KIM BAKER
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry):
>kim baker spent nine months as a 'vicious traitor'
>who was spit upon and raised as a 'head on a pike'
>on an altar of delusion--just to slake our own
>personal beliefs that we'd *never* *ever* do
>anything like that ourselves.
Spit upon? Give it a rest, Aytch. Don't cast to poor girl in
bronze. You'd not be helping her with this kind of over-the-edge
rhetoric, even if you were right.
And, no. There is no way in hell I would ~ever~ do anything like
that myself. Ever. No-fucking-matter what. I would never again
submit myself or put myself in a position where I was at the mercy of
the cult as Kim, for some still unknown reason, did.
Please don't make a monument of Kim's weakness. Allow her to go
off and get strong on her own, without neither our acceptance nor our
rejection. That, I believe, is the only way she can possibly heal
from what she has been through.
And since she is not reading the newsgroup, I need not apologize
for referring to her in the third person.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Deirdre
Henry,
I agree with your post.
Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
Dennis, despite his protestations, is living a life that is, in many ways,
cult-mandated. In that he chose his battle, that's a little freer than the
choice Kim made. But each person has things they believe intolerable and
these things do vary person to person.
I was surprised the first time an incest survivor said that, as a child,
he would set it up to be raped when he thought his father would beat him.
But choice, even a bad one like that, is an element of freedom.
_Deirdre
Martin G. V. Hunt
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
> anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry):
>
>>kim baker spent nine months as a 'vicious traitor'
>>who was spit upon and raised as a 'head on a pike'
>>on an altar of delusion--just to slake our own
>>personal beliefs that we'd *never* *ever* do
>>anything like that ourselves.
>
> Spit upon? Give it a rest, Aytch. Don't cast to poor girl in
> bronze. You'd not be helping her with this kind of over-the-edge
> rhetoric, even if you were right.
IMO, he is.
> And, no. There is no way in hell I would ~ever~ do anything like
> that myself. Ever. No-fucking-matter what. I would never again
> submit myself or put myself in a position where I was at the mercy of
> the cult as Kim, for some still unknown reason, did.
Riiiight; you would never join a cult. Glad to hear it.
> Please don't make a monument of Kim's weakness. Allow her to go
> off and get strong on her own, without neither our acceptance nor our
> rejection. That, I believe, is the only way she can possibly heal
> from what she has been through.
Who cares about Kim? I admire the depth of understanding.
Was the post about Kim, or other things? I think it spoke volumes
on another subject: buttons.
> And since she is not reading the newsgroup, I need not apologize
> for referring to her in the third person.
>
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <dennis....@support.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
Human frailty, weakness, mind control and the core of cults.
Keep it up, henry; that was an incredible post even if it did set
of Dennis' buttons about Kim.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. "when you are up to your ass in crocodiles its prudent
to ignore the hyenas howlin' on the banks..." - Arnie Lerma
Martin G. V. Hunt
Deirdre (dei...@sover.net) writes:
> Henry,
>
> I agree with your post.
>
> Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
Yes; since they do not see the control when it happens, and they cannot
admit it even to themselves.
"There are none so ignorant or hard of learning as those who already know"
- a paraphrase on someone or other; Ben Franklin? Damn; I need a book of
quotations! :-)
> Dennis, despite his protestations, is living a life that is, in many ways,
> cult-mandated. In that he chose his battle, that's a little freer than the
> choice Kim made. But each person has things they believe intolerable and
> these things do vary person to person.
>
> I was surprised the first time an incest survivor said that, as a child,
> he would set it up to be raped when he thought his father would beat him.
> But choice, even a bad one like that, is an element of freedom.
I wonder if we do have free will? I feel it, but is it real.
Diane Richardson
dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>Henry,
>I agree with your post.
>Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these
things as you go along?
>Dennis, despite his protestations, is living a life that is, in many ways,
>cult-mandated. In that he chose his battle, that's a little freer than the
>choice Kim made. But each person has things they believe intolerable and
>these things do vary person to person.
I doubt if many people consider lying to betray a friend to his bitter
enemies "tolerable." Of course, YMMV. :)
>I was surprised the first time an incest survivor said that, as a child,
>he would set it up to be raped when he thought his father would beat him.
>But choice, even a bad one like that, is an element of freedom.
As Kim Baker herself so aptly stated it, no one was holding a loaded
gun to her head. Nor was OSA either about to rape, beat, or commit
incest with her. Kim Baker made her own choices -- now she must live
with the consequences of those choices.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Steve A
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
[much of henry's excellent post snipped]
I have refrained from comment on the Kim Baker situation, partly
because I never felt that I was in possession of all the facts,
and partly because I can see in myself many of the weaknesses and
frailties that Kim (and in all probability every one of us, too)
has.
That is why this particular phrase from henry strikes such a
chord with me:
>KNOW YOUR OWN BUTTONS. know what it feels like
>when they are pushed. do not blame the "icons" of
>ars for personal failures, or allow yourself to
>believe that because some ars "icons" are fallible
>that they are thus "dead agents" unworthy of
>any kind of respect.
I am sure that many of us would be able to point out what we
believe to be the "buttons" of other posters...y'know, the things
that cause the red mist to start and let choler overcome reason.
We've all seen other people fly off the handle, and we've seen
some spectacular flamewars erupt as a result.
But I wonder how many of us are really aware of our own buttons?
Sure, we might think that we know where we're vulnerable, but
like the survey of British drivers where 90% considered
themselves to be "above-average", we are likely misleading
ourselves to the extent or nature of what it is gets us going.
Given that we are engaged in debate with a cult whose speciality
is finding those buttons and pushing them, and especially given
that many of us will be out on the street next Saturday picketing
the nut cult, it might be a very good idea to take some time out
to reflect on our own strengths and weaknesses, and those things
that we know really hurt us, and might make us react
inappropriately.
Kim has obviously, and painfully, learned what some of her
weaknesses were. Although the lessons she has had to learn as a
result of OSA's vicious abuse of her normal and well-intentioned
human reactions have obviously been extremely unpleasant, she has
evidently learned a little more about herself, and grown a little
as a result. We could all learn something from her example, and
benefit, hopefully without the assistance of OSA.
>kim baker spent nine months as a 'vicious traitor'
>who was spit upon and raised as a 'head on a pike'
>on an altar of delusion--just to slake our own
>personal beliefs that we'd *never* *ever* do
>anything like that ourselves.
>
>consider that before spitting condemnation at
>anyone who wavers or disagrees with the supposedly
>all-holy 'cause.'
I hope, one day, that Kim feels able to rejoin us here. The fact
that she has felt unable to be here with us thanks to the attacks
which she has had to endure is _our_ loss.
--
ObURLS:
Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Harassment: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html
--
SP4, GGBC, KBM
"Your're obviously loaded with so many owerts and withholds that you
have committed, that you're lightyears away from being able to confront
the workable data about the overt-motivator sequence"
[Jesper Skovlund, Scieno apologist on a.r.s.]
My other hat's a fedora, too. And it's Black.
IN MEMORIAM: Richard Collins, victim of the cult of Scientology
IN MEMORIAM: anon.penet.fi, victim of the criminal cult of Scientology.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A):
>But I wonder how many of us are really aware of our own buttons?
Three of us.
>I hope, one day, that Kim feels able to rejoin us here. The fact
>that she has felt unable to be here with us thanks to the attacks
>which she has had to endure is _our_ loss.
Oh please! Don't you geddit yet? You are making her a
poster-child, once again. It was not healthy for Kim to be involved
in the fray here before, and it is not healthy for her now. This kind
of idolatry of her inability to stand up to pressure merely encourages
her to continue in the state of mind which left her vulnerable to the
flip-flop. It is dangerous for others, as they might trust her beyond
her ability to live up to their trust. And it is dangerous for Kim,
in that she is being drawn into areas of personal morality with which
she has clearly not become equipted to deal.
She subjected ~herself~ to the conditions which she could not
withstand, and betrayed her friends as a result.
You are doing her no favor at all to make a monument of her
weakness.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt):
>Riiiight; you would never join a cult. Glad to hear it.
<checks for smiley - none found>
This is a cheap twisting of my words, Martin. I said that, having
been in and escaped, I would never place myself in a position where I
was at the mercy of the cult.
>... even if it did set of Dennis' buttons about Kim.
<smiley absent>
If you actually believe, Martin, that this is the depth of my
caring and is my actual motivation for my most recent attempts to
assist in Kim's cult recovery, I will refrain from submitting my
unwelcome opinions on the matter to your cheap ridicule and demeaning
comments in the future. Just let me know.
Perhaps you will try to keep in mind that Kim has vascillated
several times between being an overly-vehement, outspoken critic of
the cult and a helpful (both in word ~and~ in deed) cult-defender.
If you believe she cannot be 'turned' again, it is you, Martin, who
is continuing to engage in magical thinking.
Steve A
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry):
>
>>kim baker spent nine months as a 'vicious traitor'
>>who was spit upon and raised as a 'head on a pike'
>>on an altar of delusion--just to slake our own
>>personal beliefs that we'd *never* *ever* do
>>anything like that ourselves.
>
> Spit upon? Give it a rest, Aytch. Don't cast to poor girl in
>bronze. You'd not be helping her with this kind of over-the-edge
>rhetoric, even if you were right.
>
> And, no. There is no way in hell I would ~ever~ do anything like
>that myself. Ever. No-fucking-matter what. I would never again
>submit myself or put myself in a position where I was at the mercy of
>the cult as Kim, for some still unknown reason, did.
Dennis. You're a different person from Kim. Since I've been
around, you've always shown a tendency to duke things out and
take it on the chin.
Kim, on the other hand has been consistent in presenting herself
as someone who didn't seem to possess that inner certainty. You
have your ministry, Dennis; you have A Goal. Kim's goals seemed
less well-defined, which means she had less to keep her anchored
to reality when OSA came calling.
Sure, she shouldn't be canonised for screwing up - hell, I don't
think she'd *want* that - but her contribution counts as much as
yours, Dennis, and you of all people should know what a powerful
hold the tech can have on the mind of someone who's still
vulnerable to its influence.
Hopefully, this experience has cleared the mists in Kim's mind,
and inoculated her against future attempts by OSA to influence
her. She'd be wise (she *is* wise) to keep her head down and stay
out of things like FACTNET, and even avoid posting here, because
she's still likely to be vulnerable to the pressure.
> Please don't make a monument of Kim's weakness. Allow her to go
>off and get strong on her own, without neither our acceptance nor our
>rejection. That, I believe, is the only way she can possibly heal
>from what she has been through.
Now THIS I would agree with. From what I gather, Kim doesn't read
a.r.s., and I presume that she has no other links with
anti-Scieno bodies, apart from the odd email. That is smart. When
she's kicked the Scieno dust from her feet and gone back out into
the world, smelled the roses, felt the sun on her back and got
her life back in gear for a year or two, she *might* just be
ready to kick some clam butt. On the other hand, she might like
the smell of the roses better than the stench of carrion and
bullshit which seem to follow the cult round, and stay in the
garden.
If she does, I won't blame her.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A):
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry):
>>>kim baker spent nine months as a 'vicious traitor'
>>>who was spit upon and raised as a 'head on a pike'
>>>on an altar of delusion--just to slake our own
>>>personal beliefs that we'd *never* *ever* do
>>>anything like that ourselves.
YHN:
>> Spit upon? Give it a rest, Aytch. Don't cast to poor girl in
>>bronze. You'd not be helping her with this kind of over-the-edge
>>rhetoric, even if you were right.
>> And, no. There is no way in hell I would ~ever~ do anything like
>>that myself. Ever. No-fucking-matter what. I would never again
>>submit myself or put myself in a position where I was at the mercy of
>>the cult as Kim, for some still unknown reason, did.
Steve:
>Dennis. You're a different person from Kim. Since I've been
>around, you've always shown a tendency to duke things out and
>take it on the chin.
If that's what it takes, yes.
>Kim, on the other hand has been consistent in presenting herself
>as someone who didn't seem to possess that inner certainty.
Quite the contrary, Steve. From the very beginning she has
portrayed herself as a fearless fighter for freedom who even stood up
against the fascist police in SA who pulled her in and interrogated
her about anti-aparthide activities.
But she didn't break. She didn't betray her friends. I don't
wanna have to go back and fine the posts from 1994 where she
introduced herself this way.
>You
>have your ministry, Dennis; you have A Goal. Kim's goals seemed
>less well-defined, which means she had less to keep her anchored
>to reality when OSA came calling.
True.
>Sure, she shouldn't be canonised for screwing up - hell, I don't
>think she'd *want* that -
We oughtn't take the chance that she does. For her sake.
> but her contribution counts as much as ours, Dennis,
As does that of ~everone~ who posts here.
>and you of all people should know what a powerful
>hold the tech can have on the mind of someone who's still
>vulnerable to its influence.
I do. So she is vulnerable. She is weak. I say do not make a
shrine to her weakness. That's all.
>Hopefully, this experience has cleared the mists in Kim's mind,
>and inoculated her against future attempts by OSA to influence
>her.
If she is willing to place herself at effect of the cult, she will
again be at effect.
>She'd be wise (she *is* wise) to keep her head down and stay
>out of things like FACTNET, and even avoid posting here, because
>she's still likely to be vulnerable to the pressure.
Exactly my point.
>> Please don't make a monument of Kim's weakness. Allow her to go
>>off and get strong on her own, without neither our acceptance nor our
>>rejection. That, I believe, is the only way she can possibly heal
>>from what she has been through.
>
>Now THIS I would agree with. From what I gather, Kim doesn't read
>a.r.s., and I presume that she has no other links with
>anti-Scieno bodies, apart from the odd email. That is smart. When
>she's kicked the Scieno dust from her feet and gone back out into
>the world, smelled the roses, felt the sun on her back and got
>her life back in gear for a year or two, she *might* just be
>ready to kick some clam butt. On the other hand, she might like
>the smell of the roses better than the stench of carrion and
>bullshit which seem to follow the cult round, and stay in the
>garden.
One would hope. We will certainly get the job done without her
involvement.
>If she does, I won't blame her.
I would thank her. And she would, no doubt, thank herself.
Bev
Diane Richardson wrote:
> dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
> >I agree with your post.
> >Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
> What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these
> things as you go along?
I find Deirdre's statement factual. One of the most amusing things in
talking to people in the Co$ or other modern philosophies is the fact that
they will be the first to tell you they are NOT brain-washed and wouldn't
allow themselves to be controlled. If it looks like a duck, walks like
a duck and quacks like a duck . . .
> As Kim Baker herself so aptly stated it, no one was holding a loaded
> gun to her head. Nor was OSA either about to rape, beat, or commit
> incest with her. Kim Baker made her own choices -- now she must live
> with the consequences of those choices.
Believe me, Kim IS living with the consequences of those choices. She
is NOT a "traitor", nor is she an "icon", she is just a person who has
made mistakes in her life which have harmed herself and unfortunately
others. Not every can be as stable and competent as you are, so be
thankful that you, unlike others, are so far above reproach.
All people are individuals, not of the same mental and/or emotional
make-up as each other. Their strengths and their weaknessess vary, and
their ability to be manipulated and/or intimidated vary. Be thankful
you were never in that position. Maybe it would be nice if we could
try to understand each other a little more.
There is a way to "police" the actions of others and the effect those
actions have on others and the purpose of fellow critics, without stomping
that person into the ground.
Beverly
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <322ccf0a...@204.245.3.50>,
Rev. Dennis L Erlich <inF...@primenet.com> wrote:
>ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A):
>YHN:
>>> Spit upon? Give it a rest, Aytch. Don't cast to poor girl in
>>>bronze. You'd not be helping her with this kind of over-the-edge
>>>rhetoric, even if you were right.
in bronze? i doubt it. i think the whole point of
that post was that she had feet of clay.
>>> And, no. There is no way in hell I would ~ever~ do anything like
>>>that myself. Ever. No-fucking-matter what. I would never again
>>>submit myself or put myself in a position where I was at the mercy of
>>>the cult as Kim, for some still unknown reason, did.
i also don't think you'd do what kim did. i don't think
you'd be manipulated with cheap tricks you know in and out
and backwards or tech you used to cram the crammers on.
i also don't think they could threaten you with anything
they haven't already done. where are your buttons? do
you have anything at all to lose at this point? what
will they do? wreck your life more than they did already?
they simply have no 'hook.' those hooks have already
been ripped out carrying flesh with them.
how about twenty or thirty years ago, though? i think
you learned things kim would have had no way at all
to know, and even knowing, no way to have internalized
deeply enough.
i doubt *i* could be tricked by anyone i knew to be
OSA--but could i be tricked by other means? no doubt.
assuming that i am vulnerable to trickery, i am glad
to read accounts of successful trickery, so as to
know what to expect.
*you* have *earned* the right to know these things
at an instinctive level. you paid in blood.
i'd rather some of the more vulnerable posters to
this group *not* have to learn their own weaknesses
this way, through the overweening hubris of assuming
themselves immune.
>>Dennis. You're a different person from Kim. Since I've been
>>around, you've always shown a tendency to duke things out and
>>take it on the chin.
> If that's what it takes, yes.
>>Kim, on the other hand has been consistent in presenting herself
>>as someone who didn't seem to possess that inner certainty.
> Quite the contrary, Steve. From the very beginning she has
>portrayed herself as a fearless fighter for freedom who even stood up
>against the fascist police in SA who pulled her in and interrogated
>her about anti-aparthide activities.
> But she didn't break. She didn't betray her friends. I don't
>wanna have to go back and fine the posts from 1994 where she
>introduced herself this way.
perhaps she didn't cave in to fascist police, regardless
of the threat--did the police know her dreams, desires,
self-confessed weaknesses, and other 'hot buttons?'
to a certain extent, a threat, or even physical torture,
is far less persuasive than lies, trickery and mind
control. torture or threats can get someone to *sign*
a pack of lies to stop the pain. an effective campaign
of manipulation can get someone to *believe* the lies.
contrast the spectacle of a prisoner of war signing
a statement against "imperialist dogs" to that of
andrew milne posting the most vile and repulsive
libels and slanders. the POW just wants no more
spikes stuck under his fingernails. andrew milne
*believes* this shit.
and so did you at some time, dennis.
>>You
>>have your ministry, Dennis; you have A Goal. Kim's goals seemed
>>less well-defined, which means she had less to keep her anchored
>>to reality when OSA came calling.
> True.
>>Sure, she shouldn't be canonised for screwing up - hell, I don't
>>think she'd *want* that -
> We oughtn't take the chance that she does. For her sake.
>> but her contribution counts as much as ours, Dennis,
> As does that of ~everone~ who posts here.
