What's wrong with deprogramming people?
Roland
do if someone has lost their will and their mind to a cult. That you
hold them for a time and apply deprogramming techniques in order to
restore to them some sort of self-determinism can't be described as
"against their will" since the only "will" they have has been the cult's
will instilled or brainwashed into them. What is wrong with people? Are
they not able to grasp the nettle by the horns?
Roland
--
"I notice that we all believe that Venus has a methane atmosphere and
is unlivable. I almost got run down by a freight locomotive the other
day -- didn't look very uncivilized to me." - L. Ron Hubbard,
"Between Lives Implants" lecture, SHSBC #317. 23 July 1963.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/rams/Venusloc.ram
Jim Byrd
<roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote:
>What's wrong with deprogramming people? Surely that is what you need to
>do if someone has lost their will and their mind to a cult. That you
>hold them for a time and apply deprogramming techniques in order to
>restore to them some sort of self-determinism can't be described as
>"against their will" since the only "will" they have has been the cult's
>will instilled or brainwashed into them. What is wrong with people? Are
>they not able to grasp the nettle by the horns?
No. No one without specific legal authority has the right to "hold"
anyone for any reason. Even cult members have the right to hold
mistaken ideas.
Exit counseling, which does not involve force of any kind, is the way
to go. Read Steve Hassan's books.
AndroidCat
news:80sq2i$svm$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net...
> What's wrong with deprogramming people? Surely that is what you need to
> do if someone has lost their will and their mind to a cult. That you
> hold them for a time and apply deprogramming techniques in order to
> restore to them some sort of self-determinism can't be described as
> "against their will" since the only "will" they have has been the cult's
> will instilled or brainwashed into them. What is wrong with people? Are
> they not able to grasp the nettle by the horns?
Who decides if someone has lost their will and mind?
Ron of that ilk.
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
>
>In article <80sq2i$svm$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net>,
>Roland <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>What's wrong with deprogramming people? Surely that is what you need to
>>do if someone has lost their will and their mind to a cult.
>
Well the people in the cult havent been able
to determine that either.. YET.
the problems involved are outlined ACCURATELY
in US congressional Testimony
http://www.lermanet.com/house/destructive.htm
Arnie
>
>--Barbara
>DO NOT REPLY TO ABOVE ADDRESS; USE tw...@scn.org
>
Secrets are the mortar binding
bricks as lies together into prisons for the mind.
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's http://www.lermanet.com
EldonB123
>hold them for a time and apply deprogramming techniques in order to
>restore to them some sort of self-determinism can't be described as
>"against their will"
This is like asking "What's wrong with being a guerilla and leading an
uprising?" If you win, you were right. If you don't win, you are jailed or
executed.
Many religions and ideologies try to subjugate the individual will, whether
it's Islam or Catholocism (God's will), or Communism or fascism (the "will of
the people"). The hard part is drawing the line. Do you think the Chinese
government is justified in "de-programming" Falun Gong members? They do, and
are.
Eldo...@aol.com
Searcher Richard
>What's wrong with deprogramming people? Surely that is what you need to
>do if someone has lost their will and their mind to a cult. That you
>hold them for a time and apply deprogramming techniques in order to
>restore to them some sort of self-determinism can't be described as
>"against their will" since the only "will" they have has been the cult's
>will instilled or brainwashed into them. What is wrong with people? Are
>they not able to grasp the nettle by the horns?
>
>Roland
Hi Roland - I don't agree with you but well done for saying what you think!
Outside of the Cof$ we all have a right to express our opinions.
I don't agree because it is playing at the programmer's/cult's own game making
us no better than them. In Scn they would call it "closing terminals" or
"adopting a valence" It happens if something is resisted too strongly - you
become or behave like that which was resisted. Psychologically it is
understandable why people do employ a deprogrammer, but it is not good for
one's peace of mind.
The deprogrammers themselves are just taking money for trying to alter the way
a person views life. Remind you of anybody? A David by any other Miscarriage
would smell just as rotten!
On a practical level - does deprogramming work? I doubt it - anyone got
documented evidence of a "successful" deprogram or does the deprogrammee always
drift back to the cult? Anyone got any stats on successes vs failures?
Force doesn't work - ask the Cof$ - they have to constantly re-enforce their
forceful control methods with more threats of force, then more force, then more
threats, etc until the individual peddlers of force either blow themselves off
from the Church or become Ron! The latter outcome means they are trapped in his
cycle of force and attack against enemies real or imagined and trapped in a
constant unsuccessful battle to "clear" the planet. A policy of forceful
deprogramming would have the same outcome - a constant unsuccessful battle to
get people out of the Church.
The Cof$ has a history of using force to discipline its members who they think
have strayed. This goes right back to Hubbard's days at Saint Hill and
especially onboard ships. There are many documented accounts of this even
including a picture in the Church's "Auditor" magazine showing a person being
dunked overboard to enforce "standard tech".
We can show we are better than this by denouncing all uses of force or low
emotions like fear in order to control people. Any cursory study of the tenets
of Scn and Dianetics will show that these tactics used over the years by
Hubbard and the Cof$ are contrary to the beliefs and techniques of the subject
itself.
Hubbard deliberately used what he considered were restimulative images (called
"Bank Buttons"- bearded wise-men, volcanoes and even railway trains!) on the
covers of his books in an attempt to unconsciously remind the person of
"engrams" and "electronic Implants" and thereby control their reactions and
feelings. His ethics tech of "overboarding", "reality adjustment", running
round and round trees in the baking heat, etc. were all done to give people
engrams and secondaries (loss or the threat of loss) in order to be compliant.
Deliberate use of fear, force and pain to "restimulate" people in order to
control them are contrary to the actual published beliefs of their "technology"
so Hubbard and the Cof$ have shown themselves over the years to be insincere
and disingenuous! We don't have to play that same game.
Their tactics haven't worked. The public now has access to the info about what
they have done over the years. They haven't cleared the planet. Their
membership is dropping. Ergo: Force doesn't work. QED!
Stirring up the way a person thinks in order to get them to re-evaluate
opinions that they have adopted and not inspected for some time - now there is
some merit in that. We can all do with a mental spring-clean of our opinions
every now and then. But we all know that that is not what we are talking about
when we talk about deprogramming.
Shocking people into fear and terror by whisking them away from the only people
they believe can offer them eternal freedom and turning them over to people who
they believe are part of a global/many lifetime's conspiracy to supress beings
is not an effect I want to be any part of.
But exposing the Cof$ for what it is - now that's the way to go. Using
deprogramming techniques gives the Cof$ all the PR ammunition it needs. We
don't need to play their game. People DO leave the Church you know! They leave
in large numbers and usually quite soon after joining it. Even after years of
being in it, people DO leave and DO recover. It takes a long time and it is
painful, but people are made of strong stuff, they CAN survive the years of
indoctrination and abuse!
P.S. I have written a booklet of advice to people who have family members who
have joined the Church. It gives them practical steps that they can follow to
stay in touch with the Church member and advice over how to react to their
joining. Plus how to help them while they are in and how to react when they
leave the Church. Anyone got any good suggestions of the best way to publish
this on the Internet and in printed format?
---------------------
Searcher Richard
Be of good cheer! The fight against the Church of Scientology has been long and
hard and some of us have suffered in the battle. But we are winning! The public
knows about their activities. Their advanced processing techniques are
available on the Internet for all to see. The Cof$ is losing! Tell the truth
and we can't fail!
All e-mails to me will be deleted from the server unread. But you can
communicate with me via this newsgroup.
JimDBB
>From: Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.
>What's wrong with deprogramming people? Surely that is what you need to
>do if someone has lost their will and their mind to a cult. That you
>hold them for a time and apply deprogramming techniques in order to
>restore to them some sort of self-determinism can't be described as
>"against their will" since the only "will" they have has been the cult's
>will instilled or brainwashed into them. What is wrong with people? Are
>they not able to grasp the nettle by the horns?
>
>Roland
Roland is quite right. Unfortunately, the scientology cult co-opted the term,
deprogramming and has tried to turn into something evil and illegal.
Much deprgramming can be done by oneself, simply with information. This is
what most of have done who have gotten out of scientology and other cults. But
there are circumstances that reqauire
stronger action.
What we need to do is to start using this word again , freely and to mean
something positive and freeing.
JIMDBB
hil...@viewgraphics.com
Roland <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote:
>What's wrong with deprogramming people? Surely that is what you need to
>do if someone has lost their will and their mind to a cult. That you
>hold them for a time and apply deprogramming techniques in order to
>restore to them some sort of self-determinism can't be described as
>"against their will" since the only "will" they have has been the
>cult's will instilled or brainwashed into them.
\begin{sarcasm}
What would be wrong with deprogramming *you*? Surely that is what we
need to do because you lost your will and your mind to the anti-
scientology cult. You will just be held for a time and deprogramming
techniques will be used in order to fight all the dead space aliens
in your body and restore to you some sort of self-determinism. That
can't be described as "against your will" since the only "will" you
have has been the anti-scientology cult and/or Xenu has instilled
or brainwashed into you.
\end{sarcasm}
>What is wrong with people?
Since you missed the point I'll spell it out for you.
1) You can't be free by enslaving other people. If you will try
to "save" other people against their will then somebody will
try to "save" you against your will.
2) Most people can be brain-washed in a short time. The POWs in
Vietnam and Korea are good examples of that. But this brain-
wash is a traumatic event. An all-out deprogramming war will
cause some unlucky people to be brain-washed in different
directions on a regular basis. The result can be, for them,
much worse than leaving them alone.
3) The cults are much better than us in mind-control technique.
They have a much longer experience, and they are mean.
A deprogramming war will be a war against their strongest
side; I prefer to fight against their weaknesses.
4) Cults tend to be full of paranoids. Using force against
a paranoid is not a good way to cure the paranoia.
>Are they not able to grasp the nettle by the horns?
We believe that we can win without playing dirty.
We believe that saying "please listen to me, but if you refuse
then I'll not use any force against you" is a better idea than
saying "listen to me or else..."
We believe that victory is not the most important thing.
We did not get a permission from any God to use all means
to show people the light.
Hillel hil...@viewgraphics.com
"When you give the fascist in yourself the power to suppress
the speech of others, you will look just like all the other
fascists. There is no difference." -- Avedon Carol
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Hartley Patterson
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:37:45 +0000, Roland
> to go. Read Steve Hassan's books.
Your problem guys is a semantic one.
'Cult' is a 'bad' word. No one who belongs to a cult will admit to it!
'Deprogramming' is a bad word. Taken literally, there is nothing wrong
with deprogramming, since it indicates the removal of something harmful.
It has however become associated with the use of force to restrain the
individual being deprogrammed and the use of similar techniques to the
original program, ie replacing one imposed set of beliefs with another.
Therefore, totally unsurprisingly, no will admit to being a
deprogrammer.
'Exit counseling' is a 'good' word right now, though I'm sure the, ahem,
'cults' are working hard to turn it into a 'bad' word. At which point
the exit counsellors' will devise another word for what they do, and so
we go into another cycle.
--
"I think of my beautiful city in flames"
http://village.vossnet.co.uk/h/hpttrsn/
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta, how to outrun
Thread and some riddles preciousss....
Elizabeth Ann Cox
of the word deprogramming. Perhaps rather than the application of the idea
of deprogramming we should substitute the word education.
I have been presented with the opportunity this week to engage in a rather
infinite measure of critiquing myself and past motives. One conclusion I
have reached is that people involved with the Cult of Scientology, or any
other cult for that matter, have joined the group for any number of reasons.
As these reasons are rather meaningless within the confines of this
question, they shall not be addressed. What matters is that people who have
joined these "organizations" are seldom provided with an accurate portrayal
of the cult, its true mission, or its "messiah." I was sold a false bill of
goods; a fraud.
Providing people with facts, and forcing them to critically examine those
facts, is essential for breaking the chains of emotional bondage. Education
within the cult of scientology (I have determined that I will no longer
capitalize that word as it fails my personal English litmus test) consists
of learning to extol the dubious virtues of the King of Scams (this title I
will capitalize, but shall expunge the name,) and his tech and vision.
Personally, I wish I knew as much about the cult four years ago as I do now.
