Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

The reasons for the German overreaction against Scientology

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Bernie

unread,

Oct 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/20/97

deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote in article
<19971018023...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
(alt.religion.scientology):

> Let me ask you this Bernie - why is this situation in existence? What has brought it about?

A variety of reasons, IMO.

(1) To start with, the CoS own behavior and policies.
Trying to squash dissent and use policies aimed at ruining
someone utterly, use the courts to harass, spread rumors in the
neighborhood of the critic, etc. In many of these cases, I do
think that the State should ruthlessly act against the CoS upon
any evidence of wrong and illegal acts. It would then assume
plainly its role of leveler of the playing field.

(2) General anti-cult propaganda promoted by organizations
like the old CAN and others organizations and individuals taking
part in the anti-cult movement. They depict groups they consider
as "destructive cults" in the darkest possible way, mainly based
on the fallacious, largely debunked, argument that their members
are being brainwashed and aren't in the groups out of their own
free will.

The anti-cult movement has done so for several groups,
among which the CoS. They are one of the main actors in
promoting cult phobia and an hysterical reaction on the part of
parents and authorities, something I believe helped to bring
Jonestown and Waco about.

Apparently, some members of the German government fell for
this propaganda and irresponsibly help to spread the phobia
around, even though the CoS' own actions as in (1) helped to
bring that about as well.

The InSects booklet made and diffused by the Young Union
group of the CDU is a good example.

The cover shows insects being killed by a fly swatter. The
booklet aims at Scientology as well as Mormons, the Unification
Church, Hare Krishnas, the OSHO movement, etc. It contains a
sticker showing a skull surrounded by the words “SCIENTOLOGY -
UGLY - DIANETICS - POISON.”

A picture of the booklet cover can be seen at:

http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/hatewach/issues/eng/risehv/monger2.htm#insects.

The CoS claims that the booklet represents an official
statement because it was disseminated at the CDU Federal Party
Convention in February 1994 and promoted by CDU General
Secretary Peter Hintze. While I am not sure about this
conclusion, it certainly reflects the kind of influences at play
at the government level, and I hardly consider it an objective
information to be promulgated by a responsible government.

Tilman Hausherr, of course, justifies such practices, even
if their parallel with the anti-Jew propaganda of the 30s is
obvious. From the Germany FAQ:
_____________________________________________________

19. Are there similarities between pictures in the SS magazine
"Der Stürmer" and german newspapers?

Yes, for example the Octopus has been used by both. This has two
reasons:

- German newspaper cartoonists do not have a collection of
"Der Stürmer" at home to check for similarities

- The octopus is a picture representing a concept, in this case
the "Threat that is everywhere at the same time".

The question is not whether a german newspaper, or "Der
Stürmer", or scientology itself (e.g. against psychiatry) has
used these pictures, the question is whether its use is
according to the facts. A german court ruled that scientology
may be called an "octopus", based on scientology's own
documents.
_____________________________________________________

"The question is not whether the newspaper has used these
pictures", he says, "but whether its use is according to the
facts". That says it all... Of course, the concept of the Jew
being a "threat that is everywhere at the same time" was a
"fact" as well... A "German court ruled" that it's ok, so it's a
fact...

I more pragmatically consider such practices as nothing
else than demonization, propaganda and inducement of fear and
paranoia. It is rather well in line with the practices of the
anti-cult movement, notwithstanding point (1) and the role of
the CoS itself.

(3) Germany is understandably sensitive to anything that
may look like a possible resurgence of its past demons. The
combination of (1) and (2) above has for effect to make them
react out of any proportion to the real danger represented by
the CoS.

Special laws exist in Germany to deal with extreme groups.
These were instituted in the aftermath of the war together with
the Allies in order to keep these groups under control. While
the usefulness and rationale to keep such laws in effect when
the situation has changed and it is obvious that they don't
prevent the raise of fascism (rather on the contrary since it
creates an additional reaction) is debatable, it allows the
German government to identify the CoS with these groups and
apply to them the same status.

(4) The internet obviously had its role as well. Initially,
the reaction of internators against attempt of the CoS to sue
some of its representative and try to control it the way they
try to control other media, was, I think, an healthy and noble
reaction. This, however, has enthralled many in the illusions of
the anti-Scientology crusade. They still think it's a noble
cause, but it's often hardly more than the classic anti-cult
disinformation, of which they often don't know much and are not
historically aware about. That's one of the reasons why I
started to document the anti-cult movement history on my web
page.

Altogether, it has spread over the net a mixture of actual
and largely exaggerated information about the CoS which gives a
new dimension to its demonization and helps its opponents to
sustain the "reasons" why it is justified to discriminate
against CoS members.

I certainly don't propose any kind of censorship, and in
fact believe that, in the long run, the same process will help
to bring about a more accurate and balanced picture and maybe
even help to shred light on some important issues that are
underlying all of these questions.

Bernie
http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/home.htm

DeoMorto

unread,

Oct 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/20/97

Bernie wrote in answer to me question "what do you think brought the situation
in germany about?"

>> A variety of reasons, IMO.

A good answer and one that I also endorse.

>>(2) General anti-cult propaganda promoted by organizations
like the old CAN and others organizations and individuals taking
part in the anti-cult movement. They depict groups they consider
as "destructive cults" in the darkest possible way, mainly based
on the fallacious, largely debunked, argument that their members
are being brainwashed and aren't in the groups out of their own
free will.

I also find myself in agreement with your point here, it is one thing to
condemn actions, quite another to run propaganda campaigns. It does seem to
represent a weakness in both positions - the church is neither as bad as some
of the stuff you quote from the german side would have people believe nor is
it as good as the church itself would have people believe.
Personally I distrust an organization that feels constrained to just blare
propaganda rather than debate and reason - and I feel that applies to both
sides in this debate.
The church has indulged itself in some tawdry practices - in the late eighties
I know of several occurrences of people ending up deep in the financial mire
due to pressure to give beyond their means. That does not mean that this is
all that the church does.
If the church, upon being publicly called to task about it had taken the
criticism and acted upon it to change the way they were doing things then,
maybe, they would not be facing the campaign they are facing now.
However the cofs is incapable of doing that - Hubbard said that all attacks
are the work of sps trying to do the church in so the only option for the
church is to attack the attackers.
Munich Org has been around since the sixties (IIRC) it was, for a long time,
one of the biggest european orgs, it has had its moments of attacks, no doubt
about it, but the current situation is way outside anything that they went
through there.
So, I think, the situation has been made up - as bernie seems to lay out
above - by two factors a) the unwillingness and inability of Scientology to
confront its own mistakes and change its behaviour and b) anti cult zealots
utilizing the opportunity thus presented.

I think it behooves us all - myself included - to be very sure that we don't
jump on either bandwagon.

JimDBB

unread,

Oct 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/21/97

>Subject: The reasons for the German overreaction against Scientology
>From: be...@arcadis.be (Bernie)
>Date: Mon, Oct 20, 1997 07:51 EDT

>deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote

>Let me ask you this Bernie - why is this situation in existence? What has
>brought it about?

Bernie wrote:
> A variety of reasons, IMO.

>(2) General anti-cult propaganda promoted by organizations
>like the old CAN and others organizations and individuals taking
>part in the anti-cult movement. They

>depict groups they consider
>as "destructive cults" in the darkest possible way, mainly based
>on the fallacious, largely debunked, argument that their members
>are being brainwashed and aren't in the groups out of their own
>free will.

Bernie, would you produce the anti-cult propaganda promoted by the old CAN
which depicted groups they consider as "destructive" cults, in the darkest
possible way. It's easy to sit in Belgium and make these judgements without
actually having seen the 'propaganda' . Please produce this material on the
ARS for all to judge.

> The anti-cult movement has done so for several groups,
>among which the CoS. They are one of the main actors in
>promoting cult phobia and an hysterical reaction on the part of
>parents and authorities, something I believe helped to bring
>Jonestown and Waco about.
>

Here is Bernie sitting in Belgium attempting to tell us that the 'anti-cult'
movement helped bring about Jonestown and Waco.
The anti-cult movement came about, in the main, BECAUSE of and after Jonestown.
Waco, was brought about by an insane cult leader
and the indecisive actions of the Dept. of Justice.

Wake up, Bernie, and stop posting this drivel

>Apparently, some members of the German government fell for
>this propaganda and irresponsibly help to spread the phobia
>around, even though the CoS' own actions as in (1) helped to
>bring that about as well.

>The InSects booklet made and diffused by the Young Union
>group of the CDU is a good example.

>The cover shows insects being killed by a fly swatter. The
>booklet aims at Scientology as well as Mormons, the Unification
>Church, Hare Krishnas, the OSHO movement, etc. It contains a
>sticker showing a skull surrounded by the words “SCIENTOLOGY -
>UGLY - DIANETICS - POISON.”

We could use something like this in the US...young groups exposing cults. The
cults listed all qualify as very destructive cults. Fortunately, there are
many ex-members of these cults who have come out and are working to expose the
abuses of these groups. Thanks, Bernie, for bringing this up

> They still think it's a noble
>cause, but it's often hardly more than the classic anti-cult
>disinformation, of which they often don't know much and are not
>historically aware about. That's one of the reasons why I
>started to document the anti-cult movement history on my web
>page.

Bernie, why don't you get on the Belgian lecture circuit and you can go around
with this bullshit and tell the Belgians how the 'anti-cult' movement brought
about Jonestown and Waco. I think that the Solar Temple tragedy would be a
little closer to home. It will be a bit of a stretch, though, trying to
blame this on the 'anti-cult' movement.

Keep trying.

JimDBB

Bernie

unread,

Oct 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/29/97

jim...@aol.com (JimDBB) wrote in article
<19971021022...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
(alt.religion.scientology):

>>Subject: The reasons for the German overreaction against Scientology
>>From: be...@arcadis.be (Bernie)
>>Date: Mon, Oct 20, 1997 07:51 EDT

>>deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote

>>Let me ask you this Bernie - why is this situation in existence? What has
>>brought it about?

>Bernie wrote:
>> A variety of reasons, IMO.

>>(2) General anti-cult propaganda promoted by organizations

>>like the old CAN and others organizations and individuals taking
>>part in the anti-cult movement. They

>>depict groups they consider
>>as "destructive cults" in the darkest possible way, mainly based
>>on the fallacious, largely debunked, argument that their members
>>are being brainwashed and aren't in the groups out of their own
>>free will.

>Bernie, would you produce the anti-cult propaganda promoted by the old CAN

> which depicted groups they consider as "destructive" cults, in the darkest
> possible way. It's easy to sit in Belgium and make these judgements without
> actually having seen the 'propaganda' . Please produce this material on the
> ARS for all to judge.

It is not because I sit in Belgium that planes do not exist
and that I can't move around. I went several times in the States
during the 80s and I saw if for myself. Both CAN offices in NY
and LA gave me unilateral negative press articles and put me in
contact with persons who did their best to convince me on how
awful and dangerous cults are. It wasn't called CAN back then,
but CFF, the same organization (like the GO changing its name
for OSA). In 1987 I went to a CAN national conference in
Pittsburgh where members freaked out each other with horror
stories about the cults. I don't just "sit in Belgium".

Besides, you give a good example in your posts of the type
of "information" given to frantic parents and other concerned
persons phoning CAN, since you yourself were responsible to
answer their phones (and BTW, I am still waiting for you to
post CAN's denial of forcible deprogramming, and the context of
this statement).

I still have some CAN magazines from which I could take
some examples, but I don't have my documents at hand. I'll get
to them eventually and post them both here and on my web site.
In the meantime, I document here under their participation in
the Waco tragedy, which also gives additional indication about
the type of information they carried around.

>> The anti-cult movement has done so for several groups,
>>among which the CoS. They are one of the main actors in
>>promoting cult phobia and an hysterical reaction on the part of
>>parents and authorities, something I believe helped to bring
>>Jonestown and Waco about.

>Here is Bernie sitting in Belgium attempting to tell us that the 'anti-cult'

> movement helped bring about Jonestown and Waco.
>The anti-cult movement came about, in the main, BECAUSE of and after Jonestown.

Utterly false. The anti-cult movement did not came about
because of and after Jonestown. Jonestown happened in 1979, and
the anti-cult movement blossomed in 1971 with Ted Patrick
deprogrammings. It was in full blast in 1974 and 1976, using
conservatorships proceedings to grab cult-members declared
"incompetent" for reason of "mind-control". On
http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/ryan1.htm, I show the link between
the anti-cult movement and the Jonestown events. I am sure there
must exist more trace of it.

Your statements that "The anti-cult movement came about, in
the main, BECAUSE of and after Jonestown" is completely absurd.
John Sweeney, CFF's National Director, even claimed in 1980 that
"we passed up the chance to capitalize on Jonestown".

> Waco, was brought about by an insane cult leader
>and the indecisive actions of the Dept. of Justice.

You are completely dismissing any role from the anti-cult
movement, as if they didn't do anything at all or as if they
don't even exist. This shows how biased you are.

I just webbed a document showing their role in Waco, and I
reproduce it here under as well.

>Wake up, Bernie, and stop posting this drivel

What drivel? What do you specifically contest in what I
post here under?

>>The cover shows insects being killed by a fly swatter. The
>>booklet aims at Scientology as well as Mormons, the Unification
>>Church, Hare Krishnas, the OSHO movement, etc. It contains a
>>sticker showing a skull surrounded by the words “SCIENTOLOGY -
>>UGLY - DIANETICS - POISON.”

>We could use something like this in the US...young groups exposing cults. The

> cults listed all qualify as very destructive cults.

Yep. You already said that the Mormons qualified too as a
"destructive cult". Then you protest when I say that the
anti-cult movement, of which CAN was representative and you
yourself were a represent of it, "depict groups they consider as
'destructive cults' in the darkest possible way".

>Bernie, why don't you get on the Belgian lecture circuit and you can go around
> with this bullshit and tell the Belgians how the 'anti-cult' movement brought
> about Jonestown and Waco. I think that the Solar Temple tragedy would be a
> little closer to home. It will be a bit of a stretch, though, trying to
> blame this on the 'anti-cult' movement.

I don't "blame this on the anti-cult movement", but I point
to the responsibility on *both* sides. You, OTOH, only rage
against the "cults" and stubbornly close your eyes to any other
evidences from the other side.

Here is the document I webbed at
http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/waco3b.htm. It is an excerpt from
the full document to be found at
http://home.worldonline.nl/~snorri/wacoruby.htm
____________________________________________________________________________

The Massacre of the branch Davidians

A Study of Government Violations of Rights, Excessive Force and
Cover up

Carol Moore
January 28, 1994

------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are excerpts showing ACM involvement. I let the references
number in the text but they currently do not link to the
reference. You will need to consult the full report for that. I
cut what was not directly relevant to the point and marked the
deletions with ellipses (...). Chapter 3.4 is left intact
because everything it contains is relevant.

Some of the things that are shown here are:

•the ACM fear inducing propaganda and rhetoric

•how the ACM pushes for forcible intervention by authorities

•the use of "deprogrammed" ex-members as "evidence" for the need
of such an intervention

•how the FBI and BATF relied on self-appointed "cult experts"
and their "medicalized" interpretation of religious faiths

•how, through past blunders of such an association, they tried
to cover up the fact that they did rely on them

•how ACM proponents tried to push authorities to allow them to
"deprogram" the survivors so that they could be "productive
witness" and desist to maintain that no mass suicide was under
way
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.5 Government Reliance on "Private Spies" and "Cult Busters"

(...)

Once an investigation is underway, most government agencies,
including BATF and the FBI, seem willing to receive information
from such groups as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
(ADL) and the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). These groups, and
others like them, clearly have their own agendas. They keep
copious files of biased and prejudicial information on private
individuals and organizations and share these with law
enforcement.

(...)

The Cult Awareness Network (CAN) actively urges the press,
Congress and law enforcement to act against any non- mainstream
religious, psychological or even political movement which it
describes as a "cult." After interviewing CAN's executive
director Cynthia Kisser, a reporter wrote: "no one knows how
many destructive cults and sects exist in the United States.
Kisser's binder holds 1,500 names gleaned from newspaper
clippings, court documents and thousands of calls to the
network's hotline. Some of the groups have legitimate purposes,
Kisser says. But her group's efforts show that most, despite
wildly diverse beliefs, share stunningly similar patterns of
mind control, group domination, exploitation and physical and
mental abuse." [23] CAN critics point out that so-called "mind
control" techniques are not much different than the techniques
used in education and socialization efforts used by all schools,
churches, ideologies and philosophies.