>>and you of all people should know what a powerful
>>hold the tech can have on the mind of someone who's still
>>vulnerable to its influence.
> I do. So she is vulnerable. She is weak. I say do not make a
>shrine to her weakness. That's all.
no, and i hope to god that's not what it looked like
i was doing. but if there *had* to be a shrine to
our collective failures, that's it. don't *ever*
stop looking for *YOUR OWN BUTTONS* and weeding them
out. be very careful when *anyone* seems to be
looking for them and punching them randomly to
find "things that can be said to work."
>>Hopefully, this experience has cleared the mists in Kim's mind,
>>and inoculated her against future attempts by OSA to influence
>>her.
> If she is willing to place herself at effect of the cult, she will
>again be at effect.
yep--and my opinion is that she never should have been
on the board of directors of FACTnet and should get
her shit together seriously, especially her honesty.
self-deception spawns deception of others. i cite
as an example the bullshit story about her attack
on diane. i think she should have just 'fessed up
to that. it's not like she's the only person ever
to feel like saying things like that about diane.
>>She'd be wise (she *is* wise) to keep her head down and stay
>>out of things like FACTNET, and even avoid posting here, because
>>she's still likely to be vulnerable to the pressure.
> Exactly my point.
mine too. i'm *not* suggesting canonizing her--but i
*am* condeming the opposite, of putting her in some
class of 'evil traitors.' it was a flip-flop, certainly
not the first or last we'll see, and i forgive it.
i won't even trust kim baker with anything confidential
for a long time, if ever.
>>> Please don't make a monument of Kim's weakness. Allow her to go
>>>off and get strong on her own, without neither our acceptance nor our
>>>rejection. That, I believe, is the only way she can possibly heal
>>>from what she has been through.
>>Now THIS I would agree with. From what I gather, Kim doesn't read
>>a.r.s., and I presume that she has no other links with
>>anti-Scieno bodies, apart from the odd email. That is smart. When
>>she's kicked the Scieno dust from her feet and gone back out into
>>the world, smelled the roses, felt the sun on her back and got
>>her life back in gear for a year or two, she *might* just be
>>ready to kick some clam butt. On the other hand, she might like
>>the smell of the roses better than the stench of carrion and
>>bullshit which seem to follow the cult round, and stay in the
>>garden.
> One would hope. We will certainly get the job done without her
>involvement.
>>If she does, I won't blame her.
> I would thank her. And she would, no doubt, thank herself.
and btw, i certainly wasn't intending my remarks to be
aimed at you. my recollection of your response was of
a couple posts that were at most slightly contemptuous,
saying something like: "oh, a flip-flop. big surprise!"
you had seen this kind of thing happen endlessly--that's
what i gathered from your tone. to the rest of us, it
was a big shock. it was our *first* flip-flop.
i even gave her a stanza in "Charge of the Clear Brigade"
in revenge for being a paragraph in that bullshit
affidavit--which was legally useless, but certainly
useful in 'enturbulating' ars.
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <dennis....@support.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMizgz3Z/m2/Pgo35AQFL9QH8DBnK4qIvhQyEVvZIqN4M5zGAYcf9WI+j
FPeSxoCcynHoSr2+IiscEB86vmRySJhJx9kKPySdQwV8j6nCI5rgNA==
=H7Ok
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry):
>how about twenty or thirty years ago, though?
To be toadly honest, Aytch, if they had offered me amnesty and my
old position back, without too much groveling (unlikely they would
have held their end of such a bargin) in the first few years after I
left, I might have been suseptible.
There, I admit it.
But I was all alone. Even my friends who had blown or been
declared thought I was over the edge because I no longer believed the
Droppings. I had no internet. The anti-cult groups I ran into were
weird and/or ineffective. I was on my own. And so I was vulnerable.
Lance S. Buckley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <322c0bc4...@192.168.2.1>
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk "Steve A" writes:
] But I wonder how many of us are really aware of our own buttons?
] Sure, we might think that we know where we're vulnerable, but
] like the survey of British drivers where 90% considered
] themselves to be "above-average", we are likely misleading
] ourselves to the extent or nature of what it is gets us going.
I've been waiting for someone to push any button of mine since I
got here. I'm starting to think I haven't got any.
Lance.
- --
http://www.avalon.demon.co.uk/
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Lederer/Vollet, alledged ex-head of B1(UK)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) : J&D : KoX : KbM ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMiy8sijzbaRloMBtAQGoGwP/ZWP2EuBZXXT8j4cCE1iPHgj5ECKivR0L
VDvcqxVRpwcaD21csXYWkbTgB/IX2q8OgcwNBjhDqjZruDEUTXLPBS8b0HZzSjUl
KOSalXrk8Stg4hf+fa5PbQJsC5ZpbEPz/EyIxEKQfIx1rApMpaD2lkzOsNwlpxf+
s4Qbo65qYCE=
=99Ld
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
st...@aimnet.com
In article <50fbrf$5...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) writes:
[snip]
|>
|> kim baker spent nine months as a 'vicious traitor'
|> who was spit upon and raised as a 'head on a pike'
|> on an altar of delusion--just to slake our own
|> personal beliefs that we'd *never* *ever* do
|> anything like that ourselves.
|>
Nah, I signed a bunch of affidavits too, back in
1977. And although I was very much less important
to the GO, the way I remember myself is perhaps
with more loathing.
I signed confessions under duress. I cannot remember all
of what I signed. The duress consisted of promises
to help me and threats to declare me, and lengthy
interrogations while "on the cans," and day after
day I answered questions. Why didn't I just leave? Because
I was a scieno.
And after I did finally leave, I tried to rejoin scientology
again, . . . at least twice, in '79 and again in '80.
Another twist to the story is that when in scientology,
my duties were mainly to recover blown public persons.
The tactics OSA used on Kim B. are extremely similar
to the ones I used to recover blows. Persistence is one
essential element. But the blows always blew again, eventually.
So, people could be manipulated, but I had to stay right
on them, recover them again and again.
About the signed confessions, for whatever reasons, a need
to belong . . . weakness, whatever, I signed and obeyed. And
the little bits of my life that I had left at the time were ruined.
scientology is like this: Imagine a group of beaten, starved,
crazed, naked people dissecting dead bodies as the bodies
move down a conveyor belt. And when any of the beaten, starved,
crazed people fall over dead, the others just pick them up
and plop the newly dead body on the conveyor belt.
That's how scientology is.
The GO asshole in charge was Bruce Hamilton, from the LV GO.
It is possible that the scienos will someday disclose
the notarized confessions I signed. Unless things change,
I already have a lawyer who I hope will see it right to
file suit. I kid you not, OSA.
Steve Whitlatch
swhi...@aimnet.com
--
Honesty cures scientology.
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <50g7bg$3...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@neont.com> wrote:
>dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>>Henry,
>>I agree with your post.
>>Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
>What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these
>things as you go along?
you evidently mean 'making these things *up*' rather than just
'making these things.' that would almost be 'mocking up' now
wouldn't it?
in fact, why have you adopted this annoying habit of waiting
for someone to follow up to one of my posts, then flaming
whoever does so favorably?
instead of just chickenshitting around like this, why don't
you just flame *me*, you bilious old bat?
>I doubt if many people consider lying to betray a friend to his bitter
>enemies "tolerable." Of course, YMMV. :)
i doubt i've ever seen a more disingenuous smiley in
my goddamn life. you should have just put a venomous
rattlesnake there.
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMi0fZXZ/m2/Pgo35AQEWywH+P9qVZS967GqAUVGt3u8b6YMdFECWLtuO
bkXV4U1LJVS1WFF6b0jw7tdj1QPIRnOODmFeFkEI7ixYufGLlCeHBQ==
=On9X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 03 Sep 1996 22:45:03 -0400, Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
> Diane Richardson wrote:
> > dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>
> > >I agree with your post.
> > >Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
> > What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these
> > things as you go along?
>
> I find Deirdre's statement factual. One of the most amusing things in
> talking to people in the Co$ or other modern philosophies is the fact that
> they will be the first to tell you they are NOT brain-washed and wouldn't
> allow themselves to be controlled.
[snip]
Look at CB and Whimpersimper. They are both so independent
minded. They've both even managed to convince even some
critics of this at some point in time (I bought Whip's independent
pose for a while).
But when it comes down to it, they open up and swallow the tech
just like good little scienos. And then turn right around and tell us
how independent they are.
>If it looks like a duck, walks like
> a duck and quacks like a duck . . .
[snip]
CB: "Quack."
Whip" "Quack. Quack!"
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMi2GmSnhWc34xW2VAQGaOgf/V83eHw7Ro0c9PIqI4eh8L4+C/W0IrWLV
qTwny5x0bkoh07Nd4U+kdx1W2awZXaB0zWX6mD3zPToDKQi2tVlvjwLe8l6fAYMH
iIzIbI9RiaBW+SRuQh/eztlKf58dgyhsmMMx8CTxaBKfHVALuvkGVzcKJdNHo0C+
TfoNpRE/7naa1eVIwDM4ey2R9lFySMNbx4/ovDjtR0xeoAb29uEfF/jgRRKmFSLR
E8P6TNAMQrQwQbdd2SrAUDqLTBsql7IQSDeFA5q0OJIfnEKtfNO4NGxj67BNGT3g
6fsziigiVor9Pyzf4Y2ggPxmT9LLTNHLeJzlhFg72KKWy9BG6l9YYw==
=QRn7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs ric...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause
Martin G. V. Hunt
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A):
>
>>But I wonder how many of us are really aware of our own buttons?
>
> Three of us.
>
>>I hope, one day, that Kim feels able to rejoin us here. The fact
>>that she has felt unable to be here with us thanks to the attacks
>>which she has had to endure is _our_ loss.
>
> Oh please! Don't you geddit yet? You are making her a
> poster-child, once again. It was not healthy for Kim to be involved
> in the fray here before, and it is not healthy for her now. This kind
> of idolatry of her inability to stand up to pressure merely encourages
> her to continue in the state of mind which left her vulnerable to the
> flip-flop. It is dangerous for others, as they might trust her beyond
> her ability to live up to their trust. And it is dangerous for Kim,
> in that she is being drawn into areas of personal morality with which
> she has clearly not become equipted to deal.
>
> She subjected ~herself~ to the conditions which she could not
> withstand, and betrayed her friends as a result.
>
> You are doing her no favor at all to make a monument of her
> weakness.
I agree; some people are not cut out for this newsgroup, and I think
she knows that now. What did she say in the continuation of her story,
that this is definitely *not* a therapy group for ex-scns; never a truer
statement was made, unless you go for Cold Mountain/Reality therapy/
shock treatment type stuff. :-)
Anyway, this newsgroup may not have helped Kim, but I've found it
most salubrious. But then, I'm what Kim calls "thick-skinned"; I
never have paid much attention to what others think about me, and I
have no desire to be liked. I like to be happy, but I like truth more,
and fierce debate and flames have never scared me away or bothered
me overly much.
Kim is too weak of a person to be here and experience anything other
than pain. (unlike me; I have a blast here. ;-) )
Martin G. V. Hunt
Steve A (ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk) writes:
> anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
> [much of henry's excellent post snipped]
>
> I have refrained from comment on the Kim Baker situation, partly
> because I never felt that I was in possession of all the facts,
> and partly because I can see in myself many of the weaknesses and
> frailties that Kim (and in all probability every one of us, too)
> has.
>
> That is why this particular phrase from henry strikes such a
> chord with me:
>
>>KNOW YOUR OWN BUTTONS. know what it feels like
>>when they are pushed. do not blame the "icons" of
>>ars for personal failures, or allow yourself to
>>believe that because some ars "icons" are fallible
>>that they are thus "dead agents" unworthy of
>>any kind of respect.
>
> I am sure that many of us would be able to point out what we
> believe to be the "buttons" of other posters...y'know, the things
> that cause the red mist to start and let choler overcome reason.
> We've all seen other people fly off the handle, and we've seen
> some spectacular flamewars erupt as a result.
>
> But I wonder how many of us are really aware of our own buttons?
Excellent question; I named two of my big ones earlier in this
thread in the hopes I can thus overcome them. A weakness has more
control over us when it is unknown and unobserved.
> Sure, we might think that we know where we're vulnerable, but
> like the survey of British drivers where 90% considered
:-) Funny bell curve, that.
> themselves to be "above-average", we are likely misleading
> ourselves to the extent or nature of what it is gets us going.
I think many do, yes.
> Given that we are engaged in debate with a cult whose speciality
> is finding those buttons and pushing them, and especially given
> that many of us will be out on the street next Saturday picketing
> the nut cult, it might be a very good idea to take some time out
> to reflect on our own strengths and weaknesses, and those things
> that we know really hurt us, and might make us react
> inappropriately.
And remember, the buttons aren't just pushed to make people angry!
See WW's picket post where some nut, possibly scn, insults his
clothes; it didn't make him mad, it made him what scn calls
"introvert" about it.
Scns are experts at introverting people.
> Kim has obviously, and painfully, learned what some of her
> weaknesses were. Although the lessons she has had to learn as a
> result of OSA's vicious abuse of her normal and well-intentioned
> human reactions have obviously been extremely unpleasant, she has
> evidently learned a little more about herself, and grown a little
> as a result. We could all learn something from her example, and
> benefit, hopefully without the assistance of OSA.
I have leared a lot from Kim and her experiences, but not with her
as a teacher; I learned by observing.
>>kim baker spent nine months as a 'vicious traitor'
>>who was spit upon and raised as a 'head on a pike'
>>on an altar of delusion--just to slake our own
>>personal beliefs that we'd *never* *ever* do
>>anything like that ourselves.
>>
>>consider that before spitting condemnation at
>>anyone who wavers or disagrees with the supposedly
>>all-holy 'cause.'
>
> I hope, one day, that Kim feels able to rejoin us here. The fact
> that she has felt unable to be here with us thanks to the attacks
> which she has had to endure is _our_ loss.
I don't think Kim should return here; not all people have the same
make-up, and if she's reading this and she still thinks in any tiny way of
me as her mentor any more: stay away; this newsgroup is not good for you,
as it is for me.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) writes:
> dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>
>>Henry,
>
>>I agree with your post.
>
>>Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
>
> What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these
> things as you go along?
It's just a statement; we don't have evidence of everything we say all
the time from double-blind, published, peer-reviewed and replicated
studies all the time, Diane.
If we did, conversations would go something like this: ..
> As Kim Baker herself so aptly stated it, no one was holding a loaded
> gun to her head. Nor was OSA either about to rape, beat, or commit
> incest with her. Kim Baker made her own choices -- now she must live
> with the consequences of those choices.
Cults do not exist then; everyone in them is simply there by choice,
and they can leave whenever they want to (unless they are locked up.)
Hey, what are we doing here? Scientology is a legitimate religion
of choice. :-)
Let's all go for a beer; it's all over. Minds cannot be controlled.
People are totally self-determined posesed of nothing but free will
and choice. Yay!
A beautiful, if somewhat simple world.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
> av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt):
>
>>Riiiight; you would never join a cult. Glad to hear it.
>
> <checks for smiley - none found>
>
> This is a cheap twisting of my words, Martin. I said that, having
> been in and escaped, I would never place myself in a position where I
> was at the mercy of the cult.
Uh-oh; I'm twisting your words again by posting my un-humble opinion.
Bad sign.
And I'm not just "twisting"; I'm cheaply twisting, whatever that means.
Uh-oh; I think I twisted your words again.
Oh, no; you didn't mean that; I'm twisting *that*.
Oh shit, I'm confused. Could you repeat the question?
>>... even if it did set of Dennis' buttons about Kim.
>
> <smiley absent>
>
> If you actually believe, Martin, that this is the depth of my
> caring and is my actual motivation for my most recent attempts to
> assist in Kim's cult recovery, I will refrain from submitting my
> unwelcome opinions on the matter to your cheap ridicule and demeaning
> comments in the future. Just let me know.
Hey, what the fuck do I know? I thought it, I said it. I'm like that;
I can't be something else because it might make people happy. You know
Popeye; I yam what I yam. If I'm an asshole, then so be it. I don't
want to be friends if that means I have to ever stay silent on a single
thing, even once. (with the exception of it creating legal problems;
that I wouldn't do, where I draw the line.)
> Perhaps you will try to keep in mind that Kim has vascillated
> several times between being an overly-vehement, outspoken critic of
> the cult and a helpful (both in word ~and~ in deed) cult-defender.
Yeah; but then, her mind's fucked by a cult. I don't expect better.
> If you believe she cannot be 'turned' again, it is you, Martin, who
> is continuing to engage in magical thinking.
Ho ho; who's putting words in who's mouth now?
Kim can be switched like a light; so can others I know, like Frank.
Hillel
## As Kim Baker herself so aptly stated it, no one was holding a loaded
## gun to her head. Nor was OSA either about to rape, beat, or commit
## incest with her. Kim Baker made her own choices -- now she must live
## with the consequences of those choices.
In article <50jqqn$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Martin G. V. Hunt <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Cults do not exist then; everyone in them is simply there by choice,
>and they can leave whenever they want to (unless they are locked up.)
>Hey, what are we doing here? Scientology is a legitimate religion
>of choice. :-)
If the Church of $cientology will leave the net alone then I'll leave
them alone. I have no desire to save any of the cult members against
his will.
If the Co$ will not leave the net alone then I'll use all legal means
to warn victims and potential victims about the dangers of $cientology.
IMO that's the honest way to reduce the cult power.
Hillel
##Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
In article <50g7bg$3...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@neont.com> wrote:
>What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these
>things as you go along?
I'd put a similar idea in a different way.
If two people have a similar weakness, but one of them is aware of
that and the other claims that it does not exist then it is usually
easier to blackmail the one who claims that the weakness does not exist.
Can we agree on this one?
(This is not a rhetorical question; I'm interested in your perspective.)
Deirdre
In article <50jqqn$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
> Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) writes:
> > dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
> >>Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
> >
> > What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these
> > things as you go along?
>
> It's just a statement; we don't have evidence of everything we say all
> the time from double-blind, published, peer-reviewed and replicated
> studies all the time, Diane.
Well, that's one way of putting it.
Another way of putting it would be that Diane, insecure about what I said
and what it implied about herself, lashed out defensively.
Still another way of putting it is that she is prey to double-blind,
published, peer-reviewed studies and can't think for herself without
falling back on them. Hint: not every aspect of life is covered by such
studies *nor can it be.*
Then again, she does hold opinions that are not supported by studies, such
as her views on Free Zoners.
_Deirdre
Steve A
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A):
>
>Steve:
>>Dennis. You're a different person from Kim. Since I've been
>>around, you've always shown a tendency to duke things out and
>>take it on the chin.
>
> If that's what it takes, yes.
You can say that again! No, don't...
