Diane Richardson on Mind-Control

True Believers' Reactions


 

As I said in the beginning, the interest of these threads isn't only the theoretical discussions about mind-control, but also how anticult "true believers" react to contradictory information challenging their "accepted facts". Here we will take as an example, Martin Hunt. A good writer, Martin Hunt is a prolific and long time a.r.s. poster. The weirdness of his reaction in face of criticism, however, is quite remarkable. In the present post, for example, we can see how Martin Hunt already has some difficulty in understanding what Diane is speaking about, and how he is mixing everything up and understands something completely different than what it is all about. As a matter of fact, Martin will never really understand these matters, and he will keep on making the same gross generalizations over and over, and only answer with increasingly insulting ad hominem that will end up in completely ridiculous posts. What we witness here is the beginning of what is quite illustrative of the cultic mindset.


 

 

Message-ID: <515ic7$osf@clark.zippo.com>

Martin:
>He's saying the mind cannot be influenced by environment? Bizarre. But then, the world is made up of all types, and a Phd doesn't mean the person's not a looney.

Diane:
That's not at all what he's saying. I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion from what has been written -- unless, of course, you have a different definition of "brainwashing" than that stated by Monica and others here.

Dr. Galanter is an M.D., not a PhD. His primary area of research has been the study of large therapeutic groups (particularly Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs). He began studying cults when he noticed that they had a similarly high level of success in keeping their members off alcohol and drugs, and he wanted to find out why this occurred.

Martin:
>>" Hey, what are we doing here? Scientology is a legitimate religion of choice. :-) "

Diane:
>> I don't know what you're doing here, Martin.

>You should by now. But then, what do I know; I've only been there and done that. We should listen to you tell us what we experieced; you're a smart peson.

You should do nothing of the sort, and I certainly haven't said any such thing. Putting such words in my mouth isn't really fair, Martin. It's not at all what I've been trying to say; if that's what you conclude after reading what I write, then I've not been doing well in expressing my opinion.

>> I'm here
>>because the cult has threatened intellectual freedom on the net by abusing intellectual property law. Whether Scientology[tm] is considered a "legitimate" religion or not has nothing to do with why I follow this newsgroup; it's their threat of abridging *my* freedom of speech to which I object.

>Understandable.

>With some of us, it goes a bit deeper.

>Is this were you tell me what an idiot I was for "joining" a cult? :-)

No. I have never told anyone he was an idiot for joining a cult. I'm not about to begin doing so now.

>> It isn't safe to assume that all critics share common goals.

>Who does? I doubt many here understand me or my complaint; those who do do, and those who don't have their own path to take, which is fine.

>I sometimes wish they would *take* that path, though, instead of throwing sticks and stones all over my path.

>Your goal has something to do with free speech and the cult; how can you best achieve that goal?

>Slamming Paulette? Ranting and railing against Monica? Or going after the fucking cult?

I find it amusing that so many people feel they have the right to tell me what I should and shouldn't be writing here. For a group supposedly intent on preserving freedom of speech, I've come across a remarkable number of people who believe they know better than I what I should be saying.

I reply to what I see posted to this newsgroup. When I see inaccurate statements made, or claims that I don't necessarily agree with, I will reply to them, regardless of who makes them.

Paulette Cooper was being presented to the readers as some sort of painted angel. I knew for a fact that her story was far more complex than the story she was presenting to a.r.s. Someday, when I have the time, I will provide more details of her story -- straight from the court records and her own sworn statements.

I don't believe that what I am doing is "ranting and railing" against Monica, and I'm surprised that you characterize our discussion with that phrase. I am trying to engage in a serious discussion of a question quite relevant to this newsgroup.

As to the "fucking cult" -- outside of spam, they're not much of a presence here anymore. Since I believe it's thoroughly counter-productive to reply to spam, that doesn't leave me much of an opportunity. As I have told you in email, my "real" life is quite hectic right now. Perhaps sometime in the future I will be able to do some research, analyze the material, write substantive messages and post them. I do not have the time to do that now, as you well know.

>Just a thot, sort of a novel idea; focus on your goal and aim straight for it...don't bother with the side issues of blaming the victims, etc. :-)

I am not blaming any victims. Perhaps you may wish to read such intentions into my posts, but I don't think you can support your statement with my own words.

>> I realize that many people have been hurt by the CoS and many other destructive cults. But I don't see it as my job to protect people from themselves--otherwise, I'd be spending my life trying to convince people that they're making foolish decisions.

>So, would you consider fighting for free speech and the fact the cult is trying to limit it? Or would that only be protecting people from themselves as well?

I will fight for free speech. I will not fight for Arnie Lerma's right to deliberately infringe copyrights just to make himself a "hero" in his own eyes and then watch him parade hround on this newsgroup as a martyr. From the outset I have stated that I could not support Arnie Lerma's actions.

I have seen very little discourse on free speech take place here. People seem much more eager to come up with "blood sex crimes" that they can blame on the cult -- and show very little regard with whether these stories are fact or fiction. I want no part of such "yellow journalism" on the net and I won't participate in furthering it.

I believe that the cult's actions against the net are enough to deserve the censure of all advocates of intellectual freedom. This newsgroup seems to have lost sight of this and instead have focused on any tabloid-style headline anyone cares to conjure up instead.

 



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