Had I known, had I been shown by someone knowledgeable of the cult's
activities, someone who really understood what a trap scientology is, I
would never have been involved. I have friends who were concerned but
lacked the true knowledge of the cult. Thus, despite their love and
affection, they were unable to provide the kind of information necessary to
understand that this self proclaimed church was nothing more than a
multi-level marketing activity.
Sometimes I think to myself: Had I not extricated myself from their
tentacles, I could have become another statistic -- another Lisa McPherson.
Frankly, I would rather be deprogrammed.
Bunnyann
prud...@my-deja.com
In article <80v5rn$emd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
hil...@viewgraphics.com wrote:
> In article <80sq2i$svm$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net>,
--
[Opponents of the Church][m]ay be deprived of property
or injured by any Scientologist without
any discipline of the Scientologist. [They][m]ay
be tricked, sued or lied to, or destroyed.
Stephen Jones
jim...@aol.com (JimDBB) wrote:
>>Subject: What's wrong with deprogramming people?
>>From: Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.
>
>>What's wrong with deprogramming people? Surely that is what you need to
>>do if someone has lost their will and their mind to a cult. That you
>>hold them for a time and apply deprogramming techniques in order to
>>restore to them some sort of self-determinism can't be described as
>>"against their will" since the only "will" they have has been the cult's
>>will instilled or brainwashed into them. What is wrong with people? Are
>>they not able to grasp the nettle by the horns?
>>
>>Roland
>
>Roland is quite right. Unfortunately, the scientology cult co-opted the term,
>deprogramming and has tried to turn into something evil and illegal.
>
>Much deprgramming can be done by oneself, simply with information. This is
>what most of have done who have gotten out of scientology and other cults. But
>there are circumstances that reqauire
>stronger action.
>
>What we need to do is to start using this word again , freely and to mean
>something positive and freeing.
>
>JIMDBB
While we're at it, I think we should start using "immolate" to mean something
positive that is freeing and campfire cheery.
"We told ghost stories and ate s'mores by the dancing light of immolated
monks."
While whiners would argue that "deprogramming" just a way of saying
"reprogramming, I want to know what circumstances require stronger action.
Can I volunteer to be part of any stronger action? Do good intentions count or do
I have to have a college education in deprogramming?
Let me know! I have a sweet van and a universally accepted 'freeing/postive'
understanding of existence!
Stephen Jones
keshet
> Jim Byrd wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:37:45 +0000, Roland
> > <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote:
> >
> > to go. Read Steve Hassan's books.
>
> Your problem guys is a semantic one.
>
> 'Cult' is a 'bad' word. No one who belongs to a cult will admit to it!
> 'Deprogramming' is a bad word. Taken literally, there is nothing wrong
> with deprogramming, since it indicates the removal of something harmful.
Bingo.
> It has however become associated with the use of force to restrain the
> individual being deprogrammed and the use of similar techniques to the
> original program, ie replacing one imposed set of beliefs with another.
> Therefore, totally unsurprisingly, no will admit to being a
> deprogrammer.
<...>
A Scientology (new CAN) definition of deprogramming:
http://www.jeack.com.au/~parkdale/cultaware_unzipped/def.html
...a euphemism invented to describe coercive and unlawful
attempts to suppress and alter an individual's free choice
of religious belief. Developed in the fields of psychiatry
and psychology deprogramming is simply a mix of kidnap,
unlawful restraint and force fed propaganda from audiovisual
materials wrapped in a layer of clinical jargon. Deprogramming
has family destroying consequences which are often impossible
to repair.
Contrast that with Tony McClelland's (former president of
CultAware, now closed):
Subject: Deprogramming
Author: Tony McClelland <tonym @ mail.mpx.com.au>
Date: 1998/01/11
Message-ID: <34b860e3....@news.mpx.com.au>
Deja URL: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=314867783
Deprogramming removes programming installed by a
totalitarian group. Programming is done without the
knowledge or approval of a recruit.
Deprogramming is voluntary or involuntary. Involuntary is
Illegal and not discussed in this post.
Totalitarian groups, to the best of my knowledge are the only
Organisations that oppose Deprogramming. I have never heard
of groups such as Rotary International, Boy Scouts or any
reputable charity oppose Deprogramming. All groups that have
the genuine interest of their members would be pleased to allow
them to be fully informed with all available information and then
allow the member to make an informed decision.
Read about the successful deprogramming experience of Tony's son:
Subject: A Deprogramming - Repost
Author: Tony McClelland <tonym @ mail.mpx.com.au>
Date: 1997/12/29
Message-ID: <34a912fd...@news.mpx.com.au>
Deja URL: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=311143519
The following statement was prepared by my son
following claims by OSA Australia that he was
Deprogrammed. A normal understanding of Deprogramming
would imply that a that a programmed person had their
programming reversed. The CofS definition claims that
the person was kidnapped, suffered food depravation and
sexual abuse and other abuses of human rights.
<...>
Keshet
--
Kes...@cyberpass.net * http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/racism/
Where prejudice exists it always discolors our thoughts. Mark Twain
Thomas J Best
Elizabeth Ann Cox wrote in message ...
>One of the greatest misunderstood words in this situation is the employment
>of the word deprogramming.
this self proclaimed church was nothing more than a
>multi-level marketing activity.
>
>Sometimes I think to myself: Had I not extricated myself from their
>tentacles, I could have become another statistic -- another Lisa McPherson.
>Frankly, I would rather be deprogrammed.
>
>Bunnyann
Very well put, ms Cox. It's pleasing to see more and more 'de-lurkers'
come forward with their stories now that the sporgestorm has abated.
It's particularly pleasing to see people using names rather than aliases.
I wonder whether you'd be willing to expose to this NG what it was
that got you involved? I remain puzzled about this, despite some years'
lurking. I have yet to see a cogent explanation of what it could be that
would lure a person into their snares.
tam
Diane Richardson
writing and posting it. There's only one point with which I
take issue.
On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:43:00 -0500, "Elizabeth Ann Cox"
<eliza...@chesapeake.net> wrote:
>One of the greatest misunderstood words in this situation is the employment
>of the word deprogramming. Perhaps rather than the application of the idea
>of deprogramming we should substitute the word education.
>
>I have been presented with the opportunity this week to engage in a rather
>infinite measure of critiquing myself and past motives. One conclusion I
>have reached is that people involved with the Cult of Scientology, or any
>other cult for that matter, have joined the group for any number of reasons.
>As these reasons are rather meaningless within the confines of this
>question, they shall not be addressed. What matters is that people who have
>joined these "organizations" are seldom provided with an accurate portrayal
>of the cult, its true mission, or its "messiah." I was sold a false bill of
>goods; a fraud.
>
>Providing people with facts, and forcing them to critically examine those
>facts, is essential for breaking the chains of emotional bondage.
I don't believe it's possible to "force" people to critically examine
deeply held beliefs. The Inquisition, when all was said and done,
was a miserable failure. Do you really believe the non-Christians
who converted to Christianity in the face of torture and death at
the hands of the Inquisitors actually changed their beliefs? I don't.
The doubt and questioning that has to occur before someone
begins to examine deeply held beliefs has to come from within
the person himself. As far as I'm concerned, the best anyone can
do is make sure the information necessary for the person to make
an informed decision is readily available when that time comes.
Kidnapping a cultist, holding him against his will and forcing him
to learn the truth about his cult is just as likely to strengthen his
beliefs as to weaken them. It reinforces what they've been told
about the "evil forces" who are out to destroy "the truth."
>Education
>within the cult of scientology (I have determined that I will no longer
>capitalize that word as it fails my personal English litmus test) consists
>of learning to extol the dubious virtues of the King of Scams (this title I
>will capitalize, but shall expunge the name,) and his tech and vision.
>
>Personally, I wish I knew as much about the cult four years ago as I do now.
>Had I known, had I been shown by someone knowledgeable of the cult's
>activities, someone who really understood what a trap scientology is, I
>would never have been involved. I have friends who were concerned but
>lacked the true knowledge of the cult. Thus, despite their love and
>affection, they were unable to provide the kind of information necessary to
>understand that this self proclaimed church was nothing more than a
>multi-level marketing activity.
>
>Sometimes I think to myself: Had I not extricated myself from their
>tentacles, I could have become another statistic -- another Lisa McPherson.
>Frankly, I would rather be deprogrammed.
>
>Bunnyann
Thanks for writing and posting this.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
wrote:
>
>>was a miserable failure. Do you really believe the non-Christians
>>who converted to Christianity in the face of torture and death at
>>the hands of the Inquisitors actually changed their beliefs? I don't.
>
>I do. And I think *their* children were as enthusiastic as the
>inquisitors themselves. I might point you to the history of the
>catholic chuch in the Western Hemispheres for evidence.
Do you support forcible deprogramming, Grady Ward? Do you
believe your employer, the Lisa McPherson Trust, should advocate
forcible deprogramming?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Dave Bird
>Roland:
>>What's wrong with deprogramming people?
>
>Roland is quite right. Unfortunately, the scientology cult co-opted the term,
>deprogramming and has tried to turn into something evil and illegal.
There is nothing hold of getting in one place with a cult member and
using a certain amount of pressure and persuasion (which ends in
standing aside if they really do mean to push past you and leave) to
have them hear to information and counter-arguments why they should
not stay in. If they are ready to hear it, they will listen and
take notice. If they are not, locks and bars won't change their minds.
I would say this is what you do for anyone trapped in crazy and
self-damaging behaviour, but not so far gone they can't look after
themselves without walking out among the traffic or forgetting to eat.
In article<80vpg7$58p$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephen Jones:
You are an idiot, though an occasionally amusing one.
>While we're at it, I think we should start using "immolate" to mean something
>positive that is freeing and campfire cheery.
>"We told ghost stories and ate s'mores by the dancing light of
> immolated monks."
--
Dave Bird, an official ARS HakeMonger ><_'> <_"
(licensed to mung pelagic fish and clams of all kinds upon the Internet)
"If turbot be the food of hate, Lay on MacErrel and, by damn,
Cry HADDOCK and let loose the cods of war!" Wm Skatesfin
Diane Richardson
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:08:37 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>I am a little unclear on what you mean by "forcible deprogramming."
>For example, rescuing a child who has been kidnapped to Pakistan by
>an estranged father -- would you call that "forcible deprogramming."?
No.
>Or is the definition that you and Heber Jentzsch use:
>
>CBS 60 Minutes December 28, 1997 "Reverend HEBER JENTZSCH:
>Kidnapping people, holding them against their will, beating up on
>people, pistol whipping, safehouses where they held people against
>their will, rape of their victims, that sort of thing."
>
>I believe in free speech, even for you, Asmodeusssss. I also
>believe in being law-abiding. I guess that answers all your
>questions.
Actually, you haven't answered my question at all.
>I don't know what other people should advocate.
I asked for your opinion and for the opinion of your employer.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
>Nightline February 14, 1992
>
>Mr. MISCAVIGE: No, no, he was- he had written an original article
>and some people had called him up and he was telling them to kidnap
>Scientologists out.
>
>KOPPEL: He was telling them to kidnap Scientologists.
>
>Mr. MISCAVIGE: Yes, and get them forcibly deprogrammed which,
>according to Ted Patrick, who was the father of deprogramming-
>
>KOPPEL: All right.
>
>Mr. MISCAVIGE: -it always includes kidnapping, usually assault and
>battery and certainly with the intent to commit a felony.
>
>KOPPEL: All right. Now, kidnapping, as you well know, is a federal
>crime in this country.
>
>Mr. MISCAVIGE: Well, let me tell you something, there is one person
>who he used in that article that was- to be asked of him to
>infiltrate at our church in New Jersey. He didn't quote this in his
>article. I didn't find out until actually about a month ago, and
>the person has just been arrested. As a matter of fact, four people
>from this same group I mentioned at the beginning of this show have
>just been put under arrest last week for forcible kidnapping of
>persons from another faith. You have to understand something, Ted.
>These people that he aligns with, this Cult Awareness Network,
>which every one of these people are a part of -
>
>
>---
>
>or maybe you mean:
>
>New York Time March 15, 1982 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE CULT EXPERIENCE
>
>'Dr. Clark said he does not work with deprogrammers. ''However,''
>he said, ''before therapy can take place, the patient's attention
>has to be gotten, and the patient needs information about the cult
>group. In that sense, deprogramming has a dignified provenance.'''