>
>>Kim, on the other hand has been consistent in presenting herself
>>as someone who didn't seem to possess that inner certainty.
>
> Quite the contrary, Steve. From the very beginning she has
>portrayed herself as a fearless fighter for freedom who even stood up
>against the fascist police in SA who pulled her in and interrogated
>her about anti-aparthide activities.
That might be the persona she was *trying* to present, but the
picture I got was of someone who craved acceptance...someone who
didn't have that certain something at the core of her being that
WAS Kim, and because of that deficiency was vulnerable to others
trying to exert an influence on her.
> But she didn't break. She didn't betray her friends. I don't
>wanna have to go back and fine the posts from 1994 where she
>introduced herself this way.
You don't need to - I can remember them. What I'm saying is that
that is the person she wanted to be, not what she was. I'm sure
she was working towards being that person, but (and I speak as
someone who has had to deal with similar defects in my own
character) it's not easy, although it *is* easy to believe you're
further down that road than you are, until something happens to
make you realise the reality of the situation. It's a hard,
depressing, and thankless process - all the time, you're being
made aware that you're not there yet, and progress seems to be
very slow. From reading Kim's most recent stuff, it looks like
she's heading in the right direction.
Sure, she shouldn't be entrusted with anything confidential or
important - that would be risky, not to mention unfair to her,
but surely we can cut her some slack?
>>You
>>have your ministry, Dennis; you have A Goal. Kim's goals seemed
>>less well-defined, which means she had less to keep her anchored
>>to reality when OSA came calling.
>
> True.
>
>>Sure, she shouldn't be canonised for screwing up - hell, I don't
>>think she'd *want* that -
>
> We oughtn't take the chance that she does. For her sake.
Doesn't mean we must knock her back every time she shows up. I'm
not a Christian, Dennis, but the concept of forgiveness that
crops up a lot in that religion is one which I think is
applicable here. Forgiveness, of course, is not the same as
letting someone walk all over you a second time - that's
dumbness.
>> but her contribution counts as much as ours, Dennis,
>
> As does that of ~everone~ who posts here.
true fact :-)
>
>>and you of all people should know what a powerful
>>hold the tech can have on the mind of someone who's still
>>vulnerable to its influence.
>
> I do. So she is vulnerable. She is weak. I say do not make a
>shrine to her weakness. That's all.
I agree. But I don't see henry or me doing that. Warning heeded,
nonetheless.
>>Hopefully, this experience has cleared the mists in Kim's mind,
>>and inoculated her against future attempts by OSA to influence
>>her.
>
> If she is willing to place herself at effect of the cult, she will
>again be at effect.
What do *you* think she needs to do in order to continue to
improve, and get further away from the sort of state of mind
where the cult can continue to abuse her (and anyway I though we
were dispensing with all this cultspeak :->)?
[snipola]
>>ready to kick some clam butt. On the other hand, she might like
>>the smell of the roses better than the stench of carrion and
>>bullshit which seem to follow the cult round, and stay in the
>>garden.
>
> One would hope. We will certainly get the job done without her
>involvement.
>
>>If she does, I won't blame her.
>
> I would thank her. And she would, no doubt, thank herself.
Kim, today, is a broken reed. She would be making a big mistake
if she were to get involved right now.
I don't think we can or should write her off as a valuable
addition to the critical effort at some later stage, should she
feel up to it, for (hopefully) the right reasons.
--
ObURLS:
Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Harassment: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html
--
SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12
Jan Groenveld
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) writes:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>[original article which barely responds to the quoted
>material]
>i think that kim baker showed true courage in
>revealing why she betrayed FACTnet, and that
>others should think long and hard before
>condemning her action as that of a vile OSA
>plant.
>i also think that this makes it very clear
>why we should not even trust each other--
>because while non-ex-scienos do not have
>their 'buttons' in their PC folders, that
>we *all* have weaknesses which can be exploited
>and that to fault someone with those weaknesses
>and thus discredit them is utterly bogus.
>KNOW YOUR OWN BUTTONS. know what it feels like
>when they are pushed. do not blame the "icons" of
>ars for personal failures, or allow yourself to
>believe that because some ars "icons" are fallible
>that they are thus "dead agents" unworthy of
>any kind of respect.
>kim baker spent nine months as a 'vicious traitor'
>who was spit upon and raised as a 'head on a pike'
>on an altar of delusion--just to slake our own
>personal beliefs that we'd *never* *ever* do
>anything like that ourselves.
>consider that before spitting condemnation at
>anyone who wavers or disagrees with the supposedly
>all-holy 'cause.'
>h
EXACTLY! There but for the same circumstances go any of us!
We are and were not in Kims shoes. We did not have Kim's emotions,
circumstances etc.
I think it has taken Kim reaql courage to come out and tlak about her
experience. She has taken responsibility for what happened and isn't
making excuses ....
To everyone .... Give her a go .... encourage her and help her reach the
strength you who are not longer able to be so intimidated have reached.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6
>Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
>iQBVAwUBMisyoXZ/m2/Pgo35AQGdFAIAnCvoMcTpXF2Ypr0CdQ3BlLI/kU4sCC0u
>/SuV+nwHT55e/o5NY0NEfsfk/t8Rmzhw4KvR/e7CX/B3eSmzHzxP2w==
>=Uzag
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
_--_|\ Jan Groenveld Internet: py10...@student.uq.edu.au
/ OZ \<--- Brisbane, Oz HomePage: http://student.uq.edu.au/~py101663
\_.--._/THE MOST DANGEROUS LIE IS THAT WHICH MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE TRUTH
GEMMAMP1
Dennis wrote:
> And, no. There is no way in hell I would ~ever~ do anything like
>that myself. Ever. No-fucking-matter what. I would never again
>submit myself or put myself in a position where I was at the mercy of
>the cult as Kim, for some still unknown reason, did.
I don't know how you can compare your situation to Kim Baker's. You have
been out of Scientology for a very long time -- more than 10 years --
correct? Kim had only been out a few months and was still very
vulnerable. The unknown reason is called mind control -- and floating
(the re-experiencing of the cult mindset that occurs in recently out
former cult members when triggered).
Monica Pignotti
GEMMAMP1
Deirdre wrote:
> Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) writes:
> > dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
> >>Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of
all.
> >
> > What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these
> > things as you go along?
>
> It's just a statement; we don't have evidence of everything we say all
> the time from double-blind, published, peer-reviewed and replicated
> studies all the time, Diane.
Diane, would you like to suggest an ethical way to set up such an
experimental, double-blind study. If you can, you will probably win a
Nobel prize. Such an experiment would be grossly unethical. So we have
to go on the information we have, which is clinical experience of people
who have worked with people in cults and their families. That is the best
we can do right now. To dismiss the entire topic just because such
studies do not exist, is ridiculous.
One story from my clinical practice that illustrate's Deirdre's point:
The father of a someone who I successfully exit counselled from
Scientology told me that one year before his son got involved in the CofS
there was a TV show on about cults that he came upon when he was
channel-flipping. He told me that he flipped right by it, thinking that
his son was way too "smart" to ever get involved in a cult. One year
later his son was not only a clam but a full-fledged sea org member. And
his son is, indeed, very bright. I hear stories about this all the time,
and no, they are not "proof" but they sure ought to make make a person
think twice who thinks that they are too smart to get involved in a cult.
Monica Pignotti
Dan McKinnon
All I know is that many critics here are ex-$cientologists.
And however many years ago, when they were in the cult, they would
have hated me for what I do here!
They would have hated ME! Because I criticized their "religion".
and its founder. For excercising my free speech rights in their
direction, as it were.
But they changed. Something clicked. Over some period of time, they
confronted themselves with a truth they could no longer live with.
The process happened once.
Maybe, or maybe not, it could happen again.
I don't hate them for what they _were_.
I like them, to varying degrees, for who they _are_.
I never felt that _I_ had to forgive them for what they _were_.
They've had to learn to forgive themselves, for what they were, and
what they did to themselves and others, following somebody else's
path.
_They've_ had to learn to like _themselves_ - some are still
trying.
If you don't like yourself, you probably don't like other people
very much, and it shows.
If people are going to castigate Kim for getting fooled twice,
one more time than them, should _I_ get mad at the people who were
fooled _once_?
I say forgive, yourself and others, but don't forget. If you
forget, you won't learn.
Dan
Diane Richardson
Martin Hunt writes:
Cults do not exist then; everyone in them is simply there by choice,
and they can leave whenever they want to (unless they are locked up.)
Actually, Martin, I think you'll find that such an opinion
is the general consensus in the U.S. courts at the present
time. Whether we agree with it or not, society has taken a
definite turn towards "personal responsibility" in such
matters. This goes along with the general trend in American
society to get the government out of people's personal
lives -- the whole conservative/libertarian agenda. Larry
Wollersheim's lawsuit against the cult would have ended
quite differently if it were to be litigated in the
atmosphere prevalent in today's courts.
Additionally, it is the general consensus among mental health
professionals as well. Whether any of us care to admit it
or not, Margaret Singer and her supporters are most
definitely in the minority in accepting the concept of cult
mind control. Marc Galanter and others who represent the
APA's viewpoint reject the notion of "brainwashing" and have
solid evidence to support their opinions (unlike Dr. Singer).
Hey, what are we doing here? Scientology is a legitimate religion
of choice. :-)
I don't know what you're doing here, Martin. I'm here
because the cult has threatened intellectual freedom on
the net by abusing intellectual property law. Whether
Scientology[tm] is considered a "legitimate" religion or
not has nothing to do with why I follow this newsgroup;
it's their threat of abridging *my* freedom of speech
to which I object.
It isn't safe to assume that all critics share common
goals. I realize that many people have been hurt by the
CoS and many other destructive cults. But I don't see
it as my job to protect people from themselves--otherwise,
I'd be spending my life trying to convince people that
they're making foolish decisions.
Diane Richardson
(posting from my Freenet account)
ref...@neont.com
Martin G. V. Hunt
Steve A (ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk) writes:
> inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>
>>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry):
>>
>>>kim baker spent nine months as a 'vicious traitor'
>>>who was spit upon and raised as a 'head on a pike'
>>>on an altar of delusion--just to slake our own
>>>personal beliefs that we'd *never* *ever* do
>>>anything like that ourselves.
>>
>> Spit upon? Give it a rest, Aytch. Don't cast to poor girl in
>>bronze. You'd not be helping her with this kind of over-the-edge
>>rhetoric, even if you were right.
>>
>> And, no. There is no way in hell I would ~ever~ do anything like
>>that myself. Ever. No-fucking-matter what. I would never again
>>submit myself or put myself in a position where I was at the mercy of
>>the cult as Kim, for some still unknown reason, did.
>
> Dennis. You're a different person from Kim. Since I've been
> around, you've always shown a tendency to duke things out and
> take it on the chin.
>
> Kim, on the other hand has been consistent in presenting herself
> as someone who didn't seem to possess that inner certainty. You
> have your ministry, Dennis; you have A Goal. Kim's goals seemed
> less well-defined, which means she had less to keep her anchored
> to reality when OSA came calling.
And - very important - she wasn't long out.
I came here after 5 years of being out; she was only out a very short time
when she first contacted me.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
> anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry):
>
>>how about twenty or thirty years ago, though?
>
> To be toadly honest, Aytch, if they had offered me amnesty and my
> old position back, without too much groveling (unlikely they would
> have held their end of such a bargin) in the first few years after I
> left, I might have been suseptible.
>
> There, I admit it.
>
> But I was all alone. Even my friends who had blown or been
> declared thought I was over the edge because I no longer believed the
> Droppings. I had no internet. The anti-cult groups I ran into were
> weird and/or ineffective. I was on my own. And so I was vulnerable.
As Kim was alone in South Africa; she tmentions just that poin in her
update.
Deirdre
Well, it's the oldest literary theme in the book (which, since she has
claimed to be a fiction writer, I would expect Diane to know): hubris and
the downfall of the proud.
It isn't smarts, but pride that is the problem: pride in one's wisdom and
intelligence.
_Deirdre
In article <50l7nu$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1)
wrote:
> One story from my clinical practice that illustrate's Deirdre's point:
> The father of a someone who I successfully exit counselled from
> Scientology told me that one year before his son got involved in the CofS
> there was a TV show on about cults that he came upon when he was
> channel-flipping. He told me that he flipped right by it, thinking that
> his son was way too "smart" to ever get involved in a cult. One year
> later his son was not only a clam but a full-fledged sea org member. And
> his son is, indeed, very bright. I hear stories about this all the time,
> and no, they are not "proof" but they sure ought to make make a person
> think twice who thinks that they are too smart to get involved in a cult.
Bernie
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>Steve A (ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk) writes:
>> Dennis. You're a different person from Kim. Since I've been
>> around, you've always shown a tendency to duke things out and
>> take it on the chin.
>>
>> Kim, on the other hand has been consistent in presenting herself
>> as someone who didn't seem to possess that inner certainty. You
>> have your ministry, Dennis; you have A Goal. Kim's goals seemed
>> less well-defined, which means she had less to keep her anchored
>> to reality when OSA came calling.
>
>And - very important - she wasn't long out.
Yes, very important.
>I came here after 5 years of being out; she was only out a very short time
>when she first contacted me.
I was out for 16 years when I came in here, which is more than enough
to get a certain grip and withstand some challenge. I wonder, though,
indeed, what effect would it have for someone to come into ars while
still in the troubled area of in between. It takes quite a while
before one can start to reinforce his new mindset, and it's easy for
one to "fall back". So it's not really fair to compare someone coming
to ars in a "between-life" state of mind and someone who had time to
strengthen his new position.
---------
Bernie
*Call 1-888-LUV-XENU now!
*RPF'ers are standing by 24 hours a day
(Jeff Jacobsen)
Bernie
ao...@yfn.ysu.edu (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Martin Hunt writes:
>Cults do not exist then; everyone in them is simply there by choice,
>and they can leave whenever they want to (unless they are locked up.)
> Actually, Martin, I think you'll find that such an opinion
> is the general consensus in the U.S. courts at the present
> time. Whether we agree with it or not, society has taken a
> definite turn towards "personal responsibility" in such
> matters. This goes along with the general trend in American
> society to get the government out of people's personal
> lives -- the whole conservative/libertarian agenda. Larry
> Wollersheim's lawsuit against the cult would have ended
> quite differently if it were to be litigated in the
> atmosphere prevalent in today's courts.
> Additionally, it is the general consensus among mental health
> professionals as well. Whether any of us care to admit it
> or not, Margaret Singer and her supporters are most
> definitely in the minority in accepting the concept of cult
> mind control. Marc Galanter and others who represent the
> APA's viewpoint reject the notion of "brainwashing" and have
> solid evidence to support their opinions (unlike Dr. Singer).
I agree with you 100% on all points above, Diane, and am glad to learn
that it is a general trend among the legal and psychological circles.
The cult mind control does have a strong influence, but not to the
point of relieving someone from his responsibility in the matter.
---------
Bernie
*All that is necessary for the triumph of evil
*is that good people do nothing
GEMMAMP1
Hillel wrote:
>If two people have a similar weakness, but one of them is aware of
>that and the other claims that it does not exist then it is usually
>easier to blackmail the one who claims that the weakness does not exist.
>Can we agree on this one?
>(This is not a rhetorical question; I'm interested in your perspective.)
Yes, I would agree, but I would also have that everyone who is human and
has a mind has this "weakness". We all have buttons that can be pushed,
particularly if a person is in a time of transition, has had a loss of
some kind or has been thrown off balance in any way and who hasn't ever
had that kind of experience.
What I seem to be hearing from some people is "I am strong and Kim is
weak." It is just not that simple. We are all weak at times and it is
only when we get to know ourselves and to recognize what those weaknesses
or buttons are and how these can be manipulated by cults and others that
we can become strong.
It takes strength to admit that we are vulnerable.
From what I have read of Kim's writings she seems to have come to a better
understanding of this than most of the population. I'd say if other
people who have never been in cults had even half of her understanding,
we'd be well on our way to combatting the problem of destructive cults.
Monica Pignotti
Diane Richardson
Monica Pignotti (gemm...@aol.com) writes:
Diane, would you like to suggest an ethical way to set up such an
experimental, double-blind study. If you can, you will probably win a
Nobel prize. Such an experiment would be grossly unethical. So we have
to go on the information we have, which is clinical experience of people
who have worked with people in cults and their families. That is the best
we can do right now. To dismiss the entire topic just because such
studies do not exist, is ridiculous.
Surely, as a social scientist with a master's degree, you're
not suggesting that the *only* way to test such a statement
is with a double-blind study, Monica?
There are a number of other investigative methods put to
use by social scientists, mental health experts, and others,
to test the validity of such statements. Surely you've
read the works of Marc Galanter, M.D., of New York University?
A number of people who have "worked with people in cults"
have reached conclusions that directly contradict the
statements you have made here. Dr. Galanter's series of
studies done with Moonies, published in the American Journal
of Psychiatry and Archives of Psychiatry, are classics in
the field of cult studies -- which, by the way, includes
a large body of peer-reviewed research in spite of your
claims to the contrary.
Stories from your "clinical practice" are nothing more than
anecdotal evidence. The anecdote you have provided does not
even address the question I posed. I have not claimed that
some people are too "smart" to be lured into cults -- I
don't believe that intelligence has anything at all to do
with the attraction some people feel towards cults.
Deirdre made that claim that "Those who believe they
cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all." I
disagree with that statement.
Do you have any evidence to prove that people who believe
they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all,
Monica? Right -- I didn't think you did.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
Deirdre wrote:
In article <50jqqn$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
> Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) writes:
> > dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
> >>Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
> >
> > What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these
> > things as you go along?
>
> It's just a statement; we don't have evidence of everything we say all
> the time from double-blind, published, peer-reviewed and replicated
> studies all the time, Diane.
Well, that's one way of putting it.
Another way of putting it would be that Diane, insecure about what I said
and what it implied about herself, lashed out defensively.
I was not lashing out defensively. It's vaguely amusing
to find you characterizing my statement in that manner.
I did not even think to consider your statement in a
personal manner, let alone become insecure because of what
it implied about me.
Has this newsgroup become corrupted by Margelis-style
armchair psychoanalyzing or what? You certainly don't
know enough about me to reach any informed opinions about
my psyche, Deirdre. I don't claim to have an informed
opinion of yours.
Still another way of putting it is that she is prey to double-blind,
published, peer-reviewed studies and can't think for herself without
falling back on them. Hint: not every aspect of life is covered by such
studies *nor can it be.*
Perhaps you should read the attributions once again.
Martin Hunt brought up peer-reviewed, double blind studies;
I did not. I made my comment about your statement based
on my own knowledge of people.