According to CAN critic Dr. Gordon Melton of the Institute for
the Study of Religion in Santa Barbara, California, CAN has used
a number of means to try to destroy small religious groups: they
unsuccessfully tried to expand "conservatorship" to allow
families to remove members from "cults"; they unsuccessfully
tried to have laws passed against "cults"; they unsuccessfully
sued the American Psychological Association for rejecting their
views on "brainwashing." However, they have found one successful
method of disrupting groups: false anonymous charges of child
abuse. Anonymous reports are legal under current law. [24]

Priscilla Coates, former executive director of CAN, told
reporters, "I know how these types of groups work and the
children are always abused." [25] CAN has been on a crusade
against the Christian religious group The Children of God, known
in the United States as "The Family." CAN alleges the group
practices indiscriminate sex, including with children. [26] Many
Family members accuse CAN of making false child abuse complaints
which have resulted in dozens of arrests in at least 10
countries. Most of the charges are quickly dropped and there
have been no convictions. The Family has demanded a
Congressional investigation of CAN. [27]

The Cult Awareness Network's other successful approach is
referring relatives of group members to "deprogrammers" who
charge thousands of dollars for their services and, according to
a former national director of CAN's predecessor, the Citizens
Freedom Foundation, "kick back" some of the money to CAN. [28]
Deprogramming often includes kidnapping individuals, subjecting
them to sleep and food deprivation, ridicule and humiliation,
and even physical abuse and restraint until they promise to
leave the alleged cult. Because deprogrammers usually involve
family members in these kidnappings and deprogrammings, victims
rarely press charges. However, in the last few years 5
deprogrammers have been prosecuted for kidnapping or "unlawful
imprisonment." One such deprogrammer is Rick Ross, a convicted
jewel thief, who has boasted of more than 200 "deprogrammings."
CAN executive director Cynthia Kisser has praised him as being
"among the half dozen best deprogrammers in the country." In the
summer of 1993 Rick Ross was indicted in Washington state for
unlawful imprisonment.

Nancy Ammerman, a Visiting Scholar at Princeton University's
Center for the Study of American Religion, was one of the
outside experts assigned by the Justice Department to evaluate
BATF and FBI's handling of the Branch Davidians. She was
particularly critical of Rick Ross and the Cult Awareness
Network. "Although these people often call themselves `cult
experts,' they are certainly not recognized as such by the
academic community. The activities of the CAN are seen by the
National Council of Churches (among others) as a danger to
religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been
increasingly found to be outside the law. . .Mr. Rick Ross, who
often works in conjunction with the Cult Awareness Network
(CAN), has been quoted as saying he was `consulted' by the BATF.
. .The Network and Mr. Ross have a direct ideological (and
financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against
what they call `cults'. . .It seem clear that people within the
`anti-cult' community had targeted the Branch Davidians for
attention." (JDR:Ammerman:1)

Nancy Ammerman compared Waco and Jonestown: "There, too, an
exceptionally volatile religious group was pushed over the edge,
inadvertently, by the actions of government agencies pushed
forward by `concerned families.'" (JDR:Ammerman:8) What she may
not have realized is that CAN's President is Patricia Ryan,
daughter of Congressman Leo J. Ryan. It was he who threatened
and hounded Jim Jones and his Peoples' Temple members until they
murdered him and committed mass suicide in Guyana in 1978.
Carrying on what seems to have become a family tradition, on
April 8, 1993, Patricia Ryan told the Houston Chronicle,
"Officials should use whatever means necessary to arrest Koresh,
including lethal force." [30]

Ross definitely deprogrammed one (and possibly more) of the
Branch Davidians who fed questionable but damaging evidence to
BATF. He also provided negative information to the Waco
Herald-Tribune for its February, 1993, series on the Branch
Davidians. The paper quotes Ross declaring, "The group is
without a doubt, without any doubt whatsoever, a highly
destructive, manipulative cult. . .I would liken the group to
Jim Jones." The authors write, "Ross said he believes Howell
(Koresh) is prone to violence. . .Speaking out and exposing
Howell might bring in the authorities or in some way help those
`being held in that compound through a kind of psychological,
emotional slavery and servitude.'" Ross told the Houston
Chronicle that Koresh is "your stock cult leader. They're all
the same. Meet one and you've met them all. They're deeply
disturbed, have a borderline personality and lack any type of
conscience. . .No one willingly enters into a relationship like
this. So you're talking about deception and manipulation (by the
leader), people being coached in ever so slight increments,
pulled in deeper and deeper without knowing where it's going or
seeing the total picture." [31]

CAN representatives made numerous television and radio
appearances during the siege. Ross bragged on the "Up to the
Minute" public television program that he "consulted with ATF
agents on the Waco sect and told them about the guns in the
compound." On April 19th he told the "Today Show," "I was a
consultant offering ideas, input that was filtered by their team
and used when they felt it was appropriate." The Justice
Department report mentions a Rick Ross television appearance
during the siege where he declared he hoped Koresh would be a
coward and surrender rather than end up as a corpse. (JDR:167)
After the April 19th fire, CAN associate Louis West said on a
MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour broadcast that the FBI "knew they were
dealing with a psychopath. Nobody is more dangerous or
unpredictable than a psychopath in a trap."

After the fire, CAN "counselor" Brett Bates tried to arrange
contacts with survivors by meeting with their families. He told
the N.Y. Daily News, "Before they can become productive
witnesses in the prosecution, they have to realize they were
victims of mind control." Columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote,
"the deprogrammers are demanding that they be allowed to
exercise their dark arts on the burned Davidian survivors so
that they testify correctly and desist from maintaining--as they
have--that no mass suicide was under way. The FBI says `this is
worth considering,' but the decision is up to the U.S.
attorney." [32] The only Branch Davidian to turn state's
evidence is Katherine Schroeder who was confined in a mental
institution after leaving Mount Carmel in March, 1993 (private
communication.) It is unknown if she was "deprogrammed."

After the April 19th fire Methodist Minister Joseph Bettis wrote
Attorney General Reno, "from the beginning, members of the Cult
Awareness Network have been involved in this tragedy. This
organization is widely known for its use of fear to foster
religious bigotry. The reliance of federal agents on information
supplied by these people, as well as the whole record of federal
activity deserves your careful investigation and public
disclosure. . .Cult bashing must end, and you must take the
lead." Larry Shinn, a vice president of Bucknell University
wrote to the chair of the House Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights, "media, legal institutions, and
law-makers too often rely on the word of self-styled cult
experts like C.A.N. whose overly negative agenda often slides
into purely anti- religious attack." And in early May, a
coalition of 16 religious and civil liberties organizations,
including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American
Conference on Religious Movements, Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, the Episcopal Church, the
General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, the National
Association of Evangelicals, the National Council of Churches of
Christ and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations issued a
statement which read in part, "We are shocked and saddened by
the recent events in Waco. . .Under the religious liberty
provision of the First Amendment, the government has no business
declaring what is orthodox or heretical, or what is a true or
false religion. It should steer clear of inflammatory and
misleading labels. History teaches that today's `cults' may be
tomorrow's mainstream religions."

(...)

2.3 "Probable Cause" Based on Biased Information about Intent

The credibility and reliability of witnesses in an affidavit is
very important. Yet all Aguilera's witnesses as to Koresh's
"intent" had some credibility problems (...) All other evidence
on intent came from disaffected former Branch Davidians, all of
whom were influenced by "cult busters" Marc Breault and Rick
Ross.

(...)

Aguilera began contacting former members in November, 1992. He
obtained their names from the 1990 affidavits Breault and other
former members left with the local Sheriff's Department and from
Rick Ross. Nancy Ammerman, who had access to all BATF and FBI
files, wrote "The ATF interviewed the persons (Ross) directed to
them and evidently used information from those interviews in
planning their February 28th raid." (JDR:Ammerman:Addendum) Rick
Ross "deprogrammed" David Block, who lived at Mount Carmel only
three months, in the summer of 1992 in the home of CAN national
spokesperson Priscilla Coates in Coates' home in California.
[78] He or California CAN representatives were probably in close
contact with Jeannine, Robyn and Debbie Sue Bunds, all of whom
gave BATF information. (Linedecker writes that in 1991
California police said Robyn was being deprogrammed. [79] )

Evidence that Rick Ross had a financial motivation for inciting
BATF against the Branch Davidians is contained in Marc Breault's
January 16, 1993, diary entry, where he describes a conversation
with Branch Davidian Steve Schneider's sister. "Rick (Ross) told
Sue that something was about to happen real soon. He urged her
to hire him to deprogram Steve. Rick has Sue all scared now. The
Schneider family doesn't know what to do. Rick didn't tell them
what was about to happen, but he said they should get Steve out
as soon as possible. I know that Rick has talked to the ATF."
[80] It is unknown how many other families Ross contacted
offering his expensive services "before it's too late."

(...)

While such allegations might be credible in most witnesses, they
must be regarded skeptically when coming from individuals
involved with professional or amateur cult busters. The Treasury
report itself notes, "the planners failed to consider how
Block's prior relations with Koresh, and his decision to break
away from the Branch Davidians at the Compound, might have
affected the reliability of his statements. Although the
planners knew Block had met with a self-described
`deprogrammer,' Rick Ross, they never had any substantive
discussions with him concerning Block's objectivity about and
perspective of Koresh and his followers." (TDR:143-144) All
those who gave BATF the all important "evidence of intent" had
similar credibility problems!

(...)

It is interesting to note that none of the most inflammatory
allegation's about Koresh's violent criminal intent made by
former members--that he had made up a "hit list" against former
members, that he had once "tested" them by saying they would
have to turn their guns on the public, that Branch Davidians
were considering "mass suicide," or that they had renamed Mount
Carmel Center "Ranch Apocalypse" [81] -- were included in the
Aguilera's February 25th affidavit. Yet the Treasury report
claims these allegations--some of which may not have been made
until after the raid--were a prime excuse for the raid because
Koresh "might soon have been inspired to turn his arsenal
against the community of nonbelievers." (TDR:127)

It is particularly disturbing to see that these cult buster
stories even convinced top Treasury Department officials to
support the plan. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Enforcement Ronald K. Noble told the April 9, 1993, House
Appropriations subcommittee hearing that from what BATF
officials had told him, the Branch Davidians were "people who
were feared to be gathering machineguns and automatic weapons
and explosives for either a mass suicide or for some kind of
assault near Waco, Texas; that they had bad intentions, evil
intentions." [82]

3.4. FBI Relied on Experts and Cult Busters Urging Tactical
Pressure

[Full chapter]

The Justice report states, "The FBI has questioned whether its
negotiations with Koresh could even be characterized as
`negotiations' at all, but rather as Koresh's attempt to convert
the agents before it was too late and God destroyed them."
(JDR:17) Yet despite Koresh's obsession with the Seven Seals,
they never allowed anyone who was an expert on the subject to
have direct contact with him.

Nancy Ammerman believes FBI agents had such a negative view of
Koresh's religious views for three reasons: some individuals
didn't understand religion, others were antagonistic towards
religion in general, and others were antagonistic towards
Koresh's specific views, which differed from their own. [224]
She noted FBI officials' and agents' "tendency to discount the
influence of religious beliefs and to evaluate situations
largely in terms of a leader's individual criminal/psychological
motives" and that their "consensus" was that "when they
encountered people with religious beliefs, those beliefs were
usually a convenient cover for criminal activity."
(JDR:Ammerman:5) For example, siege Commander SAC Jamar
expressed his contempt for Koresh when he declared at the April
28, 1993, House Judiciary Committee hearing that Koresh had
merely "corrupted people" and "corrupted religion to his own
ends" and that there was "no way to convince Koresh that he was
not the Messiah."

It is evident from the Justice report's description of its
consultations with seven theologians (JDR:186-189) that the only
one they took seriously was Dr. Glenn Hilburn of Baylor
University. Not surprisingly, the report mentions that "Baylor
University has one of the largest `cult' reference and research
facilities in the country." However, even Dr. Hilburn had little
substantive impact on FBI thinking or actions. (JDR:186-189)

Several times the Justice report mentions theologian Philip
Arnold--an expert on the Seven Seals and apocalyptic groups--but
never acknowledges his crucial impact on Koresh's decision to
come out. We will review that in detail in a later section. A
study of the Justice report makes it clear that psychologists,
psychiatrists (JDR:158-185) and "cult busters" (JDR:190-193) who
reinforced the FBI's own prejudices had the greatest impact on
the FBI's decisions.

a. Psychologists and Psychiatrists

The FBI was particularly attentive to the advice of
psychologists and psychiatrists who asserted that Koresh was
mentally unbalanced and would not surrender voluntarily. Dr.
Park Dietz held that, "continuing to negotiate in good faith
would not resolve the situation, because Koresh would not come
out." (JDR:168) Dr. Anthony J. Pinizotto said, "Koresh displayed
psychopathic behavior, that he was a `con artist' type, and he
had narcissistic tendencies." Dr. Mike Webster opined, "Koresh
appeared to be manifesting anti- social traits." (JDR:170) Dr.
Perry and social worker Joyce Sparks, who interviewed children
released from Mount Carmel, agreed that "Koresh was stalling for
time, to prepare for his `final battle' with authorities."
(JDR:171-174)

Dr. Joseph L. Krofcheck (with FBI psychological profiler Clinton
R. Van Zandt) held that Koresh appeared to be a "functional,
paranoid-type psychotic," that he was unlikely to "give up the
power and omnipotence he enjoyed inside the compound," that
there was the possibility of a "mass-breakout. . .with women
carrying a baby in one arm while firing a weapon from the
other," and that "the only way the FBI could influence Koresh's
exit from the compound would be some form of tactical
intervention." (JDR:176-179)

b. Cult Busters

There is evidence that in response to Nancy Ammerman's sharp
criticisms, to Rick Ross's being indicted for "unlawful
imprisonment" in the summer of 1993, and to the New Alliance
Party suit against the FBI for its abuse of the word "cult," the
FBI and Justice Department have tried to cover up its
association with professional or amateur "cult busters." The
Justice report asserts the FBI "did not solicit advice from any
`cult experts' or `cult deprogrammers.'" (JDR:190)

In mid-April the FBI asked Dr. Murray S. Miron, a Professor of
Psycholinquistics at Syracuse University, to analyze five
letters that Koresh sent out of Mount Carmel. After reading the
first and third letters, he concluded that they bore "all the
hallmarks of rampant, morbidly virulent paranoia. . .In my
judgement, we are facing a determined, hardened adversary who
has no intention of delivering himself or his followers into the
hands of his adversaries. It is my belief that he is waiting for
an assault." (JDR:174-176)

What the FBI either did not know--or did not admit--is that Dr.
Miron is an outspoken cult critic. Reportedly, during the 1970s
he had been involved with the Citizens Freedom Foundation, the
anti-cult group which evolved into the Cult Awareness Network.
During the week of April 14-21--even while he was consulting
with the FBI-- Miron published an article called "The Mark of
the Cult" in the Syracuse New Times. The article contains
stereotypical anti-cult propaganda: "The totalitarianism of the
cult banishes dissent and fosters dependence upon fallible,
power-mad leaders. It is the system of every dictator, whether
benign or benevolent." [225]

In typically media-savvy cult buster fashion, Miron managed to
make himself one of the few FBI consultants quoted in major
media right after the fire--thus using his FBI connections to
promote his anti-cult propaganda. He told the Los Angeles Times,
"I advised the FBI that all of his promises as to giving up were
only subterfuges, deceptions and delaying tactics." [226] He
told the Washington Post, "There was every indication in my mind
that he was not prepared to commit suicide." [227] His comments
occupied eight paragraphs of a New York Times article: "Dr.
Miron said that Mr. Koresh had become so delusional" that he and
his followers may have believed that after they set the fire
"either that they were invulnerable and that the fires would
consume the authorities while leaving them untouched, or that
they were about to ascend to glory no matter what happened to
their bodies." [228]

Rick Ross' contention that he was in close contact with BATF and
the FBI is backed up by Nancy Ammerman's September 10, 1993 one
page addendum to her report. (Which the Justice Department did
not bother to include in its report.) In it she wrote, "The
interview transcripts document that Mr. Rick Ross was, in fact,
closely involved with both the ATF and the FBI. . .He clearly
had the most extensive access to both agencies of any person on
the `cult expert' list, and he was apparently listened to more
attentively." However, after reviewing Ross's contacts with the
FBI, the Justice report states: "The FBI did not `rely' on Ross
for advice whatsoever during the standoff." (JDR:192)

The Justice report claims that the FBI determined Breault was
talking to the media and therefore only accepted his affidavits
and electronic mail from him, but decided "not to contact him."
(JDR:192) However, Breault asserts: "as soon as the siege began.
. .the FBI tried for hours to contact us. . .they almost sent
the police to drag us to police headquarters. Just before they
took that drastic action, the negotiators broke through."
Breault gave them detailed information about the Seven Seals,
Koresh and his followers. Breault also writes: "The FBI
contacted us throughout the siege. They showed us Koresh's
letters." [229] Clearly, either Breault is lying or the FBI and
Justice Department are trying to cover up their reliance on him.

During the April 28, 1993, House Judiciary Committee hearing FBI
Director William Sessions admitted that the FBI had consulted
"cult experts," though he got confused about the advice they had
given the FBI. And SAC Jamar admitted, "we had a white paper on
cults that was very, very useful to us." The white paper
outlined the traits of cults with one "dynamic, manipulative,
egomaniacal, psychopathic leader" and Jamar asserted that the
traits fit Koresh "to a T." Jamar did not tell the committee
what individual--or organization--gave him the white paper.
However, considering that it contained typical anti-cult
stereotypes, one might guess either Dr. Murray Miron or Rick
Ross gave Jamar the white paper. Despite the Justice report
denials, it is evident that there was a definite cult buster
influence on--and justification for-- decisions to replace
negotiations with pressure tactics against the Branch Davidians.

