Choice or Brainwashing? Part 1
Bernie
In a separate thread, I proposed to post in a series the chapter
"Choice or brainwashing" from the book "The making of a Moonie" by
Eileen Barker (1984). This illustrates some of the view of academic
studies that tend to disprove the affirmation of an absolute
"mind-control" force exerted against cult-members. Here it is.
---------------- start of part 1 ----------
In 1980-81 the Unification Church (or, more accurately, the then
British leader, Dennis Orme) fought a libel action against the Daily
Mail (or, more accurately, Associated Newspapers Group Ltd). On 29 May
1978 the Daily Mail, a mass circulation tabloid newspaper, had
published an article accusing the Church of brainwashing and of
breaking up families, and the article had included a story entitle
"They took away my son and then raped his mind", from which the
following extracts are drawn:
Daphne told us that David had been subjected to sophisticated
mind-control techniques pioneered by the people who trained the Kami
Kaz, and used effectively during the Korean ware and by the Chinese
communists during World War II.
They included love-bombing, (constant affection and touching
between groups of people), sleep deprivation, protein withdrawal,
sugar-buzzing (increasing the blood-sugar level so that the brain
becomes muddled), repetitive lectures, familiar music with 'restored'
lyrics, and other seemingly innocent but insidious devices.
David had been terrorized into believing that Moon was the
second coming of Christ...
The Moonies we had met at the camp were robots, glassy eyed
and mindless, programmed as soldiers in this vast fund-raising army
with no goals or ideas, except as followers of the half-baked ravings
of Moon, who lived in splendour while his followers lived in forced
penury.
... we took comfort in realizing that it was not our son ...
but a diabolical force that had been implanted in his mind ...
David's mind, we are convinced, was raped ... Few people
believe that mind-control is possible.
It can happen. It can happen to almost anybody. David is a
strong, intelligent, forceful personality. Perhaps he was in the mood,
over-tired, ready to flow with the tide ...
David, a respected Washington journalist, warned yesterday
that Moonies were as much a threat to the world as Communism ... 'They
use hypnosis and other methods of mind-control. They operate on
deception through idealism and their credibility is enormous. (1)"
The official transcript of the libel action records the following
exchange:
"Lord Rwalinson, QC: ... I want you to, if you will, deal now
with basic ingredients which turn a person ... into abandoning their
studies or their career, their faith, their family, and devoting
themselves to going round the streets ... selling dead flowers or
dying flowers and so on. What is that? What causes this?
Margaret Singer Ph.D.: Well, it is a very well shaped social
and psychological manipulation of the people coming into the
organization without them being aware they are being manipulated, and
that is why what the Moon organisation does as their induction process
fits the definition of brainwashing ...
Brainwashing is a term that refers to a behavioural change
technology applied to induce the learning of any new information and
behaviour under certain conditions (2)"
The verdict of the jury was that the article was not libellous. The
verdict was upheld by three Lords of the Court of Appeal.
What do these accusations of brainwashing mean? What is meant when an
expert witness testifies that Moonies brainwash their recruits? What
are parents claiming when they declare that their child is a zombie,
and automaton, a robot with a 'diabolical force ... implanted in his
mind' or with 'tapes playing inside her head'? (3). Clearly, those who
use such language are not merely implying that the recruit has decided
to accept and invitation put to him by the Moonies in a
straightforward manner; the term brainwashing is not being used in a
general, we-are-all-brainwashed-by-TV-commercial sense. On the
contrary, it seems clear that what is being asserted is that the
recruit did not ~decide~ to join but that he ~had~ to join; he was
persuaded against his will or, rather, his will - his 'free will' -
was removed or bypassed by the manipulative techniques to which he was
subjected. Had his brain (or his mind) been functioning normally, he
would not have chosen to join the movement; but, it is claimed, he had
no choice.
The Moonies, however, insist that they ~did~ make a perfectly free
choice, that they were (and are) completely in control of their own
minds, that they knew (and know) what they are doing, and that
membership is what they have chosen (and still choose). Furthermore,
they get extremely irritated when it is suggested that they believe
that they are free only because they have been brainwashed into
believing that they are free. 'How,' they ask, 'can one possibly have
a sensible discussion the face of such an accusation? Whatever we say
is just taken as further proof that we are brainwashed, and nothing we
can do - short of renouncing our faith - will convince our accusers
that we are free human beings with minds of our own.' Admittedly, some
Moonies may say that they had no choice in an 'Ich kann nicht anders'
sense, (4) - that is, they believe that they had to join because God
guided them into the movement or that it was their duty to follow the
Messiah. But this, they explain, was a ~religious~ or ~moral~
necessity - they were not manipulated or coerced any more than Luther
was compelled by anything other than his religious experience and his
won conscience to stand for what he believed to be right and true.
