The Positive "Cult Experience"

Some anti-cultists like to post a list of "post-cult syndromes", the weakness of which has been discussed by Monica Pignotti and Lema Nal.

However, why not post lists of strengths too? (Bearing the same limitation that these are not necessarily caused by cult membership).

I can see a few positive aspects.

I was interested to read recently that most high profile defectors have done rather well in re-integrating society, in spite of having spent 20-35 years in Scientology and having no formal high-level education. I have seen that with myself and my friends as well. I think it has to do partly with some of the useful things we learn while in such a group, but also because of the fact that (I believe) most "cult members" are bright people who join alternative groups because they see through the limits of society and are not satisfied with it. They are idealist-oriented people who seek something better.

The "cult experience" also provides one with a feeling of "having found what I was looking for", a feeling of engagement and belonging, of dedication for the common good, responsibility for the world we live in, etc... I think these are positive and somehow stay as inner qualities after one quits the group.

One also may experience states of heightened awareness. It gives them a taste of what true spiritual experiences might be. It is similar with drugs. In spite of the negative effects of drug, it can give one an idea of higher states of beings. Often, after getting rid of the negative influence of drugs, one will seek to experience the state back, but without the dependencies this time, and I think that's a good thing too.

Ethic - one's sense of ethic is strongly reinforced while in a cultic group. This may sounds strange and I will explain later, but this is in fact what happens. One becomes more aware of the consequences of wrong doing, of the energy balance in the universe and the reaction of one's own spiritual being to ego characteristics such as greed and cheating. After exiting the group, one may retain this sense of ethic, and I believe it makes for more honest and responsible citizens. Again, you could say that the sense of honesty was already present in the 'cult member' before, but I believe it is part of what makes him attracted to the group and that the group strenghten those qualities.

Now how come, if the above is true, that cultists are being cultic? Well, that's the irony of all cults, including anti-cult cults and political parties. They just do wrong in the belief that what they do is good! It's the whole dialectic of cultism and I am not going to go into that now.

Which brings me to the next positive aspect, not linked by one's belonging to a cult but, on the contrary, the process of going out. Going out from such an high level of personal involvement requires tremendous questioning and integrity to look. When you truly realize the limitations you have fallen into, which I refer to as the cultic mindset, then you can see it in other groups, and this may help you chose better next time around. By itself, it also is enlightening and one can learn a lot through this too. You realize the importance of never assuming, keeping yourself open to self-questioning (which makes you more humble, a spiritual quality), and the importance of free speech to avoid getting trapped in a closed group/cult mentality.

Of course, as I pointed out many times, not all ex-members learn from their exit in this way, and they on the contrary become involved in the very same mentality they were trapped while in the cult but on the other side, and doing really wrong things - all the while still believing they are doing good. This is just the next trap we need to learn, and once we can see that trap too, then, again, we really gain more positive insight, beneficial to our own evolution, and beneficial to society, because it makes for a less intolerant society, where individual members gain the courage to question the majority's assumptions and stand against mob mentality.

So, on the whole, I think the cult experience can be really positive too. It strengthen the good qualities in the individual and provide him with the taste of "something" our sclerotic society and religions usually are unable to provide. It further makes the person wiser as he exists the group, in that it makes him more aware of a variety of illusion one can fall into. Again, if the person is able to avoid or exit the anti-cult trap, it makes him/her more perceptive of yet more illusions.

These are a few positive things I can see, at first sight, about the "cult experience", and things that would be fitting for a positive list.

Response From an Anti-Scientologist

Typical reaction from anti-cultists (and cultists of all kinds) - jumping to conclusions that justify their agenda, lumping together, labeling those who disagree with their quickly-made opinion as "liars".

Anti-Cult Controversies: Response from an Anti-Scientologist

[...] Observe how Ms. Zell has already made up her mind what the truth is about Jett Travolta, thus I am a "liar" from her perspective. At the end of the day, I agree with Harvard Psychology Professor Richard McNally who wrote that the best form of advocacy is to discover the facts about an issue, rather than attempting to turn an "ought" into an "is" [...].