Dr. Clark did indeed work with deprogrammers. Every practicing
psychiatrist in this country knows one cannot force a patient into
therapy.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Stephen Jones
Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> You are an idiot, though an occasionally amusing one.
That is gonna go straight to my head, Dave.
always your vassal,
Stephen Jones
ref...@bway.net
wrote:
>
>>>
>>>New York Time March 15, 1982 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE CULT EXPERIENCE
>>>
>>>'Dr. Clark said he does not work with deprogrammers. ''However,''
>>>he said, ''before therapy can take place, the patient's attention
>>>has to be gotten, and the patient needs information about the cult
>>>group. In that sense, deprogramming has a dignified provenance.'''
>>
>>Dr. Clark did indeed work with deprogrammers. Every practicing
>>psychiatrist in this country knows one cannot force a patient into
>>therapy.
>>
>>
>>Diane Richardson
>>ref...@bway.net
>
>Good Diane. It's easier to D/A them when they are dead.
No D/Aing necessary, Grady. Just go to Arnie Lerma's
website and you can read Dr. Clark's testimony. As long
as there are people like Lerma around, Dr. Clark's words
will continue living after him.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
kEvin
Grady Ward <gr...@gradyward.com> wrote:
>>was a miserable failure. Do you really believe the non-Christians
>>who converted to Christianity in the face of torture and death at
>>the hands of the Inquisitors actually changed their beliefs? I don't.
>I do. And I think *their* children were as enthusiastic as the
>inquisitors themselves. I might point you to the history of the
>catholic chuch in the Western Hemispheres for evidence.
Sorry, the Spanish Inquisition and the forced conversion in the
Western Hemisphere didn't do much to change anyone's beliefs. There
are a lot of Catholics in Latin America, but most of them are of
European descent. Descendents of indigenous people will often state
their religion as Catholic, but will still maintain a belief in
earlier polytheistic religions and occasionally make offerings or
say prayers to their other gods, as their ancestors did. The Christian
god as just another in a crowded pantheon is *NOT* a Catholic belief.
The Spanish Inquisition produced one of the larger crypto-Jewish
(crypto-Jews are Jews who privately hold onto Judaism while outwardly
professing another faith) communities in Europe. The crypto-Jews
stopped pretending to be Catholic and mostly became open in their
faith during the early modern era. There probably were some legitimate
conversions, but I doubt they got any real converts through force that
they wouldn't have through polite evangelizing.
It's hard to guess at how many converts there would have been without
forced conversions and its also hard to guess how many forced conversions
produced outward professions of faith combined with complete hostility
to the forced faith, so I don't think this can be settled with any
solid numbers, but qualitatively, people converted by force are much
weaker in their converted faith and prone to lapse back to their chosen
faith when opportunity presents itself. Conversion by force is directly
analogous to deprogramming by force.
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
Elizabeth Ann Cox
cult of scientology are the RPF members. Poorly fed on scraps, at best
berthed in an airless dungeon, worked beyond the point of physical
endurance, and facing deteriorating health. At one point in their life,
these were free individuals, endowed with those individual rights which we
so rightly cherish.
However, for these cult members assigned to the RPF, those freedoms are but
a distant memory, soon to be eradicated by the RPF. RPF member are forced
to write o/w write-ups (overts and withholds) -- which are later used
against them -- possibly in a court of law. Have you ever written an o/w
write-up? Well, if you haven't let me clue you in. It had better be
considered "complete" or the write-up will be handed back to you. At what
point do you make things up simply to complete that "cycle of action." Of
course, if you think the RPF assignment is a joke, you could be assigned to
the RPFs RPF.
However, you do not need to be a member of the elite Sea Organization to be
assigned ethics conditions and forced to complete these o/w write ups.
Then, you are assigned an amends project.
Eventually, one of two things happen. You are either so immersed within the
structure of the cult that you never break free, or you walk away from a
religion you once believed offered hope and spirituality. I was fortunate,
I walked away, tens of thousands of dollars poorer, and minus a couple of
clients, but intact.
However, I do think this: I have eleven years or more of post secondary
education, successful in my career, and stable. Yet, I found something
there that interested me. I cannot help but think about the individual
facing problems in their life, adrift, bereft of understanding from others
about what is current transpiring in their world. The cult of scientology
knows how to lure this individual in. If "deprogramming" can save this
person from the ravages of the cult, then yes, I will support it.
Much has been said about individual rights here. And yes, I am a strong
supporter of individual rights and freedom of religion. However, the cult
of scientology is hardly a church. At best, they are a multi level
marketing corporation. As to individual rights, well, once that individual
has signed on staff, at the SO or an Org, individual rights are immediately
subjugated.
Mr. Best, you inquired about my personal history with the cult. I explained
in an earlier posting that as I proceeded to post I would write my story.
In fact, I do. With every post, I reveal more about myself and my
experiences with that cult and its members, and I will continue to provide
these insights.
Bunnyann
M. C. DiPietra
and social justice; you said this better than I ever could.
But I was never inside Scientology.
These are powerful words coming from one who has seen
both sides of an org.
Waiting for more of your story,
---
M.C.DiPietra <mdip...@earthlink.net>, SP4
"Hell, if you understood everything I say,
you'd be me!" -Miles Davis
----------
In article <s3b06l...@corp.supernews.com>, "Elizabeth Ann
Cox" <eliza...@chesapeake.net> wrote:
>Much has been said about individual rights here. And yes, I am a strong
>supporter of individual rights and freedom of religion. However, the
>cult
>of scientology is hardly a church. At best, they are a multi level
>marketing corporation. As to individual rights, well, once that
>individual
>has signed on staff, at the SO or an Org, individual rights are
>immediately
>subjugated.
>
>Mr. Best, you inquired about my personal history with the cult. I
>explained
>in an earlier posting that as I proceeded to post I would write my
>story.
>In fact, I do. With every post, I reveal more about myself and my
>experiences with that cult and its members, and I will continue to
>provide
>these insights.
>
>Bunnyann
---
M.C.DiPietra <mdip...@earthlink.net>, SP4
"Hell, if you understood everything I say,
you'd be me!" -Miles Davis
Dave Bird
<snj...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>In article <0yW$JQCMxF...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,
> Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> You are an idiot, though an occasionally amusing one.
>
>That is gonna go straight to my head, Dave.
Well, there's plenty of empty space up there to store your trophies.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
Russell Shaw
Stephen Jones wrote in message <80vpg7$58p$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>...
>In article <19991117140817...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
> jim...@aol.com (JimDBB) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: What's wrong with deprogramming people?
>>>From: Roland roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.
>>
>>>What's wrong with deprogramming people? Surely that is what you need to
>>>do if someone has lost their will and their mind to a cult. That you
>>>hold them for a time and apply deprogramming techniques in order to
>>>restore to them some sort of self-determinism can't be described as
>>>"against their will" since the only "will" they have has been the cult's
>>>will instilled or brainwashed into them. What is wrong with people? Are
>>>they not able to grasp the nettle by the horns?
>>>
>>>Roland
>>
term,
>>deprogramming and has tried to turn into something evil and illegal.
>>
is
>>what most of have done who have gotten out of scientology and other cults.
But
>>there are circumstances that reqauire
>>stronger action.
>>
>>What we need to do is to start using this word again , freely and to mean
>>something positive and freeing.
>>
>>JIMDBB
>
something
>positive that is freeing and campfire cheery.
>
> "We told ghost stories and ate s'mores by the dancing light of immolated
> monks."
>
>"reprogramming, I want to know what circumstances require stronger action.
>Can I volunteer to be part of any stronger action? Do good intentions
count or do
>I have to have a college education in deprogramming?
>
>Let me know! I have a sweet van and a universally accepted
'freeing/postive'
>understanding of existence!
LOL !!! (*very* nice to see you back, Stephen!)
>
>Stephen Jones
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
Whats wrong with deprogramming people?
unlike $cientology
It WORKS
arnie lerma
read http://www.lermanet.com/house/destructive.htm
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
Stephen Jones
Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article<812nam$bn8$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephen Jones
><snj...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>In article <0yW$JQCMxF...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,
>> Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You are an idiot, though an occasionally amusing one.
>>
>>That is gonna go straight to my head, Dave.
>
> Well, there's plenty of empty space up there to store your trophies.
Do I want a forty-some-odd-year-old painfully self-pleased English stalker?
That is the question I have to ask myself.
I'm conflicted.
On one hand, I may get a delightful and witty song parody!
On the other, I may receive some ASCII art.
choices
Dave, I hurl myself into your churlish embrace. Hold me. Love me.
never let me go,
Stephen Jones
Tarjei Straume
"Arnie Lerma " wrote:
> Whats wrong with deprogramming people?
>
>
> unlike $cientology
>
> It WORKS
Fighting coercion and mind abuse with coecrion and mind abuse? Sorry,
you've lost me.
Tarjei
kEvin
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com> wrote:
> Whats wrong with deprogramming people?
> unlike $cientology
> It WORKS
You're free to believe what you want Arnie, but as I pointed
out on our last go round on this subject, forcible deprogramming
has a very high relapse rate. People believe what they *want*
to believe. Cults have beliefs that are very desirable to their
members and trying to force them to give up those beliefs will
trigger very strong backlash against the person using force.
If you've been following the Jason Scott case on ars, then you've
read his story about being kidnapped and how he didn't like it.
Jason Scott did leave that cult, but after the kidnapping, he
was afraid that there would be another attempt. I think that fear
and the breach of trust with his mother kept him in that cult
longer than had they just been there waiting for him.
Similarly, if you've been following the Odrhan Fortune story
on ars, you'll see a similar pattern. (I haven't seen any updates
on that story, so the current situation might have changed.)
Odrhan's family managed to pry him out of Scientology[tm] in
England and get him back to Ireland. (I don't know if they used
emotional pressure or went all the way to physical force.) Once
they had him home, they tried to supervise him continuously and
shepard him unenthusiastically into his old life and away from
Scientology[tm]. Of course, no one joins Scientology[tm] because
they're happy with their old life and when Scientology[tm] got
in contact with Odrhan, they were able to get him to willingly
reenter the Sea Org. He's now in the same position he was in
before, except he's not only completely and *irreconcilably*
broken with his family, he's scared of them attempting to coerce
him back.
I know you've done a lot of time on the picket lines, and I know
you were Sea Org for years so you should see the same thing that
I, with my limited experience see. Cult staff are terrorized with
stories of harsh and coercive forcible deprogrammings, and they are
genuinely afraid of people who do such things. Forcible deprogrammings
are the bogeyman under Scientologists[tm] bed. Unless the LMT loudly
renounces forcible deprogramming, people who are in genuine need
of their help will avoid them out of fear. I haven't seen you
loudly advocating forcibles, but you've expressed some fondness
with the idea, as have several other ex members. (I remember Dennis
Erlich talking about how he kind of wished someone had tried to
get him out when he started to get in deep, but he acknowledged
that it probably wouldn't have worked.) I'm afraid that out of
opposition to Diane you are shifting your position away from
wishful thinking towards advocacy and that advocacy of forcible
deprogramming will seriously hurt the LMT.
Please rethink your statements on this matter. I know the appeal
of simple solutions to problems, and at casual glance deprogramming
sounds clean and final and good. Faced with a problem as complex and
intractable as that presented by an abusive, deceptive cult I can see
how much that must appeal to you, but as the stories I started this
article off with show, it's usually messy and inconclusive and wrong.
I know there's no love lost between you and Diane, but please
consider that in opposing Diane in this manner on this matter
you might be hurting the LMT. I think that the LMT is sorely needed
and although no one involved with it will be up for sainthood anytime
in the near future, it's going to help people in need.
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
(I didn't mention illegal, immoral and ineffective, but those
words are never far from my mind on this matter. I've spent
so much of my life on various parts of the fringe that I
shudder in horror at forced conformity and forcible deprogramming
falls far too easily into that pattern. People who join cults
are usually making a mistake, but the right I most cherish
is the right to be wrong. Most people who join cults eventually
leave on their own. Forcible deprogrammings destroy their ability
to leave on their own terms and in their own way. Failed forcible
deprogrammings destroy trust that cannot be replaced and make
exiting that much harder when the cult victim finally does choose
to leave. I cannot emphasize enough how opposed I am to any hint
of advocacy of involuntary deprogramming or how counter-productive
such advocacy will be for anyone connected with the LMT. Please
do not let yourself be bated into an untenable position.)