Whose version ought we to accept? Can we decide which group is
correct? On the one hand, it is not easy for someone to convince those
who believe otherwise that he is acting of his own free will. The
Moonies can do little more than declare that they were not brainwashed
- at least that is certainly what they will say while they are still
members of the movement; some who have left do say that they were
brainwashed but that they did [not] know it at the time. On the other
hand, those who assert that the Moonies have been coerced will produce
a wide range of alleged practices in support of their position,
including kidnapping, strange diets, lack of sleep, hypnosis,
trance-incducing lectures, sensory deprivation, sensory stimulation,
chanting, bizarre rituals, 'love-bombing' and deception. It has also
been asserted that those who join the movement often have 'serious,
somewhat crippling personal disorders', are 'emotionally vulnerable'
or are passing through 'very susceptible periods in their personal
development' (5)
One of the most fundamental questions with which I was to find myself
grappling during the course of my research was whether or not there
were independent, empirical data (upon which everyone, whether Moonie
or anti-cultist, who approached the problem with an open mind would
agree) that could help to overcome the ~impasse~ reached by one set of
people who insist that Moonies are the victims of brainwashing
techniques,while another set of people (the Moonies themselves) insist
that they have made a decision of their own free will. Was there, in
other words, an objective means of distinguishing between conversions
in which the converts were responsible, active agents, and conversions
in which they were the passive victims of forces of techniques beyond
their control?
I believe that we can go quite a long way towards sorting out the
various influences which play a part in the making of a Moonie, but to
do so involves approaching the problem from a perspective different
form that which is normally employed. It involves switching the main
focus of attention from individuals to groups, from the isolated
psyche to the social context; above all, it involves the systematic
use of comparison between different individuals and groups of
individuals. It involves in other words, a sociological rather than a
psychological or a medical approach. And since, as far as I am aware,
no one has addressed the question which am posing in quite the way I
intend to proceed (6), I shall try in this chapter to explain the
logic of my reformulation of the problem and to spell out some of the
assumptions which underlie the analysis of the data presented in the
following chapters (7). [note from the poor typists that I am: I am
not going to type the following chapters. I think this one will do]. I
start by introducing what I considered to be the necessary components
of the investigation, but as the argument is rather complicated and
involves a large number of data and concepts, and as I reject several
of the conclusions which other commentators have reached, I try at the
same time to clarify matters by disposing of some of the methods and
arguments witch which I disagree. I then proceed to a more
constructive proposal.
----------- end of part 1 ---------
(1) Daily Mail, 29 May 1978
(2) Transcript of the official tape recording of evidence given in the
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, before Mr Justice Comyn
in the case of Orme v. Associated Newspapers Group Ltd, Royal Courts
of Justice, 9 March 1981, p. 15
(3) Peter Collier, 'Bringing Home the Moonies: the Brain Snatch', New
Times, 10 July 1977.
(4) 'I can do no other': Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, 1521.
(5) Such assertions can be found in the anti-cult literature and in
most of the books by ex-members and evangelical Christians, but for
the most frequently quoted professional assessments, see the following
papers by John G. Clark Jr: 'Destructive Cults: Defined and Held
Accountable', address to National Guard Reserve Chaplains,
Minneapolis, 7 February 1977; 'The Noisy Brain in a Noisy Body', mimeo
paper condensed from one delivered at the New Jersey Psychological
Association, 5 November 1977, distributed by Free Minds Inc., PO Box
4216, Minneapolis; 'Problems in Referral of Cult Members', Journal of
the National Association of private Psychiatric Hospitals, vol. 9, no.