____________________________________________________________________________

Bernie

Rob Clark

unread,

Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97

On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 22:50:39 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:

> I still have some CAN magazines from which I could take
>some examples, but I don't have my documents at hand. I'll get
>to them eventually and post them both here and on my web site.
>In the meantime, I document here under their participation in
>the Waco tragedy, which also gives additional indication about
>the type of information they carried around.

yes, i've read through this, and it is a steaming crock of shit. i will agree
with the issue of violation of rights and excessive force, but i do not believe
that CAN can in any sane or rational manner be held responsible for the fact
that the BATF is a pack of vicious goons with a rambo complex.

i would say, even that CAN was an accurate source of information on the
davidians and that it is that the FBI and BATF did *not* listen to them which
can be blamed for the catastrophe that CAN and cult experts warned about,
but were ignored.

i'll specifically quote where this moore person is trying to quote selectively
to make cult critics look bad in a one-sided propaganda piece as bad or worse
than anything she accuses CAN of in her article.

[opening accusations]

i doubt most churches lock up children in chain lockers or dehydrate people to
death as a matter of policy, or lock people in metal boxes in 100 degree
weather, torture them with cattle prods, or any of the "disciplinary" measures
uses by jim jones at jonestown.

i also doubt mass suicide is generally used by "all schools, churches,
ideologies and philosophies."

society does reserve the right to imprison those who are a threat to it, but
this power derives from a social mandate. no such social mandates exist to
allow private parties to run their own private prison systems. comparing
socially mandated control techniques generally agreed-upon by society at
large to illegitimate usurpations of such functions by cults or other
subversive groups is a worthless analogy, and misses the point.

when society imprisons someone, it is after due process as guaranteed by law.

when a cult tosses someone in a chain locker, or in RPF, or tortures them with
a cattle prod, or forces them at gunpoint to drink poison, there is no such
process. indeed, the more extreme measures taken by destructive and dangerous
cults in no manner resemble legitimate social control techniques.

>According to CAN critic Dr. Gordon Melton of the Institute for

this is the same guy who accused the japanese government of "persecuting" the
AUM cult even AFTER the nerve-gas attack. his meddling encouraged the
continued police inaction as the AUM cult murdered its way into history.

if melton had had his way, the AUM boys would still be happily spreading sarin
and botulin toxin and murdering at will, as the dead victims of this murderous
cult were decried for "persecuting" the cult.

>the Study of Religion in Santa Barbara, California, CAN has used

the "institute for the study of religion" is j. gordon melton. he ought to
just call himself j. gordon melton, he is not fooling anyone with that
bullshit, any more than he fooled anyone by pretending to be a professor when
he was merely a librarian. also they got the name wrong, it is "institute for
the study of american religions."

who is on the board of directors of the "institute for the study of american
religions" anyway? is it possible the "institute" is so named to foster
confusion and ride on the coat-tails of princeton's CENTER for the study of
american religion?

>a number of means to try to destroy small religious groups: they
>unsuccessfully tried to expand "conservatorship" to allow
>families to remove members from "cults"; they unsuccessfully
>tried to have laws passed against "cults"; they unsuccessfully
>sued the American Psychological Association for rejecting their
>views on "brainwashing." However, they have found one successful
>method of disrupting groups: false anonymous charges of child
>abuse. Anonymous reports are legal under current law. [24]

what is this "they" business?

it was margaret singer who sued the APA, over the personal issue of her own
testimony.

>Priscilla Coates, former executive director of CAN, told
>reporters, "I know how these types of groups work and the
>children are always abused." [25] CAN has been on a crusade
>against the Christian religious group The Children of God, known
>in the United States as "The Family." CAN alleges the group
>practices indiscriminate sex, including with children. [26] Many

it's true, dammit, their own literature encourages using their women and
children as "happy hookers for jesus."

have you seen the "flirty fishing" material given to girls as young as twelve?
do you know why 6,000 of the 9,000 children of god members were children born
from their bizarre and criminal use of prostitution as a recruitment tool?

like the scientology cult's official renunciation of their infamous "Fair Game"
policy, the family cult publicly renounced incest and child molestation, but
only because of bad PR.

Many defectors, some of them former leaders and family members of Berg,
continue to expose the clandestine activities of The Family. Their testimony
and volumes of Berg's and Maria's writings and videos leave a trail of activity
which includes promotion of incest, spiritualism, adultery, fornication, group
sex, and sexually influencing government leaders. With this exposure and the
onset of the AIDS scare, The Family has issued statements that incest and
Flirty Fishing are no longer to be practiced (1987). There has been no
admission of wrongdoing, only that it is expedient "for the sake of potential
problems with the System" (Los Angeles Times, 21 March 1993, p. E4).

from http://www.watchman.org/fampro.htm

since berg's death, the cult is finally shrinking and we can hope it will
shortly be no more than a bad memory.

>Family members accuse CAN of making false child abuse complaints
>which have resulted in dozens of arrests in at least 10
>countries. Most of the charges are quickly dropped and there
>have been no convictions. The Family has demanded a
>Congressional investigation of CAN. [27]

yes, but they were unable to do much agitating from underground in hiding from
the law, being driven from country to country as each country, in turn, decided
that a child-molesting cult of hookers for jesus was more than could be safely
tolerated.

>The Cult Awareness Network's other successful approach is
>referring relatives of group members to "deprogrammers" who
>charge thousands of dollars for their services and, according to
>a former national director of CAN's predecessor, the Citizens
>Freedom Foundation, "kick back" some of the money to CAN. [28]
>Deprogramming often includes kidnapping individuals, subjecting
>them to sleep and food deprivation, ridicule and humiliation,
>and even physical abuse and restraint until they promise to
>leave the alleged cult. Because deprogrammers usually involve
>family members in these kidnappings and deprogrammings, victims
>rarely press charges. However, in the last few years 5
>deprogrammers have been prosecuted for kidnapping or "unlawful
>imprisonment." One such deprogrammer is Rick Ross, a convicted
>jewel thief, who has boasted of more than 200 "deprogrammings."
>CAN executive director Cynthia Kisser has praised him as being
>"among the half dozen best deprogrammers in the country." In the
>summer of 1993 Rick Ross was indicted in Washington state for
>unlawful imprisonment.

amusing, this propaganda piece goes out of its way to downplay mass murder,
child-molesting, suicide and incest by cults, even when these vile practices
are central to the belief system of the cult, but will seize on any wrongdoing
by a cult critic, no matter how utterly irrelevant to the charges made.

>Nancy Ammerman, a Visiting Scholar at Princeton University's
>Center for the Study of American Religion, was one of the
>outside experts assigned by the Justice Department to evaluate
>BATF and FBI's handling of the Branch Davidians. She was
>particularly critical of Rick Ross and the Cult Awareness
>Network. "Although these people often call themselves `cult
>experts,' they are certainly not recognized as such by the
>academic community. The activities of the CAN are seen by the
>National Council of Churches (among others) as a danger to
>religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been
>increasingly found to be outside the law. . .Mr. Rick Ross, who
>often works in conjunction with the Cult Awareness Network
>(CAN), has been quoted as saying he was `consulted' by the BATF.
>. .The Network and Mr. Ross have a direct ideological (and
>financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against
>what they call `cults'. . .It seem clear that people within the
>`anti-cult' community had targeted the Branch Davidians for
>attention." (JDR:Ammerman:1)

considering the violent nature of david koresh, his utter disregard for the
law, the lives of his followers, or his own life, it is fairly obvious the
davidians were indeed a menace. a law-abiding group would not have been in a
months-long armed standoff with the authorities, but would have taken their
case to the courts instead of shooting to kill.

a law abiding religious leader would not have been in shootouts with rival
leaders, either.

>Nancy Ammerman compared Waco and Jonestown: "There, too, an
>exceptionally volatile religious group was pushed over the edge,
>inadvertently, by the actions of government agencies pushed
>forward by `concerned families.'" (JDR:Ammerman:8) What she may

what is with putting "concerned families" in quotes?

this essentially spits on the concern of a family member who is rightly
concerned about a family member's involvement in an abusive cult. is this fool
saying that they are NOT concerned that their relatives are in destructive
organizations which, in the case of jonestown, already regularly practiced
"white nights" suicide drills, tortured children with a cattle-prod called the
"blue-eyed monster" and locked people in metal boxes in blistering heat.

>not have realized is that CAN's President is Patricia Ryan,
>daughter of Congressman Leo J. Ryan. It was he who threatened
>and hounded Jim Jones and his Peoples' Temple members until they
>murdered him and committed mass suicide in Guyana in 1978.

oh, so this is where you get that brutal invasion crap.

i see, if you consider a group dangerous which tortures its members in
revolting manners while regularly drilling for mass suicide, then you are
"threatening" and "hounding" them. what would you call what they did in
response?

jim jones had started his suicide drills before even going to guyana, and
obviously had an armageddon scenario in mind, as he vociferously preached of
imminent violent conflicts.

>Carrying on what seems to have become a family tradition, on
>April 8, 1993, Patricia Ryan told the Houston Chronicle,
>"Officials should use whatever means necessary to arrest Koresh,
>including lethal force." [30]

in this case, such means were probably not necessary, and even in lethal force
was to be used, tactically it could have been done far better and without loss
of life.

comparing a bungled armed raid to ryan's fact-finding mission with a camera
team is a bit silly, and also in grossly bad taste, and the author once again
reveals a complete contempt for human life by downplaying mass murder and
blaming it on the person with the guts to try to do something before it was too
late.

there is a phrase for this, it is called "shooting the bearer of bad news" or
"killing the messenger." in this case the example is literal and not
metaphorical. yet this pinhead blames the murdered victim rather than the
mass-murderer, then makes nasty flippant remarks about his family.

>Ross definitely deprogrammed one (and possibly more) of the
>Branch Davidians who fed questionable but damaging evidence to
>BATF. He also provided negative information to the Waco
>Herald-Tribune for its February, 1993, series on the Branch
>Davidians. The paper quotes Ross declaring, "The group is

yes, of course, one can not of course trust ex-members of a group, since their
objectivity is clouded by actual experience. best to hire some nitwit academic
moron like j. gordon melton who will defend even the nerve-gas terrorists of
the AUM cult as long as they sign his checks.

>without a doubt, without any doubt whatsoever, a highly
>destructive, manipulative cult. . .I would liken the group to
>Jim Jones." The authors write, "Ross said he believes Howell
>(Koresh) is prone to violence. . .Speaking out and exposing

considering that he had already stood trial for a shootout with rival cult
leader george roden and continually preached violence and armageddon, the
statement that vernon howell was violent is obviously true on its face.

---

Howell's dire predictions of coming warfare and his own martyrdom date to 1983
or 1984, when, according to one ex-member, "he was always teaching that he was
going to be killed and going to be a martyr." Another ex-member recalled
Howell's preoccupation with violence, recounting, "The night I met Koresh . . .
he asked me, 'Would you die for Christ?' I said I guess so. He said, 'Would you
kill for him?' I said no. He turned to my friend and said, 'Hey, you just
brought me another weak Christian.'" The defense attorney for Howell and his
followers in the trial over the 1987 gunfight with Roden remembered,
"Vernon had told them that some day somebody was going to be coming for them,
and that they better be ready."

[from http://www.answers.org/CultsAndReligions/koresh.html]

i will note that the FBI and BATF did not take seriously the notion that koresh
was serious with his armageddon prophecies or spoutings from the book of
revelation, but chose to treat him as a simple charlatan who would buckle under
pressure.

>Howell might bring in the authorities or in some way help those
>`being held in that compound through a kind of psychological,
>emotional slavery and servitude.'" Ross told the Houston
>Chronicle that Koresh is "your stock cult leader. They're all
>the same. Meet one and you've met them all. They're deeply
>disturbed, have a borderline personality and lack any type of
>conscience. . .No one willingly enters into a relationship like
>this. So you're talking about deception and manipulation (by the
>leader), people being coached in ever so slight increments,
>pulled in deeper and deeper without knowing where it's going or
>seeing the total picture." [31]

any examination of the methods vernon howell used in insinuating himself into
the leadership of the branch davidians bears this out. koresh used marathon
bible study sessions, deceptive statements and outright coercion to maintain
his ironclad grip upon his cultists, and it is obvious that, rather than come
out, his cult stayed with koresh until the bitter end in an armed
conflagration. the FBI and BATF's pressure tactics reveal quite clearly that
they believed the cult would cave in under pressure, and when cult experts from
CAN pointed out repeatedly and clearly that this was a classic armageddon cult
entirely prepared to go the whole way, their recommendations were ignored.

briefly, for a time, they used theological debate over the book of revelation
with koresh, and the cult experts approved of this. however, the FBI abandoned
this in favor of more rambo tactics of the sort that started the whole
conflict, over the advice of the cult experts who rightly thought this a proper
avenue of conflict resolution.

>CAN representatives made numerous television and radio
>appearances during the siege. Ross bragged on the "Up to the
>Minute" public television program that he "consulted with ATF
>agents on the Waco sect and told them about the guns in the
>compound." On April 19th he told the "Today Show," "I was a
>consultant offering ideas, input that was filtered by their team
>and used when they felt it was appropriate." The Justice
>Department report mentions a Rick Ross television appearance
>during the siege where he declared he hoped Koresh would be a
>coward and surrender rather than end up as a corpse. (JDR:167)
>After the April 19th fire, CAN associate Louis West said on a
>MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour broadcast that the FBI "knew they were
>dealing with a psychopath. Nobody is more dangerous or
>unpredictable than a psychopath in a trap."

obviously in this case rick ross was mistaken and west, the more academic of
the two, was correct. rick ross was hardly the only cult expert consulted, and
the more effective advice, of theological debate with the goal of allowing
koresh to finish his exegesis, should have been followed, while maintaining
more subtle and passive policies of containment, than the overtly
confrontational imagery and psychological warfare which confirmed koresh's
paranoid armageddon scenario.

>After the fire, CAN "counselor" Brett Bates tried to arrange
>contacts with survivors by meeting with their families. He told
>the N.Y. Daily News, "Before they can become productive
>witnesses in the prosecution, they have to realize they were
>victims of mind control." Columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote,
>"the deprogrammers are demanding that they be allowed to
>exercise their dark arts on the burned Davidian survivors so
>that they testify correctly and desist from maintaining--as they
>have--that no mass suicide was under way. The FBI says `this is
>worth considering,' but the decision is up to the U.S.
>attorney." [32] The only Branch Davidian to turn state's

crockburn will write damn near anything, and when he is not defending insane
cults, he is defending the likes of moammar qadaffi, or engaging in paranoid
conspiracy screeds against the government. it is obvious he merely passes on
unaltered whatever scientology tells him out of an unreflective and insane
hatred of richard behar.

>evidence is Katherine Schroeder who was confined in a mental
>institution after leaving Mount Carmel in March, 1993 (private
>communication.) It is unknown if she was "deprogrammed."

however, the lead-in makes clear that the author wants to smear her evidence
with this "deprogramming" accusation whether or not there is any proof for it
or not.

>After the April 19th fire Methodist Minister Joseph Bettis wrote
>Attorney General Reno, "from the beginning, members of the Cult
>Awareness Network have been involved in this tragedy. This
>organization is widely known for its use of fear to foster
>religious bigotry. The reliance of federal agents on information

bettis is another melton crony, and like melton echoes the same standard cult
apologist party line.

>supplied by these people, as well as the whole record of federal
>activity deserves your careful investigation and public
>disclosure. . .Cult bashing must end, and you must take the

cult bashing must end. feh. nerve-gas attacks on subways, molestation of
children, mass suicides led by psychopaths, i suppose those can continue
unabated in the name of "freedom."

>lead." Larry Shinn, a vice president of Bucknell University
>wrote to the chair of the House Subcommittee on Civil and
>Constitutional Rights, "media, legal institutions, and

also, unsurprisingly, another professional anti-anti-anti-cultist who has
co-written with david bromley and shills for the hare krishnas.

birds of a feather flock together.

>law-makers too often rely on the word of self-styled cult
>experts like C.A.N. whose overly negative agenda often slides
>into purely anti- religious attack." And in early May, a
>coalition of 16 religious and civil liberties organizations,
>including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American
>Conference on Religious Movements, Americans United for
>Separation of Church and State, the Episcopal Church, the
>General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, the National
>Association of Evangelicals, the National Council of Churches of
>Christ and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations issued a
>statement which read in part, "We are shocked and saddened by
>the recent events in Waco. . .Under the religious liberty
>provision of the First Amendment, the government has no business
>declaring what is orthodox or heretical, or what is a true or
>false religion. It should steer clear of inflammatory and

no, but it has a responsibility to investigate illegal weapons stockpiles and
dangerous groups preaching violence, armageddon, and armed conflagration.
trying to pretend the issue is "heresy" is a sad joke, just as it is a sad joke
to blame leo ryan for the murderous madness of jim jones, or to blame ryan that
jim jones finally found his excuse for the mass murder he had been plannnig
before even going to guyana.

