave; fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family

Never a legitimate reason to leave; those who leave are weak, undisciplined, unspiritual, worldly, brainwashed by family or counselor, or seduced by money, sex, or rock and roll

Threats of harm to ex-member and family

***

Reading the above, it seems to me that Hassan’s BITE model is almost a play-by-play description of what Raniere intended to achieve.

Some of the points in BITE are eerily on point and perhaps Hassan, who has studied many cults, saw striking similarities between Nxivm and other cults. The devious and the wicked are strikingly similar all over the world.

Clearly, this is what Raniere designed and imposed on his followers. I am often struck at how he thought he could escape punishment because he had nothing in his name.

He had everyone else put everything in their name – dividing it up among his followers – so that he could keep control of Nxivm and its followers.

None of it worked out too well for the Vanguard. He has the hardest charges and is likely to go away the longest.

His miscalculations were stupendous and I wonder if he still thinks he is the world’s smartest man. If smartness can be measured by success – in whatever one intends to achieve – right now Keith is looking rather stupid.

Not just foolish, not just errant, not even just wicked or gross or mean or even insane – but stupid. Just plain stupid.

It’s been said before, but bears repeating: Viva Executive Success!

Comments (29)

Add Your Comment

AnonyMaker04/13/2019

I'm glad that was of interest. Hassan was in a cult himself, and his somewhat sensationally titled book Combating Cult Mind Control, which tells the stories of others who were in different groups as well, is a very good, and very approachable, explanation of the dynamics of such groups. He originally started out as a deprogrammer, but has evolved over the years to taking a more nuanced approach to influencing people to reflect on and reconsider their involvement in high control groups or cults, particularly in situations where concerned family and friends have little opportunity to interact with the group member outside the milieu of the group. This addresses the sort of situation that Catherine Oxenberg found herself in with her daughter India, for instance, where just telling someone that they're in a cult, and attempting aggressive interventions, are apt to fail. His more recent book Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs is an excellent guide.

Scott Johnson04/13/2019

Ox even said she consulted an unnamed cult expert prior to approaching India and blew it with her over the top approach.

AnonyMaker04/13/2019

I've been curious to find out more about her story, though I haven't had time to really look into it. It certainly doesn't sound like she was following actual good advice, and definitely not the approach Hassan recommends. For instance, one of Hassan's basic suggestions, applicable to many situations, is to try to get people to recall and reflect on what their values and aspirations were prior to involvement in a high control group or cult. The basic idea is to take someone who's been subject to that sort of frog-in-the-pot conversion of their ideals, such as having gone from wanting to empower women, to branding them in preparation for receiving their guru's supposedly magical ejaculate, and get them to step back and see how incongruent that in fact is – the way we of course see it, from afar. But who among us hasn't gotten involved in something that we didn't see for what it was, until we stepped back?

Nutjob04/14/2019

That suggestion of his sounds like NLP.

Heidi04/13/2019

Thanks, Anony, I’m ordering those Hassan ROSS titles pronto. (Btw, is this the same famous Rick Ross, first NX fighter and defender of justice with Peter Skolnik — whom we love so well?) From what little I’ve read, I’m already astounded at how well Hassan’s BITE model fits KAR’s pattern even going way back. I can show you evidence of it being implemented on Gina (and attempted on me) from at least the mid-90’s, using the human pyramid, MLM, later, “master-slave” format — with Kristin Keefe acting as Gina’s master or coach and she, in turn, being trained to work these tricks on me — somewhat unwittingly at least as to the intent. There was a lot of deception as to KAR’s intent, btw, from the start that grew over time. He learned from the girls themselves that Miss America always wants world peace — so to speak. Btw, some of my BFF’s are gay.

soccermom124504/13/2019

Certainly, this is clear and informative! Perhaps anyone who reads it will be mindful of these aspects of the groups they join in the future or may be able to help someone who is tangled up in a cult right now. Cults are evil and destroy the lives of all those who join. Cults destroy families and friendships. I do hope KR gets the maximum punishment. Of course, the others also, but most especially him.

niceguy04/13/2019

Thanks AnnoyMaker for sharing and many thanks to Frank for posting the Bite list. The BITE list is incredible interesting and so much like Maoist party and teaching doctrine. I am actually reading Mao the untold story its fascinating how much NXIVM' framework is just like communist thought control.

