Toward a new model of "cult control" by Robert Vaughn Young

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Bob Minton

unread,
Feb 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/22/00
to
On 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young) wrote
the post quoted below.

Thank you Vaughn for this insightful message.

Bob Minton

>Monday, February 21, 2000
>
>TOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF "CULT CONTROL"
>By Robert Vaughn Young
>
>(Preface: I am making this long post to ARS because I am stepping away
>from this work and I want to get it into the hands of people who study or
>are concerned with this issue. I do not know who has taken this view. It
>is merely my perspective and opinion and can certainly prompt debate, not
>to mention screams of horror from any cult. I just want it to be seriously
>considered by the professionals who deal with this. Others should be
>interviewed on it and the model developed and tested. Nor do I think it is
>the only model. I merely think it might help some who could not be helped
>before. I only ask that someone provide a copy of this to whoever might be
>interested in the issue of "cult control.")
>
>
>After I left Scientology in 1989 with 21 years in the cult, the hardest
>question people posed to me was why I stayed in it so long if I knew it
>was such an abusive system. I didn't have an answer that satisfied me, let
>alone anyone else. I think I've come up with a reply and a model. It at
>least satisfies me today.
>
>My own background and basic interests also demanded an answer to that
>question. I had a pursued and obtained a BA in philosophy (from what was
>then known as San Francisco State College) because of a strong interest in
>what we called philosophy of behavior/mind/psychology. (The choice often
>depended on the school, as well as the emphasis within the field.)
>
>I was then accepted into the PhD program at the University of California
>at Davis. I picked them because they had a strong program in this new,
>growing field of study. (Twenty years later I discovered that the field of
>"cognitive science" had emerged with entire departments devoted to it and
>PhDs being granted at some universities. Cognitive Science is a blend of
>philosophy, psychology and some computer science, namely in the area of AI
>or artificial intelligence, which was exactly what I was looking for. AI
>was posing new philosophical problems but back in the late 1960s,
>departments had yet to integrate them as full subjects.)
>
>It was this interest of mine that prompted me to read Hubbard. I was
>intrigued with elements of his philosophy, namely some of the
>epistemological and cosmological presentations. Scientology's Dept 20/RTC
>and their attorneys (especially in my last deposition in Tampa a couple of
>weeks ago) can't grasp this. When they ask why I got into Scientology,
>they make all sorts of assumptions, from "personal improvement" to my
>wanting to join a religion. No, I say, trying to explain, but it never
>sticks. For an "applied religious philosophy" they haven't a clue what
>"philosophy" even means, let alone "religious philosophy." (They think
>that a "religious philosophy" is a religion. Get a clue!) But then,
>Hubbard didn't understand it either, as I finally came to learn.
>
>Which brings it back to the issue of why I stayed. There was one incident
>that happened in 1988 that I kept as my litmus test. I knew if I could
>understand it, I could understand it all.
>
>I was on the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) at "Golden Era Studios" at
>Gilman Hot Springs CA. (For the sake of brevity, let's skip why I was
>there and the way it works and the like and just cut to the chase.
>Besides, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making and I think I've written
>about it before.) My situation had deteriorated to the point that I was
>afraid I was either going to go crazy on the RPF or die so I escaped one
>night. They found me at a motel in nearby Hemet and wanted to talk. I said
>okay and the next thing I knew, I agreed to return to the "program" and to
>finish the RPF. I did and was on it another 5-6 months (total 16 months)
>before "graduating."
>
>Here is my litmus test. More than why did I stay in here, why did I return
>if I felt it was so abusive that I escaped? And here's the kicker: they
>TALKED me back in. They didn't lay a hand on me. By just talking with me,
>they convinced me to give up what I had planned for weeks and executed.
>They convinced me to go back to the very condition that I feared would
>kill me. Why did I do it?
>
>And this must be remembered: I can look back (11 years after fleeing) and
>see that I was right to escape the RPF and wrong to return. So why did I
>return and then stay?
>
>Here's where the "mind control" advocates might argue their point. After
>all, isn't this what "mind control" is all about where I was "controlled"
>to do something that was inherently against my will?
>
>Or the "brainwashing" school might give their explanation from that
>perspective. After 21 years in the cult, they might say, I was
>"conditioned" and like some "Manchurian Candidate" or Pavlovian dog,
>someone merely rang some bell or pushed a button and I complied.
>
>I never bought either model. As I tried to understand, I read some
>articles by "experts" on the subject of "cult control" but they just
>didn't fit. It was like putting on an expensive but oversized coat that
>hung off the fingertips and draped across me like a double-breasted. Yeah,
>it was a "coat" and the "label" was impressive but…
>
>I wondered if it was me. Maybe I resented the idea that I had been
>"brainwashed" or there was "mind control" and so that was why I didn't
>like the theories. I found myself in an amusing situation where I was
>agreeing with the cult that the models didn't work but there was still
>SOMEthing, some point of control. Why was I talked back into a situation
>that I detested and that I could look back on years later and agree, yes,
>something else was at work. There WAS some sort of "control" but "mind
>control"? It didn't work.
>
>It wasn't until my first trip to Wellspring that I found the model that
>worked for me. It had nothing to do with them. It was some books that were
>on their shelves that I was reading in my spare time that let me realize
>the model that worked for me: the battered or abused woman. The idea
>didn't take hold fully then. It took further reading (including some on
>the Web) some months later to bring it together.
>
>Various "experts" can (and do) argue if "mind control" or "brainwashing"
>really exists or if we are just talking about various forms of "influence"
>that is found in everything from advertising to conversations. But they
>can't argue with the fact that there are battered/abused women who stay in
>abusive situations and there are women who flee and when found by the
>husband are talked BACK into the very relationship they tried to escape
>and then it repeats.
>
>Until a very few years ago, our society didn't even ADMIT to these women,
>let alone try to help them or try to understand the phenomenon. Being the
>male-dominated society we are, it was even legal in many states for a
>husband to hit his wife, and may still be. If a woman went to the police,
>they simply called the husband. But now women are stepping forward and it
>isn't easy. It is like being a rape victim and speaking out. It takes
>courage and it took some women to force this issue on our (American)
>male-dominated society and MAKE it an issue. That is why it is a new
>issue. It is not that it hasn't existed. It has undoubtedly existed for as
>long as there have been men and women but - like civil rights and other
>issues - it took some "victims" FORCING the issue before anyone even
>admitted that it existed.
>
>The first time I saw the parallel between my own experiences in the cult
>of Scientology and battered women was when I was reading "Captive Hearts,
>Captive Minds," which is an excellent book. It was in the Intro or maybe
>the first chapter that they cited and quoted the singer Tina Turner who
>had been in an abusive relationship for something like 10 or 15 years. She
>remarked how being with Ike Turner was like being in a small cult. The
>remark jumped off the page at me. Given the success of Tina Turner as an
>entertainer, one is not prone to say she is a stupid woman but there she
>was in a marriage where she was beaten constantly and yet she stayed. When
>she finally escaped, as she tells her story, it was after a beating that
>left her head so swollen that she couldn't put on a wig. She wrapped her
>head in a scarf and fled, taking no money or anything and finally got away
>from Ike Turner.
>
>One wonders how often she has been asked since, "Tina, you're such a
>talented woman, so intelligent, how could you stay with a man for 10/15
>years who was beating you?" Maybe she has an answer in her autobiography.
>I don't know. It is on my to-read list. But I know she was asked that
>question. Every woman who escapes a man who has been beating them must get
>that question and it is probably the hardest one in the world to answer.
>After all, it's not that you don't KNOW you're getting beaten. And it
>didn't happen just once. Nor twice. It happens week after week, month
>after month, year after year.
>
>Nor are these women locked up. The husband goes off to work, for example,
>and she has a car. She gets in the car and she goes to the store, buys
>food, and brings it home, to the very place where she is being beaten and
>she makes dinner. She doesn't keep driving. SHE COMES BACK. To what? More
>abuse.
>
>There are also plenty of cases where the women DID escape, where they
>finally got up their courage and maybe grabbing the kids, they fled and
>the man managed to find them. Then, with no physical abuse, he TALKED HER
>BACK. And then when the abuse started again, she stayed. Some leave, but
>some stay.
>
>When I began to see the parallel between my own experience and these
>women, I went back and re-read Lifton's 10 or however many points that he
>makes for his model and I realized that it was based on studying prisoners
>of war! That was hardly a secret but when he and others were making their
>models of "mind control" or "brainwashing" or however you call it,
>battered women weren't even a subject which, for me, was a telling
>difference. After all, what repatriated prisoner of war says he wants to
>go back? What prisoner of war was let out of their cell and allowed to go
>into the city to relax and then went back to the prison where they were
>abused and tortured? THAT, for me, is where the model breaks down and
>where the model of the abused or battered woman takes over.
>
>Even before I realized how the plight of the abused woman paralleled my
>situation, I used to wonder how people from East Germany were able to
>cross into Berlin to shop and then would return. If conditions in East
>Berlin were as bad as we were being told in the West, how could they step
>into the West, see the difference, buy the things they didn't have back
>home and then return? I don't cite this as an exact parallel, but there is
>a similarity. Why would a person go BACK to a condition that is worse? I
>don't think "mind control" or "brainwashing" fits that situation any more
>than it fits the abused woman or that it fit mine.
>
>One day talking with someone about this new idea that I had, I mentioned
>the East German parallel and the person made an excellent point. "East
>Germany was their home," she said. "People don't easily leave their homes
>unless they have someplace better to go."
>
>And that nearly tied the two together for me, as well as back into my
>situation. Where can the abused woman go? Can she just take off for
>nowhere? I don't know. I do know that when I escaped the RPF, I didn't
>have anywhere to GO, which was why I went to a motel. (There was another
>reason but it is somewhat immaterial for this point.) When Stacy and I
>successfully fled in 1989, we were in the same bind. We didn't have
>anyplace to GO. We knew that the cult had the names and addresses and
>phone numbers of every single family member and friend. If nothing else,
>our mail had been monitored and read for years and there is no doubt in my
>mind that the already-existing list was expanded from that monitoring.
>(Their excuse for opening and reading all mail that comes to staff at the
>org is to watch for billings to the org. It is a Hubbard policy. Staff are
>then pulled in and interrogated about mail considered suspicious.)
>
>Knowing that they had such a list, we knew we could not go to any of those
>people so we just hit the road and drove. I had already been talked back
>in once. And there was one other time when I tried to escape and got as
>far as the gate and was talked back. So that was one thing I knew I had to
>avoid. I had to get enough space and time to get my own wits about me to
>fend off another attempt, if they could find us.
>
>That is also why I believe cult members have to escape in secret: they are
>afraid they will be talked back in or convinced to stay. I know what that
>feels like.
>
>After I began to apply the abused or battered woman model (for want of
>better words) to my own situation, I had an inadvertent and unintentional
>opportunity to test it and I will never forget the experience. I was back
>on Vashon Island, sometime in 1999, where I had been living. (For those
>who don't know, Vashon is an island in Puget Sound.) Vashon is an
>incredibly unique community. When you live there, you are an "islander"
>and it grants you a number of unstated privileges. It took me a long time
>to realize what it reminded me of. It is what the Old West (in the US)
>used to be like. A person was accepted for who they said they were until
>they proved otherwise. You answered to the locals, not outsiders. That was
>how Vashon islanders lived.
>
>There were two bars on the island, across the street from each other. One
>of them was where the "kids" and off-islanders hung out. It had a pool
>table and a big screen TV for watching games. The other was quiet, sedate
>and for the "old timers" who knew each other and everything that was
>happening on the island. Even if you were new on the island, by the time
>you visited, they knew you and more than you imagined. It was the sort of
>place where you could sit down, have a beer and catch up on the local
>gossip. Any visitors to the island looking for a place to hang out would
>stick their heads in and then leave and choose the one across the street,
>leaving us to our own rhythm. It was also a place where you could just sit
>and if you wanted to be alone, you were left alone. It was that sort of
>place.
>
>One night I went in, getting the usual hi's and nods and maybe a slap on
>the back or giving one in return. 'Hey, where ya been!" someone asked.
>"Oh, hanging around," I answered. Such a reply would be enough. If I
>wanted to say more, I would. No one would pry. I pulled up a bar stool,
>ordered a beer and sat watching ESPN. It was the only acceptable station
>because one could watch it with no sound, and it was kept at no sound so
>people could play the juke box if they wanted.
>
>I was there relaxing for about 15 minutes when a woman sat down next to
>me. More out of reflex than anything else, I turned and looked and nodded
>and she nodded back. Then I went back to the TV to watch how the Mariners
>were doing. The barkeep said hi to her in a way that meant she was a
>local.
>
>After a couple of minutes she spoke up. "You're the one they've been
>picketing, aren't you?"
>
>I turned to her. She was sipping on her beer. She was maybe 45 and dressed
>as islanders dress. (Nine times out of ten, you can spot an off-islander
>by their attire.) She was clearly a local, although I didn't recognize
>her. That was easy enough on this island. "Yeah," I said.
>
>"How's it going? They still doing it?"