"when we get these people to guyana, we can do whatever we want to them."
--jim jones

>misleading labels. History teaches that today's `cults' may be
>tomorrow's mainstream religions."

but of course. however, if they behave illegally, they must be monitored and
society must be protected from criminal acts arising from fanatical beliefs.

>(...)

>2.3 "Probable Cause" Based on Biased Information about Intent

>The credibility and reliability of witnesses in an affidavit is
>very important. Yet all Aguilera's witnesses as to Koresh's
>"intent" had some credibility problems (...) All other evidence
>on intent came from disaffected former Branch Davidians, all of
>whom were influenced by "cult busters" Marc Breault and Rick
>Ross.

well, duh. what does this nitwit expect, that *current* worshippers of koresh
are going to testify against him? by this standard, we must discount anything
said by an ex-member of a group. after all, their objectivity is obviously
tainted by their eyewitness experience, and we must bring in "experts" who
wouldn't know a cult from a troop of girl scouts to maintain "objectivity."

>(...)

>Aguilera began contacting former members in November, 1992. He
>obtained their names from the 1990 affidavits Breault and other
>former members left with the local Sheriff's Department and from
>Rick Ross. Nancy Ammerman, who had access to all BATF and FBI
>files, wrote "The ATF interviewed the persons (Ross) directed to
>them and evidently used information from those interviews in
>planning their February 28th raid." (JDR:Ammerman:Addendum) Rick
>Ross "deprogrammed" David Block, who lived at Mount Carmel only
>three months, in the summer of 1992 in the home of CAN national
>spokesperson Priscilla Coates in Coates' home in California.
>[78] He or California CAN representatives were probably in close
>contact with Jeannine, Robyn and Debbie Sue Bunds, all of whom
>gave BATF information. (Linedecker writes that in 1991
>California police said Robyn was being deprogrammed. [79] )

the ATF did not appear to make too much use of information that was available,
even before the raid, in a series run on the koresh cult by the waco
tribune-herald. the ATF indeed appears merely to have acted in their usual
thuggish manner, without any modification of their tactics to adapt to the
situation.

>Evidence that Rick Ross had a financial motivation for inciting
>BATF against the Branch Davidians is contained in Marc Breault's
>January 16, 1993, diary entry, where he describes a conversation
>with Branch Davidian Steve Schneider's sister. "Rick (Ross) told
>Sue that something was about to happen real soon. He urged her
>to hire him to deprogram Steve. Rick has Sue all scared now. The
>Schneider family doesn't know what to do. Rick didn't tell them
>what was about to happen, but he said they should get Steve out
>as soon as possible. I know that Rick has talked to the ATF."
>[80] It is unknown how many other families Ross contacted
>offering his expensive services "before it's too late."

ross was correct. once the conflict started, koresh only released those people
he felt he could not trust to go with him all the way.

>[...]

>While such allegations might be credible in most witnesses, they
>must be regarded skeptically when coming from individuals
>involved with professional or amateur cult busters. The Treasury
>report itself notes, "the planners failed to consider how
>Block's prior relations with Koresh, and his decision to break
>away from the Branch Davidians at the Compound, might have
>affected the reliability of his statements. Although the

the planners of the raid appear to have taken practically nothing into account
about the actual situation. any study of the ATF reveals their repeated use of
excessive force, with reckless disregard for human life and human rights, and
their utter inability to use tactics designed for the situation at hand.
invariably, ATF opts for a testosterone-induced strategy more reminiscent of
the roid rage of a bodybuilder than a law enforcement agency.

>planners knew Block had met with a self-described
>`deprogrammer,' Rick Ross, they never had any substantive
>discussions with him concerning Block's objectivity about and
>perspective of Koresh and his followers." (TDR:143-144) All
>those who gave BATF the all important "evidence of intent" had
>similar credibility problems!

true. anyone who is an ex-member of a cult can't be trusted to give accurate
information, you should rely on people like j. gordon melton who shill for
cults for a living instead.

if they had listened to j. gordon melton, everyone would have been happy and
safe in the knowledge that jim jones was just a harmless country preacher
leading a "mainstream christian denomination," as melton described jones'
people's temple.

we could have ignored the hysterical overreaction to a nerve-gas attack on a
tokyo subway and stopped persecuting the poor harmless AUM terrorists.
obviously, what could an ex-member know about an organization?

>(...)

>It is interesting to note that none of the most inflammatory
>allegation's about Koresh's violent criminal intent made by
>former members--that he had made up a "hit list" against former
>members, that he had once "tested" them by saying they would
>have to turn their guns on the public, that Branch Davidians
>were considering "mass suicide," or that they had renamed Mount
>Carmel Center "Ranch Apocalypse" [81] -- were included in the
>Aguilera's February 25th affidavit. Yet the Treasury report

in other words, while claiming that the whole raid was based on notions of the
mass suicide potential of the branch davidian's, the author blithely notes that
it appears that the law enforcement agencies in fact completely ignored the
mass suicide potential of the group.

>claims these allegations--some of which may not have been made
>until after the raid--were a prime excuse for the raid because
>Koresh "might soon have been inspired to turn his arsenal
>against the community of nonbelievers." (TDR:127)

he had already turned his arsenal against at least one fellow uzi-toting
believer.

>It is particularly disturbing to see that these cult buster
>stories even convinced top Treasury Department officials to
>support the plan. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for

more doublethink. first the author states that the motivation for the raid was
belief in mass suicide potential, then the author comments that no such beliefs
were indicated in the affidavit filed to justify the raid, and then waffles
back to the statement that it was, indeed, the mass suicide risk that caused
the raid.

>Enforcement Ronald K. Noble told the April 9, 1993, House
>Appropriations subcommittee hearing that from what BATF
>officials had told him, the Branch Davidians were "people who
>were feared to be gathering machineguns and automatic weapons
>and explosives for either a mass suicide or for some kind of
>assault near Waco, Texas; that they had bad intentions, evil
>intentions." [82]

i would hardly describe their intentions as benign.

>3.4. FBI Relied on Experts and Cult Busters Urging Tactical
>Pressure

>[Full chapter]

>The Justice report states, "The FBI has questioned whether its
>negotiations with Koresh could even be characterized as
>`negotiations' at all, but rather as Koresh's attempt to convert
>the agents before it was too late and God destroyed them."
>(JDR:17) Yet despite Koresh's obsession with the Seven Seals,
>they never allowed anyone who was an expert on the subject to
>have direct contact with him.

again i'll note that the bible discussions were stopped by the impatience of
law-enforcement and not at the urging of cult experts, with the possible
exception of rick ross. however, despite some fairly inflammatory comments
from ross, i see no evidence whatever indicating that he would have supported a
bungled and tactically-flawed raid such as that performed by the ATF, over a
clean surgical removal of koresh while, for example, he was taking his daily
jog, and reserving lethal force for the case of koresh resorting to lethal
force himself.

>Nancy Ammerman believes FBI agents had such a negative view of
>Koresh's religious views for three reasons: some individuals
>didn't understand religion, others were antagonistic towards
>religion in general, and others were antagonistic towards
>Koresh's specific views, which differed from their own. [224]

considering that koresh's specific views included that he was an end-times
prophet rallying for armageddon and gathering weapons for that purpose, and
that he was allowed to shoot heretics, and screw anyone he wanted, of whatever
age or marital status, i can see why any sane person would find such views
repulsive in the extreme.

>She noted FBI officials' and agents' "tendency to discount the
>influence of religious beliefs and to evaluate situations
>largely in terms of a leader's individual criminal/psychological
>motives" and that their "consensus" was that "when they
>encountered people with religious beliefs, those beliefs were
>usually a convenient cover for criminal activity."

ammerman is correct here.

instead of treating koresh as the dangerous religious fanatic he was, and
treating his actions as religiously-motivated, they chose to treat him as a
common criminal.

almost certainly, no cult expert worthy of the name would have advised such an
interpretation. the cult experts quoted so far have all indicated that the
end-times armageddon beliefs of koresh were his motivation. i fail to see how
the FBI's acceptance of exactly the opposite model can be blamed on the cult
experts.

>(JDR:Ammerman:5) For example, siege Commander SAC Jamar
>expressed his contempt for Koresh when he declared at the April
>28, 1993, House Judiciary Committee hearing that Koresh had
>merely "corrupted people" and "corrupted religion to his own
>ends" and that there was "no way to convince Koresh that he was
>not the Messiah."

indeed, there probably was no way to convince koresh of the reality of the
situation.

>It is evident from the Justice report's description of its
>consultations with seven theologians (JDR:186-189) that the only
>one they took seriously was Dr. Glenn Hilburn of Baylor
>University. Not surprisingly, the report mentions that "Baylor
>University has one of the largest `cult' reference and research
>facilities in the country." However, even Dr. Hilburn had little
>substantive impact on FBI thinking or actions. (JDR:186-189)

and again, as they ignored the cult experts, they ignored the theologians.
this tragedy was more caused by the FBI and BATF failing to utilize the
information they had than by not having information. they evidently were
repeatedly warned, from many sources, of the dangers of such a calamity,
and told by experts in many fields that koresh was a religious fanatic, but
instead they chose to treat him as a common criminal.

there is no way that this indicts the cult experts, instead it indicts the FBI
for failing to listen to their own experts.

>Several times the Justice report mentions theologian Philip
>Arnold--an expert on the Seven Seals and apocalyptic groups--but
>never acknowledges his crucial impact on Koresh's decision to
>come out. We will review that in detail in a later section. A
>study of the Justice report makes it clear that psychologists,
>psychiatrists (JDR:158-185) and "cult busters" (JDR:190-193) who
>reinforced the FBI's own prejudices had the greatest impact on
>the FBI's decisions.

so far, all the cult experts, theologians and other sources quoted by this
author have stated the exact opposite of what the FBI believed, and indeed the
FBI appears to have ignored them and operated under the false assumption
that he was simply a common criminal pretending to be a religious fanatic as
part of a con-game.

however, despite this, and despite all the opinions carefully selected to
"prove" this case, the author has in fact managed to prove the exact opposite
while remaining blindly impervious to this feat of mental prestidigitation.

>a. Psychologists and Psychiatrists

>The FBI was particularly attentive to the advice of
>psychologists and psychiatrists who asserted that Koresh was
>mentally unbalanced and would not surrender voluntarily. Dr.
>Park Dietz held that, "continuing to negotiate in good faith
>would not resolve the situation, because Koresh would not come
>out." (JDR:168) Dr. Anthony J. Pinizotto said, "Koresh displayed
>psychopathic behavior, that he was a `con artist' type, and he
>had narcissistic tendencies." Dr. Mike Webster opined, "Koresh
>appeared to be manifesting anti- social traits." (JDR:170) Dr.

in this particular case, it is the psychiatrists and not the cult experts who
appear to have been dead wrong.

>Perry and social worker Joyce Sparks, who interviewed children
>released from Mount Carmel, agreed that "Koresh was stalling for
>time, to prepare for his `final battle' with authorities."
>(JDR:171-174)

that appears to have been the case. however, i think at least at some point
during the confrontation, that it is possible that continued religious
discussions might have given koresh an "out" to be able to surrender while not
betraying his religious beliefs.

>Dr. Joseph L. Krofcheck (with FBI psychological profiler Clinton
>R. Van Zandt) held that Koresh appeared to be a "functional,
>paranoid-type psychotic," that he was unlikely to "give up the
>power and omnipotence he enjoyed inside the compound," that
>there was the possibility of a "mass-breakout. . .with women
>carrying a baby in one arm while firing a weapon from the
>other," and that "the only way the FBI could influence Koresh's
>exit from the compound would be some form of tactical
>intervention." (JDR:176-179)

again, these are psychiatrists, not "cult busters." this is the only claim
which the author supports, the quotes from cult experts say the opposite.

>b. Cult Busters

>There is evidence that in response to Nancy Ammerman's sharp
>criticisms, to Rick Ross's being indicted for "unlawful
>imprisonment" in the summer of 1993, and to the New Alliance
>Party suit against the FBI for its abuse of the word "cult," the
>FBI and Justice Department have tried to cover up its
>association with professional or amateur "cult busters." The
>Justice report asserts the FBI "did not solicit advice from any
>`cult experts' or `cult deprogrammers.'" (JDR:190)

obviously a blatant lie, however this indicts the FBI, not cult experts, who
never have denied offering advice.

>In mid-April the FBI asked Dr. Murray S. Miron, a Professor of
>Psycholinquistics at Syracuse University, to analyze five
>letters that Koresh sent out of Mount Carmel. After reading the
>first and third letters, he concluded that they bore "all the
>hallmarks of rampant, morbidly virulent paranoia. . .In my
>judgement, we are facing a determined, hardened adversary who
>has no intention of delivering himself or his followers into the
>hands of his adversaries. It is my belief that he is waiting for
>an assault." (JDR:174-176)

he was, indeed, waiting for the armageddon assault he had been predicting for
years, and indeed appeared to wish to provoke.

>What the FBI either did not know--or did not admit--is that Dr.
>Miron is an outspoken cult critic. Reportedly, during the 1970s
>he had been involved with the Citizens Freedom Foundation, the
>anti-cult group which evolved into the Cult Awareness Network.
>During the week of April 14-21--even while he was consulting
>with the FBI-- Miron published an article called "The Mark of
>the Cult" in the Syracuse New Times. The article contains
>stereotypical anti-cult propaganda: "The totalitarianism of the

the quote was entirely accurate, and indeed koresh was doing just that.
he certainly didn't appear to be preparing for a tea party. the quote is still
accurate regardless of his CAN connection, and good evidence that CAN was right
on the money concerning the davidians.

i note the author does not even bother quoting the letters from koresh in
question, as no doubt they would bear out miron's analysis.

>cult banishes dissent and fosters dependence upon fallible,
>power-mad leaders. It is the system of every dictator, whether
>benign or benevolent." [225]

again, true.

>In typically media-savvy cult buster fashion, Miron managed to
>make himself one of the few FBI consultants quoted in major
>media right after the fire--thus using his FBI connections to
>promote his anti-cult propaganda. He told the Los Angeles Times,
>"I advised the FBI that all of his promises as to giving up were
>only subterfuges, deceptions and delaying tactics." [226] He

they were, indeed. it does not mean that with effort they could not have been
turned around, or that koresh might have come out if he felt he was dealing
with people who understood him, rather than satan's army.

>told the Washington Post, "There was every indication in my mind
>that he was not prepared to commit suicide." [227] His comments
>occupied eight paragraphs of a New York Times article: "Dr.
>Miron said that Mr. Koresh had become so delusional" that he and
>his followers may have believed that after they set the fire
>"either that they were invulnerable and that the fires would
>consume the authorities while leaving them untouched, or that
>they were about to ascend to glory no matter what happened to
>their bodies." [228]

a contempt for the body is often a cult-inspired attitude, from the heaven's
gate cultists to the solar temple, to jonestown, to the AUM cult, and even
scientology has a similar contempt for the body as merely a "meat body," as the
heaven's gaters called it a "container."

>Rick Ross' contention that he was in close contact with BATF and
>the FBI is backed up by Nancy Ammerman's September 10, 1993 one
>page addendum to her report. (Which the Justice Department did
>not bother to include in its report.) In it she wrote, "The
>interview transcripts document that Mr. Rick Ross was, in fact,
>closely involved with both the ATF and the FBI. . .He clearly
>had the most extensive access to both agencies of any person on
>the `cult expert' list, and he was apparently listened to more
>attentively." However, after reviewing Ross's contacts with the
>FBI, the Justice report states: "The FBI did not `rely' on Ross
>for advice whatsoever during the standoff." (JDR:192)

if, indeed, they listened to rick ross as well as to others, it is obvious they
were not relying on any one person for advice and information, and it is also
further obvious that the FBI and BATF continued, throughout the whole conflict,
to stick by their original belief that koresh was a con-man who would cave in
under pressure.

the psychological pressure-tactics used (such as loudspeakers) make sense only
if in context of a belief that they would cause a surrender.

>The Justice report claims that the FBI determined Breault was
>talking to the media and therefore only accepted his affidavits
>and electronic mail from him, but decided "not to contact him."
>(JDR:192) However, Breault asserts: "as soon as the siege began.
>. .the FBI tried for hours to contact us. . .they almost sent
>the police to drag us to police headquarters. Just before they
>took that drastic action, the negotiators broke through."
>Breault gave them detailed information about the Seven Seals,
>Koresh and his followers. Breault also writes: "The FBI
>contacted us throughout the siege. They showed us Koresh's
>letters." [229] Clearly, either Breault is lying or the FBI and
>Justice Department are trying to cover up their reliance on him.

either is, of course, possible. however, yet again, the sleaziness of either
party lying has very little that reflects on whether or not they used his
advice, or even listened to it.

it is likely there is a bit of both, that breault is using any connection he
did have for purposes of self-aggrandizement, while the FBI would prefer to
pretend they had no connection at all.

it appears from FBI tactics during the whole stand-off that they were barely
listening to the experts, much less "relying" on them. they appeared instead
to rely on their original misapprehension that koresh was merely a common
con-man, and they did indeed treat him as nothing more than a common criminal.

