"To the people like me, former longterm dupes, the Affirmations are instantly recognized as legitimate."
Needless to say, I disagree.
But, hey, I was only 4-5 years in Scientology. Does this make of me a short term dupe or a long term dupe?
Short time, long time... Am in Thailand again. Pay me Cola?
Here is a claim that would be worth documenting:
"The Affirmations fully align with a LOT of Hubbard policies and ideas, and to the experienced long term dupe, they read like Hubbard, and follow so many of his principles in later years of writings."
I'll be curious to see that :-) In the mean time I think I'll sip my Colaaaa...
1 comment:
So that's what it boils down to: the opinions of "long-term dupes". This is so typical of the kind of "evidence" put forth by the anti-cult movement. I wrote about this on my new anti-cult controversies blog. The unspoken rule here is that the longer someone was in and the higher position they held, the more their assertions are swallowed whole and not questioned. If the testimony of two ex-members conflict, it is the one who was in the longest and had the highest position who gets believed. You and I, Bernie, are more like medium-term dupes (I was in for 5-6 years) and we just cannot compete in the anti-cult world with the stars who stuck it out for more than twice that time.
The other unspoken rule is that anyone who questions a former "long-term dupe" is just an unrecovered ex-cult member who needs years and years of specialized post-cult therapy, or so I've been told.
Post a Comment