HazeIStone
>psychiatrist in this country knows one cannot force a patient into
>therapy.
>
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
Interesting opinion. In California, as in many other states, there is a law
that allows people to be held for observation and treatment in a mental
institution, against their will if they are found to be a danger to themselves
or others for a period of three days.
After those three days if it is thought the person is still a danger to
themselves or others, then with a court review the person can be held, and
treated for an additional length of time.
People are forced into therapy also by court mandate. People convicted of
spousal abuse, drunk driving, and other offenses are often court mandated to
attend counseling.
Sometimes, when people are "forced into therapy" they get benefit from it.
I can see where the same could be true for people involved in a cult.
It's also very easy to have an opinion about something. I can say, " I believe
this, or I would do that". But reality is a harsh realm. I don't think anyone
really knows what they would do if it was their child, their spouse, their
parents, or anyone they really loved. Or how a person would feel if they were
the one involved and removed in that manner.
It's almost like asking someone; "Are you for or against abortion?" There are
many variables involved. Mother's health, age, term of pregnancy, etc., etc.
Even in those issues, the opinion can radically change. It's very difficult to
give an answer when there are so many other factors considered.
Then of course, there is the twisting. If someone states, "Yes, I am for
forceable deprogramming.", then another can quote the most vicious example of
such a case and say, "THIS is what soandso stands for!". If someone says they
are against forceable deprogramming, then another can say "What if it was
soandso whom you loved, or what if you knew it was going to become a Jonestown
type situation would you let them die?!"
From what little knowledge I have of the LMT from the few days I've spent on
ars is that it is a foundation to provide services for people leaving, or
wanting to leave scientology. I haven't heard anything nor read anything that
stated that the LMT would be forcibly deprogramming anyone. As to individuals
employed by, or serving the LMT personal opinions regarding that, I don't care.
I also don't care if some of them think that the teachings of scientology is
the greatest thing since sliced bread, and it's just the Co$ that's rotten.
The only concerns I have about the LMT as far as evaluating it as a worthwhile
organization to contribute to is what services they intend to provide, and what
their goals are. That's it.
Hazel Stone
--
"Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything."
Lorenzo Smythe in Double Star.
by Robert A. Heinlein
Stephen Jones
"Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
>
>LOL !!! (*very* nice to see you back, Stephen!)
Hi, Russell. Listen, do a fella a favor and let me deprogram
you. It will be mostly painless as I'm certified by Radio Shack.
Once I'm done, you'll be right as rain obeying my every whim and destroying
my enemies just like the rest of us non-programmed people. Additionally, for every good thought
I inadvertently zap while I'm extracting your bad thoughts, you'll receive a twenty dollar gift
certificate redeemable at any Mr. Steak or T.G.I. Friday's
Think it over and let me know when I can swing by and throw you in the back of my van.
the enemy line starts here,
Stephen Jones
Diane Richardson
>>Dr. Clark did indeed work with deprogrammers. Every practicing
>>psychiatrist in this country knows one cannot force a patient into
>>therapy.
>>
>>
>>Diane Richardson
>>ref...@bway.net
>
>Interesting opinion. In California, as in many other states, there is a law
>that allows people to be held for observation and treatment in a mental
>institution, against their will if they are found to be a danger to themselves
>or others for a period of three days.
Indeed there is. "Cult mind control" or "brainwashing" is not a
mental illness, however.
>After those three days if it is thought the person is still a danger to
>themselves or others, then with a court review the person can be held, and
>treated for an additional length of time.
They can be held, but only for a recognized mental illness. Cult
members are not considered mentally ill because of their affiliations.
Doing that would be similar to the old Soviet practice of calling
political dissedents "mentally ill" and involuntarily committing them
to mental institutions.
>People are forced into therapy also by court mandate. People convicted of
>spousal abuse, drunk driving, and other offenses are often court mandated to
>attend counseling.
In such cases, the person is given the option of voluntarily
undergoing therapy or going to prison. I know of no law that
is broken if someone chooses to join a cult -- at least not in
the United States.
>Sometimes, when people are "forced into therapy" they get benefit from it.
People cannot be "forced into therapy." If it isn't voluntary, it
isn't therapy.
>I can see where the same could be true for people involved in a cult.
People cannot be threatened with a prison sentence for joining a cult.
At least not in this country.
>It's also very easy to have an opinion about something. I can say, " I believe
>this, or I would do that". But reality is a harsh realm. I don't think anyone
>really knows what they would do if it was their child, their spouse, their
>parents, or anyone they really loved. Or how a person would feel if they were
>the one involved and removed in that manner.
>
>It's almost like asking someone; "Are you for or against abortion?" There are
>many variables involved. Mother's health, age, term of pregnancy, etc., etc.
>Even in those issues, the opinion can radically change. It's very difficult to
>give an answer when there are so many other factors considered.
There's a very great difference between abortion and forcible
deprogramming. In abortion, it is the woman herself who decides
what to do. It is her choice. In forcible deprogramming, someone
else decides "what's best" for the person, against that person's
own wishes. That's a very important difference.
>Then of course, there is the twisting. If someone states, "Yes, I am for
>forceable deprogramming.", then another can quote the most vicious example of
>such a case and say, "THIS is what soandso stands for!". If someone says they
>are against forceable deprogramming, then another can say "What if it was
>soandso whom you loved, or what if you knew it was going to become a Jonestown
>type situation would you let them die?!"
One can play the "what if?" game forever. It's meaningless unless
you can foretell the future correctly 100 percent of the time. No one
can do that.
What it gets down to is a basic issue of human rights. Unless you can
prove an individual adult is not of sound mind, that individual has a
right to determine his own beliefs, whether others agree with his
beliefs or not.
>From what little knowledge I have of the LMT from the few days I've spent on
>ars is that it is a foundation to provide services for people leaving, or
>wanting to leave scientology. I haven't heard anything nor read anything that
>stated that the LMT would be forcibly deprogramming anyone. As to individuals
>employed by, or serving the LMT personal opinions regarding that, I don't care.
>I also don't care if some of them think that the teachings of scientology is
>the greatest thing since sliced bread, and it's just the Co$ that's rotten.
>
>The only concerns I have about the LMT as far as evaluating it as a worthwhile
>organization to contribute to is what services they intend to provide, and what
>their goals are. That's it.
Sounds like a sound opinion to me.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 13:29:58 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>
>>They can be held, but only for a recognized mental illness. Cult
>>members are not considered mentally ill because of their
>>affiliations. Doing that would be similar to the old Soviet practice
>>of calling
>>political dissedents "mentally ill" and involuntarily committing
>>them to mental institutions.
>>
>
>I would call a cult member "mentally ill" when their beliefs harm
>their life. Many members of the criminal cult are mentally ill. I am
>sure that is one "stat" that is booming. As Dr. Ed Lottick observed
>after his son Noah was driven to suicide:
There is no DSM-IV diagnosis for "cult mind-controlled" or "cult
brainwashed." You may call cult members whatever you like,
but your labelling of others as "mentally ill" on such subjective
grounds won't get anyone committed to a mental hospital.
>"They are a school for psychopaths."
Dr. Lottick can say whatever he likes. Unless he can get a
diagnosis of such accepted by his medical peers, and added
to the DSM-IV, his comments are merely a personal opinion..
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Roland
>
> On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:48:54 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
> wrote:
>
> >>I would call a cult member "mentally ill" when their beliefs harm
> >>their life. Many members of the criminal cult are mentally ill. I am
> >>sure that is one "stat" that is booming. As Dr. Ed Lottick observed
> >>after his son Noah was driven to suicide:
> >
> >There is no DSM-IV diagnosis for "cult mind-controlled" or "cult
> >brainwashed." You may call cult members whatever you like,
> >but your labelling of others as "mentally ill" on such subjective
> >grounds won't get anyone committed to a mental hospital.
>
> Those are your BTs talking, Diane.
>
> >
> >>"They are a school for psychopaths."
> >
> >Dr. Lottick can say whatever he likes. Unless he can get a
> >diagnosis of such accepted by his medical peers, and added
> >to the DSM-IV, his comments are merely a personal opinion..
>
> criminal cult of scientology, it is a personal opinion that I very
> much respect.
Surely a bunch of psychologists should get together and prove the cult
members are insane to the point of being harmful to themselves and
others. It shouldn't be hard. Their fixed glares. Talking gibberish such
as "one-one", "dee-bees", "doingness", "beingness", "up-stat". Believing
that L. Ron Hubbard walked on Venus where he was nearly run over by a
freight locomotive. Wearing trousers that are 3 inches too short at the
same time as asking the public stupid questions like "What is the most
obvious thing about me". And if that isn't enough, talking to their
infestations of dead space-aliens. That is surely enough to have someone
committed, stuck in a straight-jacket and lobotomised for their own
good.
Roland
--
"I notice that we all believe that Venus has a methane atmosphere and
is unlivable. I almost got run down by a freight locomotive the other
day -- didn't look very uncivilized to me." - L. Ron Hubbard,
"Between Lives Implants" lecture, SHSBC #317. 23 July 1963.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/rams/Venusloc.ram
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
>
>In article <815fej$29...@edrn.newsguy.com>,
>Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com> wrote:
>
>> Whats wrong with deprogramming people?
>
>
>> unlike $cientology
>
>> It WORKS
>
>
>You're free to believe what you want Arnie, but as I pointed
>out on our last go round on this subject, forcible deprogramming
>has a very high relapse rate. People believe what they *want*
>to believe.
Yes like that poster in David Duchovy's office in X Files
that says "I want to believe"
>Cults have beliefs that are very desirable to their
>members and trying to force them to give up those beliefs will
>trigger very strong backlash against the person using force.
Who introduced the word FORCE? not I. You just did.
read this: http://www.lermanet.com/house/destructive.htm
In congressional testimony the speaker laments
than what is necssary to be effective in some cases is also not legal.
The entire effort of Diane's thread is to cloud this issue.
>If you've been following the Jason Scott case on ars, then you've
>read his story about being kidnapped and how he didn't like it.
>Jason Scott did leave that cult, but after the kidnapping, he
>was afraid that there would be another attempt. I think that fear
>and the breach of trust with his mother kept him in that cult
>longer than had they just been there waiting for him.
I've talked to Jason Scott on the phone.
hes very grateful he is out.
I did not inquire about your speculations though.
>Similarly, if you've been following the Odrhan Fortune story
>on ars, you'll see a similar pattern. (I haven't seen any updates
>on that story, so the current situation might have changed.)
>Odrhan's family managed to pry him out of Scientology[tm] in
>England and get him back to Ireland. (I don't know if they used
>emotional pressure or went all the way to physical force.)
So you agree that PHYSICAL RAPE is bad
but MENTAL RAPE is ok?
>Once
>they had him home, they tried to supervise him continuously and
>shepard him unenthusiastically into his old life and away from
>Scientology[tm]. Of course, no one joins Scientology[tm] because
>they're happy with their old life and when Scientology[tm] got
>in contact with Odrhan, they were able to get him to willingly
>reenter the Sea Org. He's now in the same position he was in
>before, except he's not only completely and *irreconcilably*
>broken with his family, he's scared of them attempting to coerce
>him back.
So you would agree that PHYSICAL RAPE is bad
but MENTAL RAPE is ok?
>I know you've done a lot of time on the picket lines, and I know
>you were Sea Org for years so you should see the same thing that
>I, with my limited experience see. Cult staff are terrorized with
>stories of harsh and coercive forcible deprogrammings, and they are
>genuinely afraid of people who do such things.
Deprogrammings were never mentioned when I was IN.
When I was in I'd be the one they would ask
to intercede when some fellah wanted to leave.
I was VERY good at talking them into staying for the cause.
I VERY GOOD, if not better, talking them into getting the hell out
My Rx for a $cientologists ; Hang onto your wallet and run like hell!
> Forcible deprogrammings
>are the bogeyman under Scientologists[tm] bed.
This is a manufactured issue to cloud and taint
truely honest and ethical attempts to deal with the Scientology problem.
Scientology knows deprogramming works.
I have never advocated the violation of the
United States Criminal Code fighting co$.
Never once.
And not now.