Ideology and Method

A quote that summarizes my own position towards Scientology critics.

Mr. and Mrs. Boring lose Google Street View tilt • The Register:

"We salute their ideology. But not their methods."

"

OSAOSAOSA

Truth Seeker is an excellent "critic" - alt.religion.scientology | Google Groups

"[...] New guy shows up to ask an innocent question. Everyone jumps on the poor sap: "We all see through your evil schemes, undercover OSA op!!!"

I'm reminded of some of the more fanatical Anonymous videos where innocent bystanders are accused of being undercover Scientologists. That takes some hardcore paranoia to video yourself hassling ordinary people only because they happen to be within a few blocks radius of a Scientology church.

A guy completely unrelated to any of it happens to walk by an Anonymous protest. What do the "moral" protesters do? They call the poor guy insulting names because they just ~know~ he is a secret OSA op trying to sneak a peak under their masks."

Beware of Symptom Lists

Anti-Cult Controversies: "Symptom Lists can be Powerful Things":

As one self-proclaimed cult expert's website states, "symptom lists can be powerful things". Indeed they can, although not in the sense that particular website author means it. Symptom checklists such as the one presented on that website are notorious for leading people into believing they have syndromes that lack good research support. A well-known example of this were the checklists published that supposedly indicated people had repressed memories of sexual abuse, which were laundry lists of symptoms that just about anybody could be experiencing for a variety of reasons. For example, people with weight problems were told that this meant they had repressed memories of sexual abuse, ignoring the many other reasons a person might have a weight problem. People who had such symptoms were then subjected to years and years of therapy that may have ended up doing them more harm than good.

Something similar is occurring with the alleged "post-cult syndrome" where a wide variety of symptoms that could have a number of possible causes are attributed to an ex-cult member's past cult experience. There is no solid evidence for such a "syndrome" and I would highly recommend that the therapy consumer beware of websites claiming such and posting lists of symptoms, repeatedly offering an icon for people to click on, claiming that help starts by contacting the therapist.

[...] The problem now is that people who are walking out of groups on their own and surfing the web could be influenced by the websites suggesting all these symptoms and I am concerned that these checklists could become self-fulfilling prophecies, just as the checklists for repressed memories of sexual abuse were for so many people in the 1990s.

The other possibility is that people could be actually experiencing those symptoms for reasons that have nothing to do with the cult experience.

[...] Also beware of people claiming their practice is "evidence-based" who then refer to studies that are published by organizations with a vested interest in the form of therapy, rather than an independent peer-reviewed journal (the blooming cottage industry of "e-therapy" appears to be doing this, hyping benefits that have yet to be independently established by researchers who have nothing to gain financially).

Positive Mind-Control?

AntiCultControversies : Message: Can Mind Control Be Good?:

In his website, Hassan states that mind control is not always bad (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/faq/#1 ):

""Mind control" techniques are not necessarily bad. Although I typically use the term "mind control" when describing unethical and abusive social influence, many of the techniques can be used ethically to promote positive spiritual and personal growth."

I think his statement that mind control techniques are not always bad is very confusing.

Then he goes on to say that spiritual practices can be ethical or unethical:

"For example, prayer can be used ethically or it can be used destructively as a tool of manipulation and coercion. Praying with a person aloud, and asking "God's blessing to help direct and guide him" (in an "open-ended" way) is just fine. Praying with a person, and asking God to "keep this person from making the mistake of leaving the group's workshop and returning to Satan's world" is unethical.

There may be some idea there. saying, for example, "You have to follow God's voice" would be OK. But saying in substance "You have to follow God's voice and I am that voice" would already be objectionable, even if we don't label it mind-control.

Meditation techniques can be used to build awareness and self control, or it can be used as a way of "thought-stopping"-undermining independent thinking and reality-testing. For example, if a person is having doubts and questions about a leader's behavior, and meditates to get rid of "negativity", it might stop the person from taking necessary action.

