Diane: Mind Control? - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion Diane: Mind Control?

Peter McDermott

More options Sep 15 1997, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Date: 1997/09/15

Subject: Re: Diane: Mind Control?

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

In article <341f0b6a.16597...@news.tds.net>,

dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>What does that have to do with "cult mind control." I certainly
>agree
>>that the Sea Org is an authoritarian organization. What does that
>>have to do with proving the existence of "cult mind control"?

>That has to do with demonstrating how it comes about. You start by

***

>relinquishing independent thought and will. Because you have

***

>accepted the *authority* of someone who you have been given some

***

>reason to trust or believe. Then the mindfuck starts.

See, it seems to me that this statement says a lot about what
*your* role in all this, and very little about what the cult does.

As you say, *you* relinquish your critical faculties, *you*
invest somebody with power as an authority, and then go on
to do what they say. They can't just hook up anyone and
determine how they'll think, which is what the term 'mind
control' implies.

><snip>

>>But Milgram's experiments don't demonstrate the existence of "cult
>>mind control." They demonstrate the existence of a tendency among
>>humans to obey authority figures. Cults certainly aren't the only
>or
>>even the major authoritarian organizations in society. Or are you
>>claiming that *all* authoritarian organizations are cults?

>No, you're making sweeping generalizations based on assumptions
>again. It appears to me that Milgram wasn't *trying* to demonstrate
>the existence of mind control. The experiments, if I understand
>correctly, were on responses to authority figures. But if you look
>at the results of the experiment, I think what you see is a strong
>argument for the existence of undue influence exerted by those same
>authority figures--which sounds one hell of a lot like mind control,
>to this author.

Well, if you want to believe the two things are the same, I
guess you're free to do so. However, they aren't. Most people
obey authority figures at some time in their lives. You aren't
suggesting they are all under the influence of mind control are
you?

>[editor's note: this author enjoys tilting at windmills.]

><snip>

>>Let's try this one more time. How do you define "cult mind
>control"?
>Cult Mind Control (n.): Where a cult attempts to control your mind.
> Your thought patterns. Your responses to external stimuli--people,
>places, things. Mindfuckery. (source: bc dictionary, somewhere
>between my ears) (hey, is this deep, or what?)

>Is that succinct enough?

Uh, mind control equals the *attempt* to control your mind? Surely
mind control *should* refer to the *ability* to control your mind,
not just the attempt to control it.

>What did I do that I wouldn't have done otherwise? I sat there in
>the org. I kept coming BACK to the org. I brought OTHER PEOPLE
>into the org. Being raised a good baptist, these are things I never
>would have imagined doing. (And I'm not getting into baptist-
>bashing either--don't go there. Then I'd REALLY have to break out
>the flamethrower--I can *really* get rolling on baptist-bashing...)

My guess is that these issues aren't completely unrelated. After
all, if you teach a child that one bunch of ludicrous propositions
might be true, you shouldn't be surprised when you get an adult
who'll believe another set of ludicrous propositions might be
true as well.

>I did the TR's. I sat and stared for HOURS. For DAYS.

>I thought, talked, and acted like a good Rondroid. Because my mind
>had been manipulated into doing so. Yes, I took the courses
>voluntarily. I voluntarily opened my mind up for Elrong to fuck
>with. And that's exactly what happened.

Well, Elrong himself wasn't actually there. What you're saying
is that *you* elected to allow someone to fuck with your mind.
And I'm happy to accept that that's what the TR's do. But
fucking with your mind isn't controlling it, is it?

>Is the can of worms opened up far enough for ya yet?

>Are we gonna go back through the same tired procedure of "where is
>the evidence?" "Ask an ex-$cieno--the stories are all so similar"
>"But that's all subjective" "everything is subjective, only an
>object can be objective!"

No, nobody is denying that you were exposed to the process
that you describe. What we *are* arguing about is that it
constitutes mind control. You *still* haven't told us
exactly was it about it that makes you believe that the cult
had control of your mind, and how you square that belief that
you still had sufficient control to get out?

Either someone controls something, or they don't. It's not a
half-way thing.

FWIW, I'd accept that the cult *attempts* to control it's
members via various forms of persuasion, etc. But it can only
succeed as long as people allow it to do so. You got a clue
and chose to stop allowing to do so, so I don't see how you
square that with the idea that they somehow had control of
you.

>You know, sometimes I wonder why I even bother. This is all so
>telegraphed. I hope I've saved everyone several weeks worth of
>posts here.

>When we cover the same ground over and over, we get nowhere. Diane,
>I'm never going to change your mind, or Bernie's, or Peter's, or
>anyone else's.

Look, I really dislike $cientology. I'd love to believe that they
have the power to control minds so I could dislike them even more.
But it just doesn't make any sense to me. I'd be happy to be
convinced if someone could give me a plausible argument that
illustrates *how* their mind was controlled, but I still haven't
heard one.

Let me summarize what I think you've said and you tell me where
I'm going wrong. You go in voluntarily. You like what you see
or what you get, so you take more courses. You become part of
the group so you start acting like the group, saying positive
things about Ron, bringing friends to the org, etc. Still all
voluntarily, because you still like what you're getting.

You do the TR's and that makes you feel a bit strange. You
realize that your work and your music is suffering. You
decide to stop taking courses. The clams don't like this, and
put huge amounts of pressure on for you to take more courses,
but *despite* the fact that you believe you are under the
influence of mind control, you *don't* take the courses, you
disconnect from the org and leave scientology altogether.

Where exactly does the mind control come in here?

>Conversely, you and Bernie and Peter are never going
>to change mine. Quoting studies and statistics is not going to
>change my perception of what I experienced--unless someone can do a
>study that resonates more clearly with me than my own perceptions
>have for seventeen years. I'm wide open for that--but I haven't
>seen it yet. Why is it so important to you to belittle the
>experiences of so many of us? Is it possible that there is a basic,
>fundamental difference of perception here that cannot be surmounted
>by throwing reams of paper at us?

I think there *is* a fundamental difference of perception
here. I think it's become an article of faith for you to
explain your experiences in $cientology by saying that you
were under the influence of mind control. Imagine, just for
a moment, somebody *did* come up with something that
conclusively demonstrated that 'cult mind control' does not
exist.

How would that change your beliefs about yourself or about
Scientology?

Reply to author Forward