>During the April 28, 1993, House Judiciary Committee hearing FBI
>Director William Sessions admitted that the FBI had consulted
>"cult experts," though he got confused about the advice they had
>given the FBI. And SAC Jamar admitted, "we had a white paper on
>cults that was very, very useful to us." The white paper
>outlined the traits of cults with one "dynamic, manipulative,
>egomaniacal, psychopathic leader" and Jamar asserted that the
>traits fit Koresh "to a T." Jamar did not tell the committee
>what individual--or organization--gave him the white paper.
>However, considering that it contained typical anti-cult
>stereotypes, one might guess either Dr. Murray Miron or Rick
>Ross gave Jamar the white paper. Despite the Justice report
>denials, it is evident that there was a definite cult buster
>influence on--and justification for-- decisions to replace
>negotiations with pressure tactics against the Branch Davidians.

yes, of course, one might guess, but wild speculation is hardly evidence of
anything. without further information, the author is merely speculating.

if what the author quotes is accurate, the white paper does indeed describe
koresh to a "T."

>Bernie

rob

Bernie

unread,

Oct 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/31/97

xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote in article
<345923bb....@news.mindspring.com>
(alt.religion.scientology):

>yes, i've read through this, and it is a steaming crock of shit. i will agree
>with the issue of violation of rights and excessive force, but i do not believe
>that CAN can in any sane or rational manner be held responsible for the fact
>that the BATF is a pack of vicious goons with a rambo complex.

>i would say, even that CAN was an accurate source of information on the
>davidians and that it is that the FBI and BATF did *not* listen to them which
>can be blamed for the catastrophe that CAN and cult experts warned about,
>but were ignored.

On what are you basing yourself? What evidence do you have
and what can you quote? Who said what and to whom, and when?

The contention of the author is that the FBI and BATF were
brought into action in the first place by alarmist reports
calling for an urgent action against a "destructive cult", and
that this continued through the siege.

You say that it's the fault of the FBI and psychiatrists
who urgent for drastic action since Koresh would not listen to
reason, that he is putting up a show, etc

I don't see much difference between the two viewpoints.
Which are they?

Here are quotes from psychologists you object to:

>>Koresh appeared to be a "functional,
>>paranoid-type psychotic," that he was unlikely to "give up the
>>power and omnipotence he enjoyed inside the compound," that
>>there was the possibility of a "mass-breakout. . .with women
>>carrying a baby in one arm while firing a weapon from the
>>other," and that "the only way the FBI could influence Koresh's
>>exit from the compound would be some form of tactical
>>intervention."

And here are quotes from a cult buster that you defend as
correct a few paragraphs later:

>>"all the hallmarks of rampant, morbidly virulent paranoia. . .In my
>>judgement, we are facing a determined, hardened adversary who
>>has no intention of delivering himself or his followers into the
>>hands of his adversaries.

Where is the difference? The psychologists statements above
are typically along the line of the anti-cult propaganda one
that we can witness daily right here in this newsgroup.

JimDBB, who represented CAN for some time even said, right
in the post I answered to with this one: "Waco, was brought

about by an insane cult leader and the indecisive actions of the
Dept. of Justice."

Your assertions that they didn't follow CAN and cult
busters advices are contradicted by the facts quoted here, and
what we see on a daily basis in this newsgroup, without speaking
about the type of propaganda and demonization that brought the
situation in the first place.

Can you bring forth any other evidences showing anything
else?

Bernie

Rob Clark

unread,

Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97

On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 23:15:11 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:

>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote in article
><345923bb....@news.mindspring.com>
>(alt.religion.scientology):

>>yes, i've read through this, and it is a steaming crock of shit. i will agree

>>with the issue of violation of rights and excessive force, but i do not believe
>>that CAN can in any sane or rational manner be held responsible for the fact
>>that the BATF is a pack of vicious goons with a rambo complex.

>>i would say, even that CAN was an accurate source of information on the
>>davidians and that it is that the FBI and BATF did *not* listen to them which
>>can be blamed for the catastrophe that CAN and cult experts warned about,
>>but were ignored.

> On what are you basing yourself? What evidence do you have

>and what can you quote? Who said what and to whom, and when?

i quote what the author herself quoted. i quote the author's own evidence, in
a fairly long post, which i do not have time to post again. the author's own
quotations appear not to support her conclusion.

> The contention of the author is that the FBI and BATF were
>brought into action in the first place by alarmist reports
>calling for an urgent action against a "destructive cult", and
>that this continued through the siege.

i believe that indeed, koresh's group constituted a "destructive cult,"
and deserved a thorough investigation. however, i believe that could have been
achieved with a far more minimal use of force, such as by apprehending koresh,
preferably using local law enforcement with whom he was familiar and with whom
he had cooperated in the past.

koresh took a morning jog daily, as they knew from months of surveillance.
anyone with a speck of sense would have apprehended, or at least approached
koresh, rather than launching a foolish and doomed assault on a heavily-armed
compound fully capable of retaining a defensive posture and returning fire.

from prior experience, koresh would have engaged in fierce litigation in a case
he felt he could win, as he had in fact done in the george roden shooting
incident. in my opinion, a set of actions like this might have caused koresh
to tone his act down at least long enough for a coherent prosecution to be
constructed, rather than trigger his lust for armageddon.

> You say that it's the fault of the FBI and psychiatrists
>who urgent for drastic action since Koresh would not listen to
>reason, that he is putting up a show, etc

> I don't see much difference between the two viewpoints.
>Which are they?

ok, the one viewpoint is this:

koresh was a dangerous fanatic, who was acting out of a form of religious
belief. greed and lust for power may also have been motivating him, but the
primary motivation was, indeed, the set of religious beliefs he promulgated.
his prophecies involved armed confrontation. thus, armed confrontation by
unknown belligerents would reinforce his belief in his prophecies, and
once this happened, a tragedy was inevitable.

in this viewpoint, one is assuming that koresh's primary motivation was
religious, and people will die for strong enough religious beliefs.

the other viewpoint, held by the BATF and FBI was that koresh was simply a
charlatan, who had as his primary motivator lust for power and greed. they may
have also ceded that religious issues entered into it, but they appear to have
ignored anyone who told them that, even when they had found the expert
themselves.

in this viewpoint, one is assuming that koresh's primary motivation was greed,
and that when he saw he was endangering his own power and indeed his life, that
he would simply buckle and cave in. after all, nobody will die for simple
greed, since nobody makes any money by being dead, at least not any money that
they will personally enjoy.

> Here are quotes from psychologists you object to:

>>>Koresh appeared to be a "functional,
>>>paranoid-type psychotic," that he was unlikely to "give up the
>>>power and omnipotence he enjoyed inside the compound," that
>>>there was the possibility of a "mass-breakout. . .with women
>>>carrying a baby in one arm while firing a weapon from the
>>>other," and that "the only way the FBI could influence Koresh's
>>>exit from the compound would be some form of tactical
>>>intervention."

> And here are quotes from a cult buster that you defend as

>correct a few paragraphs later:

>>>"all the hallmarks of rampant, morbidly virulent paranoia. . .In my
>>>judgement, we are facing a determined, hardened adversary who
>>>has no intention of delivering himself or his followers into the
>>>hands of his adversaries.

in here is the difference, the first set of quotes is self-contradictory. one
says he was unlikely to give up the power he held in the compound, and the next
predicts a mass breakout, which is an absurd scenario. koresh had some basic
knowledge of combat tactics, as the initial rout of the BATF showed, and the
waco compound was designed for defense, with multiple firing positions
available from which to fire at anyone entering by the front door.

why he would throw away this tactical advantage by sending out anyone useful,
much less by sending out women with a baby in one arm and a weapon in the
other, is a secret known only to whoever proposed such nonsense as being
likely.

the first quotes are from a psychologist with an obvious lack of knowledge, or
even common sense, about tactics and stand-offs. the second quotes, while
agreeing that koresh was a virulent paranoid, seems to imply that koresh would
remain in the compound come hell or high water, and had no intention of coming
out.

the second, rather than the "women with a baby in one hand and a weapon in the
other" tommyrot, is far more accurate.

> Where is the difference? The psychologists statements above
>are typically along the line of the anti-cult propaganda one
>that we can witness daily right here in this newsgroup.

see last comments. the difference is in the absurdity of the tactical scenario
presented in the first set of quotes, and the accuracy of the tactical scenario
implied by the second.

> JimDBB, who represented CAN for some time even said, right

>in the post I answered to with this one: "Waco, was brought

>about by an insane cult leader and the indecisive actions of the
>Dept. of Justice."

they were, indeed, indecisive. first the BATF goes in playing rambo, then
later for a while the FBI tries negotiation, then they abandon that in favor of
silly attempts at psychological warfare like playing bad music at them, and
finally they end with a tragic and bungled tear-gas assault that may have
triggered a fiery calamity.

the only one of these options which i feel had any long-term possibility of a
resolution without tragedy was the negotiations in which they discussed
koresh's theology. even if it had no hope of convincing koresh to leave, it
would have given valuable cues as to his possible courses of action.

bible talk, not bullets, could have saved the situation, and for that one needs
experts in the theology of the specific group.

and koresh was, in the opinion of most people, an insane cult leader who
believed he was living in the end-times and fulfilling old testament
prophecies.

> Your assertions that they didn't follow CAN and cult
>busters advices are contradicted by the facts quoted here, and
>what we see on a daily basis in this newsgroup, without speaking
>about the type of propaganda and demonization that brought the
>situation in the first place.

the "propaganda" and "demonization" followed socially harmful acts by koresh.

he demonized himself by acting like a demon.

> Can you bring forth any other evidences showing anything
>else?

i believe i have done so.

>Bernie

rob

Bernie

unread,

Nov 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/3/97

xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote in article

<345a7e79....@news.mindspring.com>
(alt.religion.scientology):

>On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 23:15:11 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:

>>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote in article
>><345923bb....@news.mindspring.com>
>>(alt.religion.scientology):

>>>yes, i've read through this, and it is a steaming crock of shit. i will agree
>>>with the issue of violation of rights and excessive force, but i do not believe
>>>that CAN can in any sane or rational manner be held responsible for the fact
>>>that the BATF is a pack of vicious goons with a rambo complex.

>>>i would say, even that CAN was an accurate source of information on the
>>>davidians and that it is that the FBI and BATF did *not* listen to them which
>>>can be blamed for the catastrophe that CAN and cult experts warned about,
>>>but were ignored.

>> On what are you basing yourself? What evidence do you have
>>and what can you quote? Who said what and to whom, and when?

>i quote what the author herself quoted. i quote the author's own evidence, in
>a fairly long post, which i do not have time to post again.

But you haven't quoted exactly what was the advise of CAN
and cult experts. What did they advised, who advised it and
when? Do you have any other source on which you base yourself
and that you could quote here?

>the author's own quotations appear not to support her conclusion.

That must have been lost among the quantity of your own
comments. I didn't see a single quote of the author that didn't
support her conclusion. Maybe you could repost it here. It would
take you only a few lines. If *I* missed them, then no doubt
readers who are following this from the outside missed them as
well. It would be helpful for your own point if you could
requote them here.

The point of the author was that although the FBI and the
BATF *pretended* they didn't listen to the cult buster, evidence
show that they did. After her demonstration, the author
concludes:

"Despite the Justice report denials, it is evident that
there was a definite cult buster influence on--and
justification for-- decisions to replace negotiations with
pressure tactics against the Branch Davidians."

Dr. Murray S. Miron, that you support, even told the Los
Angeles Times

"I advised the FBI that all of his promises as to giving
up were only subterfuges, deceptions and delaying
tactics."

This is the kind of statement, that aligns perfectly with
what the psychologists told too (and that you blame) is what
pushed the FBI and BATF to take drastic action with the results
we know.

I really don't see where the author herself quoted anything
to contradict the point she was making. Unless you can come up
with any other evidence, I have to concluded that pressure
tactics against the Branch Davidians *was* what was recommended
by the cult busters, just as the initial action by the
authorities was urged by CAN itself, as the author show as well.

The anti-cult viewpoint is not that the primary motivation
is religious, Rob. It constantly asserts that it is not a
religion but that it holds its member through mind-control and
the leader a cynic krook that exploit and abuse his members.
Anyone reading this newsgroup can attest to that, and it is the
constant anti-cult line as well. In the words of Rick Ross, the
members were "held in that compound through a kind of
psychological, emotional slavery and servitude". Statements from
Dr. Anthony J. Pinizotto, whom you refute, that "Koresh
displayed psychopathic behavior" and that he was a `con artist'
is perfectly in line with the anti-cult approach and what we can
read in this newsgroup, don't you think? I didn't see *one*
statement that goes along the religious line you say they
defended and I challenge you to quote a single statement from
the report I posted that is showing that.

Despite Koresh's obsession with the Seven Seals, The FBI

never allowed anyone who was an expert on the subject to have

direct contact with him. Koresh made repeated requests to
communicate with Biblical scholars. Two academics did offer to
help in the negotiations, but were turned down by the FBI. The
report states:

"Several times the Justice report mentions theologian
Philip Arnold--an expert on the Seven Seals and
apocalyptic groups--but never acknowledges his crucial

impact on Koresh's decision to come out ... A study of the

Justice report makes it clear that psychologists,
psychiatrists (JDR:158-185) and "cult busters"
(JDR:190-193) who reinforced the FBI's own prejudices had
the greatest impact on the FBI's decisions".

Until you can quote any evidence showing that the anti-cult
proponents advised anything else, I have to believe the argument
advanced that they advised an urgent action for fear of mass
suicide and other allegation such as ongoing child sexual
abuses, i.e. the same type of argument that brought the
intervention of the FBI/ATF in the first place.

>the other viewpoint, held by the BATF and FBI was that koresh was simply a
>charlatan, who had as his primary motivator lust for power and greed. they may
>have also ceded that religious issues entered into it, but they appear to have
>ignored anyone who told them that, even when they had found the expert
>themselves.

Again, on what do you base yourself that the anti-cult line
was any different? I will gladly examine any evidence you bring
forth to show that anti-cult proponents were advising
negotiations along religious issue and were advising that Koresh
should be taken on his world that when he finished writing his
Seals, he would surrender. I didn't see any evidence to support
that line.

>in this viewpoint, one is assuming that koresh's primary motivation was greed,
>and that when he saw he was endangering his own power and indeed his life, that
>he would simply buckle and cave in. after all, nobody will die for simple
>greed, since nobody makes any money by being dead, at least not any money that
>they will personally enjoy.

Again, that has been the exact point put forth by Ross and
company. The Justice Department report, for example, mentions a

Rick Ross television appearance during the siege where he
declared he hoped Koresh would be a coward and surrender rather

than end up as a corpse. Your assertion that psychologists were
denying that he would be prepared to die in the final assault is
not correct either. Dr. Perry, for example, and social worker

Joyce Sparks, who interviewed children released from Mount
Carmel, agreed that "Koresh was stalling for time, to prepare
for his `final battle' with authorities."

It appears that both the anti-cult line and the
psychiatrists line were consistent, and went against the
theologians and the group experts (not the anti-cult ones) who
advised against the attack and wait that Koresh finishes his
Seals. David Koresh repeatedly stated that he would not
surrender until he received instructions from God. On April 14,
he believed that he had received his long-awaited revelation. He
was instructed to write a description of the Seven Seals and
then to surrender to the FBI with his followers. He was
apparently engaged in this task when the attack occurred 5 days
later. One of the followers who escaped from the compound during
the fire carried a floppy disk containing the part of Koresh's
book that he had just completed. It probably would have taken a
few weeks more for him to complete the task.

>> Here are quotes from psychologists you object to:
>>>>Koresh appeared to be a "functional,
>>>>paranoid-type psychotic," that he was unlikely to "give up the
>>>>power and omnipotence he enjoyed inside the compound," that
>>>>there was the possibility of a "mass-breakout. . .with women
>>>>carrying a baby in one arm while firing a weapon from the
>>>>other," and that "the only way the FBI could influence Koresh's
>>>>exit from the compound would be some form of tactical
>>>>intervention."

>> And here are quotes from a cult buster that you defend as
>>correct a few paragraphs later:
>>>>"all the hallmarks of rampant, morbidly virulent paranoia. . .In my
>>>>judgement, we are facing a determined, hardened adversary who
>>>>has no intention of delivering himself or his followers into the
>>>>hands of his adversaries.

>in here is the difference, the first set of quotes is self-contradictory. one
>says he was unlikely to give up the power he held in the compound, and the next
>predicts a mass breakout, which is an absurd scenario.

What is self-contradictory between "unlikely to give up the
power he held" and "mass breakout"? And what is "absurd" in
predicting a mass breakout?

>koresh had some basic
>knowledge of combat tactics, as the initial rout of the BATF showed, and the
>waco compound was designed for defense, with multiple firing positions
>available from which to fire at anyone entering by the front door.

>why he would throw away this tactical advantage by sending out anyone useful,
>much less by sending out women with a baby in one arm and a weapon in the
>other, is a secret known only to whoever proposed such nonsense as being
>likely.