There are thousands of different "mind control" techniques which can be used for positive benefit. Some these techniques include: prayer, meditation, chants, singing songs, visualizations, affirmations, positive self-talk, breathing techniques, hypnosis, "speaking in tongues", ecstatic dancing, music."

So, as far as I understand, he considers all the spiritual practices to be mind-controlling, but sometimes this "mind control" is "ethical." I think it is another example of his stretching the term "mind control."

I agree. Why call it mind-control at all? It isn't really useful to understand the cult phenomenon, or at least it is questionable, and it isn't useful to understand spiritual practices. Not only Hassan stretches what he includes under cults and mind-control to the point it loses its meaning, if it ever had any, but to use it to designe something else in addition really just make it totally meaningless.

I think that between real freedom of mind (not Hassan's "freedom of mind") and mind control there is a big "gray zone." It is somewhat like in black and white television. Even though it was called "black and white," there were many gradations of the gray color there. The standard testing table for TV sets, used in the USSR and Russia, had 10 gradations. It means that a TV set was expected to display not only black and white, but also 8 shades of the gray color. Mind control is "black." Freedom of mind is "white." And there are many things between them.

Probably, Hassan considers that mind control and freedom of mind are the two alternatives. And probably, he includes the whole "gray zone" into "mind control." I do not think this is correct.

I think that what he means to say is that the same technique could be either beneficial or detrimental depending on the context. I would agree with that. I just don't see indeed why refer to both as "mind-control". It already is dubious a term when used in relation to cults, and it becomes even weaker when used to refer to any spiritual technique.

Or is there really something like "positive mind-control" vs. "negative mind-control"? Positive mind-control being me controling my mind, and negative mind-control being others controling it?

Un-Hypnosing Oneself

AntiCultControversies : Message: Re: Debunking Hypnosis Myths

[...] For a long time, I thought that the cult where I was involved, used hypnosis because the way how Hassan writes about hypnotic techniques in cults makes an impression that all the cults use hypnosis.

People in cults just believe things, for whatever reason. The above is an example, even if applied to the anti-cult cult.

[...] However, I could not understand why sermons in benign Christian churches are not hypnotic and how to find the difference between hypnotic sermons and non-hypnotic sermons.

That's where the cognitive dissonance kicks in, and people starts to question their belief.

If... then... why?...

Probably, the answer was very simple - in the cult where I was, there were no hypnotic methods used in sermons.

Occam razor - the more one questions, the more those who still cling to their belief have to resort to increasingly complicated and conspiracy-like theories. Until one gets back to the very simple explanation: it just wasn't true to start with. It was just a myth...

Probably, the most "mysterious" among spiritual practices used in Bible-based groups is speaking in tongues. Even though I have a personal experience of speaking in tongues, I cannot fully explain it
in the terms of psychology. I can just say that it is a special kind of prayer to God. By the way, my experience of speaking in tongues has nothing to do with the Bible-based cult where I was involved and I do not think it was mind-controlling.

What speaking in tongue does is to disconnect one with his usual thinking pattern. It's actually a good thing, used in context. It's a bit Zen-like, except Zen uses a softer technique: questions that have no answers, to try and achieve the same thing. It short-circuit our thinking pattern and makes room for something else to enter our cluttered mind.

I would not say that speaking in tongue is my kind of thing, but I experienced something similar in Osho meditations. There's dancing, then lecturing, then for a few minutes you just speak gibberish, after that there's a gong and absolute silence. The speaking gibberish does improve the silent meditation that follows, in that it disconnects the habitual thought- pattern. That's the idea... and I would agree with Lema Nal that it isn't "mind-control" in the anti-cult sense of the term. Nor is it "hypnosis". Even that extreme isn't mind-control...

Resistance to Indoctrination

AntiCultControversies : Message: RE: [AntiCultControversies] Re: Debunking Hypnosis Myths:

"Do they become indoctrinated? Recent evidence says no, college students are rarely influenced by theirprofessors to change their position on important issues. This is contrary to what was previously thought where accusations were being made that 'liberal' professors were converting conservative students."