I know some people who claim they cannot be the victim
of "mind control." Guess what? These people are right.
They know themselves well and are savvy enough to refuse
to answer a door when OSA comes calling.
I know other people who claim they cannot be the victim
of "mind control," but they're wrong. These people
generally have a very distorted image of themselves and
a very weak character. These are the kind of people who
not only open the door to OSA but continue on for days
afterwards cooperating with them.
OSA came calling at Dennis Erlich's front door. He
refused to speak with them. OSA came calling at Arnie
Lerma's front door. He refused to speak with them as
well.
I object to making generalized statements about *all*
people. As a writer you should be aware that people are
far too complex and variable to fall into neat categories
and "all or nothing" statements. My response to your
remark had nothing to do with peer-reviewed studies.
It is Martin Hunt's (and others') distorted net view
of me that cause you to think that's what I meant.
Then again, she does hold opinions that are not supported by studies, such
as her views on Free Zoners.
And just what *are* my views on Free Zoners, Deirdre?
Do you feel competent to speak for me in that regard?
When was the last time we talked about the Free Zone?
How thoroughly did we discuss the subject?
Or are you once again jumping to conclusions about what
I think and don't think, believe and don't believe, feel
and don't feel?
The level of Margelis-inspired armchair psychoanalyzing
that goes on in this newsgroup is quite amusing. I'm,
flattered that so many people find me such a fascinating
subject.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Steve A
"Lance S. Buckley" <la...@avalon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In article <322c0bc4...@192.168.2.1>
> ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk "Steve A" writes:
>
>] But I wonder how many of us are really aware of our own buttons?
>] Sure, we might think that we know where we're vulnerable, but
>] like the survey of British drivers where 90% considered
>] themselves to be "above-average", we are likely misleading
>] ourselves to the extent or nature of what it is gets us going.
>
>I've been waiting for someone to push any button of mine since I
>got here. I'm starting to think I haven't got any.
That hat of yours? Stinks.
Working?
--
ObURLS:
Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Harassment: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html
Fools, losers, and mugs: http://www.scientology.org
--
SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12
My other hat's a fedora, too. And it's Black.
IN MEMORIAM: Richard Collins, victim of the criminal cult of Scientology
IN MEMORIAM: anon.penet.fi, rema...@utopia.hacktic.nl, victims of the
criminal cult of Scientology.
IN MEMORIAM: , victim of the criminal cult of
>Scientology.
Joe Harrington
I had an opportunity to meet Kim this past summer. And indeed I did
find her to be less than a pillar of strength and human perfection.
But I'll take her warmth and compassion over articulate "intelligence"
and mean-spirited arrogance anyday.
"The Rules for being Human:
8. Others are only mirrors of you. You cannot love or hate
something about another unless it reflects something you love or
hate in yourself."
Joe
Deirdre
But Kim is *alive* in ways I haven't seen in very many other people
though. She is vulnerable in a way that brings people to protect her. This
is an almost instinctive reaction, particularly in person.
_Deirdre
In article <50no9k$9...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Joe Harrington
<joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I had an opportunity to meet Kim this past summer. And indeed I did
> find her to be less than a pillar of strength and human perfection.
> But I'll take her warmth and compassion over articulate "intelligence"
> and mean-spirited arrogance anyday.
h3
In article <50nj7c$1...@news.ysu.edu>, ao...@yfn.ysu.edu (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
[clip]
Dr. Galanter's series of
> studies done with Moonies, published in the American Journal
> of Psychiatry and Archives of Psychiatry, are classics in
> the field of cult studies
i know i have read something about these studies, but i
can't remember the general conclusions he came to. i would
think it relevant if you had a paragraph or two summarizing
his findings at hand.
-see...@ix.netcom.com
please?
Keith Bennett
hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: We are dealing with a subject as overwhelming to the individual as
>: drug addiction.
>
>I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Not only that, but I
>very strongly suspect that when the brain pathways are fully worked out
>it will be seen that compulsive gambling, and cult infatuation activate
>the same pathways that addictive drugs do.
>
Not exactly... from what I have seen, drugs tend to short circut
normal processes. For example, when a smoker takes a puff, the
nictoteine triggers the reward botton.
Puff - I've been good
Puff - I've been good
Or so I have been told.
Lance S. Buckley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <322ea3e...@192.168.2.1>
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk "Steve A" writes:
] That hat of yours? Stinks.
]
] Working?
It was fine before you sat on it.
Anyway, after a while you don't notice the smell any more.
Next!
Lance.
- --
http://www.avalon.demon.co.uk/
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Lederer/Vollet, alledged ex-head of B1(UK)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) : J&D : KoX : KbM ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMi+Y0CjzbaRloMBtAQHY2wP/YpEp0/pJAiK7kOPYccCPhiJu11qYTZ/2
XliQKWRa7aDsugXHKVak/vfFb7vIERKfecZgSLwRa6xj62YQbDEBYOv4s4eN8L68
AK1uP2gKxQf+4UBqfqWsFxiq2A3pcizqX4271PK6wOe5Cd+ufdo/h/I0jxmYA7Mc
Ud/iwAfZrPY=
=c6/E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James J. Lippard
In article <50jrcs$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> like the survey of British drivers where 90% considered
>
There are a few REALLY bad drivers, I guess.
>> themselves to be "above-average", we are likely misleading
>> ourselves to the extent or nature of what it is gets us going.
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A):
>From reading Kim's most recent stuff, it looks like
>she's heading in the right direction.
I toadly agree.
>but surely we can cut her some slack?
First she has to cut ~herself~ some slack and do some private
healing.
>Doesn't mean we must knock her back every time she shows up. I'm
>not a Christian, Dennis, but the concept of forgiveness that
>crops up a lot in that religion is one which I think is
>applicable here. Forgiveness, of course, is not the same as
>letting someone walk all over you a second time - that's
>dumbness.
We are dealing with a subject as overwhelming to the individual as
drug addiction.
>What do *you* think she needs to do in order to continue to
>improve, and get further away from the sort of state of mind
>where the cult can continue to abuse her (and anyway I though we
>were dispensing with all this cultspeak :->)?
The key phrase is 'get further away', but I don't see our
distressed heroine taking my advice seriously.
>Kim, today, is a broken reed. She would be making a big mistake
>if she were to get involved right now.
Precisely and only my point.
>I don't think we can or should write her off as a valuable
>addition to the critical effort at some later stage, should she
>feel up to it, for (hopefully) the right reasons.
When she can be her own person, no matter what.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
GEMMAMP1
Diane Richardson wrote:
Additionally, it is the general consensus among mental health
professionals as well. Whether any of us care to admit it
or not, Margaret Singer and her supporters are most
definitely in the minority in accepting the concept of cult
mind control. Marc Galanter and others who represent the
APA's viewpoint reject the notion of "brainwashing" and have
solid evidence to support their opinions (unlike Dr. Singer).
What solid evidence? Specific references, please. I haven't seen any.
It is not, by any means, the "general consensus" of mental health
professionals -- the subject remains very controversial with people on
both sides of the issue. Drs. Robert Jay Lifton and Louis Jolyon West, to
mention a few, are also on the side of Dr. Singer.
Furthermore, brainwashing and mind control are NOT the same thing.
Brainwashing is changing a person's beliefs through physical force, while
mind control is done without physical force.
The truth is that an experiment to prove the existence of mind control
would be unethical, since people would have to be randomly assigned to
cult groups. One of the experiments that came closest to this, was the
Milgrim Experiment. Someone recently posted a graph from this, which was
quite dramatic in how far people would go to obey an authority figure, as
opposed to how far a control group predicted they would go. I wish I
still had that graph, but I lost it when my system crashed a few months
ago. Does anyone who knows what I'm referring to still have it?
If someone can be that obedient in a laboratory experiment such as
Milgrim's, then how much more obedient could they be made to be in a
high-pressure group situation? Believe me, I know.
Monica Pignotti
Keith Henson
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) wrote:
[snip]
: We are dealing with a subject as overwhelming to the individual as
: drug addiction.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Not only that, but I
very strongly suspect that when the brain pathways are fully worked out
it will be seen that compulsive gambling, and cult infatuation activate
the same pathways that addictive drugs do.
Keith Henson
Steve A
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>
>Steve A (ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk) writes:
>> Kim, on the other hand has been consistent in presenting herself
>> as someone who didn't seem to possess that inner certainty. You
>> have your ministry, Dennis; you have A Goal. Kim's goals seemed
>> less well-defined, which means she had less to keep her anchored
>> to reality when OSA came calling.
>
>And - very important - she wasn't long out.
>
>I came here after 5 years of being out; she was only out a very short time
>when she first contacted me.
I hadn't realised that - that's very significant.
Hud Nordin
In article <hkhenson...@netcom.com> hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) writes:
>I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Not only that, but I
>very strongly suspect that when the brain pathways are fully worked out
>it will be seen that compulsive gambling, and cult infatuation activate
>the same pathways that addictive drugs do.
It's only a matter of time before the psychiatrists develop a drug that
will dissolve the craving of cult addiction.
Take two and call me in the morning.
--
Hud Nordin, Cybernetic Arts, Post Office Box 2066, Sunnyvale, California 94087
Steve A
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>
>Steve A (ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk) writes:
>> I hope, one day, that Kim feels able to rejoin us here. The fact
>> that she has felt unable to be here with us thanks to the attacks
>> which she has had to endure is _our_ loss.
>
>I don't think Kim should return here; not all people have the same
>make-up, and if she's reading this and she still thinks in any tiny way of
>me as her mentor any more: stay away; this newsgroup is not good for you,
>as it is for me.
I agree. Not for now, perhaps. Maybe in a couple of years. She's
got a life to be getting on with, and I sincerely hope that she
can find some happiness.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Diane Richardson (ao...@yfn.ysu.edu) writes:
> Martin Hunt writes:
>
>" Cults do not exist then; everyone in them is simply there by choice,
> and they can leave whenever they want to (unless they are locked up.) "
>
> Actually, Martin, I think you'll find that such an opinion
> is the general consensus in the U.S. courts at the present
> time. Whether we agree with it or not, society has taken a
> definite turn towards "personal responsibility" in such
> matters. This goes along with the general trend in American
> society to get the government out of people's personal
> lives -- the whole conservative/libertarian agenda. Larry
> Wollersheim's lawsuit against the cult would have ended
> quite differently if it were to be litigated in the
> atmosphere prevalent in today's courts.
Well, perhaps that's a good thing, a necessary thing, that somehow builds
self-esteem or strokes egos. My concern with such an attitude is that if
there is such a thing as control of this type over people through some
physchological manipulation techniques (an arguable thing, I'll grant),
then sticking our collective heads in the ground and ignoring it will
not give us more free will and self-determination, but less.
> Additionally, it is the general consensus among mental health
> professionals as well.
I don't know about that, if that's true or not. Has a large survey been
done on this, or is that your opinion?
> Whether any of us care to admit it
> or not, Margaret Singer and her supporters are most
> definitely in the minority in accepting the concept of cult
> mind control.
She hasn't so much "accepted" the concept as helped to build it. I
have no idea if she's in the minority or not; I think many therapists
will indeed treat cult victims for the stresses they've gone through,
instead of telling them it's their fault for being such idiots and
getting sucked into a cult. But who knows? Maybe a few quacks out
there would try such a "cold mountain" type treatment.
> Marc Galanter and others who represent the
> APA's viewpoint reject the notion of "brainwashing" and have
> solid evidence to support their opinions (unlike Dr. Singer).
He's saying the mind cannot be influenced by environment? Bizarre. But
then, the world is made up of all types, and a Phd doesn't mean the
person's not a looney.
>" Hey, what are we doing here? Scientology is a legitimate religion
> of choice. :-) "
>
> I don't know what you're doing here, Martin.
You should by now. But then, what do I know; I've only been there and done
that. We should listen to you tell us what we experieced; you're a smart
peson.
> I'm here
> because the cult has threatened intellectual freedom on
> the net by abusing intellectual property law. Whether
> Scientology[tm] is considered a "legitimate" religion or
> not has nothing to do with why I follow this newsgroup;
> it's their threat of abridging *my* freedom of speech
> to which I object.
Understandable.
With some of us, it goes a bit deeper.
Is this were you tell me what an idiot I was for "joining" a cult? :-)
> It isn't safe to assume that all critics share common
> goals.
Who does? I doubt many here understand me or my complaint; those who
do do, and those who don't have their own path to take, which is fine.
I sometimes wish they would *take* that path, though, instead of throwing
sticks and stones all over my path.
Your goal has something to do with free speech and the cult; how can
you best achieve that goal?
Slamming Paulette? Ranting and railing against Monica? Or going after
the fucking cult?
Just a thot, sort of a novel idea; focus on your goal and aim straight
for it...don't bother with the side issues of blaming the victims, etc. :-)
> I realize that many people have been hurt by the
> CoS and many other destructive cults. But I don't see
> it as my job to protect people from themselves--otherwise,
> I'd be spending my life trying to convince people that
> they're making foolish decisions.
So, would you consider fighting for free speech and the fact the cult
is trying to limit it? Or would that only be protecting people from
themselves as well?
--
Cogito, ergo sum. "This is one of the curious traits wogs possess that
I love the most. They don't perceive subtly different degrees of gross
oppression all that well." - Dennis Erlich.
h3
In article <50ljke$5...@news.ysu.edu>, ao...@yfn.ysu.edu (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>Martin Hunt writes:
>
>Cults do not exist then; everyone in them is simply there by choice,
>and they can leave whenever they want to (unless they are locked up.)
>
> Actually, Martin, I think you'll find that such an opinion
> is the general consensus in the U.S. courts at the present
> time. Whether we agree with it or not, society has taken a
> definite turn towards "personal responsibility" in such
> matters. This goes along with the general trend in American
> society to get the government out of people's personal
> lives -- the whole conservative/libertarian agenda. Larry
> Wollersheim's lawsuit against the cult would have ended
> quite differently if it were to be litigated in the
> atmosphere prevalent in today's courts.
this statement seems a bit presumptive to me. his case might
also have been argued a bit differently. fraud, deceit, actual
damage, malfeasance will always be litigable, no matter the
extent of government involvment in people's lives.
>
[clip]
>
> It isn't safe to assume that all critics share common
> goals. I realize that many people have been hurt by the
> CoS and many other destructive cults. But I don't see
> it as my job to protect people from themselves--otherwise,
> I'd be spending my life trying to convince people that
> they're making foolish decisions.
as you say, each has his own goals. i'm not trying to
protect people from themselves, but i am trying to protect
them from banal and entrapping influences not different in
many ways from drug addiction, organized crime, or environmental
hazards. playing a part in helping people avoid foolish decisions,
through information, education, proscription of fraudulent activities
*is* what it's all about, at least for me, and it's not my life's
work. i've simply decided that when i see a mess in my corner of
the world, i ought to pitch in and help clean it up. and scientology
creates lots of messes.
GEMMAMP1
Diane writes:
Surely, as a social scientist with a master's degree, you're
not suggesting that the *only* way to test such a statement
is with a double-blind study, Monica?
No, I'm saying that its the only way to conclusively prove a cause and
effect relationship between cults and mind control.
There are a number of other investigative methods put to
use by social scientists, mental health experts, and others,
to test the validity of such statements. Surely you've
read the works of Marc Galanter, M.D., of New York University?
Yes I have read his studies and they're loaded with flaws. In the first
place, one that I read was done at the site of a Moonie indoctrination
camp. On the basis of what ex-Moonies have told me, the Moonies would
most likely change their behavior at their retreats if researchers were
present at the scene. Moonies do not hesitate to lie to outsiders. It is
justified by their doctrine called heavenly deception which has been
extensively documented that the Moonies practice. They believe that it is
justifiable to lie to outsiders for their greater cause. I wouldn't be at
all surprised is the people in the study were already members and said
what they were told by leadership. With their belief in lying, anything
is possible. Doing studies on current cult members presents major
problems, since if they are in a cult they will do whatevever the
leadership says and answer the questions the way the leadership wants them
to. I realize that doing studies only on ex-members also presents
problems. That's what makes research in this area so problematic.
A number of people who have "worked with people in cults"
have reached conclusions that directly contradict the
statements you have made here. Dr. Galanter's series of
studies done with Moonies, published in the American Journal
of Psychiatry and Archives of Psychiatry, are classics in
the field of cult studies -- which, by the way, includes
a large body of peer-reviewed research in spite of your
claims to the contrary.
Dr. Galanter has also been challenged by people such as Margaret Singer,
who wrote a long critique of his book. The research was published, but it
was a far cry from presenting any kind of solid or conclusive evidence,
peer-reviewed or not.
Stories from your "clinical practice" are nothing more than
anecdotal evidence. The anecdote you have provided does not
even address the question I posed. I have not claimed that
some people are too "smart" to be lured into cults -- I
don't believe that intelligence has anything at all to do
with the attraction some people feel towards cults.
Yes and I said that's what it is. This is how most new fields start.
From the clinical experience of people and it is perfectly legitimate to
discuss it. Journals are full of case studies which amount to anecdotal
evidence.
Deirdre made that claim that "Those who believe they
cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all." I
disagree with that statement.
Do you have any evidence to prove that people who believe
they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all,
Monica? Right -- I didn't think you did.
I have my own observations. As I posted elsewhere, look at the statements
of certain current Scientologists and even some ex-Scientologists right
here on this newsgroup, who believe they could not be and were not
controlled and yet spout Scientology jargon right and left. People who
are under mind control have no idea that they are being controlled, as
opposed to people who are brainwashed where the person doing the
brainwashing is the obvious enemy.
Look at the Milgrim experiments, where a high percentage of people
predicted they would not go to the highest level in administering electric
shocks and the equally high percentage of people who actually did
administer the shocks. People went alot further than they predicted that
they would.
My argument for what Dierdre says is that when someone is so sure of
him/herself that they cannot be controlled, they will not be as likely to
be asking the critical questions and looking for indications of danger
because they are overconfident that they are invulnerable. Such a person
might be more likely to just jump into an experience and to "let go" which
is exactly what the cult recruiter wants, rather than the more cautious,
skeptical person who questions everything. Very few people I have talked
to who have been in cults thought, before the experience, that they were
easy prey for a cult. A few did, but most thought that they would never
fall for anything like that and yet they paid the price for being very
wrong.
Monica Pignotti
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 6 Sep 1996 22:00:10 -0400, gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1)
wrote:
[snip]
> The truth is that an experiment to prove the existence of mind control
> would be unethical, since people would have to be randomly assigned to
> cult groups.
It wouldn't necessarily have to be that specific. You might be
able to do smaller experiments that prove specific parts of a
cult theory, without running into ethical constraints. But
experiments like Milgram's obedience work and Zimbardo's
prison experiment gave us invaluable insight into how malleable
many people really are. Those experiments would most likely
not be approved today.