Scott Johnson04/13/2019

Not impressed with forced deprogramming, ala Cult Awareness Network, Hassan/Ross: http://allmlmfacts.org/2018/06/does-it-make-sense-to-intervene-in-a-cult/

AnonyMaker04/13/2019

Forced deprogramming is a thing of the past, and I certainly don't agree with it. On the other hand, knowing a family that resorted to it long ago, I think it was also a product of the times; when there wasn't as much understanding of what to be aware of, young people were almost literally being taken off the streets, sometimes disappearing without families even knowing where they'd gone. Can you imagine the desperation of a family who was told that their child had gotten in to a van to go off for a weekend (a typical ruse of groups at the time, that inquisitive and trusting 60s and 70s era kids fell for), and didn't hear from them again, only to finally discover that the were in some communal living situation subject to food and sleep deprivation? I'm particularly impressed with Hassan's thoughtful approach these days. Have you read any of his more recent work? Interestingly, Hassan studied NLP back when it was relatively new, and seemed like a potential tool for reaching and influencing people non-coercively; so he's particularly familiar with the sort of techniques used in NXIVM.

well wisher04/13/2019

Mitch Garrity04/13/2019

That defines just about every group or organization that one joins. Glad I’m not a joiner. Welcome to my cult

Scott Johnson04/13/2019

This is a good point, and it isn't a black and white issue, there is a continuum of influence from 0 to 100%. The key isn't so much the cultish factors, it's whether the organization is intentionally lying to get others to join. All of the voodoo-like cult factors are mere distractions to more useful things to look for. Lying is the primary mark of a dangerous organization, it's called fraud. Amway is an excellent example of this concept. Knowing the true motivations behind the lies reveals why the lies are told in the first place. It's all about money and power.

AnonyMaker04/13/2019

Scott made a good point in another reply, that it's a continuum. There are other lists or scales for evaluating high control groups and cults, that allow for some rating and ranking. Some groups or organizations are barely a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10, and others, like the DOS group within NEXIUM, are pegging the scale. One of the oldest and best-known is Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame, which there is now an Advanced version of. I actually occasionally pose the argument, that even a hermit is a cult of one in some ways – just look at the “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski in his Montana cabin, for instance….

Mike Parker04/13/2019

Rick Ross cautions against using Hassan for cult interventions as I believe SH has had several formal complaints against him here in Boston. I don’t have the details handy but culteducation.com has the full story.

Actaeon04/13/2019

Excellent resource, thanks for the link.

Scott Johnson04/14/2019

I think both of them have come around regarding forced interventions. Do your homework and bring back the full story.

AnonyMaker04/14/2019

That's interesting to hear. I don't follow whatever controversies or infighting there might be. Rick strikes me as a bit old-school, but I have a lot of respect for both. Both have somewhat different approaches and perspectives, but both offer a lot of good understanding through their various works and educational efforts, such as their websites. I'd certainly recommend performing due diligence before actually engaging someone for help with a specific situation; there may actually be others less well known, who could be better choices. For people coming out of cults or high control groups, there are a number of resources including the Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center, and a number of psychological professionals including particularly a woman in Southern California who I believe will do sessions over the internet. Again, it's not something I keep up on or am going get into making specific recommendations about, but anyone in need of such should be aware that there are resources, and that they can look around and investigate what might be good options in a particular situation.

