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.