> One of the experiments that came closest to this, was the
> Milgrim Experiment. Someone recently posted a graph from this, which was
> quite dramatic in how far people would go to obey an authority figure, as
> opposed to how far a control group predicted they would go. I wish I
> still had that graph, but I lost it when my system crashed a few months
> ago. Does anyone who knows what I'm referring to still have it?
Yeah, I posted it. It was something I crammed together from a
couple of Milgram's tables, showing the predictions of three groups
about the results of the experiments (Psychiatrists, College Students
and Middle-Class Adults), and the actual results of the first
experiment.
I'll tack part of the original post on the end here. The data is from
Milgram's book _Obedience to Authority_. I highly recommend it.
(CB -- this is _actual_ data, based on a scientific study. Just
so you know what it looks like. Let us know when you dig up
Hubbard's scientific data.)
> If someone can be that obedient in a laboratory experiment such as
> Milgrim's, then how much more obedient could they be made to be in a
> high-pressure group situation? Believe me, I know.
"If people are asked to render a moral judgement on what
constitutes appropriate behavior in this situation, they unfailingly
see disobedience as proper. But values are not the only forces
at work in an actual, ongoing situation. They are but one narrow
band of causes in the total spectrum of forces impinging on a
person. Many people were unable to realize their values in action,
and found themselves continuing in the experiment even though
they disagreed with what they were doing." -- Milgram
Milgram did many variations on the scenario which are all
described in his book, and give an interesting glimpse at the
forces at work. In experiment 17, the "teacher" (the Subject,
who administered the "shocks") was joined by two peers that
were confederates of Milgram's. The peers helped in the
process of reading the word-pairs and shocking the "learner."
At a scheduled point in the experiment, one of the confederates
refused to participate. The other peer quit soon after. In this
scenario, only 10% of the Subjects administered all of the
shocks, as opposed to 65% in the baseline experiment.
Milgram wrote, "The effects of peer rebellion are very
impressive.... Indeed, of the score of experimental variations
completed in this study, none was so effective in undercutting
the experimenter's authority as the manipulation reported here."
I believe that Milgram's mentor, Solomon Asch, found a
similarly strong effect from peer rebellion in his famous
experiment on conformity.
>>>>>>>>>>
Let me try to clear this up, by cribbing from the tables. I find
them very striking.
After the column for the level, the next three columns are the
predicted values, by group. The last column is the actual result
for the first experiment. The result per level indicates the
number of subjects who administered the shock (or predicted they
would). People tallied as level 0 said they would "refuse to
administer even the lowest shock."
No OCR here -- errors are all mine :)
College Middle-class
Level Psychiatrists Students adults Experiment1
(n=39) (n=31) (n=40) (n=40)
0 2 3
1 1
2
3 1
4 1 1
5 6 4 7
6 1 3 1
7 4 1
8 4 1 3
9 1 3 2
10 14 12 9
11 1 2
12 2 6 3
13 2 1
14 1
15 1
16 1
17 1
18
19
20 1 3 5
21 4
22 2
23 1
24 1
25 1
26
27
28
29
30 26
I don't want to type in all the labels for the levels, but the
latter ones deserve to be noted: levels 17-20 were labelled
"Intense Shock," 21-24 "Extreme Intensity Shock," 25-28
"Danger: Severe Shock," 29-30 "XXX."
The subjects were informed beforehand that the shocks would
not cause permanent tissue damage.
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMjG2nSnhWc34xW2VAQET+wf+Nt61B8130znJ951SClgTzEJ5TlGaF2k0
hJwrzBl19SxZ0saZQ1Hj1UxSOTN9Lsoh9sH4WBjGdtnlNV+3whwgN8CESBzjjO+p
spVAz2rqAP85yPI2N7Qc3gJdBzW8k27TVTftfC/jH1sDiGUZ1v2jM24xvQ0z+9Fi
j6FfZXLS4xIA+y6ex74URSXPFGf9vEtkNksobaiwv2OCrdspXfh4dZI2TU8dSPG+
dsSoo3C/zLWI5Nvz7OVvSPYjaUIZy8wzCPd6nimyggl8JoRxGddvvVshTWmVe+H/
PhGpHE7oM+qJu3Yxh1m9LeFgM/WrHz2EbQ2sxUG88oTdqlBQ+owGqg==
=ThU1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs ric...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause
Martin G. V. Hunt
Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com) writes:
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> : We are dealing with a subject as overwhelming to the individual as
> : drug addiction.
>
> I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Not only that, but I
> very strongly suspect that when the brain pathways are fully worked out
> it will be seen that compulsive gambling, and cult infatuation activate
> the same pathways that addictive drugs do.
>
> Keith Henson
Even the same lingo there between druggies and culties; the auditing
"high"? VGIs (very good indicators) my ass; it's endorphins in the brain
causing a purely phisical (what else is there, really) addiction.
How many people getting down off cults complain of headaches?
--
Cogito, ergo sum. "The RTC receives, directly and indirectly, a great
economical benefit from The Material." - Scn as quoted from a filing in
the Zenon Panoussis case, talking about NOTs.
GEMMAMP1
Rich wrote:
Monica:
>> The truth is that an experiment to prove the existence of mind control
> >would be unethical, since people would have to be randomly assigned to
> >cult groups.
Rich:
>It wouldn't necessarily have to be that specific. You might be
>able to do smaller experiments that prove specific parts of a
>cult theory, without running into ethical constraints. But
>experiments like Milgram's obedience work and Zimbardo's
>prison experiment gave us invaluable insight into how malleable
>many people really are. Those experiments would most likely
>not be approved today.
That is my point -- they would probably not be approved today, but the
data from that experiment is very valuable even though it doesn't
conclusively prove mind control.
>> One of the experiments that came closest to this, was the
>> Milgrim Experiment. Someone recently posted a graph from this, which
was
> >quite dramatic in how far people would go to obey an authority figure,
as
> >opposed to how far a control group predicted they would go. I wish I
> >still had that graph, but I lost it when my system crashed a few months
> >ago. Does anyone who knows what I'm referring to still have it?
>Yeah, I posted it. It was something I crammed together from a
>couple of Milgram's tables, showing the predictions of three groups
>about the results of the experiments (Psychiatrists, College Students
>and Middle-Class Adults), and the actual results of the first
>experiment.
Great! Thanks for posting it again. That's quite a table!
Monica Pignotti
Bernie
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>My concern with such an attitude is that if
>there is such a thing as control of this type over people through some
>physchological manipulation techniques (an arguable thing, I'll grant),
>then sticking our collective heads in the ground and ignoring it will
>not give us more free will and self-determination, but less.
Right, we should not ignore it, if it exists. But we should not make
it up, if it does not exists
[snip]
>I don't know about that, if that's true or not. Has a large survey been
>done on this, or is that your opinion?
In 1983 I went to the Berkeley's University and checked the
documentations they had there on the alleged cultic "mind-control"
issue. The research they made seemed to be quite consequent, and in
the files I would recognize most of the then prominent names, both on
the pro and on the con side of the issue. The only problem was that
the documents I saw were on their way to the archives. They had
stopped the investigation, it seemed, with the probable cause that the
academic research established that the "mind-control" and
"brainwashing" notions leveled at the cults were not substantiated,
that they were contradicted by counter-research, etc. So, if already
back then, the academic community came to this conclusion to the point
that they dropped the special unit dedicated to it, it seems unlikely
that they changed their mind in the meantime.
Since I also dropped my own researches in the matter some time ago
because I came to the same conclusion, I would not like to have to dig
up my files again like I did for the CAN thread discussed some months
ago, so I hope that Diane has the updated references. Galanter was
only one of the many names of researchers who concluded (rightly so,
IMO) that the notion of mind-control as leveled by the anti-cult
organizations is a myth born out of shear fear, vested interest and
exaggerations.
The anti-cult or anti-cult related arena like ars, are more accustomed
with names like Singer, West, Lifton, Clark, etc (although I haven't
seen a significant knowledge even of this in ars), who give their
credibility to the brainwashing/mind-control theory. But in the
overall academic arena I think that they are indeed a minority.
>She hasn't so much "accepted" the concept as helped to build it.
Singer hasn't invented anything. Like I pointed out in the previous
thread about CAN, the concept came from a school dropout criminal who
used violence on teens to impose his views back in 1971.
>I
>have no idea if she's in the minority or not; I think many therapists
>will indeed treat cult victims for the stresses they've gone through,
>instead of telling them it's their fault for being such idiots and
>getting sucked into a cult.
There is a middle way between the two extremes.
For example, I remember, while in the CO$, that I rejoiced with a
fellow cultie upon the death of a journalist who dared to attack
Scientology. Because of the "mind-control" exerted on us by the cult,
we had a sentiment of power that somehow the GO dealt with this SP to
"cave him in" and thus prevented him from hindering Scn winning
advance.
I use here the term mind-control to point to the influence of Scn that
was undoubtedly present, but not to remove my responsibility in this.
It still ~was~ idiotic on my part to think that way. It was still my
choice to go along, even if I didn't see, then, the idiocy of it. I
feel somewhat silly about it now and it would be very tempting to put
it on the count of the total mind-control the cult was suppose to
exert on my mind, but then I would never learn from my own silliness,
as well as from the way I was being influenced. The silliness and the
influence both interact together anyway, so that it would be hard to
explain one without the other.
---------
Bernie
*I make the distinction between acceptable mind control
*(TV ads, Sunday School, Political Posturing)
*and unacceptable mind control
*(TV ads, Sunday School, Political Posturing and Scientology).
(Lance S. Buckley)
Diane Richardson
Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>> dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>> >I agree with your post.
>> >Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all.
>> What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these
>> things as you go along?
>I find Deirdre's statement factual. One of the most amusing things in
>talking to people in the Co$ or other modern philosophies is the fact that
>they will be the first to tell you they are NOT brain-washed and wouldn't
>allow themselves to be controlled. If it looks like a duck, walks like
>a duck and quacks like a duck . . .
"Modern philosophies"? I doubt if you'll find many philosophers
willing to identify Hubbard's idiocy as any sort of philosophy at all.
>
>> As Kim Baker herself so aptly stated it, no one was holding a loaded
>> gun to her head. Nor was OSA either about to rape, beat, or commit
>> incest with her. Kim Baker made her own choices -- now she must live
>> with the consequences of those choices.
>Believe me, Kim IS living with the consequences of those choices. She
>is NOT a "traitor", nor is she an "icon", she is just a person who has
>made mistakes in her life which have harmed herself and unfortunately
>others. Not every can be as stable and competent as you are, so be
>thankful that you, unlike others, are so far above reproach.
Was it CoS "brainwashing" that led Kim Baker to post lies about my
marital status and fidelity to this newsgroup? Was it CoS
"brainwashing" that led Kim Baker to fail to take responsibility for
making that post, but rather telling a lie to avoid taking
responsibility for her own statements?
That incident occurred long after Kim Baker discontinued all contact
with OSA. Yet her reaction in that incident appeared to be identical
to her activities while she was experiencing OSA "coercion." Or are
we all expected to forgive *all* unprincipled acts by ex-cultists
because of one-time contact with a cult?
Another incident that comes to mind: Kim Baker sent her declaration
repudiating her OSA-inspired affidavit to FACTNet's attorneys but she
did *nothing* to see that the lies she told about Dennis Erlich in
that affidavit were repudiated -- in spite of the fact that she was
asked to do so by people on this newsgroup.
Does this mean that the cult's "mind control" is selective -- that
they controlled that part of her mind dealing with Dennis Erlich long
after she'd regained control of that part of her mind that dealt with
FACTNet? I realize this statement is absurd -- I'm just trying to
point out that a blanket forgiveness of Kim Baker, based on the "mind
control" theory, is shot full of holes. I would suggest that Kim
Baker's shortcomings predated her contact with the cult. The cult
very likely used these shortcomings to their advantage, but I
sincerely doubt that they are the *cause* of these personal
shortcomings.
>All people are individuals, not of the same mental and/or emotional
>make-up as each other. Their strengths and their weaknessess vary, and
>their ability to be manipulated and/or intimidated vary. Be thankful
>you were never in that position. Maybe it would be nice if we could
>try to understand each other a little more.
I agree that people differ enormously in their mental and emotional
make-ups. What I disagree with is that these differences are caused
or controlled by Scientology[tm]. I believe I understand Kim Baker
very well, which is why I am less than willing to forget -- let alone
forgive -- what she has done to me without some sort of
acknowledgement from her of her responsibility in spreading slanderous
lies about me.
>There is a way to "police" the actions of others and the effect those
>actions have on others and the purpose of fellow critics, without stomping
>that person into the ground.
I have never accused Kim Baker of adultery on this newsgroup. Kim
Baker has done that to me. It is untrue and she knows that it is
untrue. Rather than acknowledging her erroneous statements she has
chosen to lie to avoid responsibility for those statements. That has
nothing to do with the CoS, OSA, or "mind control" in general. It has
a great deal to do with the nature of her character.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
>Beverly
TarlaStar
cbwi...@netcom.com (C. B. Willis) wrote:
>Diane Richardson (ref...@neont.com) wrote:
>: "Modern philosophies"? I doubt if you'll find many philosophers
>: willing to identify Hubbard's idiocy as any sort of philosophy at all.
>Largely because the only philosophers who consider each other "qualified"
>to judge are those with PhD's and who teach at universities, preferably
>tenured at prestigious universities.
No, it's largely due to the fact that he's full of shit on just about
every subject he attempts to address.
Tarla
he wasn't qualified
under any standard
Martin G. V. Hunt
James J. Lippard (lip...@primenet.com) writes:
> In article <50jrcs$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> Martin G. V. Hunt <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>Steve A (ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk) writes:
>>> Sure, we might think that we know where we're vulnerable, but
>>> like the survey of British drivers where 90% considered
>>
>>:-) Funny bell curve, that.
>
> There are a few REALLY bad drivers, I guess.
That would almost work, if you allow for a hypothetical average
driver based on the number of crashes. I think the people surveyed
were talking about numbers of drivers, though, and then only 50%+
can be better than average. :-)
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
cbwi...@netcom.com (C. B. Willis):
>It's likely that each of us is wrong about a few things.
Is this is an implied comparison between the Reader and Elrong? If
so, we must look to the Words of Bob to wrest us from our ignorance
(and vice-versa) when he said, "I don't practice what I preach 'cause
I'm not the kinda person I'm preachin' to."
>But that
>shouldn't invalidate a person's good and valid contributions in life.
Musta mist it.
Tilman Hausherr
In <cbwillisD...@netcom.com>, cbwi...@netcom.com (C. B. Willis)
wrote:
>Diane, While I agree that it's very irresponsible to spread slanderous
>lies, I do not believe Kim did the act in question. It may not have been
>OSA either. I want to see the full story come out sometime soon
><postulate>. In the meantime, I urge you to keep an open mind, and I mean
>that in the best possible sense of the term <g>.
I believe Kim did it. Just because she went out of scientology doesn't
mean she lost the ability of construct "shore stories".
Tilman
Bernie
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Was it CoS "brainwashing" that led Kim Baker to post lies about my
>marital status and fidelity to this newsgroup? Was it CoS
>"brainwashing" that led Kim Baker to fail to take responsibility for
>making that post, but rather telling a lie to avoid taking
>responsibility for her own statements?
How can you be sure that ~she~ posted this message? There seems to be
a lot of doubts and speculations about that.
It's true, on the other hand, that I don't recall having seen any
counter-post from her clearly denying the post and the slanders made.
---------
Bernie
*Imagine the mental feats you could accomplish
*by thinking with ALL of your BTs AT ONCE!
(Scott McClare)
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>Rich wrote:
>Monica:
>>> The truth is that an experiment to prove the existence of mind control
>> >would be unethical, since people would have to be randomly assigned to
>> >cult groups.
>Rich:
>>It wouldn't necessarily have to be that specific. You might be
>>able to do smaller experiments that prove specific parts of a
>>cult theory, without running into ethical constraints. But
>>experiments like Milgram's obedience work and Zimbardo's
>>prison experiment gave us invaluable insight into how malleable
>>many people really are. Those experiments would most likely
>>not be approved today.
>That is my point -- they would probably not be approved today, but the
>data from that experiment is very valuable even though it doesn't
>conclusively prove mind control.
Of course Milgram's experiment wouldn't be approved today. But that
does not mean that other, less intrusive, means of research can't and
aren't being done. They are . . . and such research has been done
specifically on cult members.
I'm interested that people here haven't discussed more recent work
that has been done by qualified investigators on the topic of cults.
The work exists, and yet it appears that no one either cares to either
look it up, read it, or discuss it here. Why is that?
Monica, you present yourself here as an expert in the field, yet you
have still not addressed the results of Marc Galanter's research on
cults. Is this because you aren't familiar with it or are you
consciously avoiding acknowledging his work?
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 08 Sep 1996 03:59:39 GMT, ref...@neont.com
(Diane Richardson) wrote:
[snip]
> I'm interested that people here haven't discussed more recent work
> that has been done by qualified investigators on the topic of cults.
> The work exists, and yet it appears that no one either cares to either
> look it up, read it, or discuss it here. Why is that?
I can only speak for myself. I have not read Galanter's work. I
would like to, if I had some time. Any other recommendations?
> Monica, you present yourself here as an expert in the field, yet you
> have still not addressed the results of Marc Galanter's research on
> cults. Is this because you aren't familiar with it or are you
> consciously avoiding acknowledging his work?
Monica did address Galanter's work with the Moonies, at least
in part. See:
Message-ID: <50s9v4$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Has that post not reached your site yet?
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMjNVgynhWc34xW2VAQF68Qf7BTrv/O4e8kFOPVmDq7KPS2zArPY5Bxr+
o2OkVmAfiSWOFdKQewoggRegbljUUcxUTFUeIpniYDR+IodmFZi0wWGxicGErnIz
jGCpXUPPxfLpikuI3W2Y12bsJSxon+FNbJQkDOyVdGDZUXKwYaXNKcP+vts9mFn4
I9PZpZFHCDWmyDe1rQwS2Y38mtCCHmUSJO2RqrUiK1MPJQG8l9HD5W9wBK3kR863
lKVQybG6F2rlpsHhHLERTeMm3sTQkCWpBE+WZoKMX45d2UBplq4OmDp8HTQaok56
9PFSsUMhgnc4l5yy83wIkjKkQ3T+aWmt/Wj8lKoy0F/+Ra40J9sXOA==
=Lysp
GEMMAMP1
Diane Richardson wrote:
> Monica, you present yourself here as an expert in the field, yet you
> have still not addressed the results of Marc Galanter's research on
> cults. Is this because you aren't familiar with it or are you
> consciously avoiding acknowledging his work?