Actaeon04/13/2019

Interesting, but I'm skeptical of this idea of “mind control”. Sounds the same as the old “brainwashing” thing. Sure, a person can be coerced, or belabored, or browbeaten. But nobody can control your mind; if there really were a way to do this, everybody would be in a cult. This idea of cults controlling people's minds seems simplistic. It's also a copout, an evasion of responsibility. I don't like this idea of everyone claiming victim status. I suspect most people join cults because they think it's going to give them what they want; a happy life, success (meaning $$$), a place in Heaven. NXIUM was promoting an “executive success program”– just the thing to appeal to pea-brained go-getters who wanted it all. They weren't brainwashed, they were eager to get in on a good thing. And stupid enough to fall for a scam. Some of them let all morality fall by the wayside, and some of those got caught by the Feds. Well, screw 'em, they belong in prison. I remember Allison Mack's blog. It was clear from her writings that she was yearning to make a big splash in the world, to do good things, promoting that nebulous JNESS or being a producer promoting female artists or whatever. All very nice– but obviously blinding ambition as well. Well, she did make a name for herself, in People Magazine and the Hollywood Reporter covering her arrest on multiple felony charges. Good intentions? sure, the road to hell is paved with them. She wasn't brainwashed: she was ambitious and really, really foolish. Made some terrible choices and now she's paying for them. Two of the Smallville cast got involved with NXIVM, why not the rest? Maybe because they weren't stupid.

Nutjob04/14/2019

Some people are more susceptible to brainwashing/mind-control than others. Maybe that's why the hypnotist passes you over and picks your friends.

Girl Scout Cookies04/14/2019

This is a great article. Would be well worth the time and expense for anyone directly or indirectly related to this case to make arrangements to attend the trial.

Nutjob04/14/2019

Curious if the above list was modified to fit NXIVM. Because, if not – this is so spot on – it's almost like ESP was modeled after this.

AnonyMaker04/14/2019

For further consideration, I'd offer the example of The Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame, one of several scales that provide a way to rate and compare high control groups or cults. Like a number of similar lists, it's generally useful, though its specific merits and possible flaws are open to debate; I've offered notes at the bottom, about a couple of points that I would modify. Most organizations in human society will indeed rate at least a couple of points – but it's the ones that rate relatively higher, that start to become dangerous, and the ones highest on the scale that typically are engaged in significant abuses bordering on criminality, though many abusive groups become quite adept at bending and skirting the law, or even influencing and co-opting the legal and judicial systems to get away with things that seem as if they should be illegal. Ratings also very based on context, and the different levels of a organizations with which members become involved; In the case of NXIVM, something like the now-defunct Vancouver center would likely get a lower rating than say the NXIVM community around Albany, and that in turn would be eclipsed by very high numbers for Raniere's inner circle, SOP and DOS. This version is taken from the religioustolerance.org website: The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (Version 2.7) Item Factors (rated on a scale of 1 to 10): 1 Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members. _________________________ 2 External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior. _________________________ 3 Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed. _________________________ 4 Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts. _______________________ 5 Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism. _________________________ 6 Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones. _________________________ 7 Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden. _________________________ 8 Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members. _________________________ 9 Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners. _________________________ 10 Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups. _________________________ 11 Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). _________________________ 12 Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers. _________________________ 13 Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts. _________________________ 14 Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s). _________________________ 15 Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. _________________________ 16 Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). _________________________ 17 Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). _________________________ 18 Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain. _________________________ On the last item in particular, I'd offer some additional nuances: similar to what is stated, what I would refer to as ends-justifies-the-the-means thinking and situational ethics (even if the dogma is non-situational) used as rationalizations to violate everything from the group's nominal philosophy and policies, to society's norms and laws; and the extent to which the leadership carries on, particularly with regards to materialism and sexuality, in ways that are in contradiction to what they try to impose on their followers. I would probably also modify or add to the points to take into consideration the extent to which the group or organization may both hold up its membership as an elect or superior elite; and yet objectify individual members as dispensable, as well as outsiders and the broader society as “others” in an us-against-them mentality.