>
>No, I said, it's been quiet lately. She told me how she thought it was
>terrible, how they come onto the island like that. It's not how islanders
>behave, she said. Yeah, I replied with a shrug. They just don't get it.
>
>"I saw you on the 'Dateline' show," she said. I nodded as she remarked
>some more about it. Finally she asked the question. "So how long were you
>in Scientology?"
>
>"About 21 years," I said.
>
>"Wow," she said actually surprised. "If it really is as bad as I hear, how
>could you stay in it that long?"
>
>There it was, that same question. Well, this time I had a new answer.
>
>"I guess that's like asking an abused women why she stayed in that
>relationship for so long when…"
>
>She suddenly turned to me and raised her hands in front of her, one of
>those "halt" motions and said, "Say no more! I just ended an abusive
>marriage of 12 years. I know exactly what you are talking about."
>
>And right there, we became friends. We had something in common.
>
>We exchanged a few more words on the subject of coming to one's senses and
>then the entire subject was dropped. Neither of us were interested in it.
>We each understood the other fully and spent the next hour talking about
>the island, the Mariners and other pleasantries of life until she finally
>paid her bill and got off the stool, shook my hand, wished me well and
>said she'd tell her friends about us.
>
>After she left and in the year since, I've thought about that conversation
>many times, how there was an instant connection by her, an immediate
>recognition. She never said how long it had been since she ended the
>marriage but it had probably been long enough to be asked the same
>question that she found herself asking me. But it was by an incredibly
>stroke of luck that the first person I said that to happened to be a women
>who escaped from an abusive relationship. It could have been someone who
>would have let me finish my statement and said, "You know, I've never
>understood that either," but it wasn't. It was a woman who said, say no
>more, I know exactly what you're talking about. And she did. Our
>situations were entirely different but they were the same.
>
>After that I realized that for the first time I had a model that I could
>use in the most difficult situations and the understanding would be based
>on that person's grasp of the situation of the abused woman. With this
>model/analogy, I could go on the "Oprah" show and with that response she
>would get it, as would millions of women watching the show. Nothing else
>would be needed. There wouldn't have to be arguments about "mind control"
>or "brainwashing" and if it really exists. Abused women exist and whatever
>keeps them there or brings them back, it happens. That fact cannot be
>denied.
>
>Now that I've made my point, let me expand it. In my opinion, this
>model/analogy extends much further than the control of a cult. I think it
>can be found in jobs where the person feels trapped and wants to leave but
>can't. There might be a difference that the "boss" may not try to talk
>them back, but I think this model/analogy goes farther than merely cults
>and abused women. That would be up to others to pursue. My point is that
>I'm not targeting Scientology. The model worked for me in my situation and
>I think it would help others who have had difficulty understanding the
>"control" they felt. It helped me because it lifted out of the subjects of
>"mind control" and "brainwashing" and told me that it was not exclusive to
>the cult. In turn, I understood - or at least sympathized - with the
>plight of the abused woman. I no longer wondered why they stayed or
>returned. I didn't have an answer, but I was no longer puzzled.
>
>At my last deposition in Tampa, there was a point where this came up. I
>don't recall what it was but I was asked something that prompted me to say
>that I thought the abused woman syndrome was a good model for what I had
>experienced. Of course, there were the guffaws and laughs of severe denial
>from their part. It is to be expected from the abusers, isn't it? No
>abusive husband admits to it and no abusive cult will either and for the
>same reasons.
>
>Before closing, let me make a couple more points of parallel.
>
>No abusive relationship starts that way. In fact, the chances are that if
>the guy had slapped her on the first date, there wouldn't be a second one.
>No, the abusive relationship starts with sweetness. When I was reading
>about abusive relationships, that came up constantly, how the guy was so
>nice and sweet. No, the abuse is gradual. It starts with some criticism
>and when the woman accepts it, then there is a little bit more. When she
>accepts that, the man does more as he introduces CONTROL. If she protests,
>he backs off until he can reestablish the control. It is called a
>GRADIENT. (Ironically, Scientologists will be familiar with that word.)
>The woman comes to accept more and more and becomes convinced that it is
>something SHE is doing wrong. As it is increased, the sweetness tapers off
>until it is finally dangled in front of her like a carrot. Somewhere along
>the line, the physical abuse starts. If she breaks too hard, he is sweet
>and comforting and maybe even apologetic, bringing her back under control.
>That is the key. CONTROL. (Another word Scientologists know well. Hubbard
>even had his own definition for it and processing addressing control.)
>Then one day the beatings are regular and she loses her self-respect and
>dignity.
>
>Let me draw another parallel to my own situation. I mentioned in one of my
>other posts to ARS that I am making with this one about the woman who
>asked me if there was anything anyone could have said to me to change my
>mind while I was in Scientology. No one had asked me that and I realized -
>and told her - that no, there was nothing anyone could have said.
>
>That happens with the abused woman too. I read how they would later
>recount the advice of friends who kept telling them that their
>husband/lover was abusing them and that they should leave. I don't recall
>any who said, you know, you're right! I'm going to leave him! No, they
>explained the abuse! They would say - actually believing it, until they
>finally escaped - that he was really a nice guy, that he was
>misunderstood, that he was trying, that they would work things out, etc.,
>etc., etc.
>
>You know who usually changes the woman's mind? The abuser. Those who flee
>- like Tina Turner - simply say one day, I've had enough, and escape. Some
>do it sooner. Some later. Until that moment, they rationalize their
>situation. Friends or family might be able to intervene but not in the
>hard core cases. In those instances, the abuser is the only one who can
>change the person's mind.
>
>Until then money and resources are also a factor. People stay in abusive
>situations because they have no money or anywhere else to go. Maybe if the
>abused woman had $100,000 in the bank she would have given him the finger
>and taken off long before. But what abuser would allow the woman to keep
>that money for herself? (I have yet to learn of a Sea Organization member
>who escaped with ample personal resources. The amount of money one has on
>joining - if any - is quickly discovered and one is convinced to spend it
>on the cult, thus effectively wiping out any resources.) These are the
>points that have to be researched to understand this phenomenon and to
>offer help.
>
>Meanwhile you might ask, how can a person rationalize a beating? Good
>question indeed. If the plight of the abused women had been known longer
>than it has, maybe we would have a better understanding. Each woman will
>have her own answer but until we get a grasp of it the fact remains that
>it exists and there are some disturbing parallels between them and cult
>members. I wasn't "abused" when I joined. It was like the "love bombing"
>found in another cult. Everything is wonderful and the future is bright
>and this is the place to be. Then one day, there is a little "correction."
>If one balks, one is talked through it gently until it is grasped and one
>is willing to accept it. The next one is attached to that one. ("Remember
>how well we did last time when you were able to understand it and you had
>a win?") And the next until one day you find yourself working 12 hours a
>day at hard labor, under guard, seven days a week, unable to talk to
>friends and family, your body racked in pain and undergoing constant
>interrogation to give up your "crimes" and you accept it as necessary for
>your own "rehabilitation." And if you try to escape and they catch you,
>you can be talked back to the very same situation and you convince
>yourself that this is right as you haul the next load of rocks out in 110
>degree heat and a blazing sun for $5 a week. It is all part of your
>"rehabilitation."
>
>No, when people asked me how I could stay for so long when I knew it was
>abusive, that's a loaded question. I didn't know it any more than the
>abused woman knew it. I kept telling myself that they really are okay,
>that it must be my fault, that it is being done to help me and things
>really will get better. I carried that attitude right into the RPF until
>one day I broke and decided to escape. Then they talked me back and I was
>convinced that it would get better. All they did was back up the gradient
>to where I would accept the control.
>
>That is another place where I find that the "mind control/brainwashing"
>models break down. It is crucial in cult control that the person feel in
>control and in fact IS "in control." One is always making the decision to
>stay. To that degree, it is "consensual." But how "consensual" is the
>abused woman? Just because she has the freedom to drive to the store and
>back and no one is keeping her in chains, does that mean she is
>"consenting" to her situation? Can the husband argue that he isn't
>"controlling" her because she has that freedom? Then what IS "consent"?
>That may be a legal quandary as much as a psychological one but I don't
>think we are ready to walk away from the woman being beaten, saying she is
>"consenting to it," are we?
>
>Thanks to video cameras, we can watch shows like "Cops" where the police
>are called out to a real life "domestic disturbance." If you have watched
>that show enough, you finally saw the all-to-familiar scene of the woman
>with a bloody nose who has clearly been beaten (the cops were called by
>neighbors hearing the fight) and is standing there explaining it all away,
>insisting that the police take no action. No, she's fine, she says. No,
>it's nothing. To the questions from the police about the bloody nose or
>the swelling around the eyes, she'll say anything but the facts, that he
>was beating her. Do we need more evidence? There are the very people - the
>police - who can take him off to jail and end the abuse if she will simply
>speak up and she refuses while wiping the blood from her nose or pulling
>the torn clothing up around her shoulder and telling them that everything
>is okay. Of course, the police cannot legally intervene unless she
>complains and she will not.
>
>Now let me make a harrowing admission. If the police had shown up that day
>when I was at the motel trying to escape, when the security guards were
>parked outside to make sure I didn't disappear on them, and if the police
>had asked me if everything was okay or if I needed any help, do you know
>what I would have said and done? The same thing as that woman. No, it's
>fine, I would have said. I'll handle it. It stuns me to think it, let
>alone say it right now, but that is the truth. That is exactly what I
>would have done. And do you know why? Because I didn't want to be in
>trouble with the cult. If you can figure that one out, give it to the
>experts.
>
>That is why people who flee the cult - even into the arms of the
>authorities - can be talked back. They can no more say "help me" than the
>woman standing there with a bloody nose can tell the police. Give them a
>few days rest and time to get their wits about them and maybe they can.
>That is why those first few hours or days are crucial. The more time the
>person gets away from the person suppressing them, the more they recover
>their own sense of self. That, of course, infuriates the abuser, until
>he/they finally give up and look for their next victim. Meanwhile, some
>degree of control remains until the person finally sheds it.
>
>And don't think that all abused women are abused physically. The abuse
>might be merely verbal, with other controls like control of money, sleep,
>clothing, friends, beliefs, free time etc. (Gee, sound familiar?)
>
>Now if one were interested in studying the "abused woman" syndrome, who
>would one study? This may sound like a ridiculous question but it goes to
>a point the cult is making.
>
>First of all, one has to decide if such women exist. (This may sound like
>I'm contradicting myself but hang on.) How does one decide? The obvious
>answer would seem to be the stories of women themselves. But can we
>believe them? Maybe they are making it up. So let's ignore them for the
>moment and go to marriages/relationships and ask the women, are you
>abused? Let's ask the men, are you abusing this woman? What sort of answer
>will we get? Done in this way, we can conclusively "prove" that there are
>no abused women because all of the women - including the ones with the
>bloody noses - will deny it as will the men. Case closed. No woman is
>abused.
>
>That is exactly what the cult is doing. They are saying that those who
>have left and claim abuse are "apostates" (one who has abandoned one's
>belief or cause) and can't be believed. (They even paid some "experts" to
>"conclude" this.) Meanwhile, they will suggest, all you have to do is ask
>Scientologists if they feel abused. In fact, you can even go into the RPF
>and ask and chances are (unless there is one rocky one who will be quickly
>stashed somewhere else) they will respond to the man and woman that they
>are not being abused. Case closed. No one is abused.
>
>In other words, as long as we listen to someone who has abandoned a belief
>or a cause (from a marriage to a "religion") cannot be believed.
>
>And that is one of the reasons why abused women were not believed until
>just a few years ago. Think on that. Women have been abused for thousands
>of years and it wasn't until a few years ago that it was even admitted
>that it happened and that something should be done about it. How many
>women went to the police and were turned away or were killed or destroyed
>before someone believed them? How many have simply fled and disappeared
>and are still too ashamed to talk, preferring to just live quiet lives
>where they can choose their own friends, have their own bank accounts,
>pick their own meals, select their own clothes, keep private diaries and
>not have to answer or explain themselves again? Can anyone imagine what a
>joy that is to a person whose life was controlled down to the point of
>what it was they could say or believe, where their very thoughts and
>opinions were monitored, that they can now forget it? How many women are
>out there? Compare that to how many go to the authorities or champion the
>cause of abused women and take it to the media and the courts. How many of
>THOSE are there? Three? Five? Ten? Should these "apostates" be believed?
>
>How many ex-cult members are there? How many have of them have spoken out?
>Three? Five? Ten? Should these "apostates" be believed?
>
>I think there are many, many reasons to draw a parallel between the two
>groups not only in their situation but in those who speak out and I hope
>that this might spark some interest within some professional circle. I'm
>no more an "expert" on sociological parallels than that woman with the
>bloody nose is an expert but we do have a level of understanding.
>
>Robert Vaughn Young
>2/22/00
>copyright (c) Robert Vaughn Young
>all rights reserved
>
>
>


Robert Vaughn Young

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to

Keith Henson

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
Robert Vaughn Young <wri...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> Monday, February 21, 2000

> TOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF "CULT CONTROL"
> By Robert Vaughn Young

snip of *excellent* material

> After that I realized that for the first time I had a model that I could
> use in the most difficult situations and the understanding would be based
> on that person's grasp of the situation of the abused woman. With this
> model/analogy, I could go on the "Oprah" show and with that response she
> would get it, as would millions of women watching the show. Nothing else
> would be needed. There wouldn't have to be arguments about "mind control"
> or "brainwashing" and if it really exists. Abused women exist and whatever
> keeps them there or brings them back, it happens. That fact cannot be
> denied.

Marvin Minsky makes the point in Society of Mind that extending models or
analogy is the way humans progress into new knowledge.

snip

> Before closing, let me make a couple more points of parallel.

> No abusive relationship starts that way. In fact, the chances are that if
> the guy had slapped her on the first date, there wouldn't be a second one.

True, Robert, but you *can* start a relation in an abusive way. Remember
Patty Herst or the guys for whom the Stockholm syndrome was named. I
think the critical factor is being captured, something which
(fortunately) does not occur very often on a first date.

> No, the abusive relationship starts with sweetness. When I was reading
> about abusive relationships, that came up constantly, how the guy was so
> nice and sweet. No, the abuse is gradual. It starts with some criticism
> and when the woman accepts it, then there is a little bit more. When she
> accepts that, the man does more as he introduces CONTROL. If she protests,
> he backs off until he can reestablish the control. It is called a
> GRADIENT. (Ironically, Scientologists will be familiar with that word.)
> The woman comes to accept more and more and becomes convinced that it is
> something SHE is doing wrong. As it is increased, the sweetness tapers off
> until it is finally dangled in front of her like a carrot. Somewhere along
> the line, the physical abuse starts. If she breaks too hard, he is sweet
> and comforting and maybe even apologetic, bringing her back under control.
> That is the key. CONTROL. (Another word Scientologists know well. Hubbard
> even had his own definition for it and processing addressing control.)
> Then one day the beatings are regular and she loses her self-respect and
> dignity.

I have looked at the endpoints of this process, the joy from release of
endorphins due to lots of attention (love) and the capture/brainwash of
the Patty Herst variety. Your description has made me understand that
there is an entire continuum between these.

> Let me draw another parallel to my own situation. I mentioned in one of my
> other posts to ARS that I am making with this one about the woman who
> asked me if there was anything anyone could have said to me to change my
> mind while I was in Scientology. No one had asked me that and I realized -
> and told her - that no, there was nothing anyone could have said.

I think I understand the evolutionary origin for this effect. People
bond to social groups becauses bonding to the tribe you were born into or
traded to, or capture into was the most critical matter for your survival
and that of your offspring. No matter *how* abusive the tribe might be to
you, your chances of survival were lower if you left--since isolated
humans were predator food first time one came upon them asleep.

> That happens with the abused woman too. I read how they would later
> recount the advice of friends who kept telling them that their
> husband/lover was abusing them and that they should leave. I don't recall
> any who said, you know, you're right! I'm going to leave him! No, they
> explained the abuse! They would say - actually believing it, until they
> finally escaped - that he was really a nice guy, that he was
> misunderstood, that he was trying, that they would work things out, etc.,
> etc., etc.

Makes total sense in this model. Bad mouthing the local social group
(tribe) is just going to cause you more trouble.

snip

> Meanwhile you might ask, how can a person rationalize a beating? Good
> question indeed. If the plight of the abused women had been known longer
> than it has, maybe we would have a better understanding. Each woman will
> have her own answer but until we get a grasp of it the fact remains that
> it exists and there are some disturbing parallels between them and cult
> members. I wasn't "abused" when I joined. It was like the "love bombing"
> found in another cult. Everything is wonderful and the future is bright
> and this is the place to be. Then one day, there is a little "correction."
> If one balks, one is talked through it gently until it is grasped and one
> is willing to accept it. The next one is attached to that one. ("Remember
> how well we did last time when you were able to understand it and you had
> a win?") And the next until one day you find yourself working 12 hours a
> day at hard labor, under guard, seven days a week, unable to talk to
> friends and family, your body racked in pain and undergoing constant
> interrogation to give up your "crimes" and you accept it as necessary for
> your own "rehabilitation." And if you try to escape and they catch you,
> you can be talked back to the very same situation and you convince
> yourself that this is right as you haul the next load of rocks out in 110
> degree heat and a blazing sun for $5 a week. It is all part of your
> "rehabilitation."

Because for way more than a million years being rejected by your tribal
group was a death sentence.

> No, when people asked me how I could stay for so long when I knew it was
> abusive, that's a loaded question. I didn't know it any more than the
> abused woman knew it. I kept telling myself that they really are okay,
> that it must be my fault, that it is being done to help me and things
> really will get better. I carried that attitude right into the RPF until
> one day I broke and decided to escape. Then they talked me back and I was
> convinced that it would get better. All they did was back up the gradient
> to where I would accept the control.

As weird as the psychological situation is with the battered wife or cult
member in the RPF is, you have to ask about the other end. Why is
beating/abusing people to control them something that people like to do
and are good at? Why do people even *want* to control others? We are
talking *instinct* here because there are no courses in how to batter a
wife (though there may be on how to treat people in the RPF--wasn't LRH
known as a batterer?). All I can think of at the moment is that humans
have a wired in psychological response to how they *should* treat captives
or those they are trying to control. For well over million years tribes
exchanged women (and sometimes men) and for the same time they captured
and reoriented people to their tribe. I have proposed that the abuses
which accompanies capture sets off the mental state which cause a person
to bond to the abuser or cult-- and people who are into control are aware
of this at a deep level.

> That is another place where I find that the "mind control/brainwashing"
> models break down. It is crucial in cult control that the person feel in
> control and in fact IS "in control." One is always making the decision to
> stay. To that degree, it is "consensual." But how "consensual" is the
> abused woman? Just because she has the freedom to drive to the store and
> back and no one is keeping her in chains, does that mean she is
> "consenting" to her situation? Can the husband argue that he isn't
> "controlling" her because she has that freedom? Then what IS "consent"?
> That may be a legal quandary as much as a psychological one but I don't
> think we are ready to walk away from the woman being beaten, saying she is
> "consenting to it," are we?

It is an *extremely* difficult quandary. Perhaps with wide understanding
of these evolved-in psychological mechanisms we might recognize the
"capture" relation as one which justifies intervention and why.

> Thanks to video cameras, we can watch shows like "Cops" where the police
> are called out to a real life "domestic disturbance." If you have watched
> that show enough, you finally saw the all-to-familiar scene of the woman
> with a bloody nose who has clearly been beaten (the cops were called by
> neighbors hearing the fight) and is standing there explaining it all away,
> insisting that the police take no action. No, she's fine, she says. No,
> it's nothing. To the questions from the police about the bloody nose or
> the swelling around the eyes, she'll say anything but the facts, that he
> was beating her. Do we need more evidence? There are the very people - the
> police - who can take him off to jail and end the abuse if she will simply
> speak up and she refuses while wiping the blood from her nose or pulling
> the torn clothing up around her shoulder and telling them that everything
> is okay. Of course, the police cannot legally intervene unless she
> complains and she will not.

The solution to this does not occur to me, but I am thinking about it.

> Now let me make a harrowing admission. If the police had shown up that day
> when I was at the motel trying to escape, when the security guards were
> parked outside to make sure I didn't disappear on them, and if the police
> had asked me if everything was okay or if I needed any help, do you know
> what I would have said and done? The same thing as that woman. No, it's
> fine, I would have said. I'll handle it. It stuns me to think it, let
> alone say it right now, but that is the truth. That is exactly what I
> would have done. And do you know why? Because I didn't want to be in
> trouble with the cult. If you can figure that one out, give it to the
> experts.

There have been at least *25* cases of illegal confinement and/or
kidnapping in scientology which did not come to the attention of the
authorities because they were not reported. The abuse of madwog is one
of the worst.

I doubt there is a human solution to this class of problems because if
there were we would hear about it. But there may be *technical*
solutions. In primitive tribes, abuse of the women is kept down by the
lack of privacy and intervention of other tribe members. We value
privacy. Still, there may be technical solutions which would only intrude
on privacy to prevent beatings or other abuse.

> That is why people who flee the cult - even into the arms of the
> authorities - can be talked back. They can no more say "help me" than the
> woman standing there with a bloody nose can tell the police. Give them a
> few days rest and time to get their wits about them and maybe they can.
> That is why those first few hours or days are crucial. The more time the
> person gets away from the person suppressing them, the more they recover
> their own sense of self. That, of course, infuriates the abuser, until
> he/they finally give up and look for their next victim. Meanwhile, some
> degree of control remains until the person finally sheds it.

You are right on here. But I think a lot of people take the abuse till
they die.

Thank you very much Robert. It certainly stimulated a lot of thinking on
my part.

Keith Henson

PS, I am reposting files drugs.cults and mindcontol after this posting

Keith Henson

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
I have to give thanks for the work I will insert below to three women--
four if you count Patty Herst.

First was a woman who was only 16 at the time. I knew her about 30 years
ago. One thing which stuck in my mind from those days was her expounding
on the *RUSH* she got from a mixture of heroin and speed she injected into
this vein she found in her thumb. (I know she did it because I saw the
yellow and blue swollen vein. I am leaving out her name because she went
straight.)

Second was a woman who came up to me at a party a year or two after I got
involved in the fight here on the net.

She said: "I know it is BS, but the time I spent 15 years ago in
scientology was the peak experience of my life."

She said this in very much the same tone of voice and expression that the
woman did talking about the drug rush. I was at a loss to explain why
these two hit me as so similar across such a long time.

The third woman was Kenitta Watson, a brilliant computer hacker from
silicon valley who is acknowledge at the end of the first article. A
number of months after the encounter with the second woman I was
discussing the drug-cult similarity with her at a party. Kenitta was
familiar with EST, a scientology knock off, and we were both up on
evolutionary psychology which was the key. By the end of the party, I was
ready to write the article below.


A Memetic/Evolutionary Psychology Connection Between Drugs and
Cults


By H. Keith Henson (hkhe...@netcom.com,ke...@xanadu.com)

I have studied and written about *memes* for well over ten years.
Much about these *replicating information patterns* is obvious--
given the selfish gene model from which the concept was derived.
Memes, with few exceptions, exist in the context of human carriers
and their artifacts. The information which is passed from person
to person and from generation to generation is the primary factor
which gives humans a competitive advantage over the rest of the
animals. A modern example which shows the power of memes is that
human children do not have to learn that streets are dangerous
places by trial and error.

In the aggregate, memes make up human culture. Most of them are of
the rock-chipping/shoemaking/vehicle-avoiding kind--they provide
clear benefits to those who host them. They are passed from
generation to generation because of the benefits (ultimately to the
genes of their hosts) they provide.

But a whole class of memes fails to have such obvious replication
drivers. Memes of this class, which includes religions, cults and
social movements such as communism, have induced some of the most
spectacular events in human history, including mass suicides, wars,
migrations, crusades, and other forms of large-scale social unrest.

These memes often induce humans to actions which seriously damage
or destroy their potential for reproductive success. The classic
example is the nearly extinct Shakers--whose meme set completely
forbids sex. While inducing such behavior makes sense when viewed
from the *meme's* viewpoint (diverting host time and energy from
bearing and caring for children to propagating the meme) it makes
no sense when considered from the *gene's* viewpoint for a
susceptibility to this class of memes to have evolved.

This is where my understanding about the vulnerability of humans to
this class of memes was stuck for many years. It was recently
unstuck by a new discipline which has grown out of the early work
in sociobiology. This new field is most often called evolutionary
psychology. What evolutionary psychology proposes to do is explain
the features of the human mind in terms of what mental traits led
to *reproductive success* in the *ancestral environment*.

The reason the *ancestral environment* is specified is that
evolution works slowly. There has not been enough time for human
genes to have adjusted much to the changes in the environment in
the last few thousand years--and, in fact, most humans lived in
tribes or small villages until relatively recent generations.
That environment is almost gone--our success has greatly modified
the world--but the few remaining hunter-gatherer groups and our
nearest relatives give us a general picture. While there was
plenty of variation in what people did for a living (depending on
local resources) the picture which emerges of the previous several
million years is that of a social primate living in small bands and
villages.

Of all the things which have been measured in such representative
ancestral environments as we have, social standing or status is the
most predictive of reproductive success. This is true for both
sexes, though the potential rewards for high status were--and still
are--higher for males. High status males had multiple wives or
additional mating opportunities in the ancestral environment (and
for that matter, still do). High status females, from what we can
see in chimpanzees and humans, have no more offspring than low
status ones, but their children are more likely to survive. (In
bad times, much more likely to survive.)

It follows that humans would have evolved to be exquisitely
sensitive to changes in status, which (no surprise) is the observed
situation. Activities which lead to feelings of increasing status
are highly rewarding: that is, they cause the release of chemicals
which induce highly pleasurable states in the brain. This reward
system is fundamental to human motivation, and in the ancestral
environment it worked to enhance reproductive success most of the
time. It makes sense for hunters who brought in the first meat the
tribe has seen in six weeks to get a lot of attention (a mark of
status) from the other tribe members and to experience rewarding
feelings about what they had done as a (real) increase in social
status. Of course, people tend to repeat behavior which led to
flooding their brains with pleasurable chemicals. In our hunter
example, more hunting leads to more protein for the hunter's
mate(s) and children which in turn leads to improved reproductive
success--and thus to another generation of status-seeking hunters
who are rewarded individually with brain chemicals and in the
evolutionary sense by more children. There are two causal loops
involved here. The short term one acts over hours to years, and
the long term one over generations. The long term loop sets up
susceptibility to the short term loop.

In short, an action (such as hunting) leads to attention (an
indicator of status) which in the short term releases rewarding
brain chemicals and in the long term improves reproductive success.

Simple conditioning of the Pavlovian type will move some of the
reward release "upstream" so that the acts which later result in
reward chemical releases will themselves become rewarding.

In time humans discovered drugs which shortcut this action-
attention-reward (AAR) brain mechanism and directly flood the brain
with pleasurable chemicals. The behavior of smoking or injecting
drugs which simulate the natural chemicals is highly rewarding, and
(in some people) leads to the repeated behavior we refer to as
addiction. The brain reward system involved in drug addiction can
be stimulated in other ways, for example by gambling. People who
liken compulsive gambling to drug addiction are right; the rewards
compulsive gamblers get are only one step removed from exogenous
chemicals--with the "Attention" step diminished or removed.

Gambling and drugs cause misfiring of the AAR mechanisms, and often
result in severe damage to reproductive potential, but both are
very recent in human history. In the past, evolution favored those
who were motivated by the mechanism.

The importance of the AAR mechanism is hard to underestimate. It
may well be the most important motivating mechanism behind
virtually all human activities. In previous times it was tied
directly into reproductive success, and it is still a major factor
in this endeavor.

It should come as no surprise that such a powerful mechanism can be
taken over by drug-induced rewards. It seems that this is not the
only way the brain reward system can be parasitized. Memes which
we see as cults and related social movements seem to have
"discovered" the AAR reward system as well. Successful cult memes
induce behavior (typically focused attention) between cult members
which trips the "improving status" detectors. Tripping the
detectors causes the release of reward chemicals without having
much (if any) connection to "real world" improvements in
reproductive success.

Examples of focused attention are "love bombing" in the Moonies and
"auditing" in Scientology. As an explanation for the propagation
of the meme classes mentioned at the top of this article, I propose
that successful cult memes induce behavior between cult members
which results in the release of pleasure inducing chemicals into
the reward system of the brain. This release of chemicals results
in reinforcement of behavior similar to that we see in addicts.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that the behavior of people
under the influence of cults is similar to that we observe in
addicts. Typical behavior for both includes draining bank accounts
and education funds, selling or mortgaging property, neglecting
children, destruction of relations with family and friends and lack
of interest in anything except the drug or cult.

Unfortunately, understanding of the mechanisms behind cult or drug
addiction has not yet led to better ways of treating either, but
knowledge of the deep seated and highly evolved brain mechanisms
involved in both may lead to better treatment methods.

[Thanks to Kenneta Watson for the conversation where this
understanding emerged and to Arel Lucas for editing suggestions.]


Keith Henson

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
: >On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Jack Craver wrote:
: >
: >> Thats your opinion, Here's mine:
: >>
: >> ******** Mind control does not exist.****************
: >>
: >> Except in old movies. Dracula was pretty good at it.

Jack, over the past two-three years I have picked up a new thinking tool
called evolutionary psychology. It proposes that human minds have been
shaped by evolution in directions which promoted reproductive success in
the ancestral environment--and that we should keep this factor in mind
when trying to figure out why people act the way they do.

Now, we know that some people, maybe even a lot of them, can undergo what
happened to Patty Herst.* What happened to her is often called "mind
control" or "brainwashing" but whatever you call it, the phenomenon of
sudden change of thinking and loyalties under duress or intense social
pressure and isolation from friends and family is known to happen.

Given the existence of this phenomenon (whatever you call it) a person
would apply evolutionary psychology by asking why such a trait would have
improved the reproductive success of people during the millions of years
we lived as social primates in tribes and small villages.

We don't have historical records of those times. The best we can do is
use what records we have of various low tech tribes as a stand in for what
life was like then. One thing which stands out from our records of the
historical North American tribes, the South American tribes such as the
Yanamano, and African tribes is that being captured was/is a relative
common event. I.e., if you go back a few generations, almost everyone in
these tribes has at least one ancestor who was captured (mostly women).

Now, while fighting hard to protect yourself and your relatives is good
for your genes, when the situation is hopeless, giving up short of dying
and (enthusiasticly?) making the best you can of the new situation is
*also* good for your genes.

On this basis, I propose that whatever you call the observed phenomenon,
the fact that we have lots of ancestors who gave up and joined in with the
people who had captured them and (often) had killed most of their
relatives may account for the ability of humans to undergo the sudden
change of thinking and loyalties which is sometimes called "mind control"
or "brainwashing."

Keith Henson

*For those who do not recognize the reference, Patty Herst was kidnapped,
subjected to crude abuse, and joined the people who captured her,
eventually being sentenced for taking part in a bank robbery.


roger gonnet

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to

Robert Vaughn Young <wri...@eskimo.com> a écrit dans le message :
88v9aa$995$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> Monday, February 21, 2000

Great, Robert, and happy bto see you back on ars!

roger

> it was a "coat" and the "label" was impressive but.

> relationship for so long when."

Lronscam

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
The addy of wri...@eskimo.com, In article ID
<88v9aa$995$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, On or about 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38
GMT,

Robert Vaughn Young says...


SNIP

>When I began to see the parallel between my own experience and these
>women, I went back and re-read Lifton's 10 or however many points that he
>makes for his model and I realized that it was based on studying prisoners
>of war! That was hardly a secret but when he and others were making their
>models of "mind control" or "brainwashing" or however you call it,
>battered women weren't even a subject which, for me, was a telling
>difference. After all, what repatriated prisoner of war says he wants to
>go back? What prisoner of war was let out of their cell and allowed to go
>into the city to relax and then went back to the prison where they were
>abused and tortured? THAT, for me, is where the model breaks down and
>where the model of the abused or battered woman takes over.

I do agree with this model. But lets not forget that there are many,
many Scientologists who are not physically abused. Travolta being one
of them and the many stars who are Scientologists, as well as the many
rich public who got involved in Scientology.

I do believe another model would be the one of a child being molested.
After all, a new Scientologist compared to the almighty Hubbard is
intellectually but a mere child, where everything is new and is only
known so much that Hubbard wrote about it. And when the person leaves,
he keeps quiet about the abuse, because of his shame at agreeing to
the perversion of Hubbard madness on his psyche. The embarrassment is
untold.

The same phenomena of what a con man does to another is relative to
what I am saying, but the fact that the con goes on for so long is the
reason why another model is necessary.

Being in a cult is a varied experience, depending upon the person. And
in Scientology especially so because the group is so complicated that,
I believe, that there are degrees to the cult. The SO being the top
echelon. The greater the information control, the more like a cult
Scientology is and the parts thereof. The Sea Org being the top
echelon in this market.


SNIP

>(Their excuse for opening and reading all mail that comes to staff at the
>org is to watch for billings to the org. It is a Hubbard policy. Staff are
>then pulled in and interrogated about mail considered suspicious.)

Can someone get me this policy? Watch for billings? As if a billing
would come to anything other than to 'Scientology'?

This is obviously an acceptable truth.


SNIP

>One day talking with someone about this new idea that I had, I mentioned
>the East German parallel and the person made an excellent point. "East
>Germany was their home," she said. "People don't easily leave their homes
>unless they have someplace better to go."

So true RVY, so true.

Thanks for the parallel. There was some debate here on ARS what was
the best model for the reason why a cult member stayed in Scientology.
The reasons were:

1) Scientology auditing is addicting because of the enhancement of
endorphins (Keith Henson and others)
2) Scientology was likened to an abusive relationship (Diane
Richardson, mainly)
3) Scientology is likened to being molested by a father figure, you
might say (me)

and a few others...


I am now convinced that the abusive relationship model is the top dog
out of all of them.

Thanks for the clarification.


--
*___________________________*
Web page summary: http://www.entheta.net
The best overall site: http://www.xenu.net
Chris Owen's well researched site:
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/audit/index.html.
The name says it all: http://www.ronthewarhero.org
Co$ book list:http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library
Real player files of Co$, pickets, LRH, etc:
http://www.xenutv.com

Ed

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to

Lronscam wrote:
>
> The addy of wri...@eskimo.com, In article ID
> <88v9aa$995$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, On or about 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38
> GMT,
>
> Robert Vaughn Young says...
>
> SNIP
>

> >When I began to see the parallel between my own experience and these
> >women, I went back and re-read Lifton's 10 or however many points that he
> >makes for his model and I realized that it was based on studying prisoners
> >of war! That was hardly a secret but when he and others were making their
> >models of "mind control" or "brainwashing" or however you call it,
> >battered women weren't even a subject which, for me, was a telling
> >difference. After all, what repatriated prisoner of war says he wants to
> >go back? What prisoner of war was let out of their cell and allowed to go
> >into the city to relax and then went back to the prison where they were
> >abused and tortured? THAT, for me, is where the model breaks down and
> >where the model of the abused or battered woman takes over.
>

> I do agree with this model. But lets not forget that there are many,
> many Scientologists who are not physically abused. Travolta being one
> of them and the many stars who are Scientologists, as well as the many
> rich public who got involved in Scientology.
>
> I do believe another model would be the one of a child being molested.
> After all, a new Scientologist compared to the almighty Hubbard is
> intellectually but a mere child, where everything is new and is only
> known so much that Hubbard wrote about it. And when the person leaves,
> he keeps quiet about the abuse, because of his shame at agreeing to
> the perversion of Hubbard madness on his psyche. The embarrassment is
> untold.
>
> The same phenomena of what a con man does to another is relative to
> what I am saying, but the fact that the con goes on for so long is the
> reason why another model is necessary.
>
> Being in a cult is a varied experience, depending upon the person. And
> in Scientology especially so because the group is so complicated that,
> I believe, that there are degrees to the cult. The SO being the top
> echelon. The greater the information control, the more like a cult
> Scientology is and the parts thereof. The Sea Org being the top
> echelon in this market.
>
> SNIP
>

> >(Their excuse for opening and reading all mail that comes to staff at the
> >org is to watch for billings to the org. It is a Hubbard policy. Staff are
> >then pulled in and interrogated about mail considered suspicious.)
>

> Can someone get me this policy? Watch for billings? As if a billing
> would come to anything other than to 'Scientology'?
>

The original policy (maybe still) was that all mail was to be
opened by the Dir of Communication because if the mail contained money
it needed to be properly routed to the Dir of Income. People might
send a check for something that was for the org, but it might come in
an envelope addressed to an individual staff member (usually a reg) by
name.

There was not any policy that said the Dir of Comm or anyone
else had to read all the mail for individuals in the org. They just
had to be opened to make sure any money went to the right place.

Ed

Ed

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to

Lronscam wrote:
>
> The addy of wri...@eskimo.com, In article ID
> <88v9aa$995$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, On or about 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38
> GMT,
>
> Robert Vaughn Young says...
>
> SNIP
>

> >When I began to see the parallel between my own experience and these
> >women, I went back and re-read Lifton's 10 or however many points that he
> >makes for his model and I realized that it was based on studying prisoners
> >of war! That was hardly a secret but when he and others were making their
> >models of "mind control" or "brainwashing" or however you call it,
> >battered women weren't even a subject which, for me, was a telling
> >difference. After all, what repatriated prisoner of war says he wants to
> >go back? What prisoner of war was let out of their cell and allowed to go
> >into the city to relax and then went back to the prison where they were
> >abused and tortured? THAT, for me, is where the model breaks down and
> >where the model of the abused or battered woman takes over.
>

> I do agree with this model. But lets not forget that there are many,
> many Scientologists who are not physically abused. Travolta being one
> of them and the many stars who are Scientologists, as well as the many
> rich public who got involved in Scientology.
>
> I do believe another model would be the one of a child being molested.
> After all, a new Scientologist compared to the almighty Hubbard is
> intellectually but a mere child, where everything is new and is only
> known so much that Hubbard wrote about it. And when the person leaves,
> he keeps quiet about the abuse, because of his shame at agreeing to
> the perversion of Hubbard madness on his psyche. The embarrassment is
> untold.
>
> The same phenomena of what a con man does to another is relative to
> what I am saying, but the fact that the con goes on for so long is the
> reason why another model is necessary.
>
> Being in a cult is a varied experience, depending upon the person. And
> in Scientology especially so because the group is so complicated that,
> I believe, that there are degrees to the cult. The SO being the top
> echelon. The greater the information control, the more like a cult
> Scientology is and the parts thereof. The Sea Org being the top
> echelon in this market.
>
>

[snipped]

> So true RVY, so true.
>
> Thanks for the parallel. There was some debate here on ARS what was
> the best model for the reason why a cult member stayed in Scientology.
> The reasons were:
>
> 1) Scientology auditing is addicting because of the enhancement of
> endorphins (Keith Henson and others)
> 2) Scientology was likened to an abusive relationship (Diane
> Richardson, mainly)
> 3) Scientology is likened to being molested by a father figure, you
> might say (me)
>
> and a few others...
>
> I am now convinced that the abusive relationship model is the top dog
> out of all of them.
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>

IMHO Vaughn and Keith both are on to the same thing from
different orientations. In the Scn/Dn tech drug and other addictions
are held in place not by engrams, but by the good feelings of
pleasure, relief, love, etc., that were present the first time the
person used the substance or felt loved.

Pleasure, love, relief, and the like are only aberrative when
they occur in the life of someone who has been abused beforehand.
People naturally experience plenty of positive feelings and they are
not unusual, but the more badly abused in whatever way one has been,
the more wonderful it feels to be loved and to temporarily escape the
horrible abuse situation. This easily becomes addictive. The usual
addictive spiral is that you get high, you come down, you feel
miserable because you're aware of recently having felt really good and
lost that state, so you do whatever it takes to get high again.

In the Scn cult and many others, the addiction is to the
feeling of being loved by other group members, which is contrasted to
an earlier loveless unhappy environment. The Moonies' great success
comes from their "love bombing". Scn doesn't have any explicit
practive but it's the same general idea: they love the new person, and
in fact, one of the highest pleasures a group member feels is to bring
in someone new.

Lronscam's #2 and #3 above are off. The #2 abusive
relationship gets its power from the feeling of being really loved
that the victim feels (as Vaughn says) rather than from the violence
or abuse. The #3 above, a relationship of domination and/or violence
without love in the beginning, doesn't characterize Scn at all. It is
a relation of bullying. Victims of pure bullies (no love) don't keep
coming back for more.

The "love" in the addictive relationship is "conditional
love", given with a price: control and domination even to the extent
of enslavement. The victim in such a relation is confused or deceived
into thinking it is "unconditional love", that is, the nicer kind we
all prefer.

Ed

anon...@electra.lightlink.com

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
in message <38B33A7D...@cyberstation.net> "alan c. walter"
<wis...@cyberstation.net> wrote in thread "Toward a new model of "cult
control" by Robert Vaughn Young", on Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:40:34 GMT, :


Dear RVY:

Thanks for this detailed and interesting article.

I think the only model you need to explain this
phenomenon, in cult members, abused women,
or any other "voluntary" victim, is the tone scale,
which is strictly equivalant to ethics conditions.


YOU WERE BELOW DEATH ON THE TONE SCALE.
YOU WERE IN LOWER CONDITIONS TO YOURSELF.

That is WHY you tolerated abuse.
That is WHY you could not leave.

Specifically, you suffered from DUALITY,
HALLUCINATION, TREASON, and so forth.

Someone TOLD you "It will get better."

You BELIEVED them, IN SPITE of your own
certainty that you were being abused. That
is both treason and duality. You betrayed
your own interests because the FALSE
HALLUCINATION they offered you was
more important to your identity than freedom.

Only after you COMPARED your situation
to where you might be several times did
you finally come up to and through DOUBT
on whether you really wanted to stay or not,
and then you started LIABILTY by actually
ESCAPING from those who abused you.

Even after you were out and glad you were
out, you were still sucecptible to being
TALKED back in because you were STILL
in TREASON to yourself as a BEING.
Your HALLUCINATIONS were in FIXIDITY.
You were WAITING to be manipulated by
them because you were BEING an OBJECT.
They controlled YOU, because you had no
self-control of your shared hallucinations.

All of the cult controls or domestic controls
are typically used to enforce reality on the
victim, to keep them in HALLUCINATION:
"He really DOES love me!"
"He PROMISED he'll never beat me again."
"He's really TRYING HARD to get better."
"I KNOW it will work out THIS TIME."
are all examples of hallucinatory control.

As long as you can KEEP a person in
lower conditions to themselves, you can
control them and keep them putting up
with abuse, and even thanking you for it,
by controlling their hallucinations, which
determines their behavior. You can "talk
them back" simply by calling up the
hallucinations which they DEPEND ON
to confront their reality with. Of course,
if you have no money and no place to
go, and no way to get there, that makes
the hallucinations that much easier, since
their alternative is more unconfrontable.

A REAL SOLUTION to low awareness, low
tone level, and low ethics conditions is UCP.
[Universal Clearing Process]. Of course,
someone who IS IN a cult/trap/abuse situation
is NOT likely to be doing self-improvement or
awareness-developing exercises, so I do not
assert that UCP will handle those situations.

How to get people OUT of these situations
is a VERY difficult and unsolved problem.

You MAY have to simply wait until THEY
decide they *DO* want to get out, and do.

UCP WILL, however, create someone who is
relatively CULT-PROOF and ABUSE-PROOF,
because they are not in hallucination, duality,
and treason to themselves. You can always
kidnap someone and abuse them without their
consent, but getting them to AGREE to such
treatment requires their own lower conditions.

Best Wishes,


Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
<konchok...@net-prophet.net>

FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"


===============RVY wrote=================


>Monday, February 21, 2000


>
>TOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF "CULT CONTROL"
>By Robert Vaughn Young
>
>(Preface: I am making this long post to ARS because I am stepping away
>from this work and I want to get it into the hands of people who study
>or
>are concerned with this issue. I do not know who has taken this view. It
>
>is merely my perspective and opinion and can certainly prompt debate,
>not
>to mention screams of horror from any cult. I just want it to be
>seriously
>considered by the professionals who deal with this. Others should be
>interviewed on it and the model developed and tested. Nor do I think it
>is
>the only model. I merely think it might help some who could not be
>helped
>before. I only ask that someone provide a copy of this to whoever might
>be
>interested in the issue of "cult control.")
>
>
>After I left Scientology in 1989 with 21 years in the cult, the hardest
>question people posed to me was why I stayed in it so long if I knew it
>was such an abusive system. I didn't have an answer that satisfied me,
>let
>alone anyone else. I think I've come up with a reply and a model. It at
>least satisfies me today.

................snip excellent but very long article...........


Cerberus

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
Hiya RVY,

Contrary to netiquette, I can't bring myself to snip a thing. Rings
true.

Would someone -- xenu.net or LMT -- please web these essays? It would
be a blessing.

And Robert, stop by for a cookie when the time comes. All of us are
dyin', but only some of us know it.

Best,

Cerberus
________

Of comfort no man speak.
Let's talk of graves, of worms and epitaphs,
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth.
Let's choose executors and talk of wills.
And yet not so, for what can we bequeath
Save our deposed bodies to the ground? . . .
For God's sake, let us sit us upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;

Richard II, Act III, Scene 2

=================

cerb...@rmi.net
cerb...@aol.com----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In Germany they first came for the insane, raving, IQ-testing,
barratrous, money-laundering, tax-dodging cultists, and I didn't
speak up because I was not an insane, raving, IQ-testing, barratrous,
money-laundering, tax-dodging cultist. Then things got MUCH better,
and we're all fine now. Thanks for asking."

Pastor Martin Niemoller III (Germany, 2003)

http://www.xenu.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beverly Rice

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to
das...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Just call him Angel. Bob Minton, friend to all ex-members with
> slightly attractive wives with facial hair.

Hey, Hubbard had a thing for "facial hair" . . . he seemed
to enjoy getting off with friend Jack Parsons, diddlying
together to make a "Moon Child" . . . before he "got off"
with his friends fiance' . . . while he was still married
to ~his~ wife . . . as well as abandoning his children.

Hubbard . . . a ~real~ SOURCE for the un-ethical to follow.

Beverly

das...@my-deja.com

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
In article <2qk6bs01lsea7lca2...@4ax.com>,

b...@minton.org wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
wrote
> the post quoted below.
>
> Thank you Vaughn for this insightful message.
>
> Bob Minton
>

Just call him Angel. Bob Minton, friend to all ex-members with
slightly attractive wives with facial hair. Yes, Vaughn, thank you for
your insightful message. It was stirring.

DasFoot

(Capt. Nerd likes barbed wire)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Mark W Brehob

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
das...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Just call him Angel. Bob Minton, friend to all ex-members with
> slightly attractive wives with facial hair. Yes, Vaughn, thank you for
> your insightful message. It was stirring.

> DasFoot

Out of curiosity, did you read his message? I would agree, it was stirring.

Mark

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.cps.msu.edu/~brehob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~Mark Brehob: Ultimate Player, Gamer, Computer Geek~~~~~~~~~~

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
On 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
wrote in <88v9aa$995$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>:

>Even before I realized how the plight of the abused woman paralleled my
>situation, I used to wonder how people from East Germany were able to
>cross into Berlin to shop and then would return. If conditions in East
>Berlin were as bad as we were being told in the West, how could they step
>into the West, see the difference, buy the things they didn't have back
>home and then return?

Your assumption is based on inaccurate information. After the wall went
up (1961), no easterners except people over 65 (and a few privileged
people) could cross the border.

So you can only ask yourself why *some* of these would return. And the
answer is that those who had a family in the east would return because
it was their home.

And they couldn't "buy" much because the east german currency was
worthless. They received a $50 "welcome money" from the west, free
entrance to some locations, and that was it.

And as soon as the wall got a "leak" (in Hungary in Spring 1989), east
germans started to leave massively, and the government collapsed. One
year later, East Germany no longer existed.

Tilman

(posted and mailed)

--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.xenu.de

Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.

Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html

Lronscam

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
The addy of met...@aol.com, In article ID
<38B427ED...@aol.com>, On or about Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:33:17 -
0500,

Ed says...


RVY says:
>> >(Their excuse for opening and reading all mail that comes to staff at the
>> >org is to watch for billings to the org. It is a Hubbard policy. Staff are
>> >then pulled in and interrogated about mail considered suspicious.)
>>

Scam says:
>> Can someone get me this policy? Watch for billings? As if a billing
>> would come to anything other than to 'Scientology'?
>>
> The original policy (maybe still) was that all mail was to be
>opened by the Dir of Communication because if the mail contained money
>it needed to be properly routed to the Dir of Income. People might
>send a check for something that was for the org, but it might come in
>an envelope addressed to an individual staff member (usually a reg) by
>name.
>
> There was not any policy that said the Dir of Comm or anyone
>else had to read all the mail for individuals in the org. They just
>had to be opened to make sure any money went to the right place.


What a sick bunch of puppies this cult is. This is so silly. Like if
money went to the wrong person, a Sea Org Scientologist being the
loyal members that he is, of course would give the money to the right
person. This is so fricking sick I can't stand it. When does a person
not have to prove his loyalty anymore?

By this example alone, it shows where Scientology's loyalties lies and
that is with money and control. Not necessarily in that order.

Monica Pignotti

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
In article <88v9aa$995$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>,

wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young) wrote:
> Monday, February 21, 2000
>
> TOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF "CULT CONTROL"
> By Robert Vaughn Young

Thanks for this very interesting and insightful essay, which I have
saved. You and others here might be interested in knowing that the
model of battered wife syndrome is very compatible with Steve Hassan's
model of mind control. Steve Hassan has made this analogy of cults and
battered wives on numerous occasions. His new book *Releasing the
Bonds* clarifies a great deal about his model of mind control and how it
differs from other models.

I very much agree that this is a great analogy that helps many people to
understand the issues around cults and why people stay more clearly,
even though the state of Texas is apparently unenlightened on this
matter. Today, I awoke to the morning news that the state of Texas is
about to carry out the death penalty on battered woman in her 60s today.
It's unbelieveable that this kind of thing can be happening in this day
and age. This woman's sad story shows that there is still much to be
done in educating people about both of these issues.

I can certainly relate to being talked back into staying, as this
happened to me as well when I was on the RPF.

Monica Pignotti

wogendas

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
On 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
wrote:

Of course I agree with this. I have been saying this for some time.
And, why do people "go back"? Well, who in their right mind (ahem)
would leave the people who love them? A cult is like a family. It is
disguised as such by no accident. It is also no accident that cult
members are kept too busy to stay in contact with their old life and
everything connected with it. One does not need to formally
disconnect to be disconnected. People stay and/or go back because it
is home, it is family, it is commitment. One does not just walk away
from home and family and commitment. One is not drawn back by the
abuse. One is drawn back by the promise (often unspoken) that it will
be sweet and loving again as it once was.

Those of you who were around during the times of purges can probably
recall the effect the promise of a fix had on you. Yes, now things
were going to get on track. Things would go the way they were
intended to. What a hook. How many people stayed because of this
promise only to find the cure did not take? But then, that could not
possibly be the fault of the cult now could it? Naw, not any more
than the abused spouse getting beaten again because once more, s/he
messed up, right?

roxy

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has" Margaret Mead

Jeff Jacobsen

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
On 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
wrote:

>Monday, February 21, 2000


>
>TOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF "CULT CONTROL"
>By Robert Vaughn Young

Well, I just want to make sure you're not throwing away the ideas of
Lifton, Singer, et al. I would agree that the battered-woman model is
the easiest for the average person to understand. But I also see no
contradiction with the battered-woman model and Lifton's criteria, for
example. In fact, several years ago I bought a book called The
Battered Woman's Survival Guide by Jan B. Statman because of the
similarities to the already established models of cult abuse, not to
find an alternative though.
Just because Lifton's writings are dry, dull, and scholarly doesn't
mean he's wrong. It just means he's harder to understand than the
battered-woman model. I'd like to see a paper on applying Lifton to
the battered-woman model, and maybe some day I'll tackle that.


Dave Bird

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
In<88v9aa$995$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, Robert Vaughn Young writes:
>Monday, February 21, 2000
>
>TOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF "CULT CONTROL"
>By Robert Vaughn Young

I meant to do a piece of "Thought Reform", or Conditioning of Habitual
Obedience, at some time. In fact I thought I *had* posted something,
but I can't find a record of it.

The idea is that the disobedient criminal who politically threatens
the status quo can be "reformed" into a good citizen by a period of
nothing but thorough training in carrying out "correct" behaviour.
Then they tried the same thing on invading soldiers from aggressor
countries... understandably with no lasting success the moment the
chumps were NOT faced with nowhere to go but could readily get back
to their old lives. This business of nowhere to run is key.

A re-settled, re-educated, thought-reformed chump should be placed
where the obedient life is normal and constant, and s/he has no
easy way out.

>One day talking with someone about this new idea that I had, I mentioned
>the East German parallel and the person made an excellent point. "East
>Germany was their home," she said. "People don't easily leave their homes
>unless they have someplace better to go."

The victim of abuse has probably been born into, or travelled to
a distant place and married into, the household of their abuser.
That's where their bed is, that's where they keep their clothes,
that's where they eat their meals. Probably they have very little
money of their own to go somewhere, even if they had somewhere
to go (many abusers will push them into breaking contact with
their old family and old friends), no money for permanent food
and lodgings, no job to provide them with money in the new place.

These are real obstacles to leaving. Much the same happens to the
military conscript in a remote camp, of the Sea Ogre in a remote
posting. Not only that, there will be attempts to drag the runaway
recruit or runaway wife "back where they belong" and often a lot
of social approval for doing just that.

>Nor are these women locked up. The husband goes off to work, for example,
>and she has a car. She gets in the car and she goes to the store, buys
>food, and brings it home, to the very place where she is being beaten and
>she makes dinner. She doesn't keep driving. SHE COMES BACK. To what? More
>abuse.

Oh, and their current activities are the activities of that household,
and their friends are the friends of that household, and most of all
their children are part of that household and might be left behind.

>Here's where the "mind control" advocates might argue their point. After
>all, isn't this what "mind control" is all about where I was "controlled"
>to do something that was inherently against my will?
>Or the "brainwashing" school might give their explanation from that
>perspective. After 21 years in the cult, they might say, I was
>"conditioned" and like some "Manchurian Candidate" or Pavlovian dog,
>someone merely rang some bell or pushed a button and I complied.

The whole point of "thought reform" is to condition the person
so they get into the habit that obedience is what they do,
first reluctantly, then instinctively by their own choice.

>a similarity. Why would a person go BACK to a condition that is worse? I
>don't think "mind control" or "brainwashing" fits that situation any more
>than it fits the abused woman or that it fit mine.

>And that nearly tied the two together for me, as well as back into my
>situation. Where can the abused woman go? Can she just take off for
>nowhere?

Inevitability, dependency, nowhere else to go.....

>I think there are many, many reasons to draw a parallel between the two
>groups not only in their situation but in those who speak out and I hope
>that this might spark some interest within some professional circle. I'm
>no more an "expert" on sociological parallels than that woman with the
>bloody nose is an expert but we do have a level of understanding.

People do not want to ask these questions. People don't want to
think too much about how armies, employers, etc work too.


|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'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(:)

Lronscam

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
The addy of cul...@primenet.com, In article ID
<38b59017...@news.primenet.com>, On or about Thu, 24 Feb 2000
20:15:23 GMT,

Jeff Jacobsen says...

>On 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
>wrote:
>

>>Monday, February 21, 2000
>>
>>TOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF "CULT CONTROL"
>>By Robert Vaughn Young
>

>Well, I just want to make sure you're not throwing away the ideas of
>Lifton, Singer, et al. I would agree that the battered-woman model is
>the easiest for the average person to understand. But I also see no
>contradiction with the battered-woman model and Lifton's criteria, for
>example. In fact, several years ago I bought a book called The
>Battered Woman's Survival Guide by Jan B. Statman because of the
>similarities to the already established models of cult abuse, not to
>find an alternative though.
> Just because Lifton's writings are dry, dull, and scholarly doesn't
>mean he's wrong. It just means he's harder to understand than the
>battered-woman model. I'd like to see a paper on applying Lifton to
>the battered-woman model, and maybe some day I'll tackle that.


What are his ideas? No details, just some idea of what he proposes.

I, too, agree that there is more to it than just the battered woman's
syndrome. After all, there are many publics who are involved who are
never abused. And many staff in Churches and Missions who rarely see
anything abusive besides a yell here and there. (I am guessing at the
latter part about it being rarely.)

The Scientology cult is multifaceted. Punishment can be as simple as a
check on the Emeter and you failing a sec check to the most severe. I
do believe that Scientology would love to be able to control you just
by the Emeter alone. Because that is not so, that may be why Hubbard
created the ethics formula and with it the RPF for more severe
physical punishment.


--

Joe's Garage

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to Robert Vaughn Young
On 23 Feb 2000, Robert Vaughn Young wrote:

[...]

> Which brings it back to the issue of why I stayed. There was one incident
> that happened in 1988 that I kept as my litmus test. I knew if I could
> understand it, I could understand it all.
>
> I was on the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) at "Golden Era Studios" at
> Gilman Hot Springs CA. (For the sake of brevity, let's skip why I was
> there and the way it works and the like and just cut to the chase.
> Besides, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making and I think I've written
> about it before.) My situation had deteriorated to the point that I was
> afraid I was either going to go crazy on the RPF or die so I escaped one
> night. They found me at a motel in nearby Hemet and wanted to talk. I said
> okay and the next thing I knew, I agreed to return to the "program" and to
> finish the RPF. I did and was on it another 5-6 months (total 16 months)
> before "graduating."
>
> Here is my litmus test. More than why did I stay in here, why did I return
> if I felt it was so abusive that I escaped? And here's the kicker: they
> TALKED me back in. They didn't lay a hand on me. By just talking with me,
> they convinced me to give up what I had planned for weeks and executed.
> They convinced me to go back to the very condition that I feared would
> kill me. Why did I do it?

You didn't plan on being offered the womb of technology as an alternative
to experiencing the unease of facing the real world in your artificially
induced state of mind.

An analogy would be an alcoholic with a mega-hangover being offered a shot
of whiskey from his pusher to make him feel better. At that point it's no
longer a question of will power, but of the ability to not only deal with
the problem, but to avoid the cause long enough to get over the problem.

All the best,

Joe C., escaped Scientology white slave turned pro-critic Rambo
"If you think the problem with Scientology is bad now,
just wait until we find out what it is."
http://members.tripod.com/cic_ops/counter_warfare


Steve A

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:34:00 GMT, das...@my-deja.com wrote:

> > On 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38 GMT, wri...@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
> wrote
> > the post quoted below.
> >
> > Thank you Vaughn for this insightful message.
> >
> > Bob Minton
> >
>

> Just call him Angel. Bob Minton, friend to all ex-members with
> slightly attractive wives with facial hair. Yes, Vaughn, thank you for
> your insightful message. It was stirring.
>
> DasFoot

Pah. Stop lowering the tone.

--
There is no legitimate reason to send email to nu...@castlsys.demon.co.uk
Mail to this address will be treated as SPAM/UCE and reported accordingly
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1, non-Mintonista.
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net

Monica Pignotti

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
In article <MPG.131f91a48...@news.supernews.com>,

Lronscam <NQSPAML...@aol.comNOTs> wrote:
> What are his ideas? No details, just some idea of what he proposes.
>
> I, too, agree that there is more to it than just the battered woman's
> syndrome. After all, there are many publics who are involved who are
> never abused. And many staff in Churches and Missions who rarely see
> anything abusive besides a yell here and there. (I am guessing at the
> latter part about it being rarely.)

Robert J Lifton wrote a book called *Thought Reform and the Psychology
of Totalism* and many others on the subject. In Chapter 22, he lists
and describes eight characteristics which constitute a totalist
environment. It's very interesting to look at the practices of various
cults in light of these eight characteristics and see how well they fit.

>The Scientology cult is multifaceted. Punishment can be as simple as a
>check on the Emeter and you failing a sec check to the most severe. I
>do believe that Scientology would love to be able to control you just
>by the Emeter alone. Because that is not so, that may be why Hubbard
>created the ethics formula and with it the RPF for more severe
>physical punishment.

Confessionals done in an abusive way are one of Lifton's eight
criteria. This takes away the ability of the individual to have any
private thoughts. Another one is "doctrine over person" meaning that
the doctrine, at all times is absolute truth and takes precedence over
the person. If there is ever a conflict between the doctrine and a
person, the doctrine is always right and the person is always wrong.
For instance, if auditing doesn't work, it's always the fault of the
auditor or the PC, never the fault of any weakness in the tech or
anything about Scientology. This fits the idea of standard tech and
policy very well and applies whether a person is public or on staff.

--
Monica Pignotti
Disclaimer: The statements I make on this forum
are an expression of my individual opinions. I
do not represent any institution here.

Michael 'Mike' Gormez -- www.enturbulate.nu

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
In article <898uq2$lpc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Monica Pignotti
<pign...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>Robert J Lifton wrote a book called *Thought Reform and the Psychology
>of Totalism* and many others on the subject. In Chapter 22, he lists
>and describes eight characteristics which constitute a totalist
>environment. It's very interesting to look at the practices of various
>cults in light of these eight characteristics and see how well they fit.

Here it is
http://www.rickross.com/reference/Art95.html

Mikey
--
Why a page about deaths in Scientology?
http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/why.html

Kristi Wachter

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
On 23 Feb 2000, Robert Vaughn Young wrote:

> It wasn't until my first trip to Wellspring that I found the model that
> worked for me. It had nothing to do with them. It was some books that were
> on their shelves that I was reading in my spare time that let me realize
> the model that worked for me: the battered or abused woman. The idea
> didn't take hold fully then. It took further reading (including some on
> the Web) some months later to bring it together.
>
> Various "experts" can (and do) argue if "mind control" or "brainwashing"
> really exists or if we are just talking about various forms of "influence"
> that is found in everything from advertising to conversations. But they
> can't argue with the fact that there are battered/abused women who stay in
> abusive situations and there are women who flee and when found by the
> husband are talked BACK into the very relationship they tried to escape
> and then it repeats.

Thank you so much for posting this.

I think it IS a very useful model, one I have used a few times in
conversation while picketing.


When I had jury duty, one of the cases I heard was a domestic violence
dispute. The woman had clearly been battered - there were police
photographs and her son testified about what had happened, as did the
police - but shortly after the incident she had asked to have the charged
dropped and had had some sort of reconciliation with her boyfriend. She
chose to go back to a habitually abusive relationship.

I am glad to say that the society she lived in didn't consider that to be
an acceptable choice. We found the boyfriend guilty and sent him to jail.


It was a very difficult decision (for me at least) - it was very tempting
to think that the boyfriend had reformed and everything would be fine. But
I think we did the right thing.


We know that, in abusive relationships, promises to change are
common; that's one of the things that keeps the battered partner
involved. Unfortunately, habitually abusive partners very rarely stop
without some kind of intervention from the outside world.


I'm glad that society is beginning to enforce the idea that this kind of
behavior is not acceptable.

I hope that, before long, we will make it clear that the RPF and the
Introspection Rundown aren't acceptable, either.

Thanks, Vaughn.


Kristi

--
Kristi Wachter
the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me)

I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I
want them to stop it. See http://www.scientology-lies.com for more.
Can you say "Xenu?" ... I knew that you could.

Reply all