Diane, you must have missed my post -- perhaps it was on the other Kim
Baker thread. I DID address Marc Galanter's research of which I am
familiar and have criticisms of. Just because something was published in
a peer-reviewed journal does not mean that it is solid evidence. I think
that even Dr. Galanter himself would object to your saying that his
studies constitute "solid evidence" against mind control. Research in
this entire field is inconclusive on both sides and I think it would be
irresponsible to claim anything else.
At any rate, if you can't find my critique, I will repost it for you.
Better yet, I can E-mail you a copy of a lit review I wrote where I
criticized his studies and reviewed other parts of the literature.
Monica Pignotti
GEMMAMP1
(posted and e-mailed to Diane)
Diane, since you missed my earlier post on Galanter, here is something
much more extensive I wrote from a lit review in a paper I did on cults,
critiquing Galanter's works:
*******************************
In his book, Cults -- Faith, Healing and Coercion, Marc Galanter
provides us with material gleaned from fifteen years of research on the
subject. Professor Galanter had the unique opportunity of studying active
members of a number of cults in their natural environment.
In studying group cohesiveness, he distributed a seven page
questionnaire to 119 subjects from the Divine Light Mission. This
questionnaire measured subjects' perceptions of their psychological well
being before and after joining the group. (Clearly, this was an extremely
biased group in that they were still active members and one must question
using these subjects' perceptions as a valid measure.) It also measured
the variable of drug use changes prior to and after joining the group.
These findings were then compared with a measure of group cohesiveness.
This was determined by recording members' feelings with regard to three
different groups -- ten other group members, the group as a whole and ten
non-members the subjects knew best.
The results of the study revealed a decline in both psychological
distress and drug use after joining the cult. In addition, this decline
appeared to be "directly proportional to the degree of cohesiveness they
felt toward the group." (Galanter, 1989, p. 35)
Through a series of interviews and surveys, it was revealed that
the conversion process -- from old values and beliefs to acquiring the new
set of beliefs espoused by the group -- took place over a very short
period of time. Professor Galanter draws from attribution theory to
explain this phenomena. He refers to Daryl Bem's view that people develop
attitudes and emotions by "inferring them from observations from their own
overt behavior, and/or circumstances in which this behavior occurs"
(Galanter, 1989, p. 60).
What is relevant about this theory with regard to vulnerability is
that Galanter suggests that certain factors in a person's life may
increase the likelihood that they will respond to situations in this way.
That is, coming to an understanding of a situation based upon
"circumstantial cues rather than making careful observations and verifying
them" (Galanter, 1989, p. 60). He cites Harold Kelly's view that this is
more likely to occur if someone has:
little social support
prior information that is poor and ambiguous
problems difficult beyond ones capabilities
views that have been disconfirmed because they were inappropriate
or incorrect
other experiences engendering low self-confidence
This same rapid conversion process appeared to be the case when
interviewing members of the Unification Church. Recruits are lured into
joining the Church under the guise of working toward world peace, improved
race relations and the like. When the true identity of the group is
revealed, after only a few short weeks (or even days in many cases), the
conversion process has already taken place. One young recruit that was
interviewed decided to quit college two weeks after participating in a
three day workshop. Rather than feel betrayed and angry after finding out
the true nature of the group, he expressed the view that he was "pleased
that he had been introduced to it [the Church] under circumstances where
his suspicion had not been aroused." (Galanter, 1989, p. 134)
Another study was done with potential recruits of the Church.
This study consisted of 104 people who participated in an introductory
workshop. The purpose of the study was to ascertain what, if any
differences there were between those participants who actually joined the
Church and those who chose to drop out.
Using a scale to measure psychological well-being, he found the
that 9% who actually joined scored lower on this scale, confirming his
suspicions that "the sect tended to attract people who were experiencing
distress" (Galanter, 1989, p. 142) He also found that "those who were
likely to join were unhappy young adults with limited feelings of
affiliation toward friends or family [and] who were sufficiently
responsive to the group to become strongly engaged early on in the
workshop sequence" (Galanter, 1989, 142). Conversely, he found that those
who did not join the group scored significantly higher on scales that
measured affiliation toward persons outside the group, i.e., friends and
family.
Galanter's results that the people who did not join scored
considerably higher on a scale that measures strength of "outside
affiliations" supports our hypothesis that lack of supports is a
contributing factor to vulnerability to cults. However, there are
problems with the fact that he studied people currently involved in the
Unification Church. According to former members of this group, part of
the indoctrination process used is to isolate members from their friends
and family, who are seen as being "under the influence of Satan".
Therefore, someone who has joined the Unification Church might report
lower affiliation with outside sources than actually was the case, prior
to joining.
Another problem is that the presence of researchers who were there
administering questionnaires at the workshop could very well have
influenced the behavior of the workshop leaders. The very fact that
researchers were present, made it easier for potential recruits to opt out
than would have been the case if the researchers were not present.
Several former members have reported being stranded at the workshop site
(which is typically in an isolated area two hours from the city they were
recruited in) with no transportation home if they wanted to leave. The
workshop leaders put considerable pressure on potential recruits to stay.
Such pressure might have been less during this study so that they could
look good for the researchers.
It is also necessary to note that, according to numerous former
members (Hassan, 1988, and many others), the Unification Church has a
policy of "heavenly deception" towards outsiders, meaning that it is
morally justifiable to lie to people for their cause. One former member
told me that "I wouldn't be surprised if they filled the workshop with
long-term members who were not new at all." (Based on a personal
conversation between a former member and Monica Pignotti.) As we
mentioned earlier, we have to conclude that the credibility of responses
obtained from current members is very questionable.
*********************************
Lance S. Buckley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <50s9v4$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> gemm...@aol.com "GEMMAMP1" writes:
] My argument for what Dierdre says is that when someone is so sure of
] him/herself that they cannot be controlled, they will not be as likely to
] be asking the critical questions and looking for indications of danger
] because they are overconfident that they are invulnerable.
Interesting.
Before I turned up on ars I would have sworn I was one of the
invunerable types. Since my time here I have become far
less certain. I sometimes think that because I'm less certain
I'm now less vunerable. But believing I'm less vunerable could
mean I'm actually not as safe as I think I am. Ouch.
I know one thing for sure, when I first came here I would have
agreed to taking a few courses in an "undercover agent" role,
just to get the dirt on scientology. These days I would never
even consider it.
Lance.
- --
http://www.avalon.demon.co.uk/
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Vollet, Ex-head of GO-B1(Eu) currently head of OSA Invest(Eu)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) : J&D : KoX : KbM #11 ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMjNL/ijzbaRloMBtAQHCWwP/ez3ih4dc/TWHe0LUEmY/Z9PKpSdfaHX+
2kIOB3bEGOVqF8HBnqb0u6U0RnXqXQYOtSnsTVl88lR4Ir4sKd5dQeVQY3ceR/Vt
aJzP7ssm3z35ayoi4403++OLoUtw9/4TKPhBiL0bm/xXNFcZgjJ0IhG7WVUBfew9
MFRU26PwKW0=
=xEPW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
GEMMAMP1
Diane Richardson wrote:
>Does this mean that the cult's "mind control" is selective -- that
>they controlled that part of her mind dealing with Dennis Erlich long
>after she'd regained control of that part of her mind that dealt with
>FACTNet? I realize this statement is absurd -- I'm just trying to
>point out that a blanket forgiveness of Kim Baker, based on the "mind
>control" theory, is shot full of holes.
No, it doesn't mean that the mind control is selective, but what certain
cult experts such as Steve Hassan and Margaret Singer have noted is that
people in cults or who have recently been in cults do tend to flip in and
out of the cult mindset or the cult *personality*, so your statement is
not as absurd as it might appear on the surface. This can be brought
about by a trigger in their environment, even after someone has left a
group and is called floating. When a person leaves a cult, recovery is a
long process. A person doesn't just *regain control of their mind* and
that it that. Usually a person does go back and forth between having
control and not having control, until eventually they have regained
control and during that time they can be very vulnerable. When the CofS
took Kim and had her in the hotel room for hours, the found all of her
triggers and played on them until they got what they wanted.
Monica Pignotti
Diane Richardson
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>Was it CoS "brainwashing" that led Kim Baker to post lies about my
>>marital status and fidelity to this newsgroup? Was it CoS
>>"brainwashing" that led Kim Baker to fail to take responsibility for
>>making that post, but rather telling a lie to avoid taking
>>responsibility for her own statements?
>How can you be sure that ~she~ posted this message? There seems to be
>a lot of doubts and speculations about that.
Because she corresponded with another a.r.s. critic shortly after she
made the post, justifying the post and defending what she said.
The "forgery" shore story came out much later, after her friends
expressed their disapproval of what she had written.
>It's true, on the other hand, that I don't recall having seen any
>counter-post from her clearly denying the post and the slanders made.
Ron Newman posted a message to a.r.s., stating that he had telephoned
Kim Baker and asked her whether the post was a forgery. He stated
that Kim claimed she had no knowledge of the post, that her computer
had been left on while she was out of her office, and speculating that
someone (OSA?) had entered her office to send that message from her
account.
While this was going on, Ron Newman and Elizabeth Fischer urged me not
to respond to Kim Baker's accusations. Ron told me that he would
handle the situation. I guess the "handling" was fabrication of a
shore story so that Kim Baker did not have to take responsibility for
her own words.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
TarlaStar
cbwi...@netcom.com (C. B. Willis) wrote:
>TarlaStar (bmy...@ionet.net) wrote:
>: No, it's largely due to the fact that he's full of shit on just about
>: every subject he attempts to address.
>I think Hubbard had a lot of useful information and at times did some
>decent speculative philosophy that synthesized ideas from earlier writers
>and carried them a step further (Scn 8-8008, PDC, etc). I don't agree
>with everything he said and believe him to be in error on some things.
>But let's use discernment and be fair, and see the situation in its right
>proportions.
As I've stated before; I have yet to see any contributions by Hubbard
that weren't stolen from someone who wrote better.
>It's likely that each of us is wrong about a few things. But that
>shouldn't invalidate a person's good and valid contributions in life.
Oh sure, we're all wrong about a few things, but most of us don't set
ourselves up as God, either. I can't think of a thing that Hubbard
contributed that the world wouldn't be better off...without.
Tarla
he was useless
as tits on a boar
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <50tuvn$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, "Martin G. V. Hunt"
<av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>
>That would almost work, if you allow for a hypothetical average
>driver based on the number of crashes. I think the people surveyed
>were talking about numbers of drivers, though, and then only 50%+
>can be better than average. :-)
Slight fallacy here unless you add "...in a normal distribution".
Given these scores: 45, 50, 51, 51, 51, 51, 51
What is the average...how many are below, at, and above average?
--
Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on ( alt.religion.scientology
/~~~~~~~ @----, and on page (/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
___________________________________________________________________
OT8 Cognition:"Source is the 8th Dynamic"[LRon Hubbard is God]BWAAH!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <hkhenson...@netcom.com>, Keith Henson
<hkhe...@netcom.com> writes
>
>: We are dealing with a subject as overwhelming to the individual as
>: drug addiction.
>
>I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Not only that, but I
>very strongly suspect that when the brain pathways are fully worked out
>it will be seen that compulsive gambling, and cult infatuation activate
>the same pathways that addictive drugs do.
Absolutely. On the other hand, why is it these religious whackheads
all tell me they came off marijuana and cocaine and now want to
share their religion with me; I mean, where were they in their marijuana
days why didn't they come and share that with me instead ???
In article <322f3322...@nntp.best.com>, Keith Bennett
<dke...@best.com> writes
> Not exactly... from what I have seen, drugs tend to short circut
>normal processes. For example, when a smoker takes a puff, the
>nictoteine triggers the reward botton.
> Puff - I've been good
> Puff - I've been good
Some people are compulsive thumbsuckers who seem driven to
be compulsive thumbsuckers, driven to seek more and more
endorphin/contentment reactions---perhaps because they are
low in endorphin receptors? I don't know. they switch
between different addictive behaviouyrs easily.
You certainly get a complex of things from [a] environment
and [b[ development in the womb and [c] favoured genes in
times of chrisis and starvation that essentially favour
rigid and risk-avoiding behaviour, avoidance of pain
rather than seeking pleasure, being close to a complete
collapse and remake of learned behaviours (all things
which are adaptive in times of extreme deprivation).
You get a great wave of paranoids b o r n during
times of wartime rationing.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <50ljke$5...@news.ysu.edu>, Diane Richardson
<ao...@yfn.ysu.edu> writes
>
>Martin Hunt writes:
>
>Cults do not exist then; everyone in them is simply there by choice,
>and they can leave whenever they want to (unless they are locked up.)
>
> Actually, Martin, I think you'll find that such an opinion
> is the general consensus in the U.S. courts at the present
> time. Whether we agree with it or not, society has taken a
> definite turn towards "personal responsibility" in such
> matters.
I think you're confusing two things here. People can be
coerced, emotionally blackmailed, and manipulated in
morally shameful ways; if they understand the situation
and they don't say 'NO' themselves, then in law you can't
drag them out. In practice you can't do anything but
persuade people to wake up for themselves and make their
own decision to leave. In law they can't really complain
afterwards either. If a devout christian spent a lot
of money then heard the class VIII tapes, they might sue
for it all back because the consent was not INFORMED.
If somebody was seriususly messed up by incompetent
amateur psychotherapists, they might sue for that too.
But they certainly have a MORAL case that they were
treacherously misuded and manipulated --- it's false
and callous to say "you chose all that for yourself."
That's what scientology says, even about external
circumstances: you "pulled it in".
In article <50nj7c$1...@news.ysu.edu>, Diane Richardson
<ao...@yfn.ysu.edu> writes
> Deirdre made that claim that "Those who believe they
> cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all." I
> disagree with that statement.
>
Dierdre's statement can be read at various levels. A false
confidence that you cannot be controlled is a definite
weakness in anyone, because I believe anyone *can* be controlled
though in some cases extreme measures might be needed (a long
period of isolation with poor food and sleep for a start...).
It is also most often found in those who are actually least
resistant to control: "nobody would ever make me conform to that",
says the happy unthinking extrovert who easily conforms to
whatever the crowd is doing rather than being an awkward
individualist -- and would, of course, be the first to cave in.
How easy or not you are to control is measured by personality
traits; severe *lack* of intelligence makes you vulnerable
to overwhelm, but anything above normal intelligence adds little
or no extra protection. See the OMNI-Magazine questionaire
for instance....
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <50jt3u$d...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, "Martin G. V. Hunt"
<av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>
>Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
>> av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt):
>>
>>>Riiiight; you would never join a cult. Glad to hear it.
>>
>> <checks for smiley - none found>
>>
>> This is a cheap twisting of my words, Martin. I said that, having
>> been in and escaped, I would never place myself in a position where I
>> was at the mercy of the cult.
>
>Uh-oh; I'm twisting your words again by posting my un-humble opinion.
>
>Bad sign.
>
>And I'm not just "twisting"; I'm cheaply twisting, whatever that means.
Oh shit, he's at it again.
Anyone for archives.....?
st...@aimnet.com
In article <50vk9f$r...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) writes:
|> be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
|>
|> >ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) wrote:
|>
|> >>marital status and fidelity to this newsgroup? Was it CoS
|> >>"brainwashing" that led Kim Baker to fail to take responsibility for
|> >>making that post, but rather telling a lie to avoid taking
|> >>responsibility for her own statements?
|>
|> >a lot of doubts and speculations about that.
|>
|> Because she corresponded with another a.r.s. critic shortly after she
|> made the post, justifying the post and defending what she said.
|>
|> The "forgery" shore story came out much later, after her friends
|> expressed their disapproval of what she had written.
|>
|> >It's true, on the other hand, that I don't recall having seen any
|> >counter-post from her clearly denying the post and the slanders made.
|>
|> Ron Newman posted a message to a.r.s., stating that he had telephoned
|> Kim Baker and asked her whether the post was a forgery. He stated
|> that Kim claimed she had no knowledge of the post, that her computer
|> had been left on while she was out of her office, and speculating that
|> someone (OSA?) had entered her office to send that message from her
|> account.
|>
|> While this was going on, Ron Newman and Elizabeth Fischer urged me not
|> to respond to Kim Baker's accusations. Ron told me that he would
|> handle the situation. I guess the "handling" was fabrication of a
|> shore story so that Kim Baker did not have to take responsibility for
|> her own words.
|>
That is pretty much the way I remember the incident,
except I do not know much about the roles Ron Newman
or Elizabeth Fischer played.
It is definitely true that Kim Baker keeps returning
to this newsgroup in various ways (direct postings,
email postings through ars participants, affidavits,
etc.) and keeps saying (among other things) how she is
not participating in alt.religion.scientology because of
all the turmoil, which she says upsets her greatly.
I have not excused Kim Baker at all. And it is most
unaccpetable to see her behaving as if she thinks she can
continue unaccountable.
Steve Whitlatch
swhi...@aimnet.com
--
Honesty cures scientology.
Lance S. Buckley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <Y6HawYAk...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
da...@xemu.demon.co.uk "Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine" writes:
] ... why is it these religious whackheads
] all tell me they came off marijuana and cocaine and now want to
] share their religion with me; I mean, where were they in their marijuana
] days why didn't they come and share that with me instead ???
That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Thanks Dave.
Lance.
- --
http://www.avalon.demon.co.uk/
"We would only destroy people who attempt to harm Scientology"
Jaques Vollet, Ex-head of GO-B1(Eu) currently head of OSA Invest(Eu)
[ SP4 : GGBC #26 : ARSCC(UK) : J&D : KoX : KbM #11 ]
My Other Hat's A Fedora
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMjSyVyjzbaRloMBtAQHQsAP/QtSOfcttCcyRWjsv/V+UMJlD9KmtBKE+
N5wgAhLXNY6bHbhbjguiVWjCyorL1OqWeVxlSbcu0OSvFh94ThOG2c8pJcVOdfJe
kW5cQx9fU3ncB5ca08cJs6L8uzZnZQdUQt+afXI66q3sVMcgjsDzYCoaLem58bFE
Of8o6bAH0T0=
=LOF/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Martin G. V. Hunt
Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) writes:
> av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>
>>My concern with such an attitude is that if
>>there is such a thing as control of this type over people through some
>>physchological manipulation techniques (an arguable thing, I'll grant),
>>then sticking our collective heads in the ground and ignoring it will
>>not give us more free will and self-determination, but less.
>
> Right, we should not ignore it, if it exists. But we should not make
> it up, if it does not exists
The way I see it, people can be unethically manipulated through such
simple things as being lied to, being showered with affection from a group
of people, being "8-C'ed", being enticed to take a small step by doing
something followed by a small bit of assumtion and so on in a cycle,
being hit on certain social buttons (it's rude to walk away from someone
who is politely talkig with you, etc) and so forth.
I don't think there's much of a trick to it, and I do belive people can
learn to avoid such minipulation. A simple example of such minipulation
is the completely bogus LRH "biographies" shown to people in the cult;
it's fairly natural for an average Joe-blow to lend credence to that
which is written down; not many people would assume that a bio like that
is packed full of lies, and yet it is.
I love free speech, and defending it is a noble goal, but my main thrust
here has always been to simply provide the other side of the picture to
"innoculate" people against scientology with information through making books
available, recommending certain references, quoting Hubbard himself,
explaining the twisted cult jargon, and relating my own personal experiences
in scientology.
Mind control? Sure; we're all controlled all the time by our physical
and social and intellectual environment. I don't know that I've seen
the evidence that it goes beyond that. Still, fraud is fraud; consumers
are protected if they buy a car without an engine under the hood, just
so they should be protected when they buy a "bridge" to nowhere.
Martin G. V. Hunt
C. B. Willis (cbwi...@netcom.com) writes:
> TarlaStar (bmy...@ionet.net) wrote:
> : No, it's largely due to the fact that he's full of shit on just about
> : every subject he attempts to address.
>
> I think Hubbard had a lot of useful information....
"X is a gay"
"Y had sex with a maggot"
"Z stole a candy-bar when she was six"
>... and at times did some decent speculative philosophy that synthesized
> ideas from earlier writers and carried them a step further...
"Best way to make a million is to start a religion"
"Machiavelli was right! Stalin was right! Crowley was right! Hitler was ri.."
"Now take that Orwell fella; I don't git some of his words, but take this
idea here..."
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
Art Online oil paintings: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/homepage.html
Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Martin G. V. Hunt
Tilman Hausherr (til...@berlin.snafu.de) writes:
> In <cbwillisD...@netcom.com>, cbwi...@netcom.com (C. B. Willis)
> wrote:
>
>>Diane, While I agree that it's very irresponsible to spread slanderous
>>lies, I do not believe Kim did the act in question. It may not have been
>>OSA either. I want to see the full story come out sometime soon
>><postulate>. In the meantime, I urge you to keep an open mind, and I mean
>>that in the best possible sense of the term <g>.
>
> I believe Kim did it. Just because she went out of scientology doesn't
> mean she lost the ability of construct "shore stories".
I was as close to this as anyone, closer than almost everyone else, and
I've talked to all sides. My conclusion was then that Kim did this, and I
haven't seen anything to change my mind. I'm not unwilling to believe that
an OSA agent did it; fuck knows they've done weirder shit than this! I
just haven't seen any evidence that points anywhere else, and it dovetails
perfectly with the email exchange going on at the time. Kim knows I know
she did it, and she hasn't asked me to consider otherwise.
Deirdre
Actually, I think being paid attention to is the biggest part of it.
How many times before the comm course had you had anyone applaud what you
had done?
_Deirdre
In article <513eb1$d...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
> The way I see it, people can be unethically manipulated through such
> simple things as being lied to, being showered with affection from a group
> of people, being "8-C'ed", being enticed to take a small step by doing
> something followed by a small bit of assumtion and so on in a cycle,
> being hit on certain social buttons (it's rude to walk away from someone
> who is politely talkig with you, etc) and so forth.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
dei...@sover.net (Deirdre):
>Actually, I think being paid attention to is the biggest part of it.
True.
>How many times before the comm course had you had anyone applaud what you
>had done?
Many, many. I was guitar and singer in a rock band, "Shuman and
the Humans" ( I was not one of the Humans)
Deirdre
Right, but outside the performing arts, the average person doesn't get the
applause.
Funny band name for a future Scn though. ;D
_Deirdre
In article <3235e2c6...@204.245.3.50>, inF...@primenet.com (Rev.
Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
> dei...@sover.net (Deirdre):
> >How many times before the comm course had you had anyone applaud what you
> >had done?
>
> Many, many. I was guitar and singer in a rock band, "Shuman and
> the Humans" ( I was not one of the Humans)
Arnaldo Lerma
Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>I had an opportunity to meet Kim this past summer. And indeed I did
>find her to be less than a pillar of strength and human perfection.
>But I'll take her warmth and compassion over articulate "intelligence"
>and mean-spirited arrogance anyday.
>
> "The Rules for being Human:
>
>8. Others are only mirrors of you. You cannot love or hate
>something about another unless it reflects something you love or
>hate in yourself."
>
>
>Joe
>
Well said Joe,
And BTW, it was Joe Harrington that noticed my first post to ARS
and introduced me to a few other old friends.
That was in late spring 94...
Been a long road road Joe.
Arnie
a son of liberty
Michael Reuss
> Martin G. V. Hunt (av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
>I was as close to this as anyone, closer than almost everyone else, and
I agree with Martin. I think Kim just got angry and lashed out. Without
further evidence, Occams razor demands this "working" conclusion. But as
Martin well knows, in a highly charged group like this, things like this
happen sometimes. I hope no one is determined to hold an eternal grudge over
this.
--
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
David Gerard
On Sun, 08 Sep 96 22:43:14 GMT, Lance S. Buckley (la...@avalon.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:In article <50s9v4$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> gemm...@aol.com "GEMMAMP1" writes:
:] My argument for what Dierdre says is that when someone is so sure of
:] him/herself that they cannot be controlled, they will not be as likely to
:] be asking the critical questions and looking for indications of danger
:] because they are overconfident that they are invulnerable.
:Interesting.
:Before I turned up on ars I would have sworn I was one of the
:invunerable types. Since my time here I have become far
:less certain. I sometimes think that because I'm less certain
:I'm now less vunerable. But believing I'm less vunerable could
:mean I'm actually not as safe as I think I am. Ouch.
nyak!
After my time here on a.r.s, I too now know I'm not the hardass I
previously thought.
OTOH, now I see little bits of mind-control *everywhere* ... it's
like all the Burroughs I swallowed at an impressionable age is
coming back to me ...
I would certainly hope it's a decent inoculation.
Going up against seriously obnoxious clams is an ... interesting
experience. What buttons did they push, to what degree?
:I know one thing for sure, when I first came here I would have
:agreed to taking a few courses in an "undercover agent" role,
:just to get the dirt on scientology. These days I would never
:even consider it.
Getting out of the personality-test sales talk without breaking
cover (sniggering, etc.) is ... an interesting real-life intellectual
puzzle.
--
Reverend Doctor David Gerard, KoX, SP 4.04, kOh, KBM#9; Prestige Elite(tm)
Research Church of the SubGenius http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
Now a CARD-CARRYING SCIENTOLOGIST(tm)! No, really. Would I lie to you?
July 5, 1998, 7 AM. Saucers. End of the world. Your US$30 is your trip ticket.
Tashback
An eternal grudge? Not sure what you mean. My strongest impression of her
is that she slandered my friend and then denied doing it. No big grudge
involved, no position paper forthcoming.
Tashback
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
> Additionally, it is the general consensus among mental health
> professionals as well. Whether any of us care to admit it
> or not, Margaret Singer and her supporters are most
> definitely in the minority in accepting the concept of cult
> mind control. Marc Galanter and others who represent the
> APA's viewpoint reject the notion of "brainwashing" and have
> solid evidence to support their opinions (unlike Dr. Singer).
>What solid evidence? Specific references, please. I haven't seen any.
I'd suggest you start with the studies conducted by Saul V. Levine,
M.D., of the University of Toronto. His work has been as extensive as
that of Dr. Galanter of NYU. Their conclusions, by the way, concur.
Specifically, a good paper to start with would be Levine's "Cults and
Mental Health: Clinical Conclusions," published in the Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 28, no. 12 (December 1981), pp. 534-539.
Levine reaches 10 conclusions, each of which are supported in the
paper. These conclusions are:
1. Cults do not attract a more clinically disturbed population (than
any other intense, demanding, dedicated movement);
2. Cults do attract a group of individuals who experience specific
painful feelings prior to their joining;
3. Cults significantly reduce stresses of anxiety, depression,
confusion in those members who experienced these;
4. Cults can serve as a haven, and even a therapeutic milieu for
members with serious psychiatric or behavioural disorders;
5. Cults do not adversely affect their members clinically any more
than any other intense, dedicated demanding movement;
` 6. Cult do often contribute to the appearance of emotional
problems
in a significant number of ex-cultists;
7. Cults do often contribute to cognitive and behavioural patterns
which are of considerable concern;
8. Cult do fulfill crucial needs, especially those of Believing and
Belonging, and overcome alienation, demoralization, and low
self-esteem;
9. Cult wield extraordinary power over their "true-believing"
members;
10. Individual susceptiblity (auto hypnosis) and potent recruitment
techniques combine to captivate the potential member.
In his discussion of his tenth clinical conclusion, Dr. Levine writes:
"There have been accusations about the use of hypnotic techniques,
programming and brainwashing in the recruitment and indoctrination
techniques utilized by the cults. Hypnosis refers to an altered state
of consciousness induced by specific external techniques which include
an individual's suggestibility. The fact is, while various potent
methods are indeed used, the major determinant of an individual's
commitment to a group is his own susceptibility needs, and
even "autohypnosis." That is, he often comes in "preprogrammed," with
an a priori conviction, search, and heightened expectations. An
altered state of consciousness in fact can occur in these intensely
pressured group experiences (31). Furthermore, the techniques
utilized and effects of stress on members have been seen in other
intense, pressured group situations such as political groups,
established religions, and some therapeutic approaches."
>It is not, by any means, the "general consensus" of mental health
>professionals -- the subject remains very controversial with people on
>both sides of the issue. Drs. Robert Jay Lifton and Louis Jolyon West, to
>mention a few, are also on the side of Dr. Singer.
Well, I'd venture to state that both the American Psychiatric
Association and the Canadian Psychiatric Association disagree with
your assessment. They have both issued statements urging their
members to deal with cult members as they would a member of any
mainstream religion and not to prejudge a patient's mental status
based on his religious affiliation.
As Bernie stated in another post, this controversy ended years ago.
Those arrayed with Dr. Singer, Dr. West, et al., are in the decided
minority and their theories are most definitely not indicative of
currently accepted opinion on the subject.
Unfortunately, most of my papers are not at hand at the moment. I
will be glad to provide you with a number of citations and excerpts
once I've relocated.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>> Monica, you present yourself here as an expert in the field, yet you
>> have still not addressed the results of Marc Galanter's research on
>> cults. Is this because you aren't familiar with it or are you
>> consciously avoiding acknowledging his work?
>Diane, you must have missed my post -- perhaps it was on the other Kim
>Baker thread. I DID address Marc Galanter's research of which I am
>familiar and have criticisms of. Just because something was published in
>a peer-reviewed journal does not mean that it is solid evidence. I think
>that even Dr. Galanter himself would object to your saying that his
>studies constitute "solid evidence" against mind control. Research in
>this entire field is inconclusive on both sides and I think it would be
>irresponsible to claim anything else.
One researcher's work does not constitute "solid evidence." However,
others have conducted similar research and reached conclusions
identical to those identified by Dr. Galanter.
>At any rate, if you can't find my critique, I will repost it for you.
I have finally located your response and replied to it. I am in a
somewhat unsettled situation right now and am not able to read a.r.s.
regularly, nor do I have much time to devote to answering posts.
Hopefully, I will be back to normal within a couple of months.
>Better yet, I can E-mail you a copy of a lit review I wrote where I
>criticized his studies and reviewed other parts of the literature.
I have answered your criticisms on a.r.s.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>Diane Richardson (ao...@yfn.ysu.edu) writes:
>> Martin Hunt writes:
>>
>>" Cults do not exist then; everyone in them is simply there by choice,
>> and they can leave whenever they want to (unless they are locked up.) "
>>
>> Actually, Martin, I think you'll find that such an opinion
>> is the general consensus in the U.S. courts at the present
>> time. Whether we agree with it or not, society has taken a
>> definite turn towards "personal responsibility" in such
>> matters. This goes along with the general trend in American
>> society to get the government out of people's personal
>> lives -- the whole conservative/libertarian agenda. Larry
>> Wollersheim's lawsuit against the cult would have ended
>> quite differently if it were to be litigated in the
>> atmosphere prevalent in today's courts.
>Well, perhaps that's a good thing, a necessary thing, that somehow builds
>self-esteem or strokes egos. My concern with such an attitude is that if
>there is such a thing as control of this type over people through some
>physchological manipulation techniques (an arguable thing, I'll grant),
>then sticking our collective heads in the ground and ignoring it will
>not give us more free will and self-determination, but less.
>> Additionally, it is the general consensus among mental health
>> professionals as well.
>I don't know about that, if that's true or not. Has a large survey been
>done on this, or is that your opinion?
Not a large survey, but consensus statements from the American and
Canadian Psychiatric Associations, Martin.
>> Whether any of us care to admit it
>> or not, Margaret Singer and her supporters are most
>> definitely in the minority in accepting the concept of cult
>> mind control.
>She hasn't so much "accepted" the concept as helped to build it. I
>have no idea if she's in the minority or not; I think many therapists
>will indeed treat cult victims for the stresses they've gone through,
>instead of telling them it's their fault for being such idiots and
>getting sucked into a cult. But who knows? Maybe a few quacks out
>there would try such a "cold mountain" type treatment.
No doubt it's quite effective as a therapeutic tool. There's
certainly nothing to be gained from berating a patient from making a
bad decision in the past. On the other hand, does that mean that
everyone should accept without question what's being told to
ex-cultists during therapy?
Even Margaret Singer states: "I don't encourage people to think of
themselves as victims forever, as has become popular in certain
segments of the self-help movement in the United States.
Nevertheless, I think the victim analysis is helpful to show how
getting duped by the cults is as common as buying a pair of shoes that
don't fit."
>> Marc Galanter and others who represent the
>> APA's viewpoint reject the notion of "brainwashing" and have
>> solid evidence to support their opinions (unlike Dr. Singer).
>He's saying the mind cannot be influenced by environment? Bizarre. But
>then, the world is made up of all types, and a Phd doesn't mean the
>person's not a looney.
That's not at all what he's saying. I'm not sure how you've reached
that conclusion from what has been written -- unless, of course, you
have a different definition of "brainwashing" than that stated by
Monica and others here.
Dr. Galanter is an M.D., not a PhD. His primary area of research has
been the study of large therapeutic groups (particularly Alcoholics
Anonymous and other 12-step programs). He began studying cults when
he noticed that they had a similarly high level of success in keeping
their members off alcohol and drugs, and he wanted to find out why
this occurred.
>>" Hey, what are we doing here? Scientology is a legitimate religion
>> of choice. :-) "
>>
>> I don't know what you're doing here, Martin.
>You should by now. But then, what do I know; I've only been there and done
>that. We should listen to you tell us what we experieced; you're a smart
>peson.
You should do nothing of the sort, and I certainly haven't said any
such thing. Putting such words in my mouth isn't really fair, Martin.
It's not at all what I've been trying to say; if that's what you
conclude after reading what I write, then I've not been doing well in
expressing my opinion.
>> I'm here
>> because the cult has threatened intellectual freedom on
>> the net by abusing intellectual property law. Whether
>> Scientology[tm] is considered a "legitimate" religion or
>> not has nothing to do with why I follow this newsgroup;
>> it's their threat of abridging *my* freedom of speech
>> to which I object.
>Understandable.
>With some of us, it goes a bit deeper.
>Is this were you tell me what an idiot I was for "joining" a cult? :-)
No. I have never told anyone he was an idiot for joining a cult. I'm
not about to begin doing so now.
>> It isn't safe to assume that all critics share common
>> goals.
>Who does? I doubt many here understand me or my complaint; those who
>do do, and those who don't have their own path to take, which is fine.
>I sometimes wish they would *take* that path, though, instead of throwing
>sticks and stones all over my path.
>Your goal has something to do with free speech and the cult; how can
>you best achieve that goal?
>Slamming Paulette? Ranting and railing against Monica? Or going after
>the fucking cult?
I find it amusing that so many people feel they have the right to tell
me what I should and shouldn't be writing here. For a group
supposedly intent on preserving freedom of speech, I've come across a
remarkable number of people who believe they know better than I what I
should be saying.
I reply to what I see posted to this newsgroup. When I see inaccurate
statements made, or claims that I don't necessarily agree with, I will
reply to them, regardless of who makes them.
Paulette Cooper was being presented to the readers as some sort of
painted angel. I knew for a fact that her story was far more complex
than the story she was presenting to a.r.s. Someday, when I have the
time, I will provide more details of her story -- straight from the
court records and her own sworn statements.
I don't believe that what I am doing is "ranting and railing" against
Monica, and I'm surprised that you characterize our discussion with
that phrase. I am trying to engage in a serious discussion of a
question quite relevant to this newsgroup.
As to the "fucking cult" -- outside of spam, they're not much of a
presence here anymore. Since I believe it's thoroughly
counter-productive to reply to spam, that doesn't leave me much of an
opportunity. As I have told you in email, my "real" life is quite
hectic right now. Perhaps sometime in the future I will be able to do
some research, analyze the material, write substantive messages and
post them. I do not have the time to do that now, as you well know.
>Just a thot, sort of a novel idea; focus on your goal and aim straight
>for it...don't bother with the side issues of blaming the victims, etc. :-)
I am not blaming any victims. Perhaps you may wish to read such
intentions into my posts, but I don't think you can support your
statement with my own words.
>> I realize that many people have been hurt by the
>> CoS and many other destructive cults. But I don't see
>> it as my job to protect people from themselves--otherwise,
>> I'd be spending my life trying to convince people that
>> they're making foolish decisions.
>So, would you consider fighting for free speech and the fact the cult
>is trying to limit it? Or would that only be protecting people from
>themselves as well?
I will fight for free speech. I will not fight for Arnie Lerma's
right to deliberately infringe copyrights just to make himself a
"hero" in his own eyes and then watch him parade himself around on
this newsgroup as a martyr. From the outset I have stated that I
could not support Arnie Lerma's actions.
I have seen very little discourse on free speech take place here.
People seem much more eager to come up with "blood sex crimes" that
they can blame on the cult -- and show very little regard with whether
these stories are fact or fiction. I want no part of such "yellow
journalism" on the net and I won't participate in furthering it.
I believe that the cult's actions against the net are enough to
deserve the censure of all advocates of intellectual freedom. This
newsgroup seems to have lost sight of this and instead have focused on
any tabloid-style headline anyone cares to conjure up instead.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
see...@ix.netcom.com (h3) wrote:
>In article <50ljke$5...@news.ysu.edu>, ao...@yfn.ysu.edu (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>>Martin Hunt writes:
>>
>>Cults do not exist then; everyone in them is simply there by choice,
>>and they can leave whenever they want to (unless they are locked up.)
>>
>> Actually, Martin, I think you'll find that such an opinion
>> is the general consensus in the U.S. courts at the present
>> time. Whether we agree with it or not, society has taken a
>> definite turn towards "personal responsibility" in such
>> matters. This goes along with the general trend in American
>> society to get the government out of people's personal
>> lives -- the whole conservative/libertarian agenda. Larry
>> Wollersheim's lawsuit against the cult would have ended
>> quite differently if it were to be litigated in the
>> atmosphere prevalent in today's courts.
> this statement seems a bit presumptive to me. his case might
> also have been argued a bit differently. fraud, deceit, actual
> damage, malfeasance will always be litigable, no matter the
> extent of government involvment in people's lives.
Actuallly, I think that an examination of case law will show the lack
of success claims of "fraud" against cults have had. The Julie
Christofferson-Tichborne lawsuit comes to mind, where a number of
bona fide religious and civil liberties groups provided amicus curae
briefs in support of the CoS.
>>
>[clip]
>>
>> It isn't safe to assume that all critics share common
>> goals. I realize that many people have been hurt by the
>> CoS and many other destructive cults. But I don't see
>> it as my job to protect people from themselves--otherwise,
>> I'd be spending my life trying to convince people that
>> they're making foolish decisions.
> as you say, each has his own goals. i'm not trying to
> protect people from themselves, but i am trying to protect
> them from banal and entrapping influences not different in
> many ways from drug addiction, organized crime, or environmental
> hazards. playing a part in helping people avoid foolish decisions,
> through information, education, proscription of fraudulent activities
> *is* what it's all about, at least for me, and it's not my life's
> work. i've simply decided that when i see a mess in my corner of
> the world, i ought to pitch in and help clean it up. and scientology
> creates lots of messes.
I can understand your sentiments.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In message <960910220...@carson.u.washington.edu>, Ceon Ramon
<ce...@u.washington.edu> writes
>>Absolutely. On the other hand, why is it these religious whackheads
>>all tell me they came off marijuana and cocaine and now want to
>>share their religion with me; I mean, where were they in their marijuana
>>days why didn't they come and share that with me instead ???
>
>
>What a *good* point!
Originally via a current US comedian, from (I think) Lenny Bruce,
it embodies a true perception: addictive behaviour is defeated,
infantile, thumbsucking behaviour. Anyone so defeated and full
of loathing that they substitute belief in some false thing for
belief in themselves (cults won't wait for life to defeat you: all their
methods and preachings are meant to introduce self-loating and other-
identification) is constantly pained at the inadequacy of
the substitution, and has to validate it by making everybody else
the same. The induced state is like paranoid behaviour: the
paranoid is hurting intensely, and has to "put right" anything
that pains them to see by altering other people to suit their need.
There mere sight of someone who isn't putting on an extreme
manic party mood, saying hallyloofah to the same ghostie,
or whatever nonsense, challenges their security in that identity
and must be set right.
[P&M]
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>Diane writes:
[snip]
>Yes I have read his studies and they're loaded with flaws. In the first
>place, one that I read was done at the site of a Moonie indoctrination
>camp. On the basis of what ex-Moonies have told me, the Moonies would
>most likely change their behavior at their retreats if researchers were
>present at the scene. Moonies do not hesitate to lie to outsiders. It is
>justified by their doctrine called heavenly deception which has been
>extensively documented that the Moonies practice. They believe that it is
>justifiable to lie to outsiders for their greater cause. I wouldn't be at
>all surprised is the people in the study were already members and said
>what they were told by leadership. With their belief in lying, anything
>is possible. Doing studies on current cult members presents major
>problems, since if they are in a cult they will do whatevever the
>leadership says and answer the questions the way the leadership wants them
>to. I realize that doing studies only on ex-members also presents
>problems. That's what makes research in this area so problematic.
Are you so positive that Dr. Galanter's researchers were naive enough
not to take such possibilities into account? I can accept such a
criticism as valid if Galanter's work was limited to *one* study done
at *one* site; however, I'm sure you know that his work has extended
over more than a decade and has involved Moonies, potential Moonies,
and ex-Moonies in a number of situations at a number of locations.
Do you believe that Galanter could be fooled this extensively?
> A number of people who have "worked with people in cults"
> have reached conclusions that directly contradict the
> statements you have made here. Dr. Galanter's series of
> studies done with Moonies, published in the American Journal
> of Psychiatry and Archives of Psychiatry, are classics in
> the field of cult studies -- which, by the way, includes
> a large body of peer-reviewed research in spite of your
> claims to the contrary.
>Dr. Galanter has also been challenged by people such as Margaret Singer,
>who wrote a long critique of his book. The research was published, but it
>was a far cry from presenting any kind of solid or conclusive evidence,
>peer-reviewed or not.
Could you provide me with a citation for Dr. Singer's challenge? I
would very much like to read it.
> Stories from your "clinical practice" are nothing more than
> anecdotal evidence. The anecdote you have provided does not
> even address the question I posed. I have not claimed that
> some people are too "smart" to be lured into cults -- I
> don't believe that intelligence has anything at all to do
> with the attraction some people feel towards cults.
>Yes and I said that's what it is. This is how most new fields start.
>From the clinical experience of people and it is perfectly legitimate to
>discuss it. Journals are full of case studies which amount to anecdotal
>evidence.
Of course case studies are reported. But these case studies are NEVER
accepted as proof of anything, which is precisely what you are trying
to do here. The fact that Ralph Hilton replied to you in a certain
way proves nothing, Monica, and you know it.
> Deirdre made that claim that "Those who believe they
> cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all." I
> disagree with that statement.
> Do you have any evidence to prove that people who believe
> they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all,
> Monica? Right -- I didn't think you did.
>I have my own observations. As I posted elsewhere, look at the statements
>of certain current Scientologists and even some ex-Scientologists right
>here on this newsgroup, who believe they could not be and were not
>controlled and yet spout Scientology jargon right and left. People who
>are under mind control have no idea that they are being controlled, as
>opposed to people who are brainwashed where the person doing the
>brainwashing is the obvious enemy.
And you can determine, based solely on what Raph Hilton writes to you
on this newsgroup, that he suffers from "mind control"? I don't think
so.
>Look at the Milgrim experiments, where a high percentage of people
>predicted they would not go to the highest level in administering electric
>shocks and the equally high percentage of people who actually did
>administer the shocks. People went alot further than they predicted that
>they would.
I'm not at all sure what the Milgrim experiment proves about the
existence of "mind control." Do you believe that Milgrim's subjects
were being "controlled" by the experimenters? Or do you think that
these experiments merely show the influence of social pressure on an
individual's actions?
>My argument for what Dierdre says is that when someone is so sure of
>him/herself that they cannot be controlled, they will not be as likely to
>be asking the critical questions and looking for indications of danger
>because they are overconfident that they are invulnerable. Such a person
>might be more likely to just jump into an experience and to "let go" which
>is exactly what the cult recruiter wants, rather than the more cautious,
>skeptical person who questions everything. Very few people I have talked
>to who have been in cults thought, before the experience, that they were
>easy prey for a cult. A few did, but most thought that they would never
>fall for anything like that and yet they paid the price for being very
>wrong.
But think of the *thousands* of people who are NOT lured into a cult,
in spite of being exposed to their recruiting. If "mind control"
exists, and if it is, as you state, "more powerful than brainwashing,"
why is it so ineffective? Wouldn't you agree that the state of the
individual's mind might play a large part in whether or not such
recruitment is successful? If not, why doesn't "mind control" work on
the vast majority of people?
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Jon Noring
In article ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) writes:
>I find it amusing that so many people feel they have the right to tell
>me what I should and shouldn't be writing here. For a group
>supposedly intent on preserving freedom of speech, I've come across a
>remarkable number of people who believe they know better than I what I
>should be saying.
>
>I reply to what I see posted to this newsgroup. When I see inaccurate
>statements made, or claims that I don't necessarily agree with, I will
>reply to them, regardless of who makes them.
Well said. I'm glad that you've continued to post your views and
"corrections" (some of which I have not agreed with, just so everybody
knows this is not a love letter to Diane), since it helps keep this
newsgroup from degenerating into an ineffectual morass.
And we have to realize that one of the most potent weapons against the abuse
of civil liberties and human rights by the PBoS (the politico-business of
Scientology) is unencumbered free speech. This is clearly proven (in my
opinion) by how PBoS will go through extraordinary lengths to thwart any
discussion/investigation of it that it does not directly control. PBoS is an
extremely xenophobic organization. Many of Hubbard's utterings deal with the
subject of maintaining "theta" and eliminating "entheta" in the outside world
(and of course PBoS defines what "theta" and "entheta" are). It seems like
the number one priority of upper Scientology management is to divert public
and government scrutiny -- and probably the number two priority is to keep
their own people from blowing and under strict control.
So, fighting to keep this forum intact for publicly airing *all* views about
Scientology is a very important fight to make. Diane is exercising her views
about Scientology and related topics (some of which have not been flattering
to some of the critics -- I've even been the recipient at one time or another
of her more critical posts). If we use group pressure to deny her her right
to Free Speech, then we have automatically violated the "prime directive" of
what will make this newsgroup the most effectual for its intended purpose and
have shown ourselves to be no better than the enemy we are trying to expose.
Now, to exercise my Free Speech, let me state that there are very few human
beings, no matter they be critic or Scientologist, who are so blameless, so
clean, so perfect, that all their life actions are beyond reproach and thus
are the only ones who have the right to fight the enemy. For example, we've
seen recently how many of the people who have fought major battles against
Scientology themselves have their own skeletons in their closets. We have
Larry Wollersheim (particularly the recent hubbub about FactNet and Bob
Penney, the facts of which are still fuzzy), Paulette Cooper (who Diane often
mentions in this regard), Steve Fishman, etc., etc. It is clear that *none*
of them have lived perfect lives beyond any reproach or criticism -- they have
made mistakes and done things (and may even continue to do so) that could be
called hypocritical or worse. Heck, I'm not perfect. I'm sure somebody could
dig up stuff on me which I'd rather soon forget (though OSA has probably
tried -- I think Diane might be able to dig up something, though. :^) )
So when I see Diane bring up these major flaws in these people, I ask myself,
"Is this important? Could Diane be doing something more constructive?",
given the purpose of this newsgroup and the specifics of the situation. In
some cases the answer is yes, in other cases it is no. As far as I'm
concerned, the primary purpose of this newsgroup is to discuss *and*
investigate Scientology (it is called alt.religion.scientology), and anything
which digresses too far from this purpose is just not important and is
technically off-topic. If Paulette's actions deserve continued scrutiny,
then somebody should create a newsgroup just for her. Now I'm not saying that
we shouldn't bring up the dark-sides of the various critics and Freedom of
Speech advocates, but I am saying that we should pause and think about what's
important for the primary purpose of this newsgroup before starting to type
our post. Diane may argue that discussion of the foibles of the critics is
absolutely and *always* necessary, since their foibles call into question
everything they've done and said, and that's her Free Speech right, but I say
it is not absolutely nor *always* necessary, and from my Free Speech right I
think it has in the past bordered on the excessive, if not the obsessive. By
the criteria I've *observed* Diane use, I don't think even Jesus Christ would
have passed her litmus test for consistency. :^)
All in all, Diane has probably been the most valuable person on a.r.s. to
fight for Freedom of Speech and the anti-Free Speech activities of PBoS. Her
digging up and posting of obscure court and other public documents about
Scientology has not been equaled by anybody else (yet), and I hope she
continues to dig up this information, since once it is dug up and posted here,
it is added to the digital information database about Scientology which
Scientology would prefer to be kept secret. This digital information database
is probably the second most important weapon against PBoS (after maintaining
Freedom of Speech regarding PBoS). I think few realize just how important
this is (especially compiling a *complete* listing of all the lawsuits started
by PBoS and *all* affiliated organizations and shell groups in its 40 year
history), but PBoS has, and that's why they are trying to close down this
newsgroup as well as shutdown information sources such as FactNet, and the
various Web pages out there (else why would they investigate Ron Newman!)
Just my thoughts.
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today! Just send e-mail
to majo...@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
subscribe ebook-list
GEMMAMP1
Diane wrote:
>>Diane, you must have missed my post -- perhaps it was on the other Kim
>>Baker thread. I DID address Marc Galanter's research of which I am
>>familiar and have criticisms of. Just because something was published
in
>>a peer-reviewed journal does not mean that it is solid evidence. I
think
>>that even Dr. Galanter himself would object to your saying that his
>>studies constitute "solid evidence" against mind control. Research in
>>this entire field is inconclusive on both sides and I think it would be
>>irresponsible to claim anything else.
>One researcher's work does not constitute "solid evidence." However,
>others have conducted similar research and reached conclusions
>identical to those identified by Dr. Galanter.
If you are referring to Eileen Barker, perhaps you would be interested in
knowing that the U.K. government withdrew funding for her organization
because it was discovered that the Moonies were funding part of her
research. I have the full details in another post titled: EILEEN BARKER:
Moonie-Funded Cult Apologist.
I don't know what studies you are referring to, since I did a full
computer search (in a university library) of several databases of the
literature and found no solid evidence, so I would appreciate it if you
would give me specific names & dates.
Another criticism I have of Galanter that I later realized I left out of
my critique is that he studied one cult, the Moonies in the study you
refer to. The Moonies recruiting techniques have major differences from
other cults, like Scientology and I don't think that the results of this
study can be generalized to other cults. Michael Langone, did a very
recent study comparing the after-effects of Boston Church of Christ
members to members of a mainstream Christian Intervarsity group and found
significant differences on several psychological scales. However, he was
honest enough to say that his results were only on one cult and could not
be generalized. This is the general consensus among researchers who study
only one cult group.
What I still don't see is how Galanter shows anything for or against mind
control. So what if only 9% joined? This was one particular group at one
particular point in time and when compared to percentage of converts at a
Billy Graham Crusade (2%) this number is considerably higher. His study
does nothing to refute the existence of mind control.
Monica Pignotti
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson):
>Specifically, a good paper to start with would be Levine's "Cults and
>Mental Health: Clinical Conclusions," published in the Canadian
>Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 28, no. 12 (December 1981), pp. 534-539.
>Levine reaches 10 conclusions, each of which are supported in the
>paper. These conclusions are:
>
> 1. Cults do not attract a more clinically disturbed population (than
> any other intense, demanding, dedicated movement);
Each cult attracts the specific fringe of society to which their
doctrine is directed.
> 2. Cults do attract a group of individuals who experience specific
> painful feelings prior to their joining;
This statement says nothing. Everybody experiences specific,
painful feelings at some time prior to every event which follows those
feelings.
> 3. Cults significantly reduce stresses of anxiety, depression,
> confusion in those members who experienced these;
Patently false. Cults more likely increase stress and channel it
into a very focused, predetermined, programmed life-drill.
> 4. Cults can serve as a haven, and even a therapeutic milieu for
> members with serious psychiatric or behavioural disorders;
Yes, there can be a lot of disturbed people in them after they have
been there a while.
> 5. Cults do not adversely affect their members clinically any more
> than any other intense, dedicated demanding movement;
No more than believing your destiny is for you to be a comic-book
superhero in charge of saving humanity from certain destruction.
>` 6. Cult do often contribute to the appearance of emotional
>problems in a significant number of ex-cultists;
Duh.
> 7. Cults do often contribute to cognitive and behavioural patterns
> which are of considerable concern;
This guy is really on the ball.
> 8. Cult do fulfill crucial needs, especially those of Believing and
> Belonging, and overcome alienation, demoralization, and low
> self-esteem;
"Believing" and "Belonging" capitalized. M'yea. Right.
Or to rephrase, cult's prey on people when they are vulnerable.
> 9. Cult wield extraordinary power over their "true-believing"
> members;
[fade-in: film of bodies in Guyana, flames at Waco, gasmasks in
Tokyo subway, rubble and blood in Oklahoma City]
> 10. Individual susceptiblity (auto hypnosis) and potent recruitment
> techniques combine to captivate the potential member.
There, he said it. Hypnosis and 'potent' recruitment (as in could
be undue influence, fraud or deception) technques ~captivate~. Make a
captive of.
>Well, I'd venture to state that both the American Psychiatric
>Association and the Canadian Psychiatric Association disagree with
>your assessment. They have both issued statements urging their
>members to deal with cult members as they would a member of any
>mainstream religion and not to prejudge a patient's mental status
>based on his religious affiliation.
Cool. Post those statements, please.
>As Bernie stated in another post, this controversy ended years ago.
>Those arrayed with Dr. Singer, Dr. West, et al., are in the decided
>minority and their theories are most definitely not indicative of
>currently accepted opinion on the subject.
Of course not. They're ~way~ ahead of their time.
>Unfortunately, most of my papers are not at hand at the moment. I
>will be glad to provide you with a number of citations and excerpts
>once I've relocated.
Good deal. Hope everything will be great for you in your new life.
Good luck.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson):
>I find it amusing that so many people feel they have the right to tell
>me what I should and shouldn't be writing here.
Nobody's tellin' you what you should or shouldn't say.
>I have seen very little discourse on free speech take place here.
Is there a free speech newsgroup? Perhaps you should get us
acquainted.
>People seem much more eager to come up with "blood sex crimes" that
>they can blame on the cult -- and show very little regard with whether
>these stories are fact or fiction. I want no part of such "yellow
>journalism" on the net and I won't participate in furthering it.
Kind of a broad-brush condemnation of tv-edcuated humans?
>I believe that the cult's actions against the net are enough to
>deserve the censure of all advocates of intellectual freedom. This
>newsgroup seems to have lost sight of this and instead have focused on
>any tabloid-style headline anyone cares to conjure up instead.
Fortunately we have our Steamrollin' Librarian to squash us flat if
we get outta line, eh? ;-)
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring):
>All in all, Diane has probably been the most valuable person on a.r.s. to
>fight for Freedom of Speech and the anti-Free Speech activities of PBoS.
Nobody can shut her up. That's fer shure. (no offense, Di)
>Her
>digging up and posting of obscure court and other public documents about
>Scientology has not been equaled
She has changed the complection of the newsgroup drastically
several times. And even improved it a couple. :)
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring):
>Now, to exercise my Free Speech, let me state that there are very few human
>beings, no matter they be critic or Scientologist, who are so blameless, so
>clean, so perfect, that all their life actions are beyond reproach [...]
Just a g*sh d*rn minute here! I think you're heading for trouble
here, Jon.
Are you implying that I'm even minutely less than perfect?