Even though those that seek to cloud the issue would like
to infer this by means of innuendo.
Not having the courage to state their accusations in simple english
they revert to childish propoganda101 techniques.
See http://www.propaganda101.com/logical.htm
for a good primer on pattern of Diane Richardson's feeble twitches.
>Unless the LMT loudly
>renounces forcible deprogramming, people who are in genuine need
>of their help will avoid them out of fear. I haven't seen you
>loudly advocating forcibles, but you've expressed some fondness
>with the idea, as have several other ex members. (I remember Dennis
>Erlich talking about how he kind of wished someone had tried to
>get him out when he started to get in deep, but he acknowledged
>that it probably wouldn't have worked.)
well I can only say what I think
And I will continue to do that.
In the face of ten thousand maniacs if need be.
>I'm afraid that out of
>opposition to Diane you are shifting your position away from
>wishful thinking towards advocacy and that advocacy of forcible
>deprogramming will seriously hurt the LMT.
You are either part of the Propoganda 101 effort
or you are against it, and for the use of
"The WHOLE of the truth"
which is it?
>Please rethink your statements on this matter. I know the appeal
>of simple solutions to problems, and at casual glance deprogramming
>sounds clean and final and good. Faced with a problem as complex and
>intractable as that presented by an abusive, deceptive cult I can see
>how much that must appeal to you, but as the stories I started this
>article off with show, it's usually messy and inconclusive and wrong.
Lisa Mcphersons deathw as messy, and wrong...
>I know there's no love lost between you and Diane, but please
>consider that in opposing Diane in this manner on this matter
>you might be hurting the LMT. I think that the LMT is sorely needed
>and although no one involved with it will be up for sainthood anytime
>in the near future, it's going to help people in need.
just understand that Diane is just a wagging tail
on a greater evil.
Dont buy it.
read and study this:
http://www.propaganda101.com/logical.htm
Its about diane.
Its not about LMT,
Whatever structure tries to survive to take these
folks on face to face will be sullied
at every opportunity by the Masters of Deception
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/FINAL.htm
As well as by those they have artfully decieved.
thanks for listening
Arnie Lerma
>
>kEvin
>m...@primenet.com
Diane Richardson
<Arnie_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
[snip]
> So you agree that PHYSICAL RAPE is bad
> but MENTAL RAPE is ok?
Arnie, here's a clue for you.
There is no such thing as MENTAL RAPE.
It does not exist. It is a figment of your imagination.
[snip]
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
HazeIStone
>>>psychiatrist in this country knows one cannot force a patient into
>>>therapy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Diane Richardson
>>>ref...@bway.net
Hazel says:
>>Interesting opinion. In California, as in many other states, there is a law
>>that allows people to be held for observation and treatment in a mental
>>institution, against their will if they are found to be a danger to
>themselves
>>or others for a period of three days.
Diane says:
>Indeed there is. "Cult mind control" or "brainwashing" is not a
>mental illness, however.
Hazel says:
Being found a danger to yourself or others is not necessarily a mental illness
either. Considering the suicides that have taken place with cult involvement, I
think while "cult control" is not a mental illness, the result of it can create
a psychosis.
Hazel says:
>>After those three days if it is thought the person is still a danger to
>>themselves or others, then with a court review the person can be held, and
>>treated for an additional length of time.
Diane says:
>They can be held, but only for a recognized mental illness. Cult
>members are not considered mentally ill because of their affiliations.
>Doing that would be similar to the old Soviet practice of calling
>political dissedents "mentally ill" and involuntarily committing them
>to mental institutions.
Hazel says:
I agree, cult members are not considered mentally ill because of their
affiliations. However they can become mentally ill due to their affiliations.
Or a mental illness can lead them to such affiliations.
Hazel says:
>>People are forced into therapy also by court mandate. People convicted of
>>spousal abuse, drunk driving, and other offenses are often court mandated to
>>attend counseling.
Diane says:
>In such cases, the person is given the option of voluntarily
>undergoing therapy or going to prison. I know of no law that
>is broken if someone chooses to join a cult -- at least not in
>the United States.
Hazel says:
Joining a cult is not against the law in this country. The actions when in the
cult may be against the law. Attempted suicide is a crime.
Hazel says:
>>Sometimes, when people are "forced into therapy" they get benefit from it.
Diane says:
>People cannot be "forced into therapy." If it isn't voluntary, it
>isn't therapy.
Hazel says:
If someone is in the middle of a schizophrenic break, is forced into therapy
and then placed on medication to help with their illness I would argue they get
great benefit from it.
People who are suicidally depressed who are "forced" into therapy on a 5150 can
also receive benefit from it. There isn't an absolute...some do, some don't.
Hazel says:
>>I can see where the same could be true for people involved in a cult.
Diane says:
>People cannot be threatened with a prison sentence for joining a cult.
>At least not in this country.
Hazel says:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was saying that perhaps forceable deprogramming could
be beneficial at times just as forced therapy could be beneficial at times. A
schizophrenic isn't threatened with jail time. And while at times, in criminal
cases for driving under the influence or spousal abuse a defendant is ordered
to therapy, s/he can choose not to go and face additional jail/prison time. It
is true that is a choice. However when people in society are a danger to
themselves or others then there is no choice. It's also not a perfect system.
The poor homeless schizophrenic walking down the street mumbling to herself
would not fall under this provision today. As long as she is not a danger to
herself and others there would be no intervention for help. I wonder though if
she were to be given assistance if she would, after coming out of her break, be
resentful to be helped, or grateful.
Hazel says:
>>It's also very easy to have an opinion about something. I can say, " I
>believe
>>this, or I would do that". But reality is a harsh realm. I don't think
>anyone
>>really knows what they would do if it was their child, their spouse, their
>>parents, or anyone they really loved. Or how a person would feel if they
>were
>>the one involved and removed in that manner.
>
>>It's almost like asking someone; "Are you for or against abortion?" There
>are
>>many variables involved. Mother's health, age, term of pregnancy, etc., etc.
>>Even in those issues, the opinion can radically change. It's very difficult
>to
>>give an answer when there are so many other factors considered.
Diane says:
>There's a very great difference between abortion and forcible
>deprogramming. In abortion, it is the woman herself who decides
>what to do. It is her choice. In forcible deprogramming, someone
>else decides "what's best" for the person, against that person's
>own wishes. That's a very important difference.
Hazel says:
I agree there is a very important distinction between abortion and forceable
deprogramming. Another difference is that some people feel abortion involves
the murder of an individual human being. So while it can be said it's the
mother's choice many feel that another entity is left out, that of the fetus.
So many feel it should not be the mother's choice since she is deciding for the
fetus.
The point though I was trying to focus on when comparing the two issues is that
both are a hotbed of debate, there are many valid considerations on both sides
of the issue, and it is not a simple one.
Hazel says:
>>Then of course, there is the twisting. If someone states, "Yes, I am for
>>forceable deprogramming.", then another can quote the most vicious example
>of
>>such a case and say, "THIS is what soandso stands for!". If someone says
>they
>>are against forceable deprogramming, then another can say "What if it was
>>soandso whom you loved, or what if you knew it was going to become a
>Jonestown
>>type situation would you let them die?!"
Diane says:
>One can play the "what if?" game forever. It's meaningless unless
>you can foretell the future correctly 100 percent of the time. No one
>can do that.
Hazel says:
I agree, and if anyone could there would be more lottery winners.
Diane says:
>What it gets down to is a basic issue of human rights. Unless you can
>prove an individual adult is not of sound mind, that individual has a
>right to determine his own beliefs, whether others agree with his
>beliefs or not.
Hazel says:
I understand what you are saying. I imagine though it must be hard if parents
who have sent their child to college suddenly find out they have dropped out
and are in a religious group where they have sold all their possessions and are
now wandering the streets preaching their new beliefs. I imagine for a parent
who has known their child for 18 years must have a difficult time understanding
such a radical change in behavior over such a short period of time. Radical
changes in behavior and lifestyle over a short period of time can also be the
hallmark of a mental illness. I can also understand why those parents would
seek to have their child forcibly deprogrammed in those instances. But it's the
"what if" scenarios again. And I think there is always a scenario that can be
found where a person can say in that case I can agree with it, and in this case
I can't.
I also wonder if you think brainwashing is possible. If so, then is a person
who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination that
brainwashing had taken place?
Hazel says:
>>From what little knowledge I have of the LMT from the few days I've spent on
>>ars is that it is a foundation to provide services for people leaving, or
>>wanting to leave scientology. I haven't heard anything nor read anything
>that
>>stated that the LMT would be forcibly deprogramming anyone. As to
>individuals
>>employed by, or serving the LMT personal opinions regarding that, I don't
>care.
>>I also don't care if some of them think that the teachings of scientology is
>>the greatest thing since sliced bread, and it's just the Co$ that's rotten.
>>
>>The only concerns I have about the LMT as far as evaluating it as a
>worthwhile
>>organization to contribute to is what services they intend to provide, and
>what
>>their goals are. That's it.
Diane says:
>Sounds like a sound opinion to me.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
Any misquoting is my own fault, I did a Hazel says/Diane says to attempt to
preserve who said what in the discussion for reading clarity. :) Not sure which
format is more often used, so I made up my own :)
Hazel Stone
---
"One works with available materials."
From Podkayne of Mars.
by Robert A. Heinlein
Tarjei Straume
Diane Richardson wrote:
> On 20 Nov 1999 10:28:36 -0800, Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
> <Arnie_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > So you agree that PHYSICAL RAPE is bad
> > but MENTAL RAPE is ok?
>
> Arnie, here's a clue for you.
>
> There is no such thing as MENTAL RAPE.
> It does not exist. It is a figment of your imagination.
George Bernard Shaw once said that the worst kind of abortion is the
molding of a child's mind. Leo Tolstoi recognized the same truth by
saying that no teachers have *the right *to educate. What Tolstoi meant
by that was that in education, the rights and needs of the children
themselves must come first. For this reason, Tolstoi established his own
private schools.Respect for the individuality and will of each single
child was also of major importance to Rudolf Steiner when he founded the
first Waldorf school.
The education of children is perhaps the best illustrative example of
how important it is to respect and encourage free, individual thinking
and the free self-disciplined excercise of the will - and for the
record, by "will" I don't imply licentious eccentricities.
The very words "programming" and "deprogramming" denote an approach to
the mind and soul of a fellow human being that is totally devoid of such
respect. If a person has been mentally or psychologically abused through
coercion, hypnosis, etc., it's rather cynical to employ the same, or at
least very similar, abusive methods to replace one set of ideas with
another, as if the person in question was not a living, breathing,
feeling human being, but just a computer disk where you install
software, erase it, reformat it, and install new software. If this is
done in the name of cult-fighting, all I can say is that two wrongs
don't make it right, and that the deprogrammers are just as brutal and
insensitive as the cult indoctrinators whom they seek to combat.
An indoctrinated cult victim does not need counter-indoctrination. He or
she needs to learn to practice self-dependent thinking and the exercise
of individual judgement. When these formerly suppressed skills are
restored and strengthened, he/she must determine for himself/herself
which ideas make sense and which ones don't - independently of any
opinions held by cultists or anti-cultists alike. The victim must learn
that this or her opinions and views are respected and valued as long as
they arise from independent judgement - whether or not these ideas
support the cult! That is the point.
Whether or not "mental rape" exists is totally irrelevant. It's semantic
nonsense.
Tarjei
>
>
> [snip]
>
> Diane Richardson
> ref...@bway.net
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
>
>On 20 Nov 1999 10:28:36 -0800, Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
><Arnie_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> but MENTAL RAPE is ok?
>
>
>There is no such thing as MENTAL RAPE.
>It does not exist. It is a figment of your imagination.
>
Ahhh thank you dear diane
for making your meager mental abilities so
perfectly CLEAR!
arnie
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/FINAL.htm
>
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
I'll attempt to answer your other points at a later time. For now,
though, I'll focus on just one.
>I also wonder if you think brainwashing is possible. If so, then is a person
>who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
>unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination that
>brainwashing had taken place?
No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
physical coercion.
This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
coercion.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
>
Tarjei Straume
Diane Richardson wrote:
> On 20 Nov 1999 20:12:53 GMT, hazei...@aol.com (HazeIStone) wrote:
>
> I'll attempt to answer your other points at a later time. For now,
> though, I'll focus on just one.
