Recover From Coercive Control
A note before you read on:
The information on this page may bring up difficult feelings, particularly if you have personal experience with this group. That's a completely understandable response — what many members go through is genuinely harmful.
It's also worth noting that the overall score presented here is an average. Regardless of where a group sits on the scale, a single adverse experience — like being deceived, manipulated, or pressured even once — can be genuinely traumatic and deserving of support.
If you'd like help making sense of your experience, Renée offers specialised online counselling for survivors of high-control groups. Renée's counselling is built around understanding exactly how groups like this operate.
Political
New Guard
Also known as Australian New Guard, New Guard Movement, or The New Guard League
Founded by Eric Campbell
1931 - 1935
Established in Sydney, Australia
Estimated followers: 50,000
Summary of Beliefs
The New Guard was an Australian right-wing paramilitary organisation established in 1931 by Eric Campbell. The group was staunchly nationalist, promoting a fervent loyalty to the British Empire and advocating for traditional conservative values. Its members were vehemently anti-communist, anti-socialist, and opposed to the Labor government led by Premier Jack Lang. The New Guard sought to maintain social order and protect the established economic and political systems against what they perceived as the growing threat of leftist ideologies. They promoted the idea of a strong, centralised government and were prepared to use force to achieve their aims, including organising rallies, parades, and, at times, engaging in violent confrontations with political opponents.
The New Guard was highly controversial due to its extreme methods and authoritarian stance. One of the most notorious incidents involving the group was when a member, Francis De Groot, famously slashed the ribbon at the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1932, upstaging the official ceremony led by Premier Lang. The group's paramilitary activities, including training drills and stockpiling weapons, alarmed many Australians and drew significant media attention. Their willingness to resort to violence and their attempts to intimidate political opponents led to public outcry and scrutiny from law enforcement. The New Guard's actions and ideology reflected deep societal divisions during a tumultuous period in Australian history, ultimately contributing to their decline as public and political sentiments shifted away from extremist measures.
Analysis Using Renée's Cult Ranking
1. Authoritative Leadership
Score: 3
Eric Campbell held significant control over the New Guard. His leadership was authoritative, and the organisation operated under a strict hierarchical structure. Members were expected to follow orders without question, and Campbell's vision was central to the group's activities and ideology.
2. Control Over Information
Score: 3
The New Guard maintained tight control over the dissemination of information. Propaganda was used extensively to promote its nationalist and anti-communist agenda, and members were discouraged from accessing opposing viewpoints or information that could undermine the group’s ideology.
3. Deception
Score: 2
While the New Guard was relatively open about its aims and activities, there was still an element of deception in how it presented its actions and the threat it posed to society. The group downplayed its paramilitary activities and portrayed itself as a defender of traditional values and public order.
4. Exclusive Knowledge
Score: 2
The New Guard promoted a specific nationalist ideology that it claimed was essential for Australia's survival and prosperity. While not as esoteric as some cults, this belief system was presented as the only correct path for Australia, dismissing other political and social ideologies as dangerous or inferior.
5. Exploitation
Score: 2
Exploitation within the New Guard was primarily psychological and social. Members were often exploited for their labour and commitment to the group's activities, but there is less evidence of the severe financial or physical exploitation typical in more harmful cults.
6. Fear, Guilt, & Intimidation
Score: 3
The New Guard used fear and intimidation as key tactics, both within its ranks and towards its perceived enemies. It instilled fear of communism and social change, using aggressive actions and rhetoric to intimidate opponents and keep members loyal.
7. Isolation
Score: 2
While the New Guard did not enforce complete isolation, it created a strong in-group mentality that discouraged close associations with outsiders, particularly those holding different political views. This fostered a sense of exclusivity and separation from broader society.
8. Micro-Management of Daily Tasks
Score: 1
There was some degree of micro-management within the New Guard, especially in organising and coordinating militant activities. However, members maintained a level of autonomy in their personal lives, which was not as strictly controlled as in more insular cults.
9. Monitoring Thoughts & Behaviours
Score: 2
The New Guard monitored its members' commitment and loyalty, using peer pressure and organisational oversight to ensure conformity to its ideological stance. However, it did not employ extensive surveillance tactics beyond this.
10. Punishment & Discipline
Score: 2
Disciplinary actions within the New Guard were primarily social and psychological, including expulsion and public reprimand for those who did not conform. The group did not typically use the extreme punitive measures seen in more destructive cults.
11. Thought Reform
Score: 2
Thought reform in the New Guard involved intense ideological indoctrination through propaganda and group activities, aimed at aligning members' beliefs with the group's nationalist and anti-communist agenda. However, it lacked the coercive psychological methods of more extreme cults.
12. Us vs. Them Mentality
Score: 3
The New Guard strongly promoted an "us vs. them" mentality, viewing themselves as the protectors of Australian values against perceived threats from communists, socialists, and other political adversaries. This divisive stance was central to their identity and actions.
Total Score: 27/36
Overall Cult Ranking: 8. Likely Destructive Cult
Based on Renee’s Cult Ranking System, the New Guard scores 27 out of 36, resulting in an average score of 7.5 that rounds up to 8. This places it in the significantly harmful group range and most likely means that destructive practices are present. While not a cult in the traditional sense, the New Guard exhibited many characteristics of a highly controlling and potentially harmful organisation, particularly through its authoritarian leadership, use of fear, and divisive ideology.
The New Guard, with its militant approach and authoritarian structure, represented a significant threat to societal stability and promoted an exclusionary, divisive ideology. Its practices and beliefs created an environment that was controlling and harmful, especially in terms of psychological and social dynamics.
Further Reading
IS IT A CULT?: Response from
New Guard
No known response.
Support available for anyone impacted by a high-control groups or relationships, and want to speak to someone who understands coercive control and the road to recovery
These assessments evaluate group dynamics, particularly patterns associated with coercive control. They are not determinations about whether any individual has or has not experienced trauma, abuse, or harm. Personal impact varies widely. Coercive control often develops through an accumulation of influences rather than a single event, though specific moments — such as discovering deception or betrayal — can themselves be deeply distressing or traumatic. If your experiences in a group have affected your wellbeing, support from a trauma-informed counsellor or therapist can be an important step toward understanding, healing, and regaining a sense of autonomy. Assessments provided here are conducted using Renée's Cult Ranking system and reflect her personal opinions, which are based on online sources and personal testimonies. Renée acknowledges that groups can change over time, for better or worse, and that individual experiences within any given group can vary. Renée is open to respectful discussions and encourages diverse perspectives to foster a better understanding of matters raised.