>the first quotes are from a psychologist with an obvious lack of knowledge, or
>even common sense, about tactics and stand-offs. the second quotes, while
>agreeing that koresh was a virulent paranoid, seems to imply that koresh would
>remain in the compound come hell or high water, and had no intention of coming
>out.

>the second, rather than the "women with a baby in one hand and a weapon in the
>other" tommyrot, is far more accurate.

You are arguing details. Even if it was more accurate,
which is only a matter of speculation, the main point is that
both lines are basically the same and at odd with the line that
promoted to wait that Koresh finishes writing his Seals.

>> Where is the difference? The psychologists statements above
>>are typically along the line of the anti-cult propaganda one
>>that we can witness daily right here in this newsgroup.

>see last comments. the difference is in the absurdity of the tactical scenario
>presented in the first set of quotes, and the accuracy of the tactical scenario
>implied by the second.

Both are tactical scenari, with very little differences
between the two. That's exactly the point and proves the
author's conclusion that "despite the Justice report denials, it

is evident that there was a definite cult buster influence
on--and justification for-- decisions to replace negotiations
with pressure tactics against the Branch Davidians."

As the author showed, the anti-cult busters were
responsible (together with other protagonists) not only for the
FBI/BATF rambo action, but for the initial mounting of the
tension between the cult and the authorities. That's what they
did in the case of Jonestown too, and that's what they do in the
case of the current Germany issue as well. Through their
propaganda, they do hardly anything else than to foster an
hysterical answer from parents, the public and authorities. This
results at time, together with the fanatical attitude of cults,
in the type of disastrous result we witnessed.

In her report, Moore states that Nancy Ammerman :

'noted FBI officials' and agents' "tendency to discount

the influence of religious beliefs and to evaluate
situations largely in terms of a leader's individual
criminal/psychological motives" and that their "consensus"
was that "when they encountered people with religious
beliefs, those beliefs were usually a convenient cover for

criminal activity."'

Isn't that typical anti-cult clichés? The influence of
anti-cult think is overwhelming. I don't see any trace that they
influenced the FBI in any other way than what the FBI eventually
did, at least in this report. I am really curious to know on
what evidence you base yourself to state that the cult busters
advised against the assault.

>> JimDBB, who represented CAN for some time even said, right
>>in the post I answered to with this one: "Waco, was brought
>>about by an insane cult leader and the indecisive actions of the
>>Dept. of Justice."

>they were, indeed, indecisive. first the BATF goes in playing rambo, then
>later for a while the FBI tries negotiation, then they abandon that in favor of
>silly attempts at psychological warfare like playing bad music at them, and
>finally they end with a tragic and bungled tear-gas assault that may have
>triggered a fiery calamity.

"May have triggered a fiery calamity"? What worst could
have happened than what happened?

I read "indecisive" as "not strong enough". This is
consistent with the overall anti-cult line that I demonstrated
just above. If you read "indecisive" as changing tactic, then
how did this "brought about Waco"? It's not the indecision that
brought about the final tragedy. It's the attack promoted by the
FBI/BATF, anti-cult proponents, and others like the
psychiatrists involved. They should have, on the contrary, been
*more* indecisive and favored any possibility of a peaceful
resolution of the conflict.

>the only one of these options which i feel had any long-term possibility of a
>resolution without tragedy was the negotiations in which they discussed
>koresh's theology.

Exactly! But this is not what was promoted by the anti-cult
proponents, unless you can come up with any other evidences to
contradict what was demonstrated here.

>even if it had no hope of convincing koresh to leave, it
>would have given valuable cues as to his possible courses of action.
>
>bible talk, not bullets, could have saved the situation, and for that one needs
>experts in the theology of the specific group.

Right. Of course, with hindsight, this is kind of easy to
say.

>and koresh was, in the opinion of most people, an insane cult leader who
>believed he was living in the end-times and fulfilling old testament
>prophecies.

Should one need to be insane to believe that? Its a matter
of fanatical and delusional religious belief. It may be absured,
but there are probably hundreds or hundreds of thousands of
people who believe something along this line, and who are not
more or less insane than any other person. As a matter of fact,
the group existed since 1929, when it broke away from
Seventh-Day Adventist Church. It counted several hundreds
followers in 1959 before a prediction for the word to end by the
22 April of that year failed to concretize. In other words, the
group existed without major group drama for more than half a
century until the FBI/ATF decided to act based on anti-cult
alarmist propaganda, including their favorite one consisting of
allegation of children sexual abuses, all of which denied by the
local Child Protective Services who conducted several
investigations.

>> Your assertions that they didn't follow CAN and cult
>>busters advices are contradicted by the facts quoted here, and
>>what we see on a daily basis in this newsgroup, without speaking
>>about the type of propaganda and demonization that brought the
>>situation in the first place.

>the "propaganda" and "demonization" followed socially harmful acts by koresh.

>he demonized himself by acting like a demon.

Maybe he did, but there are laws to deal with that. The
anti-cult movement take whatever crazy things an already
fanatical cult does and dramatize it out of any proportion.
That's what it does with every "cults". This does not bring more
understanding in the least. It only brings injustices,
suffering, and horrendous individual or group tragedies.

>> Can you bring forth any other evidences showing anything
>>else?

>i believe i have done so.

You only have put an other interpretation on the evidences
that I myself provided, and not an interpretation that is
convincing. I was hoping you would bring some other evidences.
If you know of any URL providing evidences that support your
view, let me know. In the meantime I found
http://rampages.onramp.net/~djreavis/Ashes_faq.html and
http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/koramer.html, both of which
support what is advanced in the report I quoted.

Bernie

Rob Clark

unread,

Nov 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/4/97

On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 04:33:48 -0800, Lynette Warren <ar...@surfari.net> wrote:

>Bernie wrote:
>> Statements from Dr. Anthony J. Pinizotto, whom you refute, that "Koresh
>> displayed psychopathic behavior" and that he was a `con artist'

>Alan A. Stone is a professor of both law and psychology at Harvard. He is a
>respected expert on law enforcement policy toward unconventional groups such
>as the Branch Davidians. In the following interview excerpt, he refers to
>Davidians Steve Schneider and Wayne Martin (the man who made the frantic 911
>call pleading with the Waco police to get the ATF to cease fire during the
>initial attack on Mt Carmel).

>Alan Stone:
>"I think that Koresh was not a criminal psychopathic. He had, as a
>youngster, spent months memorizing the Bible. And particularly
>these passages about the Seventh Seal and that sort of repetitive
>study. Memorization, throwing yourself into that kind of
>disciplined project is not what sociopaths do. And he was able to

based on what does he say this? sociopaths are as capable of discipline and
study as any other group. "sociopath" does not mean "stupid" or "incompetent"
but refers to a shocking disregard for the rights of others, and to a general
pattern of viewing the world and people in it, not as people, but as objects to
be used.

koresh was a sociopath, and his actions prove it.

what would you call using a bunch of people, including children, as pawns in a
sick apocalyptic game and then letting them all die rather than risk
imprisonment?

it is the act of a sociopath.

>convince the other people by his knowledge of the Bible and the way
>he put it together- that's how he convinced people like Mr. Martin
>and Mr. Schneider, who were both intelligent, serious people.

even the devil can quote scripture. i have never said, nor do i believe that
"they are stupid" is the reason one needs to take action against criminal,
murderous cults led by charismatic psychopaths. in fact, quite the opposite.

>"Mr. Martin was a graduate of Harvard Law School. He was one of our
>earliest African American graduates. He was certainly not a
>weirdo. He was certainly not a criminal. He was certainly not a
>psychopath. He had gone on and done religious studies after

at the point when you are conspiring with others to resist arrest, are engaging
in firefights with authorities, then refusing to surrender and engaging in a
months-long armed stand-off, you are, indeed, a criminal.

the definition of a criminal is a person who breaks criminal statutes, and by
this definition koresh and his cult fully fit the bill of "criminals."

what would YOU call people who shoot at law enforcement then engage in a
stand-off, with no regard whatever for the safety even of their own children?
boy scouts? good family men?

>leaving Harvard Law School and had become interested in Koresh's
>teachings. That is how he got into the compound. So the idea that
>these people like Schneider and Martin were somehow criminal types
>or people who had just sort of been buffaloed by Koresh I think is
>a most unfortunate mischaracterization."

the issue is not whether the branch davidians went to harvard.

the issue is whether they were a menace to society. they were.
their own actions prove it.

(for a bit of balance, i think the BATF is an equal, if not greater risk to
society than the davidians, who regardless of their criminality did not deserve
to be incinerated. if there is a hell, however, koresh rots there. he shot at
law enforcement, and rather than give up his megalomaniac dreams of apocalypse,
he had an armed standoff that resulted in the deaths of innocent children.)

>Lynette

rob

Bernie

unread,

Nov 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/5/97

xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote in article

<345de3cb....@news.mindspring.com>
(alt.religion.scientology):

>On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 03:35:58 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:

>>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote in article
>><345a7e79....@news.mindspring.com>
>>(alt.religion.scientology):

>>>On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 23:15:11 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:

>>>>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote in article
>>>><345923bb....@news.mindspring.com>
>>>>(alt.religion.scientology):

[Sorry. Snipped extensively to try to keep the article within
decent proportions]

>> But you haven't quoted exactly what was the advise of CAN
>>and cult experts. What did they advised, who advised it and
>>when? Do you have any other source on which you base yourself
>>and that you could quote here?
>

>i have already posted all this in a message nearly a thousand lines long. i
>feel the expert opinions quoted by a person trying to make the opposite point
>i'm making prove my point sufficiently.

You haven't quoted exactly what was the advise of CAN and

cult experts. What did they advised, who advised it and when?

>i responded to all salient points in that, and it was packed with quotes from
>various people, including rick ross, some of my favorite cult apologists, and
>numerous CAN people.

You haven't quoted exactly what was the advise of CAN and

cult experts. What did they advised, who advised it and when?

>> That must have been lost among the quantity of your own

>>comments. I didn't see a single quote of the author that didn't
>>support her conclusion. Maybe you could repost it here. It would
>>take you only a few lines. If *I* missed them, then no doubt
>>readers who are following this from the outside missed them as
>>well. It would be helpful for your own point if you could
>>requote them here.

>i'm sorry, as i have done it once, and most of my responses were to specific
>quotes, you'll really have to go back yourself and quote where you think i was
>wrong, rather than demanding i rewrite an article i already spent copious time
>on.

I don't demand that you rewrite an article. As a matter of
fact, your opinion is not what I discuss here. I am only
interested at this point in examining evidences. To quote
something would only take a few lines. Instead of that, you
prefer to write hundreds of lines that are hardly anything else
than your opinion and expect the reader to find something in
these hundreds of lines. What statement of the author does not
support her point?

>> "Despite the Justice report denials, it is evident that
>> there was a definite cult buster influence on--and
>> justification for-- decisions to replace negotiations with
>> pressure tactics against the Branch Davidians."

>now i will turn this around. i fail to see how the author supported this. i
>fail to see how the BATF or FBI changed from their original "rambo storming the
>commies" behavior which might be appropriate for violent criminals motivated
>by usual criminal motives to dealing with religious fanatics.

It was supported by the whole preceding chapter, in
addition of the full report that is available at the address I
provided and that contains further references.

>no cult expert worth their salt would have stated that koresh was nothing MORE
>than a con-man, though certainly con-man he was, and any full statement by a
>cult expert would probably indicate religious fanaticism as being a primary
>motive for cult violence.

That's not the point. The point is:

>> Dr. Murray S. Miron, that you support, even told the Los
>>Angeles Times
>
>> "I advised the FBI that all of his promises as to giving
>> up were only subterfuges, deceptions and delaying
>> tactics."

>yes, they were. this does not mean one could not use negotiation to turn those
>subterfuges to one's advantage, or that negotiations might not elicit useful
>information. i think the FBI should, indeed, have treated any blandishments or
>promises from koresh as self-serving lies, but nevertheless should have
>continued negotiating.

That's only your opinion. It doesn't necessarily represent
what was advised at the time.

>in fact, it was the FBI's own ignoring of the crucially important issue
>of religious fanaticism that was the problem, and i fail to see any cult experts
>denying religious fanaticism, and experts on the seven seals and apocalyptic
>groups in general agreed as well.

The FBI favored a forceful reaction rather than
negotiation. The report states that it was confirmed in that by
the psychologists and the anti-cult proponents. You make an
irrelevant distinction between the two viewpoint as to whether
or not they took into account the religious fanaticism part. I
don't see much difference and don't believe that the
psychologists, asserting that Koresh was a psychopath don't also
think that he wasn't a religious fanatic, nor that the acm
stating that he was a religious fanatic didn't also think that
he was a psychopath. The point of view of psychologists and
anti-cult proponents is strikingly similar. What is stressed is
not the religious belief, it is the psychopathy part, it is
hardly viewed as a genuine religion or considered as such.

>i agree with the cult experts that pressure should have been maintained, but
>pressure without negotiation leaves an apocalyptic group with no choice, from
>their viewpoint, but to take it all the way. if they must have used techniques
>such as loudspeakers, it should have been to broadcast a meaningful, repeated
>message, repeated ceaselessly and often reworded, rather than simply to
>antagonize them with rock music they probably viewed as a work of the devil.
>there was no attempt to counter koresh's insane message, but merely actions that
>koresh could use as proof that the armies of satan were right outside the door.

This is only your opinion. We are discussing whether the
acm had a negative influence during the siege, as well as to
bring the situation in the first place. Obviously, you have
nothing further to bring in this issue than you opinion. At this
point, I would like to see some evidence.

>the leader often is a cynical crook, but often does, in fact, buy his
>own beliefs and delusions.

As far as I could read from the acm groups, these groups
where not really religions but only pretended to be religions.
That's the argument they advance to prove that they should not
benefit from rights reserved to religions. Are you now saying
that they are indeed religions?

>even rick ross acknowledges this, this is his answer to the question about what
>kind of people become cult leaders. i pick rick ross because he is one of your
>favorite example, and because like ted patrick, he has been prepared to take
>drastic action against cults, so should be expected to express the extremist
>viewpoints you always accuse CAN of.

> 8.What type of people become leaders of unsafe or destructive groups?

> It seems that many are rather narcissistic personalities who appear to have
>little if any conscience and are possibly sociopathic. These leaders may
>fantasize about their role in changing the course of human history, or speaking
>for God.
> Some in my experience seem so delusional and disturbed they may be
>psychotic. Extreme examples of destructive cult leaders like Jim Jones, David
>Koresh and Shoko Asahara have caused many mental health professionals to
>question their sanity.

>note that he questions their sanity and honesty, but not their sincerity in
>their religious beliefs. i have never seen a cult expert take the views you try
>to accuse all "anticultists" of taking.

Well, you say "even rick ross acknowledges this" and you
quote something from him in which he acknowledge nothing else
than the classical extreme psychological explanation. You infer
his opinion simply out of something he didn't say. Strange
quote...

Anyway, what does it change? You try to engage in a
discussion about details between the line where a belief is a
sign of psychopathy or psychopathy and religious fanaticism,
IOW, away from the point being discussed here.

The point is this: from what I can see here, both the
psychologists and the acm had basically the same line: Koresh
was a psychopath and the use of force should be favored over
negotiations. Theologians, OTOH, who don't necessarily made wild
generalization like the one you quoted from Ross of view every
religious group leaders as psychopath, favored negotiation. The
acm, through its constant anti-cult bickering and hysteria, also
brought about the situation in the first place. One of
confrontation between a religious fanatic and a bunch of Rambos.

>i agree with that assessment, but it does not support your view that cult
>experts view cult leaders as MERELY con-men. anyone worth their salt also takes
>into account the genuine nature of religious fanaticism, which is at the very
>core of the danger of these groups.

Fine. So, they view the cults leaders as psychopath *and*
religious fanatics (as do the psychologists quoted, I suppose.).
So what's your point? Theologians and scholars don't necessarily
view every cults in terms of psychopathy nor do they make the
wild and hysterical generalizations displayed by the acm.

>so as you can see, even the "anticultists" do, indeed, view religious fanatacism
>and religious beliefs as at the core of how a cult will behave.

Yes. And they also view it as psychopath, and make
hysterical statements and generalizations that supports the FBI
own prejudice and favor their Rambo action. That's what the
report said.

>i can glean this even from a slanted and biased report, without even bothering
>to read between the lines, since it is plainly obvious.

You are arguing something that is completely beyond the
point. As far as I can see from this report, psychologist and
acm proponents where of the same opinion, regardless of
difference in details that you allege exist and that I don't
really see. You say acm where in favor of the use of an
"intelligent" force (and that's only your opinion so far). Do
you think psychologists are in favor of a "stupid force"? The
point is that both they mounted the FBI in their own paranoia
and helped to precipitate the tragedy.

>> "Several times the Justice report mentions theologian
>> Philip Arnold--an expert on the Seven Seals and
>> apocalyptic groups--but never acknowledges his crucial
>> impact on Koresh's decision to come out ... A study of the
>> Justice report makes it clear that psychologists,
>> psychiatrists (JDR:158-185) and "cult busters"
>> (JDR:190-193) who reinforced the FBI's own prejudices had
>> the greatest impact on the FBI's decisions".