>
> >I also wonder if you think brainwashing is possible. If so, then is a person
> >who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
> >unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination that
> >brainwashing had taken place?
>
> No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
> physical coercion.
>
> This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
> times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
> thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
> coercion.
Perhaps some victims need physical coecion while others don't, and perhaps that is
why the CoS does indeed use such physical coercion when it is expedient to do so.
The gulags, or RPFs, are a perfect example of this. So is locking people up with no
food or water.
Still, "Coercive persuasion is the effective restraining, impairing, or compelling
through the gradual and continuing application of psychological FORCES of intense
anxiety\shame\guilt manipulation combined with strong emotional arousal."
(Wollersheim) In other words, physical force is not always necessary to achieve the
desired effect of a controlled and manipulated human mind.
Tarjei
Diane Richardson
<tast...@online.no> wrote:
>
>
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>
>> On 20 Nov 1999 20:12:53 GMT, hazei...@aol.com (HazeIStone) wrote:
>>
>> I'll attempt to answer your other points at a later time. For now,
>> though, I'll focus on just one.
>>
>> >I also wonder if you think brainwashing is possible. If so, then is a person
>> >who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
>> >unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination that
>> >brainwashing had taken place?
>>
>> No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
>> physical coercion.
>>
>> This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
>> times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
>> thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
>> coercion.
>
>Perhaps some victims need physical coecion while others don't, and perhaps that is
>why the CoS does indeed use such physical coercion when it is expedient to do so.
>The gulags, or RPFs, are a perfect example of this. So is locking people up with no
>food or water.
Of course you know that the vast majority of scientologists never
experience the RPF, since it is only part of the Sea Org. Please
don't forget that there are far more public scientologists than
members of the Sea Org.
It would also appear difficult to begin "brainwashing" someone
after he had already 1) become a member of the CoS and 2)
signed a billion-year contract of his own free will to join the Sea
Org.
>Still, "Coercive persuasion is the effective restraining, impairing, or compelling
>through the gradual and continuing application of psychological FORCES of intense
>anxiety\shame\guilt manipulation combined with strong emotional arousal."
>(Wollersheim) In other words, physical force is not always necessary to achieve the
>desired effect of a controlled and manipulated human mind.
Coercive persuasion is not the same as brainwashing. Citizens of the
U.S., at least, are bombarded with coercive persuasion daily, through
advertising. I have yet to see Coca-Cola accused of brainwashing
anyone -- at least not seriously.
Coercive persuasion can definitely influence a person to make a
decision he might otherwise not make. But I do not believe coercive
persuasion -- as I understand the term, at least -- is capable of
controlling anyone's mind.
I also do not consider Larry Wollersheim an expert on anything, least
of all an expert on coercive persuasion.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Tarjei Straume
Diane Richardson wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 06:09:36 +0100, Tarjei Straume
> <tast...@online.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Diane Richardson wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 Nov 1999 20:12:53 GMT, hazei...@aol.com (HazeIStone) wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll attempt to answer your other points at a later time. For now,
> >> though, I'll focus on just one.
> >>
> >> >I also wonder if you think brainwashing is possible. If so, then is a person
> >> >who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
> >> >unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination that
> >> >brainwashing had taken place?
> >>
> >> No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
> >> physical coercion.
> >>
> >> This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
> >> times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
> >> thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
> >> coercion.
> >
> >Perhaps some victims need physical coecion while others don't, and perhaps that is
> >why the CoS does indeed use such physical coercion when it is expedient to do so.
> >The gulags, or RPFs, are a perfect example of this. So is locking people up with no
> >food or water.
>
> Of course you know that the vast majority of scientologists never
> experience the RPF, since it is only part of the Sea Org. Please
> don't forget that there are far more public scientologists than
> members of the Sea Org.
That would lend credit to the theory that physical force may be more or less reserved
for higher gradient levels, where a stricter discipline and a more unquestioned loyalty
is demanded.
> It would also appear difficult to begin "brainwashing" someone
> after he had already 1) become a member of the CoS and 2)
> signed a billion-year contract of his own free will to join the Sea
> Org.
People like that would obviously be of greater value to the organization than
non-members and outsiders, and for this very reason it would not be surprising if
overts against the church are disciplined considerably harsher than at lower gradients.
> >Still, "Coercive persuasion is the effective restraining, impairing, or compelling
> >through the gradual and continuing application of psychological FORCES of intense
> >anxiety\shame\guilt manipulation combined with strong emotional arousal."
> >(Wollersheim) In other words, physical force is not always necessary to achieve the
> >desired effect of a controlled and manipulated human mind.
>
> Coercive persuasion is not the same as brainwashing. Citizens of the
> U.S., at least, are bombarded with coercive persuasion daily, through
> advertising. I have yet to see Coca-Cola accused of brainwashing
> anyone -- at least not seriously.
I agree there is behavior manipulation involved in advertising, especially with
products like Coca-Cola. But taking into consideration what is happening with the
tobacco industry today, it is not inconceivable that Coca-Cola may be sued for
brainwashing in the future.
> Coercive persuasion can definitely influence a person to make a
> decision he might otherwise not make. But I do not believe coercive
> persuasion -- as I understand the term, at least -- is capable of
> controlling anyone's mind.
I'm inclined to agree with you here too. The possibility of gaining total control of
someone's mind has been greatly exaggerated through the mechanistic-materialistic
thinking that predominates in contemporary culture. Besides, the very existence of
drastic disciplinary measures within the CoS proves that controlling people isn't easy.
> I also do not consider Larry Wollersheim an expert on anything, least
> of all an expert on coercive persuasion.
Why not? Who do you consider to be expert(s) on coercive persuasion?
Tarjei
Russell Shaw
Stephen Jones wrote in message <815t3n$950$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
>In article <38363...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> "Russell Shaw" <rs...@dancris.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>LOL !!! (*very* nice to see you back, Stephen!)
>
>Hi, Russell. Listen, do a fella a favor and let me deprogram
>you. It will be mostly painless as I'm certified by Radio Shack.
RS Certified (RSC) (tm) is good enough for me!
>
>Once I'm done, you'll be right as rain obeying my every whim and destroying
>my enemies just like the rest of us non-programmed people. Additionally,
for every good thought
>I inadvertently zap while I'm extracting your bad thoughts, you'll receive
a twenty dollar gift
>certificate redeemable at any Mr. Steak or T.G.I. Friday's
Yummm!
>
>Think it over and let me know when I can swing by and throw you in the back
of my van.
>
Probably best to surprise me, don't you think?
>the enemy line starts here,
:-)
>Stephen Jones
Thomas J Best
Elizabeth Ann Cox wrote in message ...
<snip> Some acute observations on systematic torture
>However, I do think this: I have eleven years or more of post secondary
>education, successful in my career, and stable. Yet, I found something
>there that interested me. I cannot help but think about the individual
>facing problems in their life, adrift, bereft of understanding from others
>about what is current transpiring in their world. The cult of scientology
>knows how to lure this individual in. If "deprogramming" can save this
>person from the ravages of the cult, then yes, I will support it.
>
>Much has been said about individual rights here. And yes, I am a strong
>supporter of individual rights and freedom of religion. However, the cult
>of scientology is hardly a church. At best, they are a multi level
>marketing corporation. As to individual rights, well, once that individual
>has signed on staff, at the SO or an Org, individual rights are immediately
>subjugated.
>
>Mr. Best, you inquired about my personal history with the cult. I
explained
>in an earlier posting that as I proceeded to post I would write my story.
>In fact, I do. With every post, I reveal more about myself and my
>experiences with that cult and its members, and I will continue to provide
>these insights.
>
>Bunnyann
Ms Cox, thank you for your thoughtful and insightful posts. I am still
intrigued.
A person with an extensive education, career, other interests and concerns
such as you describe yourself to be, and yet *still* 'sucked in'. What was
it?
Something you felt you lacked and they could offer? Something they offered
which you felt you lacked? Were you looking for them or did they find you?
I do not wish to be intrusive. I am truly puzzled.
tam
kEvin
Grady Ward <gr...@gradyward.com> wrote:
>I would call a cult member "mentally ill" when their beliefs harm
>their life. Many members of the criminal cult are mentally ill.
Defining "harm" is where this fails. It's similar to the
problem of defining cult. If someone gives up a lot of their
wealth, impoverishing themselves, for a sense of peace and
structure they've always missed, have they harmed themselves?
You get tangled into arcane and increasingly trivial arguments
about quality of life and the price of spiritual peace. "Spiritual
peace should cost no more than $1.99 and anyone charging more
is a ripoff cult." "No dear, the improved spiritual peace is
worth the extra dollar, plus it comes with a coffee mug." "I'm
sorry mom, I can't bear to see you spending my inheritance on
a ripoff, time to have you committed and get power-of-attorney
so I control your assets." When you remove people's control
of themselves and their assets through the law, you open up the
door for tremendous abuse. Cults are a problem, but widespread
removal of rights would be worse.
There's also the problem that even the most damaging of cults
do provide some benefits and there are quite a few ex-Scientologists[tm]
who drifted away before suffering harm and who benefited from the
experience. I don't want to tout Scientology[tm] as a wonderful
thing, but some people manage to get in, gain some benefits from
the structure and discipline, and get out before getting harmed.
(I can say the same thing about the military.) People who get in
too deep do get hurt, but no one can make this judgement for them.
I'm not in this to fight a cult. I'm here to try and stop people
from getting hurt. Involuntary deprogramming and widespread or
trivial uses of involuntary commitment law will cause more hurt
than they stop.
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
Dave Bird
<ref...@bway.net> writes:
>On 20 Nov 1999 20:12:53 GMT, hazei...@aol.com (HazeIStone) wrote:
>
>I'll attempt to answer your other points at a later time. For now,
>though, I'll focus on just one.
>
>>who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
>>unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination that
>>brainwashing had taken place?
>
>physical coercion.
Same tired old lie, from same tired old cowbag.
/; ;\
-- Regards, __ \\____//
XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <up...@sunyit.edu>)
_____________________________/ :--' ____________________
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ]
\___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___]
`===='
"So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
kEvin
Grady Ward <gr...@gradyward.com> wrote:
>Based upon the horrible death of his son associated with the
>criminal cult of scientology, it is a personal opinion that I very
>much respect.
Based upon current law, his son could've been involuntarily
committed once he became suicidal. Most Scientologists[tm]
are not suicidal. Many ex-Scientologists[tm] commit suicide
*after* leaving. There are insufficient resources right now
devoted to helping people in desperate need. I think it is a
far better use of those resources to concentrate on the people
in need rather than overloading it with the great bulk of cult
members who are mostly sane and will mostly leave on their own.
You also are putting too much faith in therapy. The Heaven's
Gate tragedy was led by a man who had been the victim of some
of the most ineffective and abusive psychiatric treatment of the
70's. The whole science of psychiatry is just now getting to the
point where it is effective above no treatment at all. I think
that in the last days of Heaven's Gate, after they posted their
"statement against suicide" which stated that failing to die
now and catch the UFO ride was the worst form of death current
law could and should have been used to intervene. In the months
prior to catching the comet ride as Marshal Applewhite became
increasingly apocalyptic, Heaven's Gate shrank from several
thousand members to several dozen. Would you advocate declaring
those several thousand who left insane and removing their civil
rights? I would consider such an action an abuse of those people
and of the law.
BTW, almost all communities have suicide hotlines and they
desperately need volunteers. (People need training before they can
answer the phones, and they need a continual supply because the
volunteers burn out from all the sad stories they hear.) If you
want to help people who are close to harming themselves, you can
lend a much needed hand.
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
kEvin
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>Coercive persuasion is not the same as brainwashing. Citizens of the
>U.S., at least, are bombarded with coercive persuasion daily, through
>advertising. I have yet to see Coca-Cola accused of brainwashing
>anyone -- at least not seriously.
Could you elaborate on what elements you're using to define
coercive persuasion? I've never heard the adjective coercive
applied to advertising, although I have heard the term used
with person to person sales.
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
kEvin
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com> wrote:
>In article <815s7k$rs3$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, m...@primenet.com says...
[...]
>>> Whats wrong with deprogramming people?
[...]