4, 1978; 'The Manipulation of Madness', paper presented in Hanover,
Germany, 24 February 1978; 'We are all Cultists at Heart', Newsday, 30
November 1978; 'Investigating the Effects of Some Religious Cults on
the Health and Welfare of their Converts', paper circulated at FAIR
AGM, 1981; 'Testimony to the Special Investigating Committee of the
Vermont State Investigating the Effects of Some Religious Cults on the
Health and Welfare of their Converts, mimeo circulated by FAIR,
London, undated. See also the following papers by M. F. Galper:
'Indoctrination methods of the Unification Church', presented at the
annual meeting of California State Psychological Association, Los
Angeles, 13 March 1977; 'Extremist Religious Cults and Today's Youth',
presented at the International Conference on the Effects on Physical
and Mental Health of New Totalitarian Religions and Pseudoreligious
Movements, Bonn, Germany, 20-22 November 1981. See also the following
papers by M.T.Singer: 'Therapy with Ex-Cult Members', Journal of the
National Association of Private Psychiatric Hospitals, vol. 9, nO.4,
1978; 'Coming Out of the Cults', psychology Today, January 1979;
'Where We Were ... Where We Are ... Where We're Going', presented at
the Citizens' Freedom Foundation Annual Conference, Arlington, Va.,
22-24 October 1982. The quotations are from Clark and Galper.
(6) L.R.Rambo, 'Current Research on Religious Conversion', Religious
Studies Review, vol. 8, April 1982, provides an excellent annotated
bibliography of different approaches to conversion.
(7) Some of the arguments put forward in this chapter are developed
more fully in the following papers by Eileen Barker: 'Facts and Values
and Social Science', Science and Absolute Values, Proceedings of the
Third International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences, New York,
ICF, 1975; 'Apes and Angels: Reductionism, Selection and Emergence in
the Study of Man', Inquiry, vol. 19, no. 4, 1976; 'Confessions of a
Methodological Schizophrenic: Problems Encountered in the Study of
Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church', Institute for the Study of
Worship and Religious Architecture Research Bulletin, University of
Birmingham, 1978; 'The Professional Stranger: Some Methodological
Problems Encountered in a Study of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's
Unification Church', Open University Course Media Notes for D207: An
Introduction to Sociology, Milton Keynes, OU, 1980; 'Der
Professionelle Fremde: Erklärung des Unerklärlichen beim Studium einer
abweichenden religiösen Gruppe', in Günter Kehrer (ed.), Das Entstehen
einer neuen Religion: Das Beispiel er Vereinigungskirche, Munich,
Kösel-Verlag, 1981; 'New Religious Movement in Britain: Context and
Membership', Social Compass, nos. 30-1, 1983; 'Supping with the Devil:
How Long a Spoon does the Sociologist Needs?', Sociological Analysis,
vol. 44, no.3, 1983.
GEMMAMP1
Bernie wrote:
>In a separate thread, I proposed to post in a series the chapter
>"Choice or brainwashing" from the book "The making of a Moonie" by
>Eileen Barker (1984). This illustrates some of the view of academic
>studies that tend to disprove the affirmation of an absolute
>"mind-control" force exerted against cult-members. Here it is.
*IMPORTANT*: Academic? Hardly. Eileen Barker's "research" was funded by
the Moonies. How objective could it be?
Monica Pignotti
Deirdre
To get to the subject of this thread, we all make choices (free will ones)
based on imperfect information. Also, since we aren't experts in all
subjects, we tend to make leaps of faith based on experience.
Some of these can be small, like no longer checking up on Diane
Richardson's quoted references. She's proven herself meticulous enough in
these details.
Some are larger, like accepting the concept of the ARC triangle. Frankly,
I think it's useful.
At some point in a group, one might make further leaps that are less
logical or less thought out. I understand, for example, what Hubbard said
about the overt-motivator sequence and I think it can be true. But, after
re-evaluation, I don't think it *necessarily* must be true.
The point about Scn is that the real beliefs (body thetans) that form such
a core at the upper levels remain hidden and this is very cultic. Thus,
one isn't able to honestly evaluate the belief system and say "yeah, I
could go for that." I have said before that I don't have a problem with
the concept of removing one's BTs (provided one has them, which I remain
unconvinced is necessarily true). Had I known about the BT theory (aside
from the Xenu story that is) early on, I don't know that it would have
changed my mind about Scn. It might have in fact strengthened my view of
Scn given my views of spirituality at the time.
The other main cultic aspect of Scn imho is that one *must* swallow the
whole thing. There is no room for using what one likes. I don't know how
much this is like other cults frankly as I haven't been involved with
others.
_Deirdre
GEMMAMP1
Here are the details on Eileen Barker's being funded by the Moonies:
In 1993, Barker's organization, INFORM (sorry, Dennis, no relation to you)
lost funding by the U.K. government due to criticism about the Moonies
contributing to her funding for her book. In 1989, a story came out by
the Religious News Service, stating that Barker's book was funded by the
Unification Church (the Moonies) and that Barker "freely admits that the
Unification Church paid all her expenses to attend 18 conferences in
Europe, New York, the Caribbean, Korea and South America." Barker stated
that "MY UNIVERSITY AND THE SSRC (a U.K. government grants council)
REGARDED THIS ATTENDANCE NECESSARY FOR MY RESEARCH." (emphasis added). As
a result of the controversy over this funding, Barker's organization lost
their U.K. government funding.
Sources:
A. Carley, "Government Grant to Clut Watchdog Stirs Flap in Britain",
Religious News Service, Jul. 10, 1989, pp. 6-7.
A. Meale, "INFORM - Cut in Funding by the Home Office," Press Release,
House of Commons, London, Nov. 15, 1993.
I would say that Barker's work is about as credible as a study on the
dangers of cigarette smoking funded by Phillip Morris.
Monica Pignotti
Paula L
Bernie wrote:
> (snip)>
> Daphne told us that David had been subjected to sophisticated
> mind-control techniques pioneered by the people who trained the Kami
> Kaz, and used effectively during the Korean ware and by the Chinese
> communists during World War II.
> They included love-bombing, (constant affection and touching
> between groups of people), sleep deprivation, protein withdrawal,
> sugar-buzzing (increasing the blood-sugar level so that the brain
> becomes muddled), repetitive lectures, familiar music with 'restored'
> lyrics, and other seemingly innocent but insidious devices.
sounds like any college campus in the country to me!
> David had been terrorized into believing that Moon was the
> second coming of Christ...
"terrorized" by affection??
> The Moonies we had met at the camp were robots, glassy eyed
> and mindless, programmed as soldiers in this vast fund-raising army
> with no goals or ideas, except as followers of the half-baked ravings
> of Moon, who lived in splendour while his followers lived in forced
> penury.
Reverend Moon has suffered more in his lifetime than anyone can
imagine, he has lived in poverty, been tortured in concentration
camps and lived in a cardboard box. In all of it he has maintained
love for and forgiveness for those who hurt him and he has done it
because he lives to represent God's love on the earth and teaches his
followers to live selfless, sacrificing lives for the good of others
and for the glory of God. If someone does not want to join in that
mission they are more than welcome to leave. Why would he want people
around who do not believe with all their heart in the cause. The
Unification church is not an easy church to belong to, it is not your
typical feel good social club like mainline churches. The church is
composed of highly dedicated people who have chosen to give their
lives to the realization of God's kingdom and principals on the
earth.
> ... we took comfort in realizing that it was not our son ...
> but a diabolical force that had been implanted in his mind ...
> David's mind, we are convinced, was raped ... Few people
> believe that mind-control is possible.
How many parents of typical teenagers feel the same way, without
reference to religion!
>...... Had his brain (or his mind) been functioning normally, he
> would not have chosen to join the movement; but, it is claimed, he had
> no choice.
Obviously if a person choses to believe something different from the
norm they "must" be functioning abnormally!! Why else would someone
dare to think differently from their parents??
> The Moonies, however, insist that they ~did~ make a perfectly free
> choice, that they were (and are) completely in control of their own
> minds, that they knew (and know) what they are doing, and that
> membership is what they have chosen (and still choose).
How on earth can a person intelligently disagree with "logic "like
this? If you say you disagree and you are making your own decisions
you are told this is further "proof" you are brainwashed. You are
also told someone else (even strangers) are in a better position to
tell you what you "really" believe, because you are incapable of
independent thought. This is just ridiculous.
Yes I am a Moonie. I was not coerced, brainwashed or mind controlled,
sleep deprived, love bombed, or sugar highed into anything. I have
never attended a Unification church, workshop or function. I have
never even met another Moonie. I have studied the teachings of
Reverend Moon and have spent much time in prayer and have come to the
conclusion that I believe what he teaches and I believe he is who he
says he is.So much for no one joining without being "forced" or
"terrorized" into it.
Diane Richardson
gemm...@aol.com (GEMMAMP1) wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>>In a separate thread, I proposed to post in a series the chapter
>>"Choice or brainwashing" from the book "The making of a Moonie" by
>>Eileen Barker (1984). This illustrates some of the view of academic
>>studies that tend to disprove the affirmation of an absolute
>>"mind-control" force exerted against cult-members. Here it is.
>*IMPORTANT*: Academic? Hardly. Eileen Barker's "research" was funded by
>the Moonies. How objective could it be?
That, of course, is the claim made by Margaret Singer, quoting a 1989
Religious News Service story stating that Dr. Barker admitted the
Moonies had paid for her to attend 18 conferences around the world.
Whether or not accepting money from the Moonies to attend conferences
influenced Eileen Barker's research results, it certainly raises
questions about the independent nature of her study. I still find a
number of her statements worth consideration, as do others.
Dr. Barker's notion that the cult phenomenon should be viewed as a
sociological, rather than a psychological, issue is, to my mind at
least, spot on. That is very much what is done by Dr. Galanter, in
looking at the dynamics of *groups* and how large groups influence
their members' thinking through social rather than psychological
persuasion.
Such a view eliminates all of the "mind control" mumbo-jumbo and
permits an honest investigation of the social forces at work in cult
recruitment and behavior, at least in my opinion.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Jon Noring
In article ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) writes:
>Dr. Barker's notion that the cult phenomenon should be viewed as a
>sociological, rather than a psychological, issue is, to my mind at
>least, spot on. That is very much what is done by Dr. Galanter, in
>looking at the dynamics of *groups* and how large groups influence
>their members' thinking through social rather than psychological
>persuasion.
>
>Such a view eliminates all of the "mind control" mumbo-jumbo and
>permits an honest investigation of the social forces at work in cult
>recruitment and behavior, at least in my opinion.
It would not surprise me if the social and psychological factors are much
more intertwined than one would expect at first glance. And if one views
cultural factors as being a separate entity than social factors, or at least
a subset which can be differentiated from the rest, then the picture gets
even more complicated. I would also assert that personality type factors
of individuals play a role in the overall picture (particularly since recent
research suggests that *at least* 50% of personality traits are fixed at
birth and are not influenced by social/cultural pressures), thus the picture
gets really complex. There is a whole range of responses to social and
psychological influences dependent on personality type. This may explain
why some personality types are much more *easily* sucked into coercive-
type groups than others (though it would not surprise me if *all* can get
sucked into such groups dependent on life factors and specific situations),
and why some personality types may find it easier to leave.
20th century research trends have out of necessity become very
compartmentalized because the systems being studied are extremely complex.
As a mechanical and chemical engineer by training, I know this all too well.
The system Drs. Singer and Galanter are studying is such an example. The
general approach is to take any complex system and to break it down
into easier to study subcomponents. Once the subcomponents are understood,
then the interaction between these subcomponents can be studied so as to
understand the whole "organism". At least, that's the approach to understand
it all. Unfortunately, there's also a human tendency by researchers
(supported by institutional and bureaucratic forces) to focus so much on a
subcomponent, that the view of the whole "organism" is lost with the result
in the belief that once the subcomponent is understood, then the whole
"organism" will be understood. The whole contemporary trend in "wholistic"
thinking (poo-pooed by some as "New Age" wackiness), is nothing more than an
attempt to bring us back to a proper focus by looking at the whole system
to see how the parts interact and complement each other.
Dr. Singer apparently focuses on the psychology of coercion as her
specialty, while Dr. Galanter apparently focuses on the social aspect of
group dynamics as hers (I draw this conclusion of their focuses from the
information I've seen in several posts.) So it is natural for many,
including the researchers themselves, to take a dichotomous view on the
matter, an "either/or", rather than a wholistic view. I think it is
premature at this time to make any judgement on this particular subject
matter. The whole phenomenon of abusive "religious" cults (however they
are defined) is very complex and not easily understood except when all
the interactive factors are understood.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today! Just send e-mail
to majo...@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
subscribe ebook-list
Tilman Hausherr
>In a separate thread, I proposed to post in a series the chapter
>"Choice or brainwashing" from the book "The making of a Moonie" by
>Eileen Barker (1984). This illustrates some of the view of academic
Ms Barker is a well known member from the Moonie payroll. She's also a
proven liar. (She pretended that the russian Duma paid her trip to
russia, which isn't true).
>The verdict of the jury was that the article was not libellous. The
>verdict was upheld by three Lords of the Court of Appeal.
Yes. It was the 2nd longest libel trial in UK history. As loosers, the
Moonies had a pay a enourmous amount in legal fees. The longest (still
going on) is the "McLibel" trial. See at http://www.mcspotlight.org/
Ned Kelly
Paula L (lu...@execpc.com) wrote:
: > They included love-bombing, (constant affection and touching
: > between groups of people), sleep deprivation, protein withdrawal,
: > sugar-buzzing (increasing the blood-sugar level so that the brain
: > becomes muddled), repetitive lectures, familiar music with 'restored'
: > lyrics, and other seemingly innocent but insidious devices.
: sounds like any college campus in the country to me!
Sounds like the Navy too. There, the recruiter does the "love bombing",
but afterwards, there is no love bombing at all. How many people can say
that they have gone without sleep for 3 days, without being in the cult?
I sure as fuck can.
--
Ned Kelly Lives!!!!!! http://www.suburbia.net/~nedkelly/Seppo_Navy.html
"That isn't a knife.... This is a KNIFE!" - Paul Hogan
The Navy: It's Not Just A Job..... It's $cientology Lite!
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:03:38 -0500, Paula L <lu...@execpc.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Reverend Moon has suffered more in his lifetime than anyone can
> imagine, he has lived in poverty, been tortured in concentration
> camps and lived in a cardboard box.
[snip]
What kind of car does the "Reverend" drive?
How much is his house worth?
Where did he get the money to purchase those things?
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMjeZiinhWc34xW2VAQGtTwf+P8fYMdCjFzF3gFRChNyrSDcsW/WdZiYA
lx0u/6V4+ShgWCr1Y7rQkFWfcRbMymzE4gab9ft/pwO2SIaST3nBUSuIdWYMujTQ
0WsTAseoQhK2D8goT9uG4do5+U6baKTKUiQYlC8DXG9bG4qkwYzBzfmpj+QnFLe0
oTA1mwNJZfXCQkrHfsTlJwCYmfKRrNfDGJtgV9H8EYGRtKL/0i84WiwkgFzkIasl
wq5Pj30IH3rCibaFmlfFbt4bYd+LknHLQyLczAcqokpqlJIo7CifJQl00jf3jOgG
sri39ASPs45wPxpB+SWjkj6+W18AQa7nC0pFPV2b7NsG/ek+PFMHMw==
=qmTi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs ric...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause
Martin G. V. Hunt
GEMMAMP1 (gemm...@aol.com) writes:
> Bernie wrote:
>
>>In a separate thread, I proposed to post in a series the chapter
>>"Choice or brainwashing" from the book "The making of a Moonie" by
>>Eileen Barker (1984). This illustrates some of the view of academic
>>studies that tend to disprove the affirmation of an absolute
>>"mind-control" force exerted against cult-members. Here it is.
>
> *IMPORTANT*: Academic? Hardly. Eileen Barker's "research" was funded by
> the Moonies. How objective could it be?
ROTFL!
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
Art Online oil paintings: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/homepage.html
Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Bernie
As I said in the thread in which I got the idea to post this chapter,
the choice was made more or less by random for lack of time. I was
scanning through my (relatively) old books and remembered that this
particular chapter was well researched. I was not aware of the
controversy surrounding Eileen Barker's alleged financing by the
Moonies (although it isn't clear in posts made whether this amounted
only to some trips taken in charge by them or anything else). By all
means, from the knowledge I have of Eileen Barker, I do not believe
that this really discredits the work she has been doing (at least not
in my eyes). I still believe she did an objective and well researched
work anyway. Is it too much to ask the critics to comment on the
content rather than simply dead agenting the author?
The fact that Inform was deprived of UK funding because of these
rumors (or facts, I don't know) is unfortunate in the sense that we
would have a need for an information group that is neither on one
extreme (the cults), nor on the other extreme (anti-cults). Such group
doesn't exist to my knowledge. Does anyone know if Inform actually
closed down or it just got nuked from UK funding?
By all means, what I should really do is to select out of my
documentation something else that would also be representative. The
problem is that I don't have time right now to start making a real
selection. Since I still think that Barker's chapter is worth reading,
I propose to continue the posts series but only if there is interest
for it. If no one is interested, then I won't bother typing the whole
thing either. So, if there is any interest, let me know, either by
post or email.
---------
Bernie
*Most posters seem to quibble over details when they think they are
*having a debate about absolutes.
(Silke-Maria Weineck)
Bernie
dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>To get to the subject of this thread, we all make choices (free will ones)
>based on imperfect information. Also, since we aren't experts in all
>subjects, we tend to make leaps of faith based on experience.
Yes, that's exactly my take on the subject. Scientologists get deluded
because they make some experiences that might be worthwhile, on which
they then "buy" all the rest of El Wrong crap. Its like if the
experience kind of creates an opening in which unverified or
unreflecting concepts jump in. That's a faith leap (as I understand
it). The false concepts get in with the bandwagon of what may be found
as true, and the cult member never really takes the pain to examine
these links. He made a leap and don't see the false connections from
point A to point B. He just doesn't discern what is involved.
Delusions suffered by member of forcible deprogramming (as well as
exist counseling? Dunno) follows exactly the same pattern. The victim
"cognate" at a certain point on elements that can be found true in the
arguments (use of fear and guilt, etc). Then, through the opening, all
kind of nonsense just creeps in as well. Since the victim found the
depiction of the cults "mind-control" approach correct, he also "buys"
from the deprogrammer the fact the he himself was brainwashed. He
thinks that he would never have realized the fallacies of the cult had
he not been forced to, and so he goes out fervently kidnapping other
victims. It's a leap of faith too (always according to my definition,
I don't know if it fits yours as well). False information swallow
together with true one.
>At some point in a group, one might make further leaps that are less
>logical or less thought out. I understand, for example, what Hubbard said
>about the overt-motivator sequence and I think it can be true. But, after
>re-evaluation, I don't think it *necessarily* must be true.
Very good.
>The point about Scn is that the real beliefs (body thetans) that form such
>a core at the upper levels remain hidden and this is very cultic.
You know, I don't know about this thing that the cult use deception
because it doesn't tell you all at the outset. Personally, I find this
argument rather stupid. If you learn a language, for example, you
don't have to know all the subtleties of the grammar right at the
outset. There is something like gradient.
>The other main cultic aspect of Scn imho is that one *must* swallow the
>whole thing. There is no room for using what one likes.
Yes, that's the whole point. It's a question of perspective. Scn
beliefs wouldn't be that wrong if you were able to put it in
perspective, in other words if questioning was allowed. Then, it does
not become an absolute, a dependency. It's the difference between
saying that something ~is~ so and so or that something ~may_be~ so and
so; between saying that there is not alternative or saying that it
only is one of the many possible viewpoints. Is the group able to
question himself and warn it's own member about possible pitfalls
towards cultic drift? If yes, I wouldn't call it a "cult".
Again, the same goes for the most radical elements of anti-cult
groups. The main problem is their failure to put it perspective. It
becomes something that ~is~ so and so or else you are under
mind-control. I wouldn't have problem with them if they were bringing
some sense of measure into the issue, and warning (and taking
preventive measures) about possible pitfalls towards which it may
drift. But as long as they don't do that, it is just, IMO, as cultic a
cult can be. Actually, it is not even fun (like it can be sometimes in
the cult), and it even manages to become more dangerous.
>I don't know how
>much this is like other cults frankly as I haven't been involved with
>others.
I think it is very closely the same in other cults. The principles
followed are very similar and the mindset almost identical.
Scientology is only appealing because it as a technological dress,
away from the washed out Christians-like dress that many now distrust.
But deep down I believe that it's the same fears and the same needs
that are used and played upon.
I made an interesting experiment sometime after I was out of the COS.
As my brain got a little dusted by the NY filth, I decided to get it
washed by the Moonies. Just to compare if it washed whiter than with
the Scientologist pounders. I posed as a passer by and got enrolled
for a seminar. We went in the Cats mountain I believe (something like
that), completely isolated (but beautiful nature). We were lectured
without being told that it was Moon's spew, although it downed on us
little by little. Anyway, you couldn't go away unless you wanted to
camp out in the woods. Between each lectures we discussed in small
groups and I found out later that next the lecture was tailored
according to some of the things that were leveled out in the
discussion groups. I also found out that some of the member of the
small discussion group, where actually Moonie, posing as newcomers. We
had exercises (pleasant) in the said-nature and singing, games,
exercises, etc in between. There was at some point a lecture in which
they explain you how the Christ failed and how sad he was (this tend
to depress you and give you a dark perspective on the world, until the
Moon raises up). I found that this was the key point of the
"mind-control" (note the quotes). At the end, you link up in small
circle with your discussion group and it is then that I literally saw
one of the guy crack up. He became very emotional and was speaking
about the fact that it was what he was searching all along (I
translate: friendly group, truth, sense, etc), etc. Obviously they had
gotten through this guy. As for myself, it just didn't work. I drove
back with them in the bus and was released back in town. So there was
indeed manipulations and deceptions, but I don't think it is anything
new and it happened all along down history. The terrible mind-control
didn't take up on me and it was even a rather interesting (for cult
method studying), sometimes even pleasant (kayak on the lake). OTOH,
the strength with which these people believe they have the only truth
and that the future of the planet is depending on their work is as so
to say identical as in Scientology.
---------
Bernie
After re-evaluation, I don't think it *necessarily* must be true.
(Deidre)
Tilman Hausherr
>> They included love-bombing, (constant affection and touching
>> between groups of people), sleep deprivation, protein withdrawal,
>> sugar-buzzing (increasing the blood-sugar level so that the brain
>> becomes muddled), repetitive lectures, familiar music with 'restored'
>> lyrics, and other seemingly innocent but insidious devices.
>
>sounds like any college campus in the country to me!
No, it sounds only like Bridgeport University.
I have been to university and almost all mentioned wasn't there. I had
only the lectures, but they were on lots of different topics. Also most
students don't go to the lectures but learn the material for themselves
thru the papers distributed.
I also had enough sleep, because I managed to organise my work.
Tilman
GEMMAMP1
Bernie wrote:
>As I said in the thread in which I got the idea to post this chapter,
>the choice was made more or less by random for lack of time. I was
>scanning through my (relatively) old books and remembered that this
>particular chapter was well researched. I was not aware of the
>controversy surrounding Eileen Barker's alleged financing by the
>Moonies (although it isn't clear in posts made whether this amounted
>only to some trips taken in charge by them or anything else). By all
>means, from the knowledge I have of Eileen Barker, I do not believe
>that this really discredits the work she has been doing (at least not
>in my eyes). I still believe she did an objective and well researched
>work anyway. Is it too much to ask the critics to comment on the
>content rather than simply dead agenting the author?
This is not "dead-agenting". Where a researcher gets her funds is a very
valid question and if she is being funded by the Moonies, which I have
documented then this is very relevant information that cannot be
dismissed. She certainly cannot be considered "objective" any more than a
study on the dangers of cigarette smoking funded by Phillip Morris. It is
fine to discuss her work, but people need to know this and take this into
account.
>The fact that Inform was deprived of UK funding because of these
>rumors (or facts, I don't know) is unfortunate in the sense that we
>would have a need for an information group that is neither on one
>extreme (the cults), nor on the other extreme (anti-cults). Such group
>doesn't exist to my knowledge. Does anyone know if Inform actually
>closed down or it just got nuked from UK funding?
They were not rumors, they were established facts that Barker freely
admitted to.
Another interesting note, if you read Steve Hassan's recent post he
mentioned that Barker had given his book a very good review. It seems she
might be changing her views lately.
>By all means, what I should really do is to select out of my
>documentation something else that would also be representative. The
>problem is that I don't have time right now to start making a real
>selection. Since I still think that Barker's chapter is worth reading,
>I propose to continue the posts series but only if there is interest
>for it. If no one is interested, then I won't bother typing the whole
>thing either. So, if there is any interest, let me know, either by
>post or email.
I have no objection at all to your posting them (not that you need my
permission anyway). I'd like to read what she has to say. The first part
was just a sort of introduction -- I'd like to hear if she supports what
she said and if so, how. I'd also like to read her more recent writings,
such as her positive review of Steve Hassan's book and how her POV has
changed over the years. Steve offered to snail mail it to anyone who is
willing to scan it in and post it. Any takers?
Monica Pignotti