Malignant Pied Pipers of Our Time: A Psychological Study of Destructive Cult Leaders from Rev. Jim Jones to Osama Bin Laden

by Peter A. Olsson

In this book, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Dr. Peter A. Olsson examines the phenomenon of destructive and apocalyptic cults, revealing the psychological roots of both cult leaders and cult members. Dr. Olsson calls the leaders (Rev. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Osama bin Laden, and others) malignant pied pipers for the way they lure followers to their deaths. Olsson uses concepts of psychology to analyze the lives of the cult leaders and the source of their powerful attraction to vulnerable converts. Dr. Olsson offers his vision for the It is my hope that this in-depth psychological study of destructive cult leaders of the last 30 years illuminates the roots of their malevolence and their power, a condition that has invariably led to murder, mass suicide, the destruction of families, and to the terrorist acts that dominate our headlines. By understanding them and their appeal, we increase our chance of averting future disasters. Dr. Olsson has been a psychiatrist for more than 30 years in Texas and New Hampshire. He is a professor of psychiatry and has published many scholarly papers and contributed chapters to eight books about psychology. He won the 1979 Judith Baskin Offer Prize for his paper Adolescent Involvement with the Supernatural and Cults.

Genres: Cults, True Crime, Nonfiction, Psychology

200 pages, Paperback

First published June 13, 2005

Reviews

[Janet Lynch · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think the author set his task at psychoanalyzing these cult leaders, but the results were repetitive and not that engaging. I enjoyed the book more when he was showing me these "pied pipers," rather than telling me about them. The quotes from Jim Jones and David Koresh made the hair on the back of my neck rise up.

[Laraine Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read, though I don't think the analysis about Osama bin Laden held up. He was an evil terrorist, but not a cult leader. Though extremist, it was still Islamic and that is a major religion. The members were a terrorist organization, not a cult, which are people who live together and exclude the outside world and rely solely on the leader for information. So it was a stretch that strained credibility.

The others qualified as cults, though. Yet there were exceptions to each rule. Jones, Koresh and Manson had bad father figures but Applewhite did not. He tried fitting bin Laden into that mold, but the culture was too different to make a comparison given that bin Laden's father had many wives and that could be the case for a lot of people in Saudi Arabia.

There are some complaints about "political correctness" being part of the problem. There is some consideration about the joiners, which is a good question to raise as we tend to think of them solely as victims. People in transition are the most vulnerable.

[Allie Yohn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pros: I liked the psychological background on why cult leaders become cult leaders.
Cons: the author clearly hates cult leaders and loves to use the malignant pied pipers phrasing. After several repetitions it becomes a bit much. I wish there had been more focus on cults themselves- the inherent structures, recruiting practices, the lives of former cult members.

[Miranda Prather · Rating 5 out of 5]

Applying more than 30 years of psychiatric experience to a study of cults and their leaders, Peter A. Olsson, M.D., provides an invaluable resource in Malignant Pied Pipers of Our Time: A Psychological Study of Destructive Cult Leaders from Rev. Jim Jones to Osama bin Laden. Dr. Olsson's work is full of insights into the genesis of cult leaders and how they can manipulate others to following them into death and destruction. Such a work is extremely important in a world where we find ourselves face to face with ever more awful acts, many perpetrated by ordinary individuals led to it by one of these charismatic individuals. While the scholarship behind the author's book is deep, perhaps the greatest strength of the book is the simple language Dr. Olsson uses. He could quite easily become caught up in jargon from his life's work, but then his work would not have its greatest impact. By writing for an everyday reader and using the brilliant analogy of the Pied Piper, Dr. Olsson is able to bring the trouble of cult leaders into the living room of people across the world, who are often the most likely to fall prey to one of these cult leaders.

[James Hollomon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a goldmine of information for me, as I am trying to research what sort of nature and nurture shape someone into a Jim Jones or Charles Manson. It was a gold mine because there is so little out there that looks at the childhood of destructive cult leaders.

It's a short book, and while Dr. Olsson obviously put extensive work into researching it, it doesn't take a literary critic to realize that the Doctor may be a top-notch psychiatrist, but he's not a great writer. So don't read it if you are looking just for the joy of reading great nonfiction. But if you'd like to understand what leads people to start cults, how they then manage to sell absurd belief systems to so many people, read it. If you'd like to know how to spot cult recruiters and protect yourself and family from their Pied Piper tune, it's a short and worthwhile read. I recommend it.

[MAP · Rating 1 out of 5]

I should have seen this coming when I saw it was written by an MD, but this book approaches its subjects from a VERY psychodynamic perspective, as he admits at the beginning. Since I am a firmly entrenched behaviorist, I had a hard time following his logicistic leaps and theoretical viewpoint. Also, to be frank, it seems kind of a cop out to try to do intense psychological analysis or people he's never even laid eyes on, much less given a thorough interview to. Instead, it feels as though he's just going "Ooooh, problems with his dad, that means xyz."

[Melissa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok, mostly just rehash from others books. Some new physiological information.
Too much personal opinion.