Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact


Diane Richardson on Mind-Control

Introduction


 

It is from within another thread that the mind-control issue emerged. The poster named "Deirdre" has been arguing along the line that Kim Baker, an ex-member, should be excused for her alleged behavior in a.r.s. on the ground that she still suffered remnants of the "mind-control" she was subjected to in the CoS. Deirdre even stated:


 

 

Message-ID: <50g7bg$30h@clark.zippo.com>

Deirdre: 
>Those who believe they cannot be controlled are the easiest prey of all. 

Diane: 
What evidence do you have of that, Deirdre, or are you making these things as you go along?

It is in answer to Martin Hunt, reacting with derision on the very idea that the mind-control notion should be questioned, that I saw this surprising reply from Diane. In two paragraphs, she summarized the main tenets of the counter-arguments to the mind-control dogma, tenets she will then proceed to substantiate in subsequent posts:

 

 

Message-ID: <50ljke$5bu@news.ysu.edu>

Martin: 
>Cults do not exist then; everyone in them is simply there by choice, and they can leave whenever they want to (unless they are locked up.) 

Diane: 
Actually, Martin, I think you'll find that such an opinion is the general consensus in the U.S. courts at the present time. Whether we agree with it or not, society has taken a definite turn towards "personal responsibility" in such matters. This goes along with the general trend in American society to get the government out of people's personal lives -- the whole conservative/libertarian agenda. Larry Wollersheim's lawsuit against the cult would have ended quite differently if it were to be litigated in the atmosphere prevalent in today's courts.  

Additionally, it is the general consensus among mental health professionals as well. Whether any of us care to admit it or not, Margaret Singer and her supporters are most definitely in the minority in accepting the concept of cult mind control. Marc Galanter and others who represent the APA's viewpoint reject the notion of "brainwashing" and have solid evidence to support their opinions (unlike Dr. Singer).

Monica Pignotti then intervened in the discussion. Monica is an ex-Scientology member and an "exit-counselor". She has been the most vocal proponents of the mind-control theory.

 

 

Message-ID: <50nk8k$24n@news.ysu.edu>

Monica: 
>Being under mind control doesn't mean that you are locked in a room with bright lights and being tortured. It is much more subtle and powerful than that. 

 Diane: 
Could you explain how "mind control" is more powerful than "brainwashing," Monica? Please don't ask me to read Singer and Hassan -- I've read them many, many times already, and I still fail to understand precisely what "mind control" is and how it's any different than what an aggressive, fast-talking door-to-door salesman does. 

 If "mind control" is so powerful, why does it affect so few people -- even people within cults themselves. It's been shown in study after study that more than 90 percent of people lured into a cult leave the cult of their own volition within 2 years of their entry into it. If "mind control" is so powerful, why does it affect so few people?

Diane also points out to the astounding lack of knowledge or lack of support the extensive studies carried out about cults and mind-control have in a.r.s. This is hardly surprising, since these studies came out as contradicting the favorite anticult themes, and anticult activists usually refer researchers coming out with such results as "cult apologists" :

 

 

Message-ID: <50thc2$l80@clark.zippo.com>

I'm interested that people here haven't discussed more recent work that has been done by qualified investigators on the topic of cults. The work exists, and yet it appears that no one either cares to either look it up, read it, or discuss it here. Why is that? 

 Monica, you present yourself here as an expert in the field, yet you have still not addressed the results of Marc Galanter's research on cults. Is this because you aren't familiar with it or are you consciously avoiding acknowledging his work? 

 



Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Home
Site map
Search
What's New
Contact

Story
Q&A

 

Overview
2Questions
3Types
What

Doctrine
Xenu
Gays

Control
Kills
McPherson
Bashaw
Manson
RPF

Harrassment
Bomb
Sporgeries
Earthlink
Profit
Legal

 

Logic
Cat
Critic

 

Attacks
Clams
Hate
Christmas
Invasion
Trolling
Harassment
Violence
Award
OSA


Dissenters
Attacks
IRC
Plants
ARS

Tenets
Mind-Control
Subliminal
ACM

Discrimination
Jews
Kids
Germany
France
Trafalgar
Deprogramming

Who's Who
Cooper
Minton
Henson
Hartwig
Who

 

Experiences
Pro&Con
Dream

Questions
What Is?
Works?
Scam?

Testimonies
Sasha
Robin
Unindoctrinated

Cultism
Mirrors
Manhatan

The Tech
Key
Medical
Excalibur

Celebrities
Cruise
Celebrities

 

Scholars
Article
FBI
Papers

Moderates

Critics
Rebecca
Diane
Peter
DeadAgent1
Judy
Newbies

Ex-Members
Wolf
Jack
Claire
David
Kymus
Bernie
Interviews 

Scientologists
Enzo
Freddie
RonsAmigo
Wonderflur
Whippersnapper

Scientologists Speak
Freddie
EJ

 

ACM
Personal
Pathless