>>You're free to believe what you want Arnie, but as I pointed
>>out on our last go round on this subject, forcible deprogramming
>>has a very high relapse rate. People believe what they *want*
>>to believe.
[...]
> Who introduced the word FORCE? not I. You just did.
I associate the term deprogramming with the use of force and/or
coercion. If you're using it in a different way, I didn't
understand it and I'd ask that you clarify what you mean.
[...]
>>If you've been following the Jason Scott case on ars, then you've
>>read his story about being kidnapped and how he didn't like it.
>>Jason Scott did leave that cult, but after the kidnapping, he
>>was afraid that there would be another attempt. I think that fear
>>and the breach of trust with his mother kept him in that cult
>>longer than had they just been there waiting for him.
> I've talked to Jason Scott on the phone.
> hes very grateful he is out.
> I did not inquire about your speculations though.
If you're still in contact with him, please tell him that I (and
I would guess many others on ars) am very interested in his
thoughts on forcible deprogramming.
>>Similarly, if you've been following the Odrhan Fortune story
>>on ars, you'll see a similar pattern. (I haven't seen any updates
>>on that story, so the current situation might have changed.)
>>Odrhan's family managed to pry him out of Scientology[tm] in
>>England and get him back to Ireland. (I don't know if they used
>>emotional pressure or went all the way to physical force.)
> So you agree that PHYSICAL RAPE is bad
> but MENTAL RAPE is ok?
Mental rape is acting on someone's mind without their consent. Cult
members have consented to what occurs. Forcible deprogramming is
a far better analogy to mental rape than cult membership. Cult
membership is the mental equivalent of getting picked up by someone
who says he loves you just to sleep with you. That's deceptive, it's
wrong, but it's not rape. People usually see through the deception
in their own time. I've told people that they're involved with
a cult/jerk, but they get mad because the cult/jerk fills some need
and they haven't spotted the lies. Eventually they figure out that
the cult/jerk is just lying to get money/sex and they dump them. Then
they have to deal with late night phone calls and stalking. Not all
jerks are stalkers, but then, neither are all cults. Scientology[tm]
is the scary ex-boyfriend of cults.
[...]
> Deprogrammings were never mentioned when I was IN.
That's interesting. One of the ex-members I spoke with about
this said that when she was in, they tried to demonize CAN
(this would be the old CAN) by, among other things, claiming
that they were kidnappers and deprogrammers. She said that she
called CAN when she wanted to leave because she knew from all
the cult slander that they had to be effective. (This blew
me away, BTW, I had not expected something like that at all
from someone who was deeply in.)
[...]
> Scientology knows deprogramming works.
This is a statement pro-deprogramming.
> I have never advocated the violation of the
> United States Criminal Code fighting co$.
This is a statement against forcible deprogramming.
> Never once.
> And not now.
Could you put your disavowal of force, coercion and other illegal
actions in the same sentence as statements about deprogramming, please?
I have become used to the use of the term deprogramming to mean
forcible deprogramming and the use of the term exit counseling to
mean assisting cult/ex-cult members with their consent. I misunderstood
you.
> Even though those that seek to cloud the issue would like
> to infer this by means of innuendo.
I think you could help the clouding problem out by using descriptive
clauses to clarify your meaning more often. I know the power of lots
of short declarative sentences, but I think you're overusing that
technique at the expense of clarity.
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
JimDBB
>From: ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>Date: Sat, 20 November 1999 06:
>I'll attempt to answer your other points at a later time. For now,
>though, I'll focus on just one.
>>I also wonder if you think brainwashing is possible. If so, then is a person
>>who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
>>unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination
>that
>>brainwashing had taken place?
>No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
>physical coercion.
I guess that unless you have experienced it yourself you will never quite
understand brainwashing and mind control. Physical coercion is not necessary
at all. The scientology method uses hypnosis in very clever ways. On the very
first scientology course a set of hypnotic drills are introduced and are done
between two people who sit staring at each other, at first for mintues and this
is gradually expanded into hours and with variations of the drills introduced.
These hypnotic drills are called TRs and from the introductory course they are
done every day and on every course. This is combined with a constant barrage of
L. Ron Hubbard psychobabble via books, tapes, videos, bulletins etc. With this
combination it doesn't take long for almost anyone's rational thinking to be
compromised and subtly replaced by Hubbard's mindset.
The hypnotic TR drills segue right into Hubbard's quack counseling technique
which is called auditing. Auditing is a never ending process and so with the
daily hypnotic TRs along with endless auditing, the scientologist is under a
very constant hypnosis. And the scientologist can now only speak and think L.
Ron Hubbard. There are no other thoughts within scientology. Very effective
brainwashing and induced with no physical coercion.
>This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
>times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
>thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
>coercion.
As I said unless you have experienced and lived within this experience, it
won't be real.
Most mental health professionals don't have a clue as to what is going on in
this arena and this is one reason that there is a such a proliferation of
destructive cults today.
JIMDBB
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>On 20 Nov 1999 20:12:53 GMT, hazei...@aol.com (HazeIStone) wrote:
>
>I'll attempt to answer your other points at a later time. For now,
>though, I'll focus on just one.
>
>>I also wonder if you think brainwashing is possible. If so, then is a person
>>who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
>>unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination that
>>brainwashing had taken place?
>
>No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
>physical coercion.
>
>This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
>times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
>thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
>coercion.
If the adjective "cult" is dropped from your assertion, is your
assertion still true; i.e., that there is no such thing as mind
control?
If there is no such thing as mind control, aren't all minds then out
of control?
Have you no control of your mind?
Or is mind control possible by people, but just not by people in
cults?
Are cultists a special set of people completely incapable of mind
control?
If you control your mind, is it only because you were physically
coerced?
What do you mean by physical coercion?
Is there no physical coercion inside $cientology?
How do you know?
Does a dominating, manipulating, lying woman not have some control
over her husband's mind or her children's minds?
Or do you claim that there are no dominating, manipulating, lying
women, or men?
If there are such dominating, manipulating, lying women or men what
are they dominating, manipulating, or lying to if not other people's
minds?
Do minds exist?
What are minds?
If dominating, manipulating, lying women or men are cult members and
attempt to practice dominating, manipulating and lying for the cult's
purposes, do these women or men automatically lose their dominating,
manipulating and lying effectiveness?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
>
>>
>
Diane Richardson
>>Subject: Re: What's wrong with deprogramming people?
>>From: ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>>Date: Sat, 20 November 1999 06:
>
>>I'll attempt to answer your other points at a later time. For now,
>>though, I'll focus on just one.
>
>>>I also wonder if you think brainwashing is possible. If so, then is a person
>>>who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
>>>unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination
>>that
>>>brainwashing had taken place?
>
>>No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
>>physical coercion.
>
>I guess that unless you have experienced it yourself you will never quite
>understand brainwashing and mind control. Physical coercion is not necessary
>at all. The scientology method uses hypnosis in very clever ways.
No one can be put into a hypnotic condition against his or her will.
>On the very
>first scientology course a set of hypnotic drills are introduced and are done
>between two people who sit staring at each other, at first for mintues and this
>is gradually expanded into hours and with variations of the drills introduced.
This is all done with the consent of the person involved.
>These hypnotic drills are called TRs and from the introductory course they are
>done every day and on every course. This is combined with a constant barrage of
>L. Ron Hubbard psychobabble via books, tapes, videos, bulletins etc. With this
>combination it doesn't take long for almost anyone's rational thinking to be
>compromised and subtly replaced by Hubbard's mindset.
It is not possible for anyone to be forced to think or do anything
against his or her will when they are under hypnosis. The process you
describe is all done with the consent of the individual.
>The hypnotic TR drills segue right into Hubbard's quack counseling technique
>which is called auditing. Auditing is a never ending process and so with the
>daily hypnotic TRs along with endless auditing, the scientologist is under a
>very constant hypnosis. And the scientologist can now only speak and think L.
>Ron Hubbard. There are no other thoughts within scientology. Very effective
>brainwashing and induced with no physical coercion.
It is impossible for anyone to be forced to think or act against his
or her wishes while under hypnosis, Jim. All of this occurs with the
cooperation and consent of the individual. I fail to see how you
interpret this as brainwashing.
>>This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
>>times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
>>thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
>>coercion.
>
>As I said unless you have experienced and lived within this experience, it
>won't be real.
>Most mental health professionals don't have a clue as to what is going on in
>this arena and this is one reason that there is a such a proliferation of
>destructive cults today.
I think they have far more clues about it than you do. That's just my
opinion, however.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Bern
[snip]
>>If "deprogramming" can save this
>>person from the ravages of the cult, then yes, I will support it.
[snip]
>>As to individual rights, well, once that individual
>>has signed on staff, at the SO or an Org, individual rights are immediately
>>subjugated.
[snip]
>>With every post, I reveal more about myself
You can say that one again.
_________________________
Bernie -- http://welcome.to/ars
Bern
wrote in <3837A823...@online.no>:
>But taking into consideration what is happening with the
>tobacco industry today, it is not inconceivable that Coca-Cola may be sued for
>brainwashing in the future.
ROFL!
David Cecere, Executive Director
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:37:45 +0000, Roland
<roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote thusly:
}What's wrong with deprogramming people? Surely that is what you need
to
}do if someone has lost their will and their mind to a cult. That you
}hold them for a time and apply deprogramming techniques in order to
}restore to them some sort of self-determinism can't be described as
}"against their will" since the only "will" they have has been the
}cult's will instilled or brainwashed into them. What is wrong with
}people? Are they not able to grasp the nettle by the horns?
}
}Roland
I've gotten people out of scientology but I've never "deprogrammed"
anyone. I believe that there is a lot wrong with what is typically
denoted by the term "deprogramming."
I see no merit in your argument and I hope that you're merely playing
the part of devil's advocate when you try to rationalize the use of
coercive tactics, emotional and physical abuse, and kidnapping.
All it takes to get someone out of organized scientology's grasp is
honest dialog and documentation of the truth. I'm not talking about
changing a person's belief system--merely giving them the other side
of the story of the organization that they've allied themselves with.
As Executive Director of The Lisa McPherson Trust I will _never_
condone the use of any type of coersive "deprogramming" techniques.
Period.
David Cecere
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBODhw0W/ETJ2TJJyVEQL1sgCgxHa732hgjRJpOVog7mB5cYIypdoAnRXy
Rs4wJ3VhQbKr6d+FlyPLGCfB
=UvTb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
**************** Meet me in Clearwater, December 5th, 1999. ****************
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this
combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards
them both with equal eye.--Herman Melville
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.offlines.org/my_essay.html
Elizabeth Ann Cox
retrospect, when I examine my career and connections, I understand why.
Having been raised Catholic, and attending twelve years of Catholic school,
spiritual issues have always interested me. Like many people, I want to be
involved in positive activities that improve mankind. I had once thought
the cult represented that. Over time, I came to understand the opposite was
true.
When I first became involved, like many people, I knew virtually nothing
about scientology. To this day it still amazes me how many people are
unaware of how controversial scientology has become.
Mr. Best, again, I shall continue to post. Be assured, that in time, I will
reveal much more. But your continued interest is appreciated, and your
request for information respected.
Ted Mayett
> Many ex-Scientologists[tm] commit suicide
>*after* leaving.
According to a report out of the UK, the suicide rate is highest among
ex-scientologists. Higher than any other cult.
ref...@bway.net
>On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:48:54 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>I would call a cult member "mentally ill" when their beliefs harm
>>>their life. Many members of the criminal cult are mentally ill. I am
>>>sure that is one "stat" that is booming. As Dr. Ed Lottick observed
>>>after his son Noah was driven to suicide:
>>
>>There is no DSM-IV diagnosis for "cult mind-controlled" or "cult
>>brainwashed." You may call cult members whatever you like,
>>but your labelling of others as "mentally ill" on such subjective
>>grounds won't get anyone committed to a mental hospital.
>
>Who said I wanted to "commit someone to a mental hospital"?
>Those are your BTs talking, Diane.
You made the following statement: "I would call a cult member
"mentally ill" when their beliefs harm their life. Many members of the
criminal cult are mentally ill."
It matters not one whit whether *you* choose to label cult members
mentally ill or not, Grady. There is no such diagnosis in the DSM-IV.