>yet, her own quotes fail to support this,

*What* quote fail to support this, Rob? Why can't you post
a three or ten line quotes but can write several dozens lines of
what is nothing else than your opinion? The author's whole
preceding chapter supports the author's contention, as well as
the full report, publicly available, and the references she
makes. You have nothing but your own opinion to counter this.

>and indeed reveal that even miron
>agreed fully that the reason the davidians were a suicide risk was, indeed,
>their religious beliefs.

Irrelevant. The contention of the author is that

>> A study of the
>> Justice report makes it clear that psychologists,
>> psychiatrists (JDR:158-185) and "cult busters"
>> (JDR:190-193) who reinforced the FBI's own prejudices had
>> the greatest impact on the FBI's decisions".

>statements that koresh was a con-man, and an accomplished liar, do not mean that
>he or his believers were simply faking their religious beliefs.

That's a different discussion. Obviously you don't have any
other argument than to constantly martel this point. Whether the
leader fake his belief or not has little to do with the fact
that psychologists, psychiatrists and "cult busters" who

reinforced the FBI's own prejudices had the greatest impact on
the FBI's decisions.

>> Until you can quote any evidence showing that the anti-cult
>>proponents advised anything else, I have to believe the argument

>as i said, i already quoted it in the original article, and i am finding it
>tiresome to have to do so repeatedly in the face of blank denial.

You didn't quote anything that showed the acm advising
anything else, Rob. Everything I challenge you to come up with
this quote you say that you already quoted it. You didn't. What
did the acm advises, Rob? The only quotes are the ones I
provided and that everybody can read in the reports. These
quotes very largely support the author's contention and this
contention is drastically at odd with your own.

>>advanced that they advised an urgent action for fear of mass
>>suicide and other allegation such as ongoing child sexual
>>abuses, i.e. the same type of argument that brought the
>>intervention of the FBI/ATF in the first place.

>however, it does not touch upon your central contention, that cult experts
>ignore the religious aspects of cults in a deluded belief that religious belief
>has nothing to do with it.

This is not my central contention, Rob. This is only what
you try to bring me into. Lets admit for the moment that acm
proponents consider cults as both psychopathic and religious.
What does it change to my statement above?

>i have already extensively quoted why i believe this in another article, and
>quoted one explicit statement to that effect in this article.

You have quoted nothing that show what was advised by the
acm proponents, Rob, no matter how much you like to repeat this.

>i said that negotiations should continue, and that even if in bad faith, they
>might have been useful in engineering an end-scenario without a bunch of charred
>corpses of children in it.

Good. That is your opinion. What I would like to know is
what was advised by acm proponents. All I have is what is quoted
in the report, and this shows a completely different picture
than the one you purport it to be.

>> Again, that has been the exact point put forth by Ross and
>>company. The Justice Department report, for example, mentions a

>no, it has not. stating that koresh was lying in his negotiations and that they
>were merely subterfuges is accurate. this does not lead inevitably to a
>conclusion that, thus, one should stop negotiations.

Good. Please provide some evidence that this wasn't the
case.

>>Rick Ross television appearance during the siege where he
>>declared he hoped Koresh would be a coward and surrender rather
>>than end up as a corpse. Your assertion that psychologists were
>>denying that he would be prepared to die in the final assault is
>>not correct either. Dr. Perry, for example, and social worker
>>Joyce Sparks, who interviewed children released from Mount
>>Carmel, agreed that "Koresh was stalling for time, to prepare
>>for his `final battle' with authorities."

>agreed. i think, however, that it might have been, if not outright averted, at
>least ameliorated, though the original BATF assault left the situation a ticking
>time bomb.
>
>belief that use of lethal force should have been used if necessary, a belief
>i hold myself, is not synonymous with belief that STUPID force should have been
>used STUPIDLY and in a tactically-ignorant manner.

Your opinion. What was advised then, by who and when?

>i agree they should not have engaged in a precipitate assault in the first
>place, and that having done so already, they should not have done so again.
>koresh may have been stalling, but in the tactical situation, koresh held all
>the cards.

Again your opinion, Rob. What can you bring forth to show
that the acm has tried to influence the FBI in trying to prevent
their assault and their initial gathering up in "war"?

>no, they are not. one view ignores religious fanaticism, the other has
>religious fanaticism at its core.

I don't see psychologists "ignoring religious fanaticism".
To say that they didn't view it as a religious matter doesn't
mean that they didn't view it as religious fanaticsm either.
Even if they did view it as purely psychological (whith I
doubt), it doesn't change the fact that they both advised for
use of lethal force against negotiation. This is what I gather
from the report, and in the absence of nothing else than your
opinion, I have nothing to base myself than the evidences
presented in the report, and these do not confirm your
assertions at all.

>they are tactical scenarios based upon motivation. in one scenario, an assault
>intended to force surrender makes sense. if one views koresh, instead, as a
>religious fanatic, one must take the risk of mass suicide with grave
>seriousness.

So, what did they advise exactly? As far as I can see,
whether they take the risk of mass suicide with grave
seriousness or not, they both seem to have advised the use of
force over negotiation. Furthermore, the contention of the
report, and of the film I refer to in my page, is that they
didn't suicide themselves, but were properly tear gazed and
buldozerd by the Rambos and that this created the fire.

>my objection is that pressure tactics were applied STUPIDLY and with no evident
>understanding of the religious nature of the conflict.

Good. That's your contention. So what did happen in
reality? Obviously, you don't seem to have anything else than
your opinion, so we are not much advanced.

>the BATF is the only party to be blamed for their own tactical blunders. they
>were not taking sensible actions. certainly the cult experts did not recommend
>a full frontal assault on a heavily-defended compound. this is so in line with
>previous and subsequent actions of the BATF that it does not require the
>explanation of outside intervention to explain why, as usual, the BATF acted
>like a bunch of ignorant, brain-damaged thugs.

you are guessing and assuming. I would like to see some
kind of evidences other than the one I brought in. So far I
didn't see any.

>i disagree, and believe that it usually takes the agitation and grass-roots
>activism of concerned parents before any authority will even touch a religion,
>and that it requires almost irrefutable evidence of the danger of a group before
>civil authorities will intervene, cowed as they are by threats of litigation and
>attacks from wealthy, litigious groups. cf the AUM cult tragedy, in which the
>police ignored murder after murder, despite massive public outcries, which
>eventually led to a nerve-gas attack on a subway.

Of course. You hold the acm view. We are bound to disagree
on this point. My interest here is not to debate, it is to
examine any other evidence you may have that would contradict
those provided in the report.

>no cult expert i have ever heard of would agree with this. though such groups
>often, in fact, do use the tactic of shrieking "religious persecution" at the
>drop of a hat, that does not discount the religious nature of the group, and the
>FBI neglected to take note of this in the waco case.

So the leaders are not criminal/psychopaths? The beliefs
are not a convenient cover for criminal activity? That's not
what I read daily in the newsgroup.

>i instead ask you to provide proof that the anti-cult had anything to do with
>the tactical flaws in their bungled assault. all the quotes i have seen from
>the cult apologists attempting to blame the situation on the "anti-cult" fail to
>indicate in any manner that the "anti-cult" had anything to do with the bungled
>tactics, which in fact are standard operating procedure for the BATF.

Well, that's what the report aims to proof, and I think
that it is rather convincing.

>all the quotes i have seen touch on the general nature of the group, or urge
>toward action of some sort. none that i have seen have urged a full frontal
>assault without any regard for the defensibility of the structure.
>
>you, and the various apologists you quote, have repeatedly made this assertion
>and it is up to you to support it, if it is indeed supportable, rather than for
>me to prove innocence.

Their point is not they should or not do a "full frontal
assault". That's again an attempt on your part to divert the
issue into differences in details. The point is that they

>> psychologists,
>> psychiatrists (JDR:158-185) and "cult busters"
>> (JDR:190-193) who reinforced the FBI's own prejudices had
>> the greatest impact on the FBI's decisions".

>you have not yet proven that the "anti-cult" had anything to do with these
>flawed tactics, only that they believed swift and strong action should be taken.
>i believe the same. i believe koresh should have been either arrested or
>brought in for questioning, to remove him from the situation, and then the raid
>should have proceeded without koresh's fanaticism to steel the resolve of his
>cultists.

Again methodological details. The point of the report, and
one with which I agree full, is that the acm had its role
(together with other factors) in bring about the tragedy we
witnessed through its hysterical propaganda, both during the
siege and before.

>unless one is, in fact, living in the end-times of a battle of armageddon, yes,
>thinking and acting in such a manner, and stockpiling weapons for imminent
>catastrophe is generally regarded by society as insane and dangerous behavior,
>and groups of this sort, from AUM on down, are indeed a menace, if they intend
>to wage war against society.

I agree that stockpiling weapons is certainly not something
to be encouraged. I think that in Europe that would be
forbidden. It seems to be a matter of controversy in the States,
though.

>however, i do not recall that the group in its early, pre-koresh form,
>was a menace to society in that it stockpiled weapons and took concrete action
>toward the furtherance of the apocalypse.
>
>if it had done so, that would have been fine.

There are a lot of cults that do not stockpile arms and
that are nevertheless demonized by the acm in about the same
way. I am not even sure whether there isn't a link between them
arming themselves and the type of Rambo actions promoted by
Patrick and Ross. That's just a supposition, though.

>"Kelley contends that the Davidian children "were found to be healthy,
>well-adjusted, and non-traumatized." However, the definitive report about
>Davidian child abuse was made by Bruce Perry, M.D., Ph.D., Chief of psychiatry
>at Texas Children's Hospital. Dr. Perry examined the 21 children released from
>the compound during the standoff and concluded they had been abused, traumatized
>and were not well-adjusted. Proof that previous reports by Child Protective
>Services were wrong."

I will take this up in an other post. It illustrate how the
acm like to use anything that can darken and demonize a group,
and allegation of child abuses has been one of their favorite,
even when there was no ground to it whatsoever. From what I
read, many of these reports and testimonies have been shown as
false.

>it was the shoddy tactics employed, and the ignorance, and refusal to listen, of
>the FBI and BATF that led to the tragedy. the BATF has, in their history, often
>acted in precisely the same irrational, precipitate way, and it does not require
>the intervention of outsiders to explain them acting in their usual manner.

What they did ignore and did they refuse to listen to on
the part of the acm, Rob? So far you only have presented your
opinion and allegation that you did quotes something in this
sense, when you didn't.

>i may attempt an examination of those, as well, but if they are as packed with
>distortions as the rest, i do not expect to be any more convinced by them than
>by this current example.

I didn't see so far any distortions other than the ones you
have attempted to make, and I am not convinced by your lack of
any other evidence than your opinion to contradict the evidences
provided in the report.

Bernie

Rob Clark

unread,

Nov 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/6/97

On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 01:17:06 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:

>[Sorry. Snipped extensively to try to keep the article within
>decent proportions]

[. . .]

>>i have already posted all this in a message nearly a thousand lines long. i
>>feel the expert opinions quoted by a person trying to make the opposite point
>>i'm making prove my point sufficiently.

> You haven't quoted exactly what was the advise of CAN and
>cult experts. What did they advised, who advised it and when?

i have stated before, and now state, yet again, that it is you and your sources
who are proposing the theory that CAN is responsible for the BATF's behavior,
and it is up to you to prove it, not up to me to prove the opposite.

i have quoted second-source material quoted by the original author, and did so
extensively. that i also commented on the material i quoted does not mean i did
not quote it, and pretending that this is so is weaselly at best.

>>i responded to all salient points in that, and it was packed with quotes from
>>various people, including rick ross, some of my favorite cult apologists, and
>>numerous CAN people.

> You haven't quoted exactly what was the advise of CAN and
>cult experts. What did they advised, who advised it and when?

now i'm supposed to be a mind reader? you made the accusation, you prove it.
i fail to see why the BATF acting in its usual rogue and criminal manner needs
CAN to explain it. those who have made this claim have never yet supported it
with any evidence at all.

>>> That must have been lost among the quantity of your own
>>>comments. I didn't see a single quote of the author that didn't
>>>support her conclusion. Maybe you could repost it here. It would
>>>take you only a few lines. If *I* missed them, then no doubt
>>>readers who are following this from the outside missed them as
>>>well. It would be helpful for your own point if you could
>>>requote them here.

>>i'm sorry, as i have done it once, and most of my responses were to specific
>>quotes, you'll really have to go back yourself and quote where you think i was
>>wrong, rather than demanding i rewrite an article i already spent copious time
>>on.

> I don't demand that you rewrite an article. As a matter of
>fact, your opinion is not what I discuss here. I am only
>interested at this point in examining evidences. To quote
>something would only take a few lines. Instead of that, you
>prefer to write hundreds of lines that are hardly anything else
>than your opinion and expect the reader to find something in
>these hundreds of lines. What statement of the author does not
>support her point?

pot. kettle. black.

again, i have responded point-by-point to every statement with which i
disagreed, and included my reasons for doing so. for someone who is interested
in "examining evidences" and not merely in "hundreds of lines" of mere "opinion"
you usually triple the length of any thread to which you respond.

if you don't like my article, respond to it and drop this silly pretense of not
being able to read it.

>>> "Despite the Justice report denials, it is evident that
>>> there was a definite cult buster influence on--and
>>> justification for-- decisions to replace negotiations with
>>> pressure tactics against the Branch Davidians."

>>now i will turn this around. i fail to see how the author supported this. i
>>fail to see how the BATF or FBI changed from their original "rambo storming the
>>commies" behavior which might be appropriate for violent criminals motivated
>>by usual criminal motives to dealing with religious fanatics.

> It was supported by the whole preceding chapter, in
>addition of the full report that is available at the address I
>provided and that contains further references.

the BATF has a long history of such behavior without the necessity of blaming it
on CAN. if there is any evidence to support this blaming of CAN, then it is up
to you to present it, and not up to me to debunk it.

occam's razor eliminates the tortuous scenario requiring CAN's intervention to
influence the BATF to act in its normal manner.

[. . .]

>>> Dr. Murray S. Miron, that you support, even told the Los
>>>Angeles Times

>>> "I advised the FBI that all of his promises as to giving
>>> up were only subterfuges, deceptions and delaying
>>> tactics."

>>yes, they were. this does not mean one could not use negotiation to turn those
>>subterfuges to one's advantage, or that negotiations might not elicit useful
>>information. i think the FBI should, indeed, have treated any blandishments or
>>promises from koresh as self-serving lies, but nevertheless should have
>>continued negotiating.

> That's only your opinion. It doesn't necessarily represent
>what was advised at the time.

i know that for some time, it appeared the FBI was taking seriously the
recommendation of FBI agent smerick:

Stuart H. Wright, Editor, Armageddon at Waco:
-Agent Pete Smerick, who was in charge of drawing up the psychological profile
on Koresh counseled a cautious, non confrontational approach with Koresh in four
memos written to senior FBI officials between March 3rd and March 8h .
According to W. Smerick, FBI superiors pressured him to change his assessment to
justify a more confrontational approach.

[from the script to waco: the rules of engagement
http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/burial.html
i'll note a fair amount of material here supports the general contention of
joint FBI and BATF misconduct, and as i go through it, i'll gladly post anything
that seems relevant to this discussion. i advise it as a useful source of many
quotes and references to original sources. these memos, and any people cited in
these memos, would probably be necessary to a full understanding of the
situation.]

>>in fact, it was the FBI's own ignoring of the crucially important issue
>>of religious fanaticism that was the problem, and i fail to see any cult experts
>>denying religious fanaticism, and experts on the seven seals and apocalyptic
>>groups in general agreed as well.

> The FBI favored a forceful reaction rather than
>negotiation. The report states that it was confirmed in that by
>the psychologists and the anti-cult proponents. You make an
>irrelevant distinction between the two viewpoint as to whether
>or not they took into account the religious fanaticism part. I
>don't see much difference and don't believe that the
>psychologists, asserting that Koresh was a psychopath don't also
>think that he wasn't a religious fanatic, nor that the acm
>stating that he was a religious fanatic didn't also think that
>he was a psychopath. The point of view of psychologists and
>anti-cult proponents is strikingly similar. What is stressed is
>not the religious belief, it is the psychopathy part, it is
>hardly viewed as a genuine religion or considered as such.

this is not the case at all. i consider the nature of the religious beliefs of
the people inside the compound as being of integral importance to understanding
why they were acting the way they were.

treating them as simple psychopaths, and koresh as a simple con-man or madman,
completely misses the point. treating koresh as merely a psychopath of some
sort, or merely a criminal, completely misses the point that the people inside
were behaving, though criminally, in ways genuinely motivated by religious
beliefs, and indeed at times rightfully in self-defense. a genuine true
believer is going to act differently than a faker just claiming religion as a
ruse.

>>i agree with the cult experts that pressure should have been maintained, but
>>pressure without negotiation leaves an apocalyptic group with no choice, from
>>their viewpoint, but to take it all the way. if they must have used techniques
>>such as loudspeakers, it should have been to broadcast a meaningful, repeated
>>message, repeated ceaselessly and often reworded, rather than simply to
>>antagonize them with rock music they probably viewed as a work of the devil.
>>there was no attempt to counter koresh's insane message, but merely actions that
>>koresh could use as proof that the armies of satan were right outside the door.

