On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, barb wrote:

> http://www.slate.msn.com/?id=2061166

The writer of the article is a brainwashing-denier who demonstrates impaired judgment (a symptom of brainwashing, curiously enough) by stating that brainwashing does not exist by virtue of the fact that people who believe in brainwashing are brainwashed. This position, which is also regularly used by Scientology, conveniently saves the trouble of having to make an effort at argument.

More succinctly, if that's possible, he wrapped up his article by committing intellectual suicide in the following manner:

"If anyone has been brainwashed, it's the millions of Americans who still view new, radicalized, or unusual religions as "cults" and their leaders as masters of mind control. We must try these terror cases free from the patronizing assumption that strange, even crazy beliefs are necessarily products of illness or undue influence. The proper word to describe a savage act committed at the behest of a charismatic lunatic is not "brainwashed." It's evil."

His logic, if I'm not mistaken, is that since brainwashing is evil, and people who disagree with him are evil, people who disagree with him when he says brainwashing is non-existent are brainwashed, or at least evil.

It may be more accurate to say that being brainwashed is like being drunk than it is being just generally evil. Like being drunk, there is no test for what you can do that means you're brainwashed, it's what you can't do that makes the difference.

And there is a difference between having your judgment impaired by going out and drinking a pint of whiskey and having someone regularly slip alcohol into your warm milk while leading you to believe that more warm milk will un-grog your perceptions.

Now picture the same thing substituting auditing (or certain other Scientology processes) for alcohol. Does it clear the issue up more to identify that circumstance as "evil" or as "brainwashing"? The matter of good or evil might be less relevant in this case than the matter of brainwashing.

Joe Cisar, Xenu apologist What tripped Scientology's trigger?

http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/trip0000.htm Media, read what made me Scientology Public Enemy nbr. 46 http://www.xenu.net/archive/thesis/cisar-home.html
From: Joe's Garage <swatron@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scientology mentioned in article on brainwashing
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 20:55:56 -0500
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1020207204611.108A-100000@darkstar.zippy>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1020207190520.180A-100000@darkstar.zippy>

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Joe's Garage wrote:

>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, barb wrote:
>
> > http://www.slate.msn.com/?id=2061166
> > --
>
> The writer of the article is a brainwashing-denier who demonstrates
> impaired judgment (a symptom of brainwashing, curiously enough) by stating
> that brainwashing does not exist by virtue of the fact that people who
> believe in brainwashing are brainwashed. This position, which is also
> regularly used by Scientology, conveniently saves the trouble of having to
> make an effort at argument.
>
> More succinctly, if that's possible, he wrapped up his article by
> committing intellectual suicide in the following manner:
>
> "If anyone has been brainwashed, it's the millions of Americans who still
> view new, radicalized, or unusual religions as "cults" and their leaders
> as masters of mind control. We must try these terror cases free from the
> patronizing assumption that strange, even crazy beliefs are necessarily
> products of illness or undue influence. The proper word to describe a
> savage act committed at the behest of a charismatic lunatic is not
> "brainwashed." It's evil."
>
> His logic, if I'm not mistaken, is that since brainwashing is evil, and
> people who disagree with him are evil, people who disagree with him when
> he says brainwashing is non-existent are brainwashed, or at least evil.
>
> It may be more accurate to say that being brainwashed is like being drunk
> than it is being just generally evil. Like being drunk, there is no test
> for what you can do that means you're brainwashed, it's what you can't do
> that makes the difference.
>
> And there is a difference between having your judgment impaired by going
> out and drinking a pint of whiskey and having someone regularly slip
> alcohol into your warm milk while leading you to believe that more
> warm milk will un-grog your perceptions.
>
> Now picture the same thing substituting auditing (or certain other
> Scientology processes) for alcohol.
The example I was thinking of was that of Hubbard's doctrine dictating to people that in order to become more sane, they have to talk to the space aliens that live all over their bodies.

Attempting to talk to those space aliens to see if that makes you more sane might not be such a horrible idea, just to see if it works. But talking to them for the purpose of becoming sane is a different story, especially if you're paying someone to run their program on your own mind.

> Does it clear the issue up more to
> identify that circumstance as "evil" or as "brainwashing"? The matter of
> good or evil might be less relevant in this case than the matter of
> brainwashing.
>
> Joe Cisar, Xenu apologist
>
> What tripped Scientology's trigger?
> http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/trip0000.htm
> Media, read what made me Scientology Public Enemy nbr. 46
> http://www.xenu.net/archive/thesis/cisar-home.html
>
>

Go Back