As for BTs, you are so immersed in scieno-babble that it's actually
begun affecting your speech and behavior. I have no desire to
clutter my life with pseudoscientific and pseudoreligious claptrap.
What you choose to do with your own life is one thing, but I do
not appreciate you projecting your own mental hangups onto me.
If you want to worry about BTs, Grady, be a good little scientologist
wannabe and audit out your own. Maybe you can even get Mark
Bunker to film you solo auditing the OT levels.
>>>"They are a school for psychopaths."
>>
>>Dr. Lottick can say whatever he likes. Unless he can get a
>>diagnosis of such accepted by his medical peers, and added
>>to the DSM-IV, his comments are merely a personal opinion..
>
>Based upon the horrible death of his son associated with the
>criminal cult of scientology, it is a personal opinion that I very
>much respect.
It is still nothing more than a personal opinion, made by a
grieving father over the loss of his son.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
ref...@bway.net
Armstrong) wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 23:37:51 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>On 20 Nov 1999 20:12:53 GMT, hazei...@aol.com (HazeIStone) wrote:
>>
>>I'll attempt to answer your other points at a later time. For now,
>>though, I'll focus on just one.
>>
>>>I also wonder if you think brainwashing is possible. If so, then is a person
>>>who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
>>>unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination that
>>>brainwashing had taken place?
>>
>>No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
>>physical coercion.
>>
>>This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
>>times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
>>thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
>>coercion.
>
>If the adjective "cult" is dropped from your assertion, is your
>assertion still true; i.e., that there is no such thing as mind
>control?
>
>If there is no such thing as mind control, aren't all minds then out
>of control?
It depends upon how you choose to define the term. Obviously,
you choose to play semantic games. Hubbard did that too. It's
neither witty nor cute -- not when Hubbard did it and not when you
emulate Hubbard, as you are doing now.
>Have you no control of your mind?
Obviously you don't.
[snip]
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Martin Hunt
>No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
>physical coercion.
Define "physical coercion".
>This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
>times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
>thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
>coercion.
How about opinions? Can opinions be changed in a large group
of people without physical coercion?
For example, could a large group of people be made to believe in
irrational things like large segments of society are evil because
of their ethnicity and deserve to be destroyed?
Could the mere threat of physical coercion - rather than the
fact of it - also change people's minds, "brainwash", if you
will?
--
Cogito, ergo sum. http://scientologysucks.lron.com
Watch Xenu TV: http://www.xenutv.com
Go to a protest in your area: http://www.xenu.net/picket/
The premier Scientology webpage: www.xenu.net
Mr. Hamra said, "The Church of Scientology now had a database
of information on every subscriber which included names, credit
card info., credit reports, telephone info., computer info.,
who had referred them to Earthlink and who were their previous
ISP providers." Mr. Hamra told me about the "other Earthlink
building" which was next door on New York Avenue in Pasadena.
Mr. Hamra told me that the other building was high security and
is where Earthlink and the Church of Scientology did all the
monitoring of the internet. - DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. CIPRIANO.
Gerry Armstrong
>On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:06:17 GMT, arms...@dowco.com (Gerry
>Armstrong) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Nov 1999 23:37:51 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 20 Nov 1999 20:12:53 GMT, hazei...@aol.com (HazeIStone) wrote:
>>>
>>>I'll attempt to answer your other points at a later time. For now,
>>>though, I'll focus on just one.
>>>
>>>>I also wonder if you think brainwashing is possible. If so, then is a person
>>>>who is brainwashed able to determine their own beliefs, or has that been
>>>>unreasonably influenced? And again, if so, what would be the determination that
>>>>brainwashing had taken place?
>>>
>>>No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
>>>physical coercion.
>>>
>>>This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
>>>times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
>>>thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
>>>coercion.
>>
>>If the adjective "cult" is dropped from your assertion, is your
>>assertion still true; i.e., that there is no such thing as mind
>>control?
>>
>>If there is no such thing as mind control, aren't all minds then out
>>of control?
>
>It depends upon how you choose to define the term. Obviously,
>you choose to play semantic games. Hubbard did that too. It's
>neither witty nor cute -- not when Hubbard did it and not when you
>emulate Hubbard, as you are doing now.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Stumped Diane Richardson. Yipee.
Couldn't answer my simple questions. Had to fall back on the semantics
dodge.
Those are serious questions, Ms. Richardson. Even though the direction
they led you was perhaps somewhere it wasn't comfortable for you to
go.
You just can't answer my questions.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. You pose irrelevant questions to others. But you
can't answer the relevant ones in your own claimed area of expertise.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
>
>>Have you no control of your mind?
>
>Obviously you don't.
Oh, what makes you think that? I say you're a liar.
I say that I have some control of my mind and that mind control
exists.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Diane caught in a bald-faced lie.
>
>[snip]
And here are my questions again. They're serious questions. They flow
from your assertions about mind control and brainwashing. Now why
don't you take a minute and answer them to the best of your ability.
[Quote]
If the adjective "cult" is dropped from your assertion, is your
assertion still true; i.e., that there is no such thing as mind
control?
If there is no such thing as mind control, aren't all minds then out
of control?
Have you no control of your mind?
Or is mind control possible by people, but just not by people in
cults?
Are cultists a special set of people completely incapable of mind
control?
If you control your mind, is it only because you were physically
coerced?
What do you mean by physical coercion?
Is there no physical coercion inside $cientology?
How do you know?
Does a dominating, manipulating, lying woman not have some control
over her husband's mind or her children's minds?
Or do you claim that there are no dominating, manipulating, lying
women, or men?
If there are such dominating, manipulating, lying women or men what
are they dominating, manipulating, or lying to if not other people's
minds?
Do minds exist?
What are minds?
If dominating, manipulating, lying women or men are cult members and
attempt to practice dominating, manipulating and lying for the cult's
purposes, do these women or men automatically lose their dominating,
manipulating and lying effectiveness?
[End Quote]
Don't be afraid Diane. Just answer the questions. They're not that
hard really. But your answers will help us communicate about and
clarify this subject you say doesn't exist, cult mind control.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>No, brainwashing is not possible -- at least not without severe
>>physical coercion.
>
>Define "physical coercion".
Oh, oh, watch out Martin, don't try to get terms clarified. You'll be
accused of playing semantic games.
>
>>This issue has been examined by mental health professionals many, many
>>times. The overwhelming consensus of opinion is that there is no such
>>thing as "cult mind control" or "brainwashing" without physical
>>coercion.
>
>How about opinions? Can opinions be changed in a large group
>of people without physical coercion?
>
>For example, could a large group of people be made to believe in
>irrational things like large segments of society are evil because
>of their ethnicity and deserve to be destroyed?
>
>Could the mere threat of physical coercion - rather than the
>fact of it - also change people's minds, "brainwash", if you
>will?
Oh, oh, questioning Diane. Get ready to be accused of being just like
Hubbard.
You know what she's like, yet you engage her. Have you no mind
control?
(c) Gerry Armstronmg
Arnie Lerma <www.lermanet.com>
>
>It is still nothing more than a personal opinion, made by a
>grieving father over the loss of his son.
>
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
>
>
make nothing of it diane
you do nothing else
arnie
Secrets are the mortar binding
bricks as lies together into prisons for the mind.
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the 90's http://www.lermanet.com
Dave Bird
>In article <L9tA6SDh...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,Dave Bird wrote:
>>In article<812nam$bn8$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephen Jones:
>>>In article <0yW$JQCMxF...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,Dave Bird:
>>>>
>>>> You are an idiot, though an occasionally amusing one.
>>>
>>>That is gonna go straight to my head, Dave.
>>
>> Well, there's plenty of empty space up there to store your trophies.
>
>Dave, I hurl myself into your churlish embrace. Hold me. Love me.
Kiss my ass
/\ /\
( \\ // )
\ \\ // /
\_\\||||//_/
\/ _ _ \
\/|(O)(O)|
\/ | |
___________________\/ \ /
// // |____|
// || / \
//| \| \ 0 0 /
// \ ) V / \____/
// \ / ( /
"" \ /_________| |_/
/ /\ / | ||
/ / / / \ ||
| | | | | ||
| | | | | ||
|_| |_| |_||
\_\ \_\ \_\\ Hard'96
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
Stephen Jones
Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
and so the stalking begins.......
Dave, when it comes time for you to kidnap me and lock me in your
basement, I'd prefer not to be your "sex gimp". Additionally, eating
any of my vital organs is bound to only upset me. I'll watch your skits
and let you win at Scrabble...and that is all.
Stephen Jones
Russell Shaw
Ted Mayett wrote in message <3843f77f...@enews.newsguy.com>...
The ARSCC (wdne) really slipped up big time letting *this* cat of the bag.
Now, NO ONE is ever going to want to take the ~chance~ of leaving!
Dave Bird
>In article <Z5AEr5AZ...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, wrote:
>>In article<8155jh$5bg$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephen Jones:
>>>In article <L9tA6SDh...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,Dave Bird wrote:
>>>>In article<812nam$bn8$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>, Stephen Jones:
>>>>>In article <0yW$JQCMxF...@xemu.demon.co.uk>,Dave Bird:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are an idiot, though an occasionally amusing one.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is gonna go straight to my head, Dave.
>>>>
>>>> Well, there's plenty of empty space up there
>>>
>>
>>
>> /\ /\
>> ( \\ // )
>> \ \\ // /
>> \_\\||||//_/
>> \/ _ _ \
>> \/|(O)(O)|
>> \/ | |
>> ___________________\/ \ /
>> // // |____|
>> // || / \
>> //| \| \ 0 0 /
>> // \ ) V / \____/
>> // \ / ( /
>>"" \ /_________| |_/
>> / /\ / | ||
>> / / / / \ ||
>> | | | | | ||
>> | | | | | ||
>> |_| |_| |_||
>> \_\ \_\ \_\\ Hard'96
>>
>
>and so the stalking begins
You could try feeding it cabbage stalks; also turnips.
--
XEMoo ;|_/| ___________________ (__)
)pp) ( I am still a cow ) o o o |UU| *
_____<OO> ( even when nobody ) #--(..)_____/ ((
/('';, /';\ # (__is_observing_me__) /~~\.:' )==(
* /_x ';\ / | \ ;/:' x_\ =(( H S
'''''''''''ww''''www.xemu.demon.co.uk/index.html'''''ww'''''''''''''2
Michael Reuss
>> Roland <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>What's wrong with deprogramming people?
>>Are they not able to grasp the nettle by the horns?
>...I'll spell it out for you.
>1) You can't be free by enslaving other people. If you will try
> to "save" other people against their will then somebody will
> try to "save" you against your will.
>2) Most people can be brain-washed in a short time. The POWs in
> Vietnam and Korea are good examples of that. But this brain-
> wash is a traumatic event. An all-out deprogramming war will
> cause some unlucky people to be brain-washed in different
> directions on a regular basis. The result can be, for them,
> much worse than leaving them alone.
>3) The cults are much better than us in mind-control technique.
> They have a much longer experience, and they are mean.
> A deprogramming war will be a war against their strongest
> side; I prefer to fight against their weaknesses.
>4) Cults tend to be full of paranoids. Using force against
> a paranoid is not a good way to cure the paranoia.
>We believe that we can win without playing dirty.
>We believe that saying "please listen to me, but if you refuse
>then I'll not use any force against you" is a better idea than
>saying "listen to me or else..."
>We believe that victory is not the most important thing.
>We did not get a permission from any God to use all means
>to show people the light.
Hillel, this is a fine post, and you make some excellent points.
However, in point #2, you say that "the result [of forcible
deprogramming] can be, for them, much worse than leaving them alone."
I would say this is very true, most of the time. But it is also true
that left alone, cultists have met horrible fates, in Jonestown, in
Waco, in the Manson family murders, in the Heaven's Gate mass suicide,
and in the case of Scientology, the deaths of Lisa McPherson, Patrick
Vic, Noah Lottick and Susan Miester, among others.
For parents of disconnected cult members, dealing with fear about
their children inside a cults includes the possibility that their
children might meet a similar fate. Such heinous acts of violence as
occurred in these cases might in the minds of some parents, justify
the risk of illegally kidnapping and forcibly deprogramming adult
children.
The market demand for the occasional kidnapping deprogrammer will not
go away until parents can be sure they do not have to fear these sorts
of heinous crimes being perpetrated on or by their children.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid