DEPROGRAMMING [was CAN declares bankruptcy]
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>> >Yes. I was once to a CAN annual seminar.
>> What year and location was this, Bernie?
>United States, ten years ago
I went to a meeting of a group in Omaha back then called Save Our
Children. I wanted nothing to do with them. They advocated forcible
deprogramming.
Too bad you didn't get to know CAN as it existed today. BTW, it
probably wasn't a CAN seminar 10 years ago. Perhaps CFF?
>> >At some point I found myself in a
>> >room with deprogrammers buzzing on the telephone and making
>> >appointments and arrangements for their dirty business.
>> Did you get the names of these 'deprogrammers'?
>Only from faint memory. Even if I would, I wouldn't be telling that here.
Understood.
>> Did you actually see any money change hands?
>No
>>Any kidnappings arranged?
>Kidnappings were definitely being arranged: van renting, people to do the
>restraining etc. I wasn't present long enough to get more details, nor
>was I interested in them.
Hmm. Like I said, I've been randomly attending CAN meetings since
1990. Never saw anything remotely like that being arranged or even
discussed as a good idea.
>> Of whom?
>I don't know
>> What you describe does not sound like anything I have ever seen
>> take place at the dozens and dozens of CAN meetings I have
>> attended and observed.
>> Nothing -at all- like what I've seen.
>
>It certainly is consistent, in my eyes, with CAN approach.
In the 6 years I have watched CAN operate, I have never seen them do
more than offer information. 99% of that information about cults has
been dead-on.
>Nor did I ever
>saw a clear statement of CAN condemning coercive deprogramming.
Neither do they advocate it.
>> >It seemed like a golden mine for
>> >them. They would have a direct benefit from all the hate,
>> >misconception and anguish produced during the various
>> > conferences.
>> Again, couldn't you please be any more general in you criticism?
>See below
>
>>Responding to Bernie <be...@arcadis.be>:
>>>Unfortunately an intelligent source of information doesn't exist,
>>>IMO. You either have the COS propaganda racket on the one hand,
>>>or, on the other hand, anti-cults 'support' groups like CAN, where
>>>family members of culties freak each other out about the "horrible
>>>cults brainwashing our children".
>
>> Ah yes, Bernie.
>
>> So in order to make such a broad and condemnatory statement about
>>the accuracy of CAN's material on scientology, you have probably
>>requested and studied the material which CAN provided (when it was
>>in operation).
>
>I did more than that. I traveled to the States and spoke to many
>anti-cult personalities. I consulted loads of documents, including the OT
>III ones before anyone would even dream that they would one day be made
>public. This was in the early 80's, so the scene might have been somewhat
>different, although I don't think so.
It was WAY different back then.
>The practice of forcible
>deprogramming may have declined, I don't know,
That's my point. It has long been abandoned as a practice by anyone
I know.
>but it seems the spirit
>remains the same, from what I could recently see from the CAN web page.
The spirit, eh? This is real specific.
>Maybe I would reconsider my judgment by having a deeper look at the
>current scene, but the idea I am left with about CAN was that it was
>pretty much a cult itself: all_bad_in/all_good_out, extremist position
>and fanatism, use of fear and guilt on people to convince them, believe
>in some mystical effect of mind-control and into a no-human "brainwashed"
>state of mind, etc.
CAN fought fanacism. Everything looks like a cult when you first
get out of one.
>I don't want to make too broad a generalization,
Yea right.
>because I am sure that
>there exist in CAN and among anti-cult people some, and probably even
>many, who have a more balanced view. But many of the people I met, apart
>from some ex-cult members who knew what they were talking about, gave me
>the same impression as a cult member: repeating ready-made clichés with
>very few original thoughts or personal reflections, a background pride
>about the "revelation" of a new state of mind (the brainwashed state),
>etc.
I know the type, but haven't observed any of them in CAN.
>It is sad to say, but among the persons I met, and although I completely
>disagree with what he has been doing, the only one who could more or less
>argue his case with original views and to the point arguments was Ted
>Patrick himself. He contrasted sharply with the rest of his "followers".
I know no one who was ever one of his followers. Please name them
by name.
>I kind of think the same about him as I do of Elron Buvard: a certain
>type of genius perverted to a dead-end cause.
I never met Patrick, but I'd welcome the chance to sit down and chat
with him.
>> You are no doubt prepared to give us a critique of the
>>flaws therein so they can be discussed sensibly by the newsgroup
>>participants.
>
>Sure, if you or someone else provide the basis thereof.
Basis for finding flaws in the data you say is bogus? Ball's in
your court, son.
>And BTW, if I won't recommend organizations such as CAN to family members
>of culties, I have less problem to recommend it to ex-cult members
>themselves, since it does provide some alternative explanation for the
>experience they have been going through.
There are no other organizations with the courage and fortitude that
CAN had.
>I don't exactly know what is their official position, because I was out
>of touch for many years. However, I have requested in this newsgroup a
>clear statement of CAN about their condemnation of forcible deprogramming
>and this never came.
Oh, perhaps they didn't realize it was such an important personage
as yourself that called for it.
>Also, I know first hand that whatever their official
>position is, many members and key members were actually supporting it. At
>least this was the case some 10 to 15 years ago, and I have no reason to
>think they changed in the meantime.
Ah, then no point in bothering yourself with facts.
>And, BTW, isn't the CAN forced to pay
>a named Jason Scott millions of dollars for their alleged complicity in
>his tentative deprogramming?
The case will be appealed. It was a bogus set-up from the git-go.
>And isn't it the reason they have to declare
>bankruptcy?
Good guys never get shafted in court?
>> > I think CAN probably did some good too, as illustrated by Dennis
>> > post above. However, because of their implicit, and sometimes
>> > explicit, support of forcible deprogramming, they deserve probably
>> > the fate they face. In Europe, the scene is very different. Forcible
>> > deprogramming is very frowned upon, and this is reflected in the
>> > anti-cult organizations themselves. The English anti-cult
>> > organization FAIR, for example, is much more articulated and, on
>> > the long run, have a much higher chance to bring about tangible
>> > results.
>>
>> Forcible deprogramming is frowned upon here, as well; much of the
>> liturature on cults calls it into question
>
>Calls it into question? This is clearly not enough. Forcible
>deprogramming involves physically restraining a person, often through the
>initial act of kidnapping. It involves furthermore overloading the person
>with information critical to his beliefs and depriving him of sleep and
>privacy. Now, would you only "question" clear criminal activities
>involved in deprogramming, while condemning cult activities using "subtle
>mind control technique"?
I never called being locked in a basement subtle. Or the Running
Program or the RPF or BabyWatch.
I have always considered forcible deprogramming wrong. Although I
certainly understand why desparate parents have resorted to it.
>This is just as bad, objecting to mind-control activities of the cults
>and ignoring brainwashing ones of deprogrammers. Often this "no mention"
>acts the same way as the "hidden agenda" of the cult, in which one is
>only informed of more controversial issues when sufficiently
>"conditioned" to accept them.
Been there, said that.
>> (I don't think it was very common.)
>
>When is "was"? I don't know about the current situation, but I can cite
>you plenty of cases where this happened in the past. An extremely wide
>array of "cults" were targeted, including a girl who objected that her
>future husband be chosen by her parents in the Greek Orthodox tradition,
>and another one because her family objected to her lesbian relationship.
>The deprogramming of this later, conducted by Ted Patrick disciples,
>included sexual intercourse to convince her that her lesbian
>predisposition was due to mind-control. When she escaped and put on trial
>the deprogrammers, these were acquitted because "her family acted in good
>faith" and she was, after all "under mind-control”. Actually, all along
>the court case, *she* was the one put on trial.
>
>> I'm pretty sure the AFF stands openly against deprogramming
>
>This is probably the case, although I have no definite information about
>that. I always found AFF somewhat more "objective" and informed than CAN,
When did you last contact CAN to get their current approach? (skip
the website reference unless you care to quote from it)
>although I don't agree with many of their tenets either. However, I think
>that some of their scientific board member (could it possibly be Margaret
>Singer?) testified in defense of deprogrammers.
Gee, this is specific.
>> , and the only Canadian cult expert I spoke to doesn't agree with it at
>> all.
>
>Of course, and luckily, many cult experts condemn deprogramming, but then
>they often openly say so.
Is this supposed to make any sense?
>Exit counseling is not the same. On the condition that the person is
>**not** physically restrained to leave, I have no objection to whatever
>is involved in exit counseling. In fact, I think that an intelligent and
>well conducted exit counseling is really the best antidote to the cultic
>state of mind.
Agreed. I know that CAN agreed with this also. And not from 10 or
15 years ago. From 1090 right up to the day they closed their doors
and stopped answering their phone.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Bernie
>
> Responding to Bernie <be...@arcadis.be>:
>
> >Yes. I was once to a CAN annual seminar.
>
> What year and location was this, Bernie?
United States, ten years ago
> >At some point I found myself in a
> >room with deprogrammers buzzing on the telephone and making
> >appointments and arrangements for their dirty business.
>
> Did you get the names of these 'deprogrammers'?
Only from faint memory. Even if I would, I wouldn't be telling that here.
> Did you actually see any money change hands?
No
>Any kidnappings arranged?
Kidnappings were definitely being arranged: van renting, people to do the
restraining etc. I wasn't present long enough to get more details, nor
was I interested in them.
> Of whom?
I don't know
> What you describe does not sound like anything I have ever seen
> take place at the dozens and dozens of CAN meetings I have
> attended and observed.
>
> Nothing -at all- like what I've seen.
It certainly is consistent, in my eyes, with CAN approach. Nor did I ever
saw a clear statement of CAN condemning coercive deprogramming.
> >It seemed like a golden mine for
> >them. They would have a direct benefit from all the hate,
> >misconception and anguish produced during the various
> > conferences.
>
> Again, couldn't you please be any more general in you criticism?
See below
_____________________
Rev. Dennis L Erlich wrote:
>Responding to Bernie <be...@arcadis.be>:
>>Unfortunately an intelligent source of information doesn't exist,
>>IMO. You either have the COS propaganda racket on the one hand,
>>or, on the other hand, anti-cults 'support' groups like CAN, where
>>family members of culties freak each other out about the "horrible
>>cults brainwashing our children".
> Ah yes, Bernie.
> So in order to make such a broad and condemnatory statement about
>the accuracy of CAN's material on scientology, you have probably
>requested and studied the material which CAN provided (when it was
>in operation).
I did more than that. I traveled to the States and spoke to many
anti-cult personalities. I consulted loads of documents, including the OT
III ones before anyone would even dream that they would one day be made
public. This was in the early 80's, so the scene might have been somewhat
different, although I don't think so. The practice of forcible
deprogramming may have declined, I don't know, but it seems the spirit
remains the same, from what I could recently see from the CAN web page.
Maybe I would reconsider my judgment by having a deeper look at the
current scene, but the idea I am left with about CAN was that it was
pretty much a cult itself: all_bad_in/all_good_out, extremist position
and fanatism, use of fear and guilt on people to convince them, believe
in some mystical effect of mind-control and into a no-human "brainwashed"
state of mind, etc.
I don't want to make too broad a generalization, because I am sure that
there exist in CAN and among anti-cult people some, and probably even
many, who have a more balanced view. But many of the people I met, apart
from some ex-cult members who knew what they were talking about, gave me
the same impression as a cult member: repeating ready-made clichés with
very few original thoughts or personal reflections, a background pride
about the "revelation" of a new state of mind (the brainwashed state),
etc.
It is sad to say, but among the persons I met, and although I completely
disagree with what he has been doing, the only one who could more or less
argue his case with original views and to the point arguments was Ted
Patrick himself. He contrasted sharply with the rest of his "followers".
I kind of think the same about him as I do of Elron Buvard: a certain
type of genius perverted to a dead-end cause.
> You are no doubt prepared to give us a critique of the
>flaws therein so they can be discussed sensibly by the newsgroup
>participants.
Sure, if you or someone else provide the basis thereof.
And BTW, if I won't recommend organizations such as CAN to family members
of culties, I have less problem to recommend it to ex-cult members
themselves, since it does provide some alternative explanation for the
experience they have been going through.
_____________________
Martin G. V. Hunt wrote:
>
> First time I've ever seen someone say something bad about CAN. As
> far as I know, they do not support deprogramming.
I don't exactly know what is their official position, because I was out
of touch for many years. However, I have requested in this newsgroup a
clear statement of CAN about their condemnation of forcible deprogramming
and this never came. Also, I know first hand that whatever their official
position is, many members and key members were actually supporting it. At
least this was the case some 10 to 15 years ago, and I have no reason to
think they changed in the meantime. And, BTW, isn't the CAN forced to pay
a named Jason Scott millions of dollars for their alleged complicity in
his tentative deprogramming? And isn't it the reason they have to declare
bankruptcy?
> > I think CAN probably did some good too, as illustrated by Dennis
> > post above. However, because of their implicit, and sometimes
> > explicit, support of forcible deprogramming, they deserve probably
> > the fate they face. In Europe, the scene is very different. Forcible
> > deprogramming is very frowned upon, and this is reflected in the
> > anti-cult organizations themselves. The English anti-cult
> > organization FAIR, for example, is much more articulated and, on
> > the long run, have a much higher chance to bring about tangible
> > results.
>
> Forcible deprogramming is frowned upon here, as well; much of the
> liturature on cults calls it into question
Calls it into question? This is clearly not enough. Forcible
deprogramming involves physically restraining a person, often through the
initial act of kidnapping. It involves furthermore overloading the person
with information critical to his beliefs and depriving him of sleep and
privacy. Now, would you only "question" clear criminal activities
involved in deprogramming, while condemning cult activities using "subtle
mind control technique"?
> , if it is mentioned at all.
This is just as bad, objecting to mind-control activities of the cults
and ignoring brainwashing ones of deprogrammers. Often this "no mention"
acts the same way as the "hidden agenda" of the cult, in which one is
only informed of more controversial issues when sufficiently
"conditioned" to accept them.
> (I don't think it was very common.)
When is "was"? I don't know about the current situation, but I can cite
you plenty of cases where this happened in the past. An extremely wide
array of "cults" were targeted, including a girl who objected that her
future husband be chosen by her parents in the Greek Orthodox tradition,
and another one because her family objected to her lesbian relationship.
The deprogramming of this later, conducted by Ted Patrick disciples,
included sexual intercourse to convince her that her lesbian
predisposition was due to mind-control. When she escaped and put on trial
the deprogrammers, these were acquitted because "her family acted in good
faith" and she was, after all "under mind-control”. Actually, all along
the court case, *she* was the one put on trial.
> I'm pretty sure the AFF stands openly against deprogramming
This is probably the case, although I have no definite information about
that. I always found AFF somewhat more "objective" and informed than CAN,
although I don't agree with many of their tenets either. However, I think
that some of their scientific board member (could it possibly be Margaret
Singer?) testified in defense of deprogrammers.
> , and the only Canadian cult expert I spoke to doesn't agree with it at
> all.
Of course, and luckily, many cult experts condemn deprogramming, but then
they often openly say so.
Exit counseling is not the same. On the condition that the person is
**not** physically restrained to leave, I have no objection to whatever
is involved in exit counseling. In fact, I think that an intelligent and
well conducted exit counseling is really the best antidote to the cultic
state of mind.
> I'm glad FAIR is against this. BTW, if they are articulated, how
> many joints do they have? Did you mean reticulated? :-)
LOL! Actually, now that I looked it up, the French “articulé” doesn’t
have the same meaning as the English articulated. In French it is
figurative for flexibility of the joints, nuances, sensibility,
sophistications This is meant only relatively to CAN, though..
--
Bernie
Paper Tiger
In Message-ID: <31D394...@arcadis.be>,
Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
[snip]
>When is "was"? I don't know about the current situation, but I can cite
>you plenty of cases where this happened in the past. An extremely wide
>array of "cults" were targeted, including a girl who objected that her
>future husband be chosen by her parents in the Greek Orthodox tradition,
>and another one because her family objected to her lesbian relationship.
>The deprogramming of this later, conducted by Ted Patrick disciples,
>included sexual intercourse to convince her that her lesbian
>predisposition was due to mind-control. When she escaped and put on trial
>the deprogrammers, these were acquitted because "her family acted in good
>faith" and she was, after all "under mind-control . Actually, all along
>the court case, *she* was the one put on trial.
Please cite these cases.
** Paper Tiger (SP3, LFDoX)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMdPOCoCmc8kif9MJAQEVmAP/TD0EOL0pijzpA8amxDIL9T1wu2F4KW9+
VddpKvxa3uZm9nFZMSDYSKTqwJXtsxqeLCA/iyiz+rgq5/G/k6vZ2CLtKsDAvBxm
ZS0/+Q0qlOf7hFt6HOJxKkE7EID97AJcD+B6d5NYcUyRAp7RW++Qa/k54zkCYYjA
TcG/k1FCo1s=
=xMrl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark Heaney
On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 01:15:05 -0700, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>Rev. Dennis L Erlich wrote:
>>
>> Responding to Bernie <be...@arcadis.be>:
>>
>> >Yes. I was once to a CAN annual seminar.
>>
>> What year and location was this, Bernie?
>
>United States, ten years ago
My only experience with CAN, other than ordering some books from
them, was when I attended their most recent (and apparently last)
conference in White Plains, New York last November.
[snip]
Dennis:
>>Any kidnappings arranged?
Bernie:
>Kidnappings were definitely being arranged: van renting, people to do the
>restraining etc. I wasn't present long enough to get more details, nor
>was I interested in them.
Bizarre, if abductions are still being planned at these events
they must be pretty discrete - I noticed nothing of the kind.
Just a bunch of sessions focusing on different aspects of
cults.
[snip]
Dennis:
>> What you describe does not sound like anything I have ever seen
>> take place at the dozens and dozens of CAN meetings I have
>> attended and observed.
>>
>> Nothing -at all- like what I've seen.
Bernie:
>It certainly is consistent, in my eyes, with CAN approach. Nor did I ever
>saw a clear statement of CAN condemning coercive deprogramming.
I have no idea what you mean by CAN's approach. I agree that
CAN would have benefitted from a clear statement to the
effect of "CAN opposes forcible deprogramming and will not have
anything to do with it" in their mission statement and in their
literature.
[snip]
Bernie:
>I did more than that. I traveled to the States and spoke to many
>anti-cult personalities. I consulted loads of documents, including the OT
>III ones before anyone would even dream that they would one day be made
>public. This was in the early 80's, so the scene might have been somewhat
>different, although I don't think so. The practice of forcible
>deprogramming may have declined, I don't know, but it seems the spirit
>remains the same, from what I could recently see from the CAN web page.
What do you mean? That because they are strongly anti-cult (and
even alarmist, to an extent) they accept deprogramming as an
acceptable response to a family member joining a cult?
Bernie:
>Maybe I would reconsider my judgment by having a deeper look at the
>current scene, but the idea I am left with about CAN was that it was
>pretty much a cult itself: all_bad_in/all_good_out, extremist position
>and fanatism, use of fear and guilt on people to convince them, believe
>in some mystical effect of mind-control and into a no-human "brainwashed"
>state of mind, etc.
I disagree, but I get where you are coming from, the anti-cult
crowd appears to have it's fair share of extremists and some of
them have developed an us vs. them mentality. Of course, I can
never know what Cynthia Kisser, Margaret Singer, Patricia Ryan,
Marty Butz, and others who have been the prime targets for groups
like Scn., Eck, Synanon, the unification church, etc. have
been through. They may act like they are at war because to all
extents and purposes they are.
[snip]
Bernie:
>I don't exactly know what is their official position, because I was out
>of touch for many years. However, I have requested in this newsgroup a
>clear statement of CAN about their condemnation of forcible deprogramming
>and this never came. Also, I know first hand that whatever their official
>position is, many members and key members were actually supporting it. At
>least this was the case some 10 to 15 years ago, and I have no reason to
>think they changed in the meantime. And, BTW, isn't the CAN forced to pay
>a named Jason Scott millions of dollars for their alleged complicity in
>his tentative deprogramming? And isn't it the reason they have to declare
>bankruptcy?
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that CAN has to pay the
Jason Scott lawsuit award for referring Scott's parents to a
deprogrammer, not for having anything to do with the deprogramming
itself. Don't you think that if CAN was still involved in
deprogramming that Kendrick Moron (that well-known OCR error)
would have been able to come up with something better than just
a referral?
[snip]
Martin? - I think - I lost track of attributions:
>> I'm pretty sure the AFF stands openly against deprogramming
AFAIK
Bernie:
>This is probably the case, although I have no definite information about
>that. I always found AFF somewhat more "objective" and informed than CAN,
>although I don't agree with many of their tenets either. However, I think
>that some of their scientific board member (could it possibly be Margaret
>Singer?) testified in defense of deprogrammers.
[snip]
IMHO, AFF has a much stronger scientific bent than CAN does. I
get more of a feeling that AFF is interested in studying cults
and making people aware of them, while CAN was focused more on
combatting them.
Just about all of people at the CAN conference that I spoke to
had powerful personal experiences with cultic groups and were
honestly committed to helping the victims of such groups. One
problem with large meetings like this is that in 2-3 days you
hear many stories of cultic abuse by dozens of different
groups. All of this negative information being received
adds up and builds on itself until there is almost a fervor of
feeling to "strike back".
All in all, I thought the CAN conference was an excellent learning
experience and that CAN is/was a great resource for people trying
to understand the "cultic experience" whether they be ex-members
of HCGs (high control groups), their family, or people simply
interested in the topic. I feel that CAN would have benefited
by being less extreme, and of course having anything to do with
deprogramming is morally abhorrent to me. I don't understand
how someone could be arrogant enough to be willing to have a
loved one kidnapped in order to "save" them.
Without CAN being around for cults to loose their venom at I
wonder how long any of the other cult awareness organizations
will be able to last. Hopefully, AFF and InfoCult, the 2 north
american cult awareness groups I am familiar with, will be
able to take up the slack.
These are only my personal opinions based on attendance at a
single CAN conference and some general reading of their
history, I'm certainly no expert on the subject.
Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBMdQ7lt36bir1/qfZAQHQzQL/XI6ZaUipIyuoVBZjz0PG7REIFnUQ97ta
fFlLWpAXy4SmuD1Lbdg+r/rN32gFt918iome2dSblGx6gmd4z68GpfRIpa345B0y
+yyg1UYFGP2FjO3ba0ORenbA19bCzefe
=n6FC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Heaney alternate e-mail: sn...@starburst.cbl.cees.edu
PGP Key fingerprint = BB D8 9B 07 51 87 05 AC 47 7B F2 4F A6 AB 1A CD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I drank what? - Socrates
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>For an anti-cult group not to explicitly condemn coercive deprogramming
>amounts to implicitly agree with it.
I don't think so. But hey, this is your expert opinion, right
Professor?
>> >I did more than that. I traveled to the States and spoke to many
>> >anti-cult personalities. I consulted loads of documents, including the OT
>> >III ones before anyone would even dream that they would one day be made
>> >public. This was in the early 80's, so the scene might have been somewhat
>> >different, although I don't think so.
>>
>> It was WAY different back then.
>
>I don’t believe it. Not anymore than I believe the COS when it says that “all
>the bad things happened in the past, but now we don’t do it anymore”. As I
>explain at the end of this post, the potential for abuses is built within the
>theory itself, just like for the COS.
Comparing CAN with the scienos. Nice.
>> >> You are no doubt prepared to give us a critique of the
>> >>flaws therein so they can be discussed sensibly by the newsgroup
>> >>participants.
>> >
>> >Sure, if you or someone else provide the basis thereof.
>>
>> Basis for finding flaws in the data you say is bogus? Ball's in
>> your court, son.
>
>OK, see at the end of this post.
We played this game last time. No one found the hidden Easter Eggs.
[again you quoted nothing of CAN's readily available literature]
>> >And, BTW, isn't the CAN forced to pay
>> >a named Jason Scott millions of dollars for their alleged complicity in
>> >his tentative deprogramming?
>>
>> The case will be appealed. It was a bogus set-up from the git-go.
>
>What I read from it is certainly consistent with what I know of CAN and
>personally don't think it was a bogus set-up.
From all the vast knowledge about what happened, which you don't
bother to document or share.
>> >> (I don't think it was very common.)
>> >
>> >When is "was"? I don't know about the current situation, but I can cite
>> >you plenty of cases where this happened in the past. An extremely wide
>> >array of "cults" were targeted, including a girl who objected that her
>> >future husband be chosen by her parents in the Greek Orthodox tradition,
>> >and another one because her family objected to her lesbian relationship.
>> >The deprogramming of this later, conducted by Ted Patrick disciples,
>> >included sexual intercourse to convince her that her lesbian
>> >predisposition was due to mind-control. When she escaped and put on trial
>> >the deprogrammers, these were acquitted because "her family acted in good
>> >faith" and she was, after all "under mind-control”. Actually, all along
>> >the court case, *she* was the one put on trial.
>> >
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> , and the only Canadian cult expert I spoke to doesn't agree with it at
>> >> all.
>> >
>> >Of course, and luckily, many cult experts condemn deprogramming, but then
>> >they often openly say so.
>>
>> Is this supposed to make any sense?
>
>You mean the sentence is not clear or it doesn't make sense to openly condemn
>deprogramming?
Whatever.
>> >Exit counseling is not the same. On the condition that the person is
>> >**not** physically restrained to leave, I have no objection to whatever
>> >is involved in exit counseling. In fact, I think that an intelligent and
>> >well conducted exit counseling is really the best antidote to the cultic
>> >state of mind.
>>
>> Agreed. I know that CAN agreed with this also. And not from 10 or
>> 15 years ago. From 1090 right up to the day they closed their doors
>> and stopped answering their phone.
>
>You are probably right that overall exit counseling took precedence over
>deprogramming. A good evolution. Still, the case from which CAN has now to
>declare bankruptcy dates from after 1990 and I have seen nothing so far
>indicating that they are not somehow linked to the deprogramming approach. It
>is a natural consequence of their line of thinking, and I explain.
>
>I have said in other threads that, if given the chance, the COS will end up
>jailing its opponents or, more exactly, confining them in mental institution
>with the purpose of “clearing” them. This is obvious, isn’t it? It is the
>obvious consequence of a line of thinking consisting of everyone but Scieno
>being a robot, wog, DB (degraded being) and that the sole solution is doing it
>the Scieno way, and that the only ones objecting to this are SP and PTS.
>
>The only reason they don’t do this is that they can’t. They are forced to
>align themselves with the rules of a democratic and civilized society.
>However, any totalitarian system having a chance at forcing its way onto
>opponents will do so, like we had, and still have, the demonstration of this
>in Communist countries.
>
>CAN (or other like-minded organizations) have it that you are not joining a
>cult on your own free will, but that you are recruited by means of
>“mind-control”.
No. Rong. By means of fraudulent recruiting.
[bla, bla, bla theories about CAN deleted]
>So, I don’t believe that CAN did change in this respect and I think that one
>of the main reasons they didn’t openly pursue with their deprogramming methods
>is because they just couldn’t, for the same reasons the COS can’t officially
>support it’s Fair Game policy: because a free and civilized society just won’t
>tolerate it. The “cultic mindset”, however, is still lurking on both sides.
Particularly evident in your posts, from my perspective.
>Cults and anti-cults are really the two extremes of the same phenomenon,
You so FOS.
>and I
>believe them to be equally as dangerous.
Next you'll point to buildings they've blown up or say that facing
bankruptcy, their staff has been ordered to drink poisoned lemonade or
spread serin gas on the population of Chicago.
Rent a fucking clue.
>The only way for opponents of cults
>to avoid this trap is to openly denounce it and prove that they are indeed
>against any form of extremism, including their own.
For you, Emperor Bernie, anything.
Bernie
> >deprogramming.
>
> Neither do they advocate it.
For an anti-cult group not to explicitly condemn coercive deprogramming
amounts to implicitly agree with it.
> >I did more than that. I traveled to the States and spoke to many
> >anti-cult personalities. I consulted loads of documents, including the OT
> >III ones before anyone would even dream that they would one day be made
> >public. This was in the early 80's, so the scene might have been somewhat
> >different, although I don't think so.
>
> It was WAY different back then.
I don’t believe it. Not anymore than I believe the COS when it says that “all
the bad things happened in the past, but now we don’t do it anymore”. As I
explain at the end of this post, the potential for abuses is built within the
theory itself, just like for the COS.
> >> You are no doubt prepared to give us a critique of the
> >>flaws therein so they can be discussed sensibly by the newsgroup
> >>participants.
> >
> >Sure, if you or someone else provide the basis thereof.
>
> Basis for finding flaws in the data you say is bogus? Ball's in
> your court, son.
OK, see at the end of this post.
> >And, BTW, isn't the CAN forced to pay
> >a named Jason Scott millions of dollars for their alleged complicity in
> >his tentative deprogramming?
>
> The case will be appealed. It was a bogus set-up from the git-go.
What I read from it is certainly consistent with what I know of CAN and
personally don't think it was a bogus set-up.
> >> (I don't think it was very common.)
> >
> >When is "was"? I don't know about the current situation, but I can cite
> >you plenty of cases where this happened in the past. An extremely wide
> >array of "cults" were targeted, including a girl who objected that her
> >future husband be chosen by her parents in the Greek Orthodox tradition,
> >and another one because her family objected to her lesbian relationship.
> >The deprogramming of this later, conducted by Ted Patrick disciples,
> >included sexual intercourse to convince her that her lesbian
> >predisposition was due to mind-control. When she escaped and put on trial
> >the deprogrammers, these were acquitted because "her family acted in good
> >faith" and she was, after all "under mind-control”. Actually, all along
> >the court case, *she* was the one put on trial.
> >
[snip]
> >> , and the only Canadian cult expert I spoke to doesn't agree with it at
> >> all.
> >
> >Of course, and luckily, many cult experts condemn deprogramming, but then
> >they often openly say so.
>
> Is this supposed to make any sense?
You mean the sentence is not clear or it doesn't make sense to openly condemn
deprogramming?
> >Exit counseling is not the same. On the condition that the person is
> >**not** physically restrained to leave, I have no objection to whatever
> >is involved in exit counseling. In fact, I think that an intelligent and
> >well conducted exit counseling is really the best antidote to the cultic
> >state of mind.
>
> Agreed. I know that CAN agreed with this also. And not from 10 or
> 15 years ago. From 1090 right up to the day they closed their doors
> and stopped answering their phone.
You are probably right that overall exit counseling took precedence over
deprogramming. A good evolution. Still, the case from which CAN has now to
declare bankruptcy dates from after 1990 and I have seen nothing so far
indicating that they are not somehow linked to the deprogramming approach. It
is a natural consequence of their line of thinking, and I explain.
I have said in other threads that, if given the chance, the COS will end up
jailing its opponents or, more exactly, confining them in mental institution
with the purpose of “clearing” them. This is obvious, isn’t it? It is the
obvious consequence of a line of thinking consisting of everyone but Scieno
being a robot, wog, DB (degraded being) and that the sole solution is doing it
the Scieno way, and that the only ones objecting to this are SP and PTS.
The only reason they don’t do this is that they can’t. They are forced to
align themselves with the rules of a democratic and civilized society.
However, any totalitarian system having a chance at forcing its way onto
opponents will do so, like we had, and still have, the demonstration of this
in Communist countries.
CAN (or other like-minded organizations) have it that you are not joining a
cult on your own free will, but that you are recruited by means of
“mind-control”. That this mind-control is maintained throughout by
sophisticated techniques amounting to hypnosis, making it very difficult for
one to “break free” from the hold of the cult. This was the basis for the
deprogrammers initial justifications: because cult members are deprived of
their free will, and therefore cannot leave on their own, we have to remove
them by force and “counter” the brainwashing by forcing their mind open until
they “snap” out of it.
This theory was brought into justification by Ted Patrick’s spectacular
demonstrations: he grabbed some Children of God cult members and talked to
them day and night until they “gave in” or “snapped out”. He then went on to
kidnap more and more members, from more and more cults. The parents were
convinced by this demonstration and formed the first anti-cult organizations.
Never before such an organization existed, and never before the concept of
“mind-control” was brought into play. It can be safely said that quasi-all of
the present “anti-cult” organizations have their origin in Ted Patrick’s early
deprogramming efforts, and, given a chance, they will naturally revert back to
an institutionalized practice of it. Unless they modify, qualify and refine
their approach, and unless they build explicit safeguards against such abuses.
Like for the COS, the obvious outcome of anti-cult organizations such as CAN
is written in their precepts itself. Given a chance, the obvious end of course
of an organization that decided that some groups of people are under mind
control, have no free will and need to be saved despite of themselves for
their “own good”, is the same as the Scieno one, the Communist one, or any
other “humanistic” totalitarian organization: confinement and “treatment” in
mental institutions.
Your beloved CAN (or CFF, whatever) did try to bring this about by pushing
through legislation in the 1980’s that would allow cult member to be
“officially” grabbed by police forces and undergo coercive deprogramming.
These legislation could only be stopped (sometimes in-extremis) by the
mobilization of people who managed to remain aloof of the running hysteria and
keep a minimum of common sense.
So, I don’t believe that CAN did change in this respect and I think that one
of the main reasons they didn’t openly pursue with their deprogramming methods
is because they just couldn’t, for the same reasons the COS can’t officially
support it’s Fair Game policy: because a free and civilized society just won’t
tolerate it. The “cultic mindset”, however, is still lurking on both sides.
Cults and anti-cults are really the two extremes of the same phenomenon, and I
believe them to be equally as dangerous. The only way for opponents of cults
to avoid this trap is to openly denounce it and prove that they are indeed
against any form of extremism, including their own.
--
Bernie
Bernie
> [snip]
>>When is "was"? I don't know about the current situation, but I can
>>cite you plenty of cases where this happened in the past. An
>>extremely wide array of "cults" were targeted, including a girl
>>who objected that her future husband be chosen by her parents in
>>the Greek Orthodox tradition, and another one because her family
>>objected to her lesbian relationship. The deprogramming of this
>>later, conducted by Ted Patrick disciples, included sexual
>>intercourse to convince her that her lesbian predisposition was
>>due to mind-control. When she escaped and put on trial the
>>deprogrammers, these were acquitted because "her family acted in
>>good faith" and she was, after all "under mind-control . Actually,
>>all along the court case, *she* was the one put on trial.
>
> Please cite these cases.
OK, here they are. However, since I have trace of many of them and a
list of names would be meaningless, I take them one by one and
extract some representative statements from the affidavit or from
the press release. This will take several posts. The cases extend
roughly from the 70’s till about 1989 (when I stopped my researches
on the subject). So I may not have the very recent ones, but I am
sure these exist. They are presented here in alphabetical order
(more or less though, because my files still need sorting out).
_______________________
Name: Harry Wesley Albright
Group: Hare Krishna
Source: San Diego Tribune 13 Oct. 1980 (Associated Press)
>"... Patrick had been charged with kidnapping Harry
>Wesley Albright Jr., 20, in March 1979 after allegedly
>being hired by Albright's parents to deprogram their
>son, a member of a Salt Lake City Hare Krishna sect ...
>After two days, the youth and his parents, both of
>Tarreytown, N.Y., went with Patrick to Salt Lake City
>police headquarters to clear up a kidnapping report filed
>by Albright's roommate, who had witnessed the
>abduction. But at the police station, Albright said he had
>not been deprogrammed and wished to press charges
>against his parents and Patrick."
_______________________
Name: Jane Appelbaum
Group: Unification Church
Source: Affidavit 13 Jan 77
This case shows the use of “Conservatorship law” which were used at
some point by deprogrammers. These laws, originally aimed at the
protection of people unable to take care of themselves (elderly,
handicapped, etc.), were illegally abused by deprogrammers to gain
custody of their victim under the pretense that the cult members was
under mind-control and thus unable to take care of himself.
>" ... I met my mom for dinner in the hotel restaurant ...
>When I was first confronted in the restaurant, I was told
>by two lawyers and three policemen that I had to
>cooperate and that I was ordered by a court order to
>respond to the papers which stated that I was under the
>legal guardianship of my parents ... Of course, in a state
>of emotional frenzy, I immediately tried to resist the
>abduction by screaming to the police that I would rather
>be arrested, and that my civil rights were being abused
>and violated.
>... My parents ... felt that my mind was being
>manipulated in some way. This fear was the reason why
>I was being taken away
>... I felt totally violated, totally intimidated, and
>desperately wanted to escape their whole environment
>as quickly as possible.
>... During the time which I was in the motel, I was
>constantly harassed. I was never left alone in the room
>... The second morning I woke up in a violent rage of
>emotional frenzy, and smashed one of the people in the
>face because I felt as if I just wanted to breathe, and
>people were pouncing on me, and emotionally draining
>me.
>... I was told by [Wayne Howard] that if it took six
>months for them to de-program me, they would keep
>me in that house and put me in a mental institution if
>they had to.
>... My whole experience in that environment - now that
>it is over and I can reflect back on it - could be very
>traumatic for a person who is unstable. I can see how
>such an experience could truly derange a person's mind
>if the person is not strong enough.
>... I really hope and pray in my deepest and most sincere
>heart that I can be an example of someone who did go
>through that experience, of someone who can let
>parents know what it is like to go through that
>experience.”
_______________________
Name: Frank N. Augenti
Group: Unification Church
Source: Report on conservatorship/deprogramming: Feb. 78
This case, another conservatorship case, is rather long, but
relatively representative and I inserted some comments on key
points.
>"... I phone my parents in Pa. ... and asked if they
>wouldn't mind a visit.... Once inside the house, I was
>greeted by about a dozen other people, and someone
>shut and locked the door, and I could hear someone
>bolting the back door as well. John Benson, the officer
>... asked me to 'sit down and take it easy', and then
>handed me the conservatorship paper saying that they
>hated to do this to me, but they were putting me in the
>custody of my parents for thirty days and that I shouldn't
>protest because I'd eventually see that it's for my own
>good ... words were exchanged and my parents were
>brought into the situation and all I could say to them
>was that I couldn't believe they would stoop to doing
>something like this.
>... the deprogramming team showed up. They were
>Joseph Alexander, Jr., Daniel Schnae, "Howie" (no
>other name mentioned), and Patricia Hartman.
>... After talking with my parents and the other people at
>their house, it was obvious that not one of them knew
>anything more about the Unification Church or what
>deprogramming was except for what they read in
>newspapers or saw on television, up until November,
>1977. At that time, Patricia Hartman went to my parents
>and started to persuade them that I was involved in an
>organization that was just using me, and that I was
>under "mind control", and that they should get hold of
>Joseph Alexander Sr., who runs a deprogramming
>business out of Tucson, Arizona, and listen to what he
>has to tell them ... He presented them with all the
>material written against the Church, testimonies of
>people who have been deprogrammed, photographs of
>how happy these people looked after they were
>deprogrammed, etc. ...
Here above we have an example of a relatively peaceful situation
transformed through anti-cult one-sided information, fear and guilt
into a drama in which deprogramming is presented as the miracle
cure.
>... From about 9 o'clock in the morning to about 2
>o'clock the next morning the deprogrammers presented
>me with material that was totally a negative viewpoint
>of the church ... Everytime I would give an objective
>opinion ... they would say ‘that's not what you really
>believe, but what the Church wants you to believe’,
>which would usually result in a lot of arguing over how
>I don't have any capabilities for free thinking right now
>and if I would just listen, I would see how much mind
>control I was under.
>Constantly, they would mention how much I owed to
>my parents, "who worked so hard in bringing me up",
>and now I'm causing them so much worry by being in
>the Unification Church against their will; and that
>they're old and could easily have a nervous breakdown
>or something if I cause them any more worry.
The unnecessary psychological strain put on the parents by the
deprogrammers in the first place is blamed on the victim. Note also:
it’s not that one’s will is removed by mind-control when entering
the cult, it’s that he joins in against other person’s will!
>... I told them that this is why people eventually
>breakdown and accept deprogramming, because there is
>no other stimulus except listening to these negative
>allegations, and that after someone's physical and
>mental resistance is worn down, they would naturally
>accept everything in this induced situation.
>... I found out ... that if I showed signs of "coming
>around" to accepting the deprogramming, that I would
>then be sent to the "Freedom of Thought" ranch in
>Tucson, Arizona <rehabilitation center>. ... So, from
>that time on, I decided to fake the deprogramming. I
>started to, at least, half agree with the allegations that
>were being made against the Church.
There is no ‘mind control’ state that the deprogrammer, despite his
claim, can recognize. The deprogrammer can be very easily fooled
and, due to the use of force, that’s the only course for the victim
(in voluntary exit counseling, this of course does not happen). Once
out of the deprogramming situation, the relationship with the family
is definitively broken, the chance to get the person out of the cult
by means of voluntary exit counseling is lost, the parents have no
means to be reimbursed of the thousands of dollars they paid to the
deprogrammers, and these later are rightly sued by the victim and
the victim’s group.
>Anyway, they were finally convinced that I was ready to
>go to Arizona.
[follows a list of points and comments about happenings there]
[long event of unsuccessful escape]
>... On the plane to Phoenix, I thought I was going to
>have a nervous breakdown, I started shaking, and tears
>were coming out my eyes, after a while it passed.
[then re-deprogramming, with deprogrammers or ex-members Mark
Schoenberg, Mitchell Gold, Deborah Kreie and Gary Sharf].
[he eventually escaped]
>A few days before I escaped, I was asked to help on the
>deprogramming of a girl from a group called the
>Druids. Also, I was asked to speak about "cults" to an
>eight grade class the following Monday."
The final strike. The deprogrammed victim is then used to promote
anti-cult allegations and the chain resumes.
--
Bernie
Tilman Hausherr
>and another one because her family objected to her lesbian relationship.
>The deprogramming of this later, conducted by Ted Patrick disciples,
>included sexual intercourse to convince her that her lesbian
>predisposition was due to mind-control. When she escaped and put on trial
>the deprogrammers, these were acquitted because "her family acted in good
>faith" and she was, after all "under mind-control”. Actually, all along
>the court case, *she* was the one put on trial.
Please provide details on this fantastic allegation:
- name of the girl
- name of the organisation she was in
- name of the deprogrammers
- evidence that they are "Ted Patrick disciples"
- name of the trial
Your post comes almost right out one of scientology's DA packs.
And like them, you don't offer any details.
I smell a new technique: "soft" dead-agenting. Attacking scientology
a little bit, but then bringing the usual attacks against the
ennemies of scientology.
Tilman
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
[snipt - nothing about CAN]
>Gary Sharf].
>[he eventually escaped]
>The final strike. The deprogrammed victim is then used to promote
>anti-cult allegations and the chain resumes.
Ah, but Scharf was a double-agent for the scienos, wasn't he?
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
>The cases are not necessarily related to CAN. But then, if you read the
>cases presented, you will see how the anti-cult people, from the
>anti-cult organization, are influencing the issue towards deprogramming.
>The philosophy was the same then as it is now. But now, the
>deprogrammings are much more secrets and, yes, much less current as well.
>But the philosophy leads almost inevitably to it and it would resurge
>just like that, given the favorable conditions. Do you think the people
>then were different then the people now? Do you think that all of a
>sudden there was a CAN organization with brand new people and that these
>people and organization do not have a background history? There has been
>an evolution, true, but my point is that it is very far from what it
>should be, and if we have the attitude that "now all is ok" we are just
>in for new deceptions.
You have not substantiated your point that CAN promotes forcible
deprogramming. Please give some evidence of this, or drop the
innuendo.
>> >Gary Sharf].
>> >[he eventually escaped]
>> >The final strike. The deprogrammed victim is then used to promote
>> >anti-cult allegations and the chain resumes.
>>
>> Ah, but Scharf was a double-agent for the scienos, wasn't he?
>
>Was he?
Or so he claimed.
>Don't know about it. So he returned in Scn or what?
Which time?
>I only met a couple of double agents for the scienos in California
>(sorry, no names). They were sent to infiltrate the CAN organization (it
>wasn't called CAN at the time I think, but something close, same people,
>same philosophy. CFF? Whatever). They infiltrated it so well that they
>ended up being influenced by the litterature and completely turned
>against Scn.
>
>They expected the CFF members to be evil people, and on the contrary
>found out that they were friendly and intelligent ones. They studied the
>evidences and were convinced by them. LOL.
My point.
>That's why it doesn't pay to be parano about being infiltrated by
>Scienos. Even if it were the case, just give them some convincing
>arguments and facts and they will either be turned around or quickly fly
>away.
Just a matter of who to trust.
Bernie
>
> Bernie:
>>Kidnappings were definitely being arranged: van renting,
>>people to do the restraining etc. I wasn't present long
>>enough to get more details, nor was I interested in them.
> Bizarre, if abductions are still being planned at these events
> they must be pretty discrete - I noticed nothing of the kind.
> Just a bunch of sessions focusing on different aspects of
> cults.
They were always very discrete and normally you wouldn’t notice
anything. I guess today they probably are even more discrete.
It’s even possible they have discontinued entirely with it,
although I don’t think they don’t recommend it still here and
there.
> Bernie:
>>It certainly is consistent, in my eyes, with CAN approach.
>>Nor did I ever saw a clear statement of CAN condemning
>>coercive deprogramming.
> I have no idea what you mean by CAN's approach.
Cult=brainwashing, no free will. This is certainly consistent
with the deprogramming philosophy. If you read my further answer
to Dennis, you will see that I argue that the anti-cult movements
have its very root into the deprogramming practice.
> I agree that
> CAN would have benefitted from a clear statement to the
> effect of "CAN opposes forcible deprogramming and will
> not have anything to do with it" in their mission statement
>and in their literature.
That’s exactly what I mean, and with their more then 20 years
background association with deprogramming the fact that such a
statement is missing is certainly indicative of their implicit
support to it.
>What do you mean? That because they are strongly anti-cult
>(and even alarmist, to an extent) they accept deprogramming
>as an acceptable response to a family member joining a cult?
Not exactly. I think that voluntary exit counseling has become
the rule now. It takes much more intelligence and ability to do
that than using sheer force. It also gives much better results
and I think that CAN probably accepted that as well. Without
speaking of the legal aspects, of course. OTOH I also think that
they still have an historical sympathy towards coercive
deprogramming and, if all else fail, they will help connect the
correct people together. Using “they” is not entirely fair
either, because individual opinion may very much vary within CAN
itself about that. But again, as a group, CAN never took, to my
knowledge, the responsibility of clearly rejecting deprogramming.
> Bernie:
>>Maybe I would reconsider my judgment by having a deeper
>>look at the current scene, but the idea I am left with about
>>CAN was that it was pretty much a cult itself:
>>all_bad_in/all_good_out, extremist position and fanatism,
>>use of fear and guilt on people to convince them, believe in
>>some mystical effect of mind-control and into a no-human
>>"brainwashed" state of mind, etc.
>I disagree, but I get where you are coming from, the anti-cult
>crowd appears to have it's fair share of extremists and some
>of them have developed an us vs. them mentality. Of course,
>I can never know what Cynthia Kisser, Margaret Singer,
>Patricia Ryan, Marty Butz, and others who have been the
>prime targets for groups like Scn., Eck, Synanon, the
>unification church, etc. have been through. They may act like
>they are at war because to all extents and purposes they are.
Hmm. Be careful here. That’s the Elron Hubbub argument: “in war
certain actions are justified and there is also, inevitably,
innocent victims”. But I do not mean to condemn all the people in
one strike. There are many difference and most CAN members, if
not all, are sincere and dedicated individuals. But then, so are
cult members...
> Bernie:
>>And, BTW, isn't the CAN forced to pay a named Jason
>>Scott millions of dollars for their alleged complicity in his
>>tentative deprogramming? and isn't it the reason they have
>>to declare bankruptcy?
>I could be wrong, but my understanding is that CAN has to
>pay the Jason Scott lawsuit award for referring Scott's
>parents to a deprogrammer, not for having anything to do
>with the deprogramming itself.
Yes, you are right.
> Don't you think that if CAN was still involved in
> deprogramming that Kendrick Moron (that well-known
> OCR error) would have been able to come up with
> something better than just a referral?
I was so out of touch that I don’t know about this Kendrick Moron
(LOL). I have a lot to catch up to do. Again, I don’t think that
CAN is directly involved. Deprogrammers probably act as
“independent”, CAN only creates the mental setup and makes the
referrals (although I guess that in the future they will be
careful about that as well).
>IMHO, AFF has a much stronger scientific bent than CAN
>does. I get more of a feeling that AFF is interested in
>studying cults and making people aware of them, while CAN
>was focused more on combatting them.
Right.
>Just about all of people at the CAN conference that I spoke
>to had powerful personal experiences with cultic groups and
>were honestly committed to helping the victims of such
>groups.
Yes.
> One
> problem with large meetings like this is that in 2-3 days you
> hear many stories of cultic abuse by dozens of different
> groups. All of this negative information being received
> adds up and builds on itself until there is almost a fervor of
> feeling to "strike back".
Yes, and that’s where the problem is. It is one-sided
information. CAN participants think that they are isolated in
their “awareness” about cult and about cult’s brainwashing, and
that they ought to bring about such an awareness outside into the
public and governments. So they are very proselyte about it and
you never got to hear another bell. That would be OK, kind of,
for ex-members and for outsiders, but what kind of effect does
this have on relatives and friends of cult-members? They get only
one side of the story and an extremely negative one, not the full
picture. They just end up in an increased distress, often for
unwarranted reasons.
>All in all, I thought the CAN conference was an excellent
>learning experience and that CAN is/was a great resource for
>people trying to understand the "cultic experience" whether
>they be ex-members of HCGs (high control groups), their
>family, or people simply interested in the topic.
That’s also true. I still remember and apply many of the things I
have learned in these conferences.
>I feel that CAN would have benefited
>by being less extreme, and of course having anything to do
>with deprogramming is morally abhorrent to me. I don't
>understand how someone could be arrogant enough to be
>willing to have a loved one kidnapped in order to "save"
>them.
That’s why such groups are, IMO, a cult themselves: they end up
making the worst crimes while thinking they are doing the utmost
good.
It goes like this (attach your seat belt): “your son/daughter has
fallen prey of the cult. A cult is an organization that pretends
to be religious but only uses religion as a means of exploitation
of the innocent and naïve. You son/daughter will end up working
his health out for free and end up being financially, physically,
sexually, emotionally, mentally and spiritually exploited, then
thrown out of the cult when they can no longer perform, in a
state of complete vegetable, having lost all chance to get a real
life. The only reason cult-members put up with it and why they
accept the obviously crap doctrine of the cult is that they are
being subject of mind-control and brainwashing techniques. It
goes like this <blabla about so-called hypnotic techniques>. Your
son/daughter has lost all control on his/her own mind and his/her
will. his/she is actually, inwardly, crying out ‘please, please,
save me’ and you *must* answer to this call. No parents would be
really responsible parents if they don’t do something about it,
etc., etc.”.
This is of course an highly caricatured and somewhat unfair
description of what a cult-member’s relative is being told by
CAN’s information, but psychologically, it often ends up being a
not too remote portrayal of the family member state of mind. If
cults are indeed using fears and guilt techniques, so does the
anti-cults, even if they are not aware of it. This did in the
past end up in coercive deprogramming, and from this mindset
approach only, there is no reason it should not end up the same
in the future.
>Without CAN being around for cults to loose their venom at
>I wonder how long any of the other cult awareness
>organizations will be able to last. Hopefully, AFF and
>InfoCult, the 2 north american cult awareness groups I am
>familiar with, will be able to take up the slack.
We clearly need a cult information organization that isn’t
one-sided and doesn’t turn out itself into a cult. This can only
be done with clear safeguards and a balanced approach.
--
Bernie
[p/m]
Bernie
I am responding to Paper Tiger. He asked "please cite these cases". So I
do. And I have more, including the precise answer to Tilman question
about the lesbian case, as soon as I dig it out from my dusted files.
The cases are not necessarily related to CAN. But then, if you read the
cases presented, you will see how the anti-cult people, from the
anti-cult organization, are influencing the issue towards deprogramming.
The philosophy was the same then as it is now. But now, the
deprogrammings are much more secrets and, yes, much less current as well.
But the philosophy leads almost inevitably to it and it would resurge
just like that, given the favorable conditions. Do you think the people
then were different then the people now? Do you think that all of a
sudden there was a CAN organization with brand new people and that these
people and organization do not have a background history? There has been
an evolution, true, but my point is that it is very far from what it
should be, and if we have the attitude that "now all is ok" we are just
in for new deceptions.
> >Gary Sharf].
> >[he eventually escaped]
> >The final strike. The deprogrammed victim is then used to promote
> >anti-cult allegations and the chain resumes.
>
> Ah, but Scharf was a double-agent for the scienos, wasn't he?
Was he? Don't know about it. So he returned in Scn or what?
I only met a couple of double agents for the scienos in California
(sorry, no names). They were sent to infiltrate the CAN organization (it
wasn't called CAN at the time I think, but something close, same people,
same philosophy. CFF? Whatever). They infiltrated it so well that they
ended up being influenced by the litterature and completely turned
against Scn.
They expected the CFF members to be evil people, and on the contrary
found out that they were friendly and intelligent ones. They studied the
evidences and were convinced by them. LOL.
That's why it doesn't pay to be parano about being infiltrated by
Scienos. Even if it were the case, just give them some convincing
arguments and facts and they will either be turned around or quickly fly
away.
--
Bernie
Bernie
>>relationship. The deprogramming of this later, conducted by Ted Patrick
>>disciples, included sexual intercourse to convince her that her lesbian
>>predisposition was due to mind-control. When she escaped and put on
>>trial the deprogrammers, these were acquitted because "her family acted
>>in good faith" and she was, after all "under mind-control”. Actually,
>>all along the court case, *she* was the one put on trial.
>
Fantastic, he? Not more so than the specious other deprogrammings and this
proves beyond doubt that the "mind-control/deprogramming" logic can be
applied to anything and is highly dangerous.
> - name of the girl
Stephanie Riethmiller
> - name of the organisation she was in
None! She just so happen to associate with someone her parents did not
approve.
> - name of the deprogrammers
James Roe and Noami Goss
> - evidence that they are "Ted Patrick disciples"
Noami Goss has been deprogrammed by Patrick and has worked for him since.
The price of the deprogramming, $8,000, has been cashed by Patrick and he
was subsequently sentenced to one year jail for aiding and abetting the
deprogramming.
> - name of the trial
Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in Cincinnatti (see articles)
> Your post comes almost right out one of scientology's DA packs.
It sounds so indeed, with one difference: I compare the cultic mindset
displayed by anti-cult organizations with the cultic mindset of Scn.
> And like them, you don't offer any details.
Full details here below.
> I smell a new technique: "soft" dead-agenting. Attacking scientology
> a little bit, but then bringing the usual attacks against the
> ennemies of scientology.
I attack anything that I find to be false and dangerous, and Scn does not
have a monopole in that.
--
Bernie
References:
Name: Stephanie Riethmiller
Group: None!
Source: MS Magazine Sept 1982: “The ‘deprogramming’ of Stephanie
Riethmiller”, by Richard Raskin (Also: similar article in Time Magazine 3
May 1982)
This article shows how the “mind-control” control allegation is used
despite the fact that Reithmiller wasn’t part of any group; how under such
an allegation and the proposed “cure”, even the parents put up with what
otherwise they would consider as criminal behavior; how the “opponent”
(here Paty Thiemann, for cults it’s the leader and the group) is being
“devilised” to justify these drastic action; how the victim is being put on
trial during his own court case against the deprogrammers due to its
belonging to a prejudicied group (in this case being accused to be a
lesbian); and, finally, how this turns against the victim itself in court
despite clear criminal conducts from the deprogrammers. All these elements
are present as well in case of cult deprogrammings, but here without the
smoke existing around cults.
> “In October, 1981, two young women were walking
>to their suburban Cincinnati home when they were
>approached by two men. One of the men asked directions;
>as the women responded, one woman was Maced, the
>other seized and thrown into a van that whisked her away
>from the scene.
> Thus began the bizarre ‘deprogramming’ of
>Stephanie Reithmiller. Suspected by her parents, Marita
>and William Riethmiller, of becoming a lesbian,
>Riethmiller, then 19, was driven to a house in Alabama
>where, she claimed, she was subjected to seven days of
>forced captivity, verbal harassment, and rape.
> Last April, the Hamilton County Common Pleas
>Court in Cincinnatti heard the criminal trial of
>Riethmiller’s captors. In proceedings that drew the
>attention of gay and women’s rights observers from across
>the country, controversial deprogrammer Ted Patrick and
>two of his associates - James Roe and Naomi Goss - were
>variously charged with abduction, assault, and sexual
>battery. Patrick has built a reputation as a deprogrammer
>of converts to religious sects.
> <...>
> Before a packed courtroom <Stephanie Reithmiller>
>testified that James Roe raped her on the second night in
>Alabama and every night thereafter. Terrified, she could
>not scream or offer resistance, she said. Insisting that
>everyone in the house was fully aware of what was
>happening, she quoted her mother as later saying that ‘it
>was all right I was raped and anything was better than
>what I was doing.’
> At the house in Alabama, her treatment included
>nearly constant yelling about her roommate, Patty
>Thiemann. Defense witnesses at the trial portrayed
>Thiemann as a dominering lesbian bent on controlling
>Riethmiller’s lifestyle and mind. They focused on
>Thiemann’s footwear (boots), her car (a pickp truck), and
>dog (Doberman pinscher) as evidence of her overbearing
>style.
> The prosecutor in the trial, Hamilton County’s Simon
>L. Leis, came under criticism for his unsympathetic
>treatment of the victim’s lifestyle as well as for granting
>immunity to her parents who had paid $8,000 for the
>deprogramming. It was reported that Leis in the past had
>called homosexality immoral, and in addressing the jury,
>he said that though her lifestyle wasn’t at issue, “I’m not
>going to represent to you that I approve of the victim’s
>sexual preference.” He referred to lesbianism as
>“unnatural.” Although he said the parents’ action was
>‘totally wrong’, he declared: ‘I don’t think there’s any
>question that what the parents did in the matter was done
>totally out of love for their daughter.’ As to the
>deprogrammers, Leis described their tactics in court
>papers as ‘sexual intercourse to detract <Reithmiller>
>from her lesbianism and attract her to heterosexual
>activity.’
> Thus observers were only moderately surprised when,
>after two weeks of testimony and 16 hours of jury
>deliberation, none of the criminal charges under
>consideration was upheld. The jury, however, deadlocked
>on the abduction charge for Roe and Goss, and a retrial
>was scheduled.”
_____________
Source: Colorado Gazette Telegraph 19 Nov. 1982 “Stephanie Riethmiller
Saga: She says it was abduction; her parents say it was a rescue”, by
Cheryl Lavin (Chicago tribune)
This article shows even more clearly the “mind-control” justification for
criminal actions against behaviors we don’t approve. “It’s not the sex (or
doctrine for cult) we object to but the mind-control”. In this case, even
the ‘glassy-eyed’ cliché is being applied despite the fact that cults are
not even remotedly involved. Then we have the classical story typical of
anti-cult that “parents turned to all the authorities for ‘help’ and after
finding none turned to Ted Patrick.”
> “<...>
> “I was in total shock. I mean I was afraid for myself
>because, you know, I had reason to believe that I was in
>danger,” Stephanie says of that night. “I knew I didn’t
>have a friend in the world. ... I didn’t know what they were
>going to do to me.”
> What they did to her - again, according to Stephanie -
>was to drive her to Alabama and keep her there for seven
>days. To deprogram her. To cure her of lesbianism. To
>reintroduce her to men. During the day the women, Naomi
>Goss, 25, yelled at her and ridiculed lesbians, especially
>Patty. At night the white man, Jim Roe, 25, made love to
>her. They pulled a variation of the old good cop/bad cop
>routine on her. Goss was strident and tough. Roe was
>tender and loving. The implication was obvious: Women
>were butches and dykes; men made better lovers.
> All this was done with the full knowledge of her
>mother, according to Stephanie, who says she heard her
>mother and Roe discussing whether she was taking birth
>control pills. <...>
> Stephanie says she was held against her will in a
>locked house with the windows nailed shut. She was
>handcuffed periodically, threatened, denied food,
>harassed, raped. She had no privacy, no freedom. After
>just two days, she said, “I was so messed up I didn’t even
>think I would know my name. If someone had told me to
>jump out of the window, I probably would have jumped
>out the window, I did not have any thoughts of my own.
>Everyting I did I was told to do. ... I was totally at their
>mercy.” <...>
> The Riethmillers tell a different story, of a different
>Stephanie, of an emotionally disturbed girl, <...> who gave
>up a ‘fantastic’ social life and fell under the spell of Patty
>Thiemann <...>
> The Riethmillers were horrified. Stephanie was losing
>weight; she wasn’t taking her iron medicine (she is
>anemic); her personality was changing.
> “I didn’t know the person inside my daughter’s
>body,” says Mrs. Riethmiller.
> “It was as thought I didn’t recognize her at times,”
>her father says. “She wasn’t my daughter anymore. ...”
> Mrs. Riethmiller refers to Patty as “that lesbian,” but
>she says sex was not the issue: “I don’t approve of it
>(homosexuality), but the main concern was the control that
>Patty had over her. ... My daughter became like a robot.
>She was glassy-eyed.”
> The Riethmiller contacted a priest, a rabbi, a religion
>reporter and various counselors. No one could help them.
>Then they called Ted Patrick. Patrick is a deprogrammer
>who usally works with cult members. He is black and his
>nickname is “Black Lightning.” Mrs Riethmiller told him
>that her daughter was “in a lesbian situation and she was
>being totally controlled, and we had no contact with her,
>and we were frantic.” They were willing to pay $8,000 to
>have her deprogrammed. They would pull the money from
>their IRA account.
> Patrick said he couldn’t help. He was on probation on
>a kidnapping charge, and if he engaged in another
>deprogramming, he would go to jail. But he said he might
>be able to put them in touch with some people who could.
>A few days later the Riethmillers got a call telling them
>where to send the money. They were told to purchase
>handcuffs, plastic gloves and Maces.
> <follows the account of the deprogramming from
>each viewpoint: complete different versions. But this is not
>the issue here.>
> Charges of abduction and assault were brought
>against the Riethmillers, Ted Patrick, Jim Roe, Naomi
>Goss and the black man, known as “Ray”. In addition, six
>counts of sexual battery were brought against Roe.
> Heading the prosecution case was Simon L. Leis Jr.,
>48, a former Marine, and the Hamilton County prosecutor
>for nearly 12 years. He is against pornography; the ERA -
>“it undermines God’s law of authority” - and
>homosexuality - “an unnatural act.” He is for the Moral
>Majority and the familty. If his daughter got herself
>involved in a situation like Stephanie Riethmiller’s, “I’d
>grab that daughter of mine myself,” he has said.
> Yes, as prosecutor, Leis’ duty was to represent the
>victims, Stephanie Riethmiller and Patty Thiemann, and to
>prosecute the defendants. He granted immunity to the
>Riethmillers, whom he identified as “concerned parents”
>and referred to Stephany and Patty as lesbians. Leis could
>never bring himself actually to say the word “lesbian.”
>Throughout the eight-day trial in April he referred to the
>women as liz-bians.
> <...>
> After 16 hours of deliberation, the seven woman and
>five men of the jury acquitted all the defendants on all
>charges except the abduction charge against Roe and
>Goss. They could not agree on it, and it is scheduled to be
>retried Nov. 22.
> But the case is far from over. Stephanie is suing her
>parents and the other defendants for $2.75 million in a
>civil suit set to be tried in March 1983. She charges them
>with ‘assault, battery, false imprisonment, invasion of
>privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.’”
Note: I don’t know the final issue of the case. It’s another story anyway.
Large discussion is also possible on the fact that the deprogramming
actually worked initially, but the victim ‘snapped out’ of it too soon by
being interrogated by the police. Also another story. For those interested.
_____________________
Source: San Diego Union 3 Oct. 1981: “Patrick indicted on Ohio Sex, Kidnap
Counts”, by Mitch Himaka (Staff writer, the San Diego Union):
Shows Ted Patrick indirect involvement.
> “Jailed cult deprogrammer Ted Patrick was indicted
>by a Cincinnati grand jury yesterday for kidnapping,
>assault and sexual battery charges involving an alleged
>plot to remove a woman from a lesbian relationship.
> Patrick currently is serving a one-year jail term here
>after Superior Court Judge Norbert Ehrenfreund revoked
>his bail earlier this month because of the reports coming
>out of Ohio.
> Hamilton County, Ohio, authorities said Patrick; two
>of his employees, James Roe and Naomi Kelly Goss of
>Center, Ala., and a fourth individual identified only as
>John Doe, were indicted <...>
> <...> Ehrenfreund revoked Patrick’s appeal bond
>when Chief Deputy District Attorney Richard D. Huffman
>presented evidence that Patrick had cashed an $8,000
>cashier’s check the woman’s parents had made out <...>“
______________
h3
In article <31D780...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>Tilman Hausherr wrote:
Bernie, you have provided very good information, and
responded entirely to Tillman's questions. the facts
i am able to perceive in the 'deprogramming' of Stephanie Miller
depict an abominable crime that was not properly punished.
however, i do not think several of your inferences are supported
by the evidence you provided.
[clip]
>
>Source: MS Magazine Sept 1982: “The ‘deprogramming’ of Stephanie
>Riethmiller”, by Richard Raskin (Also: similar article in Time Magazine 3
>May 1982)
>
>This article shows how the “mind-control” control allegation is used
>despite the fact that Reithmiller wasn’t part of any group;
>an allegation and the proposed “cure”, even the parents put up with what
>otherwise they would consider as criminal behavior; how the “opponent”
>(here Paty Thiemann, for cults it’s the leader and the group) is being
>“devilised” to justify these drastic action;
your extensions from this individual case, involving someone
not part of a cult, to actions involving cult members, are not
logically supported by the facts of this case, and are instead
your opinions (although possibly supported by *other* evidence).
how the victim is being put on
>trial during his own court case against the deprogrammers due to its
>belonging to a prejudicied group (in this case being accused to be a
>lesbian);
the 'victim being put on trial' is not supported by the articles.
what are you really claiming?
and, finally, how this turns against the victim itself in court
>despite clear criminal conducts from the deprogrammers. All these elements
>are present as well in case of cult deprogrammings, but here without the
>smoke existing around cults.
again, you're making a claim jumping from a particular instance
to all cult deprogrammings in the current time that is not
supported by the evidence at hand. i grant that it is a
plausible inference, but plausibility doesn't make it true.
[clip majority of article]
> Thus observers were only moderately surprised when,
> >after two weeks of testimony and 16 hours of jury
> >deliberation, none of the criminal charges under
> >consideration was upheld. The jury, however, deadlocked
> >on the abduction charge for Roe and Goss, and a retrial
> >was scheduled.”
whatever the prosecutor's bias, that the jury did not
find enough facts to convict of rape should be a caution
concerning assertions that rape occurred.
>
> _____________
>
>Source: Colorado Gazette Telegraph 19 Nov. 1982 “Stephanie Riethmiller
>Saga: She says it was abduction; her parents say it was a rescue”, by
>Cheryl Lavin (Chicago tribune)
>
>This article shows even more clearly the “mind-control” justification for
>criminal actions against behaviors we don’t approve. “It’s not the sex (or
>doctrine for cult) we object to but the mind-control”. In this case, even
>the ‘glassy-eyed’ cliché is being applied despite the fact that cults are
>not even remotedly involved. Then we have the classical story typical of
>anti-cult that “parents turned to all the authorities for ‘help’ and after
>finding none turned to Ted Patrick.”
>
again, the evidence at hand does not support your claims that
jump from a particular case to that of activities concerning
cult members in general.
[clip from article]
> > Patrick said he couldn’t help. He was on probation on
> >a kidnapping charge, and if he engaged in another
> >deprogramming, he would go to jail. But he said he might
> >be able to put them in touch with some people who could.
> >A few days later the Riethmillers got a call telling them
> >where to send the money. They were told to purchase
> >handcuffs, plastic gloves and Maces.
based on this, it would seem that Ted Patrick's involvement
was limited to accepting the $8,000 check, and hiring James
Roe and Naomi Goss. it could make him an accomplice, if
it were determined that a crime were committed, but it
could be argued that James and Naomi conducted the
appalling and bizarre 'deprogramming' on their own initiative.
>Note: I don’t know the final issue of the case. It’s another story anyway.
>Large discussion is also possible on the fact that the deprogramming
>actually worked initially, but the victim ‘snapped out’ of it too soon by
>being interrogated by the police. Also another story. For those interested.
this bothers me: you don't know the final disposition of the
cases, but you're willing to make charges about what happened?
i'd think the disposition of the cases should be important evidence,
too. for all you know, Stephanie Riethmiller might have been found
to be raving nutter, or to found to have concocted the whole
thing herself. somehow not following through when the facts
are available strikes me as a kind of intellectual dishonesty.
>
> _____________________
>
>Source: San Diego Union 3 Oct. 1981: “Patrick indicted on Ohio Sex, Kidnap
>Counts”, by Mitch Himaka (Staff writer, the San Diego Union):
>
>Shows Ted Patrick indirect involvement.
see note above. also note that an indictment is not a conviction,
and that the charges may or may not be true. although i am not
particularly trying to defend Ted Patrick in this case, which i
find abominable.
>
[clip]
>
-- see...@ix.netcom.com
As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the
Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion.
-- Judge Stewart Dalzell, ACLU v Reno, 6/12/96
Tilman Hausherr
>Name: Stephanie Riethmiller
>Group: None!
ok, thanks for providing the articles. I take back my "dead-agenting"
allegation. But don't forget that all this hasn't anything to do with
CAN, but rather with Ted Patrick, for whom a "cult" seems to be
"anything the client doesn't like", at least in that case.
Tilman
Bernie
h3 wrote:
> Bernie, you have provided very good information, and
> responded entirely to Tillman's questions.
Thanks.
> the facts
> i am able to perceive in the 'deprogramming' of Stephanie Miller
> depict an abominable crime that was not properly punished.
> however, i do not think several of your inferences are supported
> by the evidence you provided.
>
> >This article shows how the “mind-control” control allegation is used
> >despite the fact that Reithmiller wasn’t part of any group;
> >an allegation and the proposed “cure”, even the parents put up with what
> >otherwise they would consider as criminal behavior; how the “opponent”
> >(here Paty Thiemann, for cults it’s the leader and the group) is being
> >“devilised” to justify these drastic action;
>
> your extensions from this individual case, involving someone
> not part of a cult, to actions involving cult members, are not
> logically supported by the facts of this case, and are instead
> your opinions (although possibly supported by *other* evidence).
The trend I described are the one usually used against the cults, and is the
particular variety used by deprogrammers: mind-control, no hope besides
deprogramming, criminal behavior (kidnapping, abuses) justified by the mind-control
cure theory, the cult being made evil (leader abusing members, out of money, etc). I
can’t present all the long history of this line of thinking in a single post. This
line was used here in an individual, non-cultish, framework and it proves that the
whole mind-control setup can very easily be applied to other things then the cult
scene, to situation we do not approve.
> how the victim is being put on
> >trial during his own court case against the deprogrammers due to its
> >belonging to a prejudicied group (in this case being accused to be a
> >lesbian);
>
> the 'victim being put on trial' is not supported by the articles.
> what are you really claiming?
Leis, who was supposed to defend the victim, diverted from the kidnapping issue and
concentrated on the sexual preferences of Riethmiller to which he objected. This was
mentionned in the two main articles. And of course the defended did the same in
their effort to justify their action. Here is another articles that shows this:
Source: Cincinnati Enquirer 16 Apr. 1982: “Her Roommate Isn’t Gay,
Stephanie Riethmiller Says”, by Georgene Kaleina (Enquirer Reporter)
Shows Riethmiller sexual preferences being put on trial rather than the
kidnap aspect.
> “Stephanie Riethmiller testified Thursday that her roommate is not a
>homosexual and repeated that she didn’t think her sexual conduct should
>be part of the trial of those accused of kidnapping her.
> <...>
> The issue of homosexuality continued to dominate the trial <...>
> <...>
> Judge Gilbert Bettman decided Wednesday not to allow questioning
>about Miss Riethmiller’s sexual activity prior the abduction, reversing his
>own earlier ruling.
> But on Thursday, Hellings, representing Mrs. Goss, again tried to
>determine the intimacy between the two.
> “What is your relationship with Patty Thiemann?” he asked.
> “Patricia is my roommate. She is my friend, “ Miss Riethmiller
>said.
> “What is your sexual relationship with Patty Thiemann?” he asked.
> She said: “There is none”.
> “You have had no sexual relationsip with Patty Thiemann?” he
>continued.
> “I don’t think I have to answer that,” she said. “I think that’s an
>invasion of privacy, and that’s not what I’m here for, I don’t think.”
> <...>“
> and, finally, how this turns against the victim itself in court
> >despite clear criminal conducts from the deprogrammers. All these elements
> >are present as well in case of cult deprogrammings, but here without the
> >smoke existing around cults.
>
> again, you're making a claim jumping from a particular instance
> to all cult deprogrammings in the current time that is not
> supported by the evidence at hand. i grant that it is a
> plausible inference, but plausibility doesn't make it true.
I am doing the reverse: linking what I think is rather well establish (although,
after all, maybe not to many people), the “least evil defence” offered by
deprogrammers in court hearings, to this particular instance. The inference is in
the other way around, but you need to know previous cases of cult deprogramming
trials, which was not the purpose of the post.
> > Thus observers were only moderately surprised when,
> > >after two weeks of testimony and 16 hours of jury
> > >deliberation, none of the criminal charges under
> > >consideration was upheld. The jury, however, deadlocked
> > >on the abduction charge for Roe and Goss, and a retrial
> > >was scheduled.”
>
> whatever the prosecutor's bias, that the jury did not
> find enough facts to convict of rape should be a caution
> concerning assertions that rape occurred.
Yes, you are right here. The rape version is the Stephanie Riethmiller’s one and the
one usually retained. But her family and the deprogrammer, not surprisingly, had an
other one, although they didn’t deny that sexual intercourse did happen. What they
said was that this was on Stephanie’s own initiative. However, I think that the jury
in their decision didn’t so much endorse the parents version, but mainly were
influenced by the argument that whatever happened was made in “good faith” and by
the clouds allegation of mind-control creates.
> >This article shows even more clearly the “mind-control” justification for
> >criminal actions against behaviors we don’t approve. “It’s not the sex (or
> >doctrine for cult) we object to but the mind-control”. In this case, even
> >the ‘glassy-eyed’ cliché is being applied despite the fact that cults are
> >not even remotedly involved. Then we have the classical story typical of
> >anti-cult that “parents turned to all the authorities for ‘help’ and after
> >finding none turned to Ted Patrick.”
> >
> again, the evidence at hand does not support your claims that
> jump from a particular case to that of activities concerning
> cult members in general.
Again, my point is the other way around. What do you think of the fact that the
“glassy-eyed” cliché, so current in anti-cults allegations, is being used here in a
“simple” case of a “child” associating to a person her parents disaprove of?
> > > Patrick said he couldn’t help. He was on probation on
> > >a kidnapping charge, and if he engaged in another
> > >deprogramming, he would go to jail. But he said he might
> > >be able to put them in touch with some people who could.
> > >A few days later the Riethmillers got a call telling them
> > >where to send the money. They were told to purchase
> > >handcuffs, plastic gloves and Maces.
>
> based on this, it would seem that Ted Patrick's involvement
> was limited to accepting the $8,000 check, and hiring James
> Roe and Naomi Goss. it could make him an accomplice, if
> it were determined that a crime were committed, but it
> could be argued that James and Naomi conducted the
> appalling and bizarre 'deprogramming' on their own initiative.
Yes, this is very queen insight. Patrick did indeed disaprove later the fact that
sex was involved. However since he was at the moment on probation for earlier events
related to deprogramming, this was considered enough evidence to revoke his bail and
start his one year jail sentence for “aiding and abeting” the deprogramming in the
first place.
> >Note: I don’t know the final issue of the case. It’s another story anyway.
> >Large discussion is also possible on the fact that the deprogramming
> >actually worked initially, but the victim ‘snapped out’ of it too soon by
> >being interrogated by the police. Also another story. For those interested.
>
> this bothers me: you don't know the final disposition of the
> cases, but you're willing to make charges about what happened?
> i'd think the disposition of the cases should be important evidence,
> too. for all you know, Stephanie Riethmiller might have been found
> to be raving nutter, or to found to have concocted the whole
> thing herself. somehow not following through when the facts
> are available strikes me as a kind of intellectual dishonesty.
But the facts were not available after the case was over. I never heard again from
it. I can only suppose that Roe made plea bargain (or something sounding like that,
am not into legal) and served a limited jail sentence rather than facing a retrial.
I can only suppose that Stephanie Riethmiller didn’t follow through with her civil
suit. If she did, the facts would have been available again. This case was only one
of several I would have information and I didn’t have the means to follow the case
beyond even if I wanted to. From other similar information in my possession and the
dozens of articles related to this case, however, I can assert that this is how
things happened.
> >Source: San Diego Union 3 Oct. 1981: “Patrick indicted on Ohio Sex, Kidnap
> >Counts”, by Mitch Himaka (Staff writer, the San Diego Union):
> >
> >Shows Ted Patrick indirect involvement.
>
> see note above. also note that an indictment is not a conviction,
> and that the charges may or may not be true. although i am not
> particularly trying to defend Ted Patrick in this case, which i
> find abominable.
Again right. Patrick’s bail was removed upon the initial proof that he cashed the
$8,000, but later, when the criminal charges were upheld in favor of the defendants,
charges against Patrick were upheld as well. However, the whole point was to answer
Tillmann question about the proofs that the deprogrammers were “Patrick disciples”,
and I think the articles achieved that beyond doubt.
--
Bernie
*What’s the difference between the United States and Belgium?
*They have Bill Clinton, Stevie Wonder, Bob Hope, Johnny Cash.
*We have Jean-Luc Dehaene, no wonder, no hope, no cash.
h3
>Mark Heaney wrote:
>>
>> Bernie:
>>>Kidnappings were definitely being arranged: van renting,
>>>people to do the restraining etc. I wasn't present long
>>>enough to get more details, nor was I interested in them.
>
>> Bizarre, if abductions are still being planned at these events
>> they must be pretty discrete - I noticed nothing of the kind.
>> Just a bunch of sessions focusing on different aspects of
>> cults.
>
>They were always very discrete and normally you wouldn’t notice
>anything. I guess today they probably are even more discrete.
>It’s even possible they have discontinued entirely with it,
>although I don’t think they don’t recommend it still here and
>there.
'always very discreet' and descriptions of rows of people
on phones arranging vans and kidnappings that you could
hear don't seem to be descriptions of the same thing. YMMV.
btw, have i inferred from your messages properly, that you
were an active scientologist when you went to this CAN convention
in 1986 (approximately).
h3
In article <31DB66...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>h3 wrote:
>
[long clip]
However, the whole point was to answer
>Tillmann question about the proofs that the deprogrammers
>were “Patrick disciples”,
>and I think the articles achieved that beyond doubt.
>
they were remarkable articles, and i commend you for them, although
you and i will doubtless continue to disagree on several aspects of
what they mean wrt CAN.
when i say they were remarkable articles, btw, i mean it. we have
seen a number of times when it was claimed that rape was used in forcible.
deprogramming (sometimes claimed in a way that made it seem normal).
we have asked those making the claims to back them up. no one has,
not cory, not milne, not anyone that i had seen. i thought it was
some sort of scare thing told scienos to try to keep them in the fold,
sort of like reminding them how evil psychs are. you are the first one
to give us anything substantive about where these claims came from.
thanks.
Bernie
> >Group: None!
>
> allegation.
Oh, what a pity :-)
> But don't forget that all this hasn't anything to do with
> CAN
True, no CAN involvement in view. Someone tipped the parents to the
glassy-eyed robot theory and to Ted Patrick, but it is not mentioned who
did. Must be some anti-cult folks, though. I don't know anyone else
holding to the theory.
--
Bernie
*Do not enter the lift backwards, and only when lit up
*(Sign in a Leipzig elevator)
Tilman Hausherr
>True, no CAN involvement in view. Someone tipped the parents to the
>glassy-eyed robot theory and to Ted Patrick, but it is not mentioned who
>did. Must be some anti-cult folks, though. I don't know anyone else
>holding to the theory.
That again, is a cult theory: that when parents wonder what happen to
their children, deprogrammers (who cruise in black helicopter ?) contact
them, and tell them "they're in a cult and are mindless robots", and
pressure them to pay them out.
What actually happens is the opposite: parents wonder why their children
have become glassy-eyed robots (especially true for scientologists),
assume that it has something to do with the organisation they are in,
inquire about the organisation at their local reverend / minister or
whatever, who maybe contacts them with CAN (or another similar
organisation). Or they contact CAN directly because they read of CAN in
the newspapers.
Tilman
Bernie
Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>
> In <31DDED...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>
> >True, no CAN involvement in view. Someone tipped the parents to the
> >glassy-eyed robot theory and to Ted Patrick, but it is not mentioned who
> >did. Must be some anti-cult folks, though. I don't know anyone else
> >holding to the theory.
>
> That again, is a cult theory: that when parents wonder what happen to
> their children, deprogrammers (who cruise in black helicopter ?) contact
> them, and tell them "they're in a cult and are mindless robots", and
> pressure them to pay them out.
You are right, things does not happen this way, and I never said they were.
Deprogrammers do not cruise in black helicopter and they do not usually
contact the parents. The parents get in contact with an anti-cult
organization (CAN or whatever) who bring them gradually, knowingly or
unknowingly, directly or indirectly, in touch with deprogrammers.
Deprogrammers do not usually contact the parents. It's the reverse. The
desperate parents contact the deprogrammers and plea them to intervene.
Parents have been brought in this condition through the one-sided and
alarmist theories presented by anti-cult organization who "confirm" and
increase parents in their irrational fears of "cults".
> What actually happens is the opposite: parents wonder why their children
> have become glassy-eyed robots (especially true for scientologists),
> assume that it has something to do with the organisation they are in,
> inquire about the organisation at their local reverend / minister or
> whatever, who maybe contacts them with CAN (or another similar
> organisation). Or they contact CAN directly because they read of CAN in
> the newspapers.
It may happen, indeed, that the behavior of the "child" changes, and that
parents may get alarmed by it. Especially if he tries to convert his
parents as well. Parents then contact an anti-cult organization. However,
nowadays, even if no sign of fanatism are present in the child, the simple
fact of joining an organization labeled as "cult" is enough to alarm the
parents. In all cases, the reactions are often dramatized out of
proportion, and only helps to worsen the situation.
Again, I don't mean to say that anti-cult organization like CAN doesn't do
any good at all. They point out to a phenomenon that do exist and can serve
as reference for people in cults. CAN members don't react uniformly either,
and maybe some indeed are doing some good and sensible work. What I mean to
say is that to have a naive view on CAN as an all-good organization is
certainly wrong, and that it is unwize to just close one's eyes to the
potential abuses that can very easily be infered from the biaised theory of
the "glassy-eyed robot".
--
Bernie
