In article <1116998595.421772.87830@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, hobbitfan111@yahoo.com says...

> > > > > Does that mean that you don't think obeying the laws of the land and
> > > > > acting in a civilized manner would be a good thing for
> > > > > ex-Scientologists to try?
> > > >
> > > > ??
> > > >
> > > > Haven't said anything like that.
> > > >
> > > > Classic "do you still beat yer wife" approach...
> > >
> > > Not at all. I'm trying to encourage good behavior.
> >
> > Please define 'good'
>
> Treating other people in a way that will help them.

Good start. Let's see how you define 'help'

> For instance if
> you think being a Scientologist is harmful then I would suggest that
> good behavior might be to reason with people in Scientology, treat them
> with kindness and respect as fellow human beings, and hope that you
> might have some influence on them.

This not only *would* be pointless, but is pointless. Not only for the Cult of Scientology, but for practically any cult, including your own, where the indoctrination includes regimented 'handling methods' to deal with the 'kindness of strangers'. (who are 'outsiders')

That's not to say that being kind isn't a good idea, but that kindness in the hopes of 'unindoctrinating' the indoctrinated is. All cults prepare their victims against such 'reasonableness'. Scientology even declares it an 'ethics violation' for its victims to be 'reasonable'.

Cult indoctrination *specifically* takes advantage of 'wog' (or other 'outsider') 'kindness' and 'reasonableness', and goes so far as to sneer at it as a prime example of 'why' the cult is more 'powerful'.

Scientology (to be particular; although I don't doubt that the same 'methods' exist for the Moonies or others) deliberately takes advantage of societal 'etiquette', politeness and 'norms'; just as it deliberately exploits every aspect of the 'enemy' civilization' it intends to overpower.

30 years of experience with various cult victims has taught me a number of things, but none more important than that the cult victim *glorifies* his victimology, and will never hesitate to find an 'attack' where there is merely a failure to 'comply'.

The solution to cults is to expose, eradicate and demolish the organization; not 'save' the victims. Scientologists, and other cultists, do *not* leave because they have been convinced by superior arguments, debate or even kindness, but because their own internal conflicts with their cult reach the point where they escape. Certainly kindness helps *there*; since one of the essential elements of indoctrination is to convince the victim that he has no other option but continued slavery.

However; kindness is not allowing the cultist to define the 'terms' of the communication; since that is *inevitably* the 'communication' desired by the cult itself. > Not good behavior might include
> insults to their intelligence or mental state,

Frank, open and honest explainations of the non-cultist's perception of the cultist's 'mental state' are essential; even if they are perceived as 'insulting'. Reality is the real world view of the cult and cultists, not what the cultists would like to hear. But, still, 'salvaging' the cultist cannot be the point. The point is not to 'save' the cultist from the cult, but to take the cultist's cult away from him. After that, it's likely that the cultist will 'save' himself.

> gossip, and that kind of
> thing; especially if your reason for doing so was revenge or a kind of
> sadistic pleasure in hurting other people. I am only making these
> comments because of some of the behavior I witness here and elsewhere
> on Usenet.

There's little question that some people develop antipathies to the cult that become 'personal' antipathies towards the most obnoxious of the cult 'warriors'.

This is understandable, I suppose, but it's contra-indicated, and exactly what the cultist wants, since it's easily exploited to show 'hatred' and personal animosity. It's all in the game plan for the cult.

For example, I could *easily* develop a personal animosity towards you, since you are one of the most consistently intellectually dishonest people I've had the pleasure of conversing with. But, that would be playing your game on your field :)

And, it's not even really *your* game. You poor sap :)

Zinj

Go Back