> This is only your opinion. We are discussing whether the
>acm had a negative influence during the siege, as well as to
>bring the situation in the first place. Obviously, you have
>nothing further to bring in this issue than you opinion. At this
>point, I would like to see some evidence.

i quote evidence where i have it, otherwise, like you yourself, i am often
forced to fall back on opinion. if you don't like it, don't read it.

if you wish to take issue with it, take issue with it on some actual grounds
other than that it is an opinion. of course it's a damn opinion! even if i did
have extensive evidence to back it up, it would still be an opinion.

simply calling it an opinion, while not giving any reason for disagreement, is a
pretty futile method of argument. if you have your own opinion, give it. if
you have evidence showing my opinion wrong, do so. i recommend the URL cited.
i don't agree with the presenters of the site on everything, but the full script
(containing portions evidently removed from the final version) includes numerous
pointers for study.

>>the leader often is a cynical crook, but often does, in fact, buy his
>>own beliefs and delusions.

> As far as I could read from the acm groups, these groups
>where not really religions but only pretended to be religions.
>That's the argument they advance to prove that they should not
>benefit from rights reserved to religions. Are you now saying
>that they are indeed religions?

i'm not entirely certain whether i have said otherwise in the past, in my
earlier phases of dealing with scientology i treated it merely as a fraud, but
this is overly-simplistic. i do not believe that all organizations or people
opposed to cults view things in the cartoon-like manner you wish to impute to
them.

>>even rick ross acknowledges this, this is his answer to the question about what
>>kind of people become cult leaders. i pick rick ross because he is one of your
>>favorite example, and because like ted patrick, he has been prepared to take
>>drastic action against cults, so should be expected to express the extremist
>>viewpoints you always accuse CAN of.

>> 8.What type of people become leaders of unsafe or destructive groups?

>> It seems that many are rather narcissistic personalities who appear to have
>>little if any conscience and are possibly sociopathic. These leaders may
>>fantasize about their role in changing the course of human history, or speaking
>>for God.
>> Some in my experience seem so delusional and disturbed they may be
>>psychotic. Extreme examples of destructive cult leaders like Jim Jones, David
>>Koresh and Shoko Asahara have caused many mental health professionals to
>>question their sanity.

>>note that he questions their sanity and honesty, but not their sincerity in
>>their religious beliefs. i have never seen a cult expert take the views you try
>>to accuse all "anticultists" of taking.

> Well, you say "even rick ross acknowledges this" and you
>quote something from him in which he acknowledge nothing else
>than the classical extreme psychological explanation. You infer
>his opinion simply out of something he didn't say. Strange
>quote...

i do not see a single thing supporting your contention that the "anti-cult"
views the religious beliefs of cult members as not being genuinely held, but
they may, indeed, view those beliefs as false and deluded. that is rather
different from viewing such beliefs as being held merely as a sham, and i do not
believe this is a commonly-held view, even by the most vociferous cult critics.

scientology would be an exception, in some points, as its founder did, indeed,
state that the "religion angle" was merely a "matter for accountants and
solicitors." however, that doesn't rule out the possibility of current
scientologists genuinely considering scientology a religion.

> Anyway, what does it change? You try to engage in a
>discussion about details between the line where a belief is a
>sign of psychopathy or psychopathy and religious fanaticism,
>IOW, away from the point being discussed here.

> The point is this: from what I can see here, both the
>psychologists and the acm had basically the same line: Koresh
>was a psychopath and the use of force should be favored over
>negotiations. Theologians, OTOH, who don't necessarily made wild
>generalization like the one you quoted from Ross of view every
>religious group leaders as psychopath, favored negotiation. The
>acm, through its constant anti-cult bickering and hysteria, also
>brought about the situation in the first place. One of
>confrontation between a religious fanatic and a bunch of Rambos.

evidence? with the exception of ross, i doubt any anti-cult movement would have
supported the BATF's rash and precipitate actions. do you have any evidence
that it was CAN who prompted a bloodbath, and not the BATF up to its old tricks
and trying to shake its bad reputation with a well-publicized raid?

interestingly, in support of the belief that negotiation would have worked and
that koresh might have cooperated with authorities if not viciously assaulted,

this is more from the original script of "waco: the rules of engagement" in
support of my contention that it was the BATF itself, rather than any so-called
"anti-cultists," who were the prime movers behind the violent assault on the
davidians, and that their motive was publicity:

Stuart H. Wright, Editor, Armageddon at Waco:
Why was a warrant sought in the first place since David Koresh, on learning that
he was being investigated by the ATF, invited the agents on July 30th, 1992,
through his gun dealer, Henry McMahon, to come to his residence and inspect his
firearms?

John B. Shadegg, US Congress, Arizona (R):
They never once followed up on that offer. Never even tried to follow up on that
offer . . .

Robert Sanders, former ATF Deputy Director:
I can't imagine any circumstances when I would not take up such an offer. It
indicates a mind-set. Perhaps it was non willful. Perhaps what the ATF thought
were violations of the law were really things that Mr. Koresh thought were
legal.

John B. Shadegg, US Congress, Arizona (R):
It suggests that what they really wanted to do was conduct a raid, not make an
arrest or conduct a search.

Robert Sanders:
In the opinion of the agents, you know, the planning for Waco and the manner in
which it was done was done for the purpose of publicity.

Bill Brewster, US Congress, Oklahoma (D):
Mr. Hartnett, there's a rumor, surely it's unfounded, that the publicity person
or public relations person for ATF had released some kind of a press
communication the night before to media around the country that something big
was going to come down in Texas?

Bill Hartnett, former ATF Deputy Director:
Yes, and we heard that and . . she called . . . called the reporter to ask if he
was going to be in.

Bill Brewster, US Congress, Oklahoma (D):
Why did she do that?

Bill Hartnett, former ATF Deputy Director:
She wanted to be able to get a hold of them in case we recovered these arms.

Bill Brewster, US Congress, Oklahoma (D):
Wouldn't there be ample time after they were recovered?

Bill Hartnett, former ATF Deputy Director:
Oh, Yes, I mean . . .

Sharon Wheeler, ATF Public Relations:
I just said we might have something going on here in Dallas this weekend and I'd
like to have a weekend contact number and that's what I was given.

Bill Brewster, US Congress, Oklahoma (D):
What was the purpose for contacting them? Were you actually seeking publicity
for the agency?

Sharon Wheeler, ATF public Relations:
Absolutely not!

Bill Brewster, US Congress, Oklahoma (D):
OK. Then I guess I don't understand the reason for your call.

Narration:
The ATF needed good publicity. With its appropriations hearings a week away, a
successful raid this size would produce major positive headlines to counter the
ATF's reputation as a rogue agency whose debacles blackened the reputations of
other agencies. And it would scare the public enough about fringe groups to
create political pressure on Congress to increase its budget. Henry Ruth was one
of three independent reviewers of the Treasury Department's report on Waco.

[from the original script for "waco: the rules of engagement" on
http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/doc/wre_scr2.html
]

>>i agree with that assessment, but it does not support your view that cult
>>experts view cult leaders as MERELY con-men. anyone worth their salt also takes
>>into account the genuine nature of religious fanaticism, which is at the very
>>core of the danger of these groups.

> Fine. So, they view the cults leaders as psychopath *and*
>religious fanatics (as do the psychologists quoted, I suppose.).
>So what's your point? Theologians and scholars don't necessarily
>view every cults in terms of psychopathy nor do they make the
>wild and hysterical generalizations displayed by the acm.

cult leaders may or may not be psychopaths. in my opinion, koresh was not
afraid to use or experience violence, and had done so in the past, successfully,
against the previous "madman of waco," george roden, who was later convicted of
murder in an unrelated matter, and vied with koresh for the control of the cult.

>>so as you can see, even the "anticultists" do, indeed, view religious fanatacism
>>and religious beliefs as at the core of how a cult will behave.

> Yes. And they also view it as psychopath, and make
>hysterical statements and generalizations that supports the FBI
>own prejudice and favor their Rambo action. That's what the
>report said.

nonsense. cult leaders ARE often psychopaths. what would you call shoko
asahara, who nerve-gassed thousands in a tokyo subway? how would you describe
the morality of using children as bargaining chips in a stand-off? regardless
of the malice and criminality of the FBI and BATF, if koresh had not continued
the stand-off, the FBI would not have simply massacred them all as they
surrendered, with video cameras rolling and the eyes of the nation on the event.
all law enforcement agencies were criminally culpable in that vile inferno, but
a rational person would have ended the stand-off and fought the matter bitterly
in court, not on a battlefield.

>>i can glean this even from a slanted and biased report, without even bothering
>>to read between the lines, since it is plainly obvious.

> You are arguing something that is completely beyond the
>point. As far as I can see from this report, psychologist and
>acm proponents where of the same opinion, regardless of
>difference in details that you allege exist and that I don't
>really see. You say acm where in favor of the use of an

i fail to see how the prime motivation (mens rea) of the people inside the
compound is "beyond the point." the motivation of the people inside the
compound should have been the prime concern in determining what actions were
appropriate.

it honestly baffles me that you can state with a straight face that the
motivations of suspects is of no interest and "beyond the point" in constructing
a rational strategy for handling the situation.

it is of utmost importance.

>"intelligent" force (and that's only your opinion so far). Do
>you think psychologists are in favor of a "stupid force"? The
>point is that both they mounted the FBI in their own paranoia
>and helped to precipitate the tragedy.

the FBI, as incompetent and criminal as their behavior was, can not be blamed
for creating the situation the BATF left them with, they were brought into a
nearly-hopeless situation.

[. . .]

>>statements that koresh was a con-man, and an accomplished liar, do not mean that
>>he or his believers were simply faking their religious beliefs.

> That's a different discussion. Obviously you don't have any
>other argument than to constantly martel this point. Whether the
>leader fake his belief or not has little to do with the fact
>that psychologists, psychiatrists and "cult busters" who
>reinforced the FBI's own prejudices had the greatest impact on
>the FBI's decisions.

it was not initially the FBI which created the situation.

it was the BATF, in full-bore publicity-hound rambo mode, that created the
situation. the FBI then compounded the error. a belief that the actions of the
davidians were motivated by religious belief, rather than mere psychopathology
or con-artistry, automatically leads to a different way of viewing the situation
and planning action, and the notion of "religious belief" entails, or should
entail, a respect for freedom of belief, even if the actions it causes are not
similarly protected.

common criminals, simple murderers, violent gangs, and such riff-raff can be
treated as such. religious fanatics should be approached with extreme caution
and tact, even if force is necessary to restrain their actions.

>>> Until you can quote any evidence showing that the anti-cult
>>>proponents advised anything else, I have to believe the argument

>>as i said, i already quoted it in the original article, and i am finding it
>>tiresome to have to do so repeatedly in the face of blank denial.

> You didn't quote anything that showed the acm advising
>anything else, Rob. Everything I challenge you to come up with

you don't quote anything that showed the acm advised what you say they advise.
you merely post hundreds of lines of pure unadulterated opinion.

>this quote you say that you already quoted it. You didn't. What
>did the acm advises, Rob? The only quotes are the ones I
>provided and that everybody can read in the reports. These
>quotes very largely support the author's contention and this
>contention is drastically at odd with your own.

i believe differently, and explained why, while quoting the entire article and
dissecting it point-by-point. i do not believe the author supported her
accusations in the least, and her own sources contradict her.

[various similar disagreements]

>>my objection is that pressure tactics were applied STUPIDLY and with no evident
>>understanding of the religious nature of the conflict.

> Good. That's your contention. So what did happen in
>reality? Obviously, you don't seem to have anything else than
>your opinion, so we are not much advanced.

one of two things. either the tear gas set the fires, or the cult did. i have
not seen anything definitive, but merely the same sort of conspiracy theories i
saw in the oliver stone movie JFK.

>>the BATF is the only party to be blamed for their own tactical blunders. they
>>were not taking sensible actions. certainly the cult experts did not recommend
>>a full frontal assault on a heavily-defended compound. this is so in line with
>>previous and subsequent actions of the BATF that it does not require the
>>explanation of outside intervention to explain why, as usual, the BATF acted
>>like a bunch of ignorant, brain-damaged thugs.

> you are guessing and assuming. I would like to see some
>kind of evidences other than the one I brought in. So far I
>didn't see any.

i hope i've brought in some, and indeed the URL i cites may be more useful to
you in your argument than to me. i will continue to discuss the issue, but i
may drop the endless back-and-forth to dig up some facts, and then post them.

then we can argue about them some more, as this is generating more heat than
light at the moment.

>>i disagree, and believe that it usually takes the agitation and grass-roots
>>activism of concerned parents before any authority will even touch a religion,
>>and that it requires almost irrefutable evidence of the danger of a group before
>>civil authorities will intervene, cowed as they are by threats of litigation and
>>attacks from wealthy, litigious groups. cf the AUM cult tragedy, in which the
>>police ignored murder after murder, despite massive public outcries, which
>>eventually led to a nerve-gas attack on a subway.

> Of course. You hold the acm view. We are bound to disagree
>on this point. My interest here is not to debate, it is to
>examine any other evidence you may have that would contradict
>those provided in the report.

i'll try to provide some more, including anything that supports your view of the
situation, but suspect i'll find little to support the contention that somehow
CAN and the anti-cult movement is to blame for the grievous catastrophe at waco.

>>no cult expert i have ever heard of would agree with this. though such groups
>>often, in fact, do use the tactic of shrieking "religious persecution" at the
>>drop of a hat, that does not discount the religious nature of the group, and the
>>FBI neglected to take note of this in the waco case.

> So the leaders are not criminal/psychopaths? The beliefs
>are not a convenient cover for criminal activity? That's not
>what I read daily in the newsgroup.

no, the beliefs are genuine.

the shrieking of "religious persecution" is a convenient cover for when
out-of-control religionists decide the ends justify the means.

>>i instead ask you to provide proof that the anti-cult had anything to do with
>>the tactical flaws in their bungled assault. all the quotes i have seen from
>>the cult apologists attempting to blame the situation on the "anti-cult" fail to
>>indicate in any manner that the "anti-cult" had anything to do with the bungled
>>tactics, which in fact are standard operating procedure for the BATF.

> Well, that's what the report aims to proof, and I think
>that it is rather convincing.

yes, but you were already convinced of that before you even saw that report.
it is not nearly so convincing to me.

>>all the quotes i have seen touch on the general nature of the group, or urge
>>toward action of some sort. none that i have seen have urged a full frontal
>>assault without any regard for the defensibility of the structure.
>
>>you, and the various apologists you quote, have repeatedly made this assertion
>>and it is up to you to support it, if it is indeed supportable, rather than for
>>me to prove innocence.

[. . .]

>>if it had done so, that would have been fine.

> There are a lot of cults that do not stockpile arms and
>that are nevertheless demonized by the acm in about the same
>way. I am not even sure whether there isn't a link between them
>arming themselves and the type of Rambo actions promoted by
>Patrick and Ross. That's just a supposition, though.

i'll cite the heaven's gate cult as a cult which did not stockpile arms, other
than a couple handguns legally owned. it also did not threaten anyone other
than its own members. yet it was highly dangerous to its own members, and
was rightly castigated for such.

>>"Kelley contends that the Davidian children "were found to be healthy,
>>well-adjusted, and non-traumatized." However, the definitive report about
>>Davidian child abuse was made by Bruce Perry, M.D., Ph.D., Chief of psychiatry
>>at Texas Children's Hospital. Dr. Perry examined the 21 children released from
>>the compound during the standoff and concluded they had been abused, traumatized
>>and were not well-adjusted. Proof that previous reports by Child Protective
>>Services were wrong."

> I will take this up in an other post. It illustrate how the
>acm like to use anything that can darken and demonize a group,
>and allegation of child abuses has been one of their favorite,
>even when there was no ground to it whatsoever. From what I
>read, many of these reports and testimonies have been shown as
>false.

i would imagine the children born from koresh's acts would demonstrate fairly
that he did, indeed, have sex with underage girls.

>>it was the shoddy tactics employed, and the ignorance, and refusal to listen, of
>>the FBI and BATF that led to the tragedy. the BATF has, in their history, often
>>acted in precisely the same irrational, precipitate way, and it does not require
>>the intervention of outsiders to explain them acting in their usual manner.

> What they did ignore and did they refuse to listen to on
>the part of the acm, Rob? So far you only have presented your
>opinion and allegation that you did quotes something in this
>sense, when you didn't.

they obviously ignored koresh's religious beliefs, the central factor of his
actions and the actions of his flock.

>>i may attempt an examination of those, as well, but if they are as packed with
>>distortions as the rest, i do not expect to be any more convinced by them than
>>by this current example.

> I didn't see so far any distortions other than the ones you
>have attempted to make, and I am not convinced by your lack of
>any other evidence than your opinion to contradict the evidences
>provided in the report.

what distortions? again, i have responded to that article specifically and
point-by-point. if you wish to contest it, contest the article i wrote, instead
of pretending to ignore it.

>Bernie

rob

0 new messages