You would be surprised at how resistant people are to indoctrination and their ability to retain critical thinking skill in the mid of heavy propaganda. That's what happened in the Soviet Union, and more particularly in its satellite countries. People basically knew that the TV propaganda and other propaganda outlet were basically bogus. They just feared speaking about it, that's all. There was a joke in Hungary back in Communist time that went like "There is only one Communist in the whole country - it's just that nobody know who it is...".

Meditation and Hypnosis

3rd party account on Steve Hassan's take on hypnosis. A lot of unwarranted assertions and amalgames from Hassan, but also a distinction between thought-stopping meditation and thought-stopping "mind-control".

AntiCultControversies : Message: Re: Debunking Hypnosis Myths

I did not have a lot of time to actually read Hassan's web site but when I checked it some years ago he seemed to already make a distinction between "real" spiritual approaches and "mind-control" ones.

Now I don't agree with the concept "mind-control" as such, but I think that to at least make this distinction is a positive point. Many anti-cultists just file meditation and other thought-stopping techniques as just brainwashing, mind-control or hypnosis:

"Practicing meditation to shut down thinking, chanting a phrase repetitively for hours, or reciting affirmations are all powerful ways to promote spiritual growth. But they can also be used unethically, as methods for mind control indoctrination."

"When you're in a trance and someone with an ulterior motive or hidden agenda tries to indoctrinate you, you're that much more susceptible. In this very special state of relaxation, messages can easily take root in your subconscious."

There may be some truth in that, which is why in Scientology auditing, great care is taken not to "evaluate" for the pre-clear. It does not mean that it amounts to hypnosis, it means that if you indeed are in a state of relaxation and trust, you may be more suggestible.

Note that deprogrammers are doing the exact contrary. They make loads and loads of "evaluations" and suggestions. Of course the kidnapped person may not be in state of "relaxation", but he may be in a state of shock, which would increase suggestibility as well.

Without necessarily using kidnapping, or any "trance" state for that matter, anti-cultists just make a lot of evaluations and suggestions - that the person is under mind-control, that he has been dupped, etc...

You don't really need to be in a special state for suggestions to work. It could just be done in a normal waking state.

I remember riding from San Diego to Los Angeles with Ted Patrick and he showed me on the way an "Exxon" gas station. He said: "You see that sign? That's suggestion". There's some truth in that. It's just as simple.

I also remember reading L. Ron Hubbard's definition of brainwashing (I believe it's in the tech dictionary). It said brainwashing is to bring the person to see the possibility of something being true, and then, through loads of evaluations and invalidations, force him to believe that it is.

This is exactly what deprogrammers do. They tell the person what to think and in the process use countless put-down to bring the person to doubt of himself and accept deprogrammers authority as true. Since there is some truth in the claim Scientology and other groups are "cults", when the person sees that truth, he swallows all the rest of the suggestions being made to him, and thus becomes basically indoctrinate in yet another us-vs-them viewpoint. He becomes a true anti-cultist.

It's all suggestion, but no need to use hypnosis to explain it.

Krishnamurti also has a take on that. To some people telling him that being quiet and still and without thought could make the person open to suggestions or other attacks, he said something like "precisely, which is why you also need to be vigilant". Krishnamurti advises people to be still and vigilant, not simply being still, but at the same time being awake, aware... in such a state you'll just catch up any suggestions as they happen, and just the awareness of them would make you free of their power on you.

"4. Thought-stopping techniques (to shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts); rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism."

Again, this is a mis-conception. The whole idea of being without thought is to be rid of prejudices and fixed idea. Being still and awake, allows you to "see" whatever argument for what it is. Quite on the contrary, it is true critical thinking.

This being said, it may be true that some groups use this concept to get people to avoid looking at all, by tagging any criticism and questioning as something negative or of the devil. It's a misconception too, a corruption of the original meaning. While anti-cultists are right to point this out, they are wrong to make, on this basis, assumptions and assertions that aren't true either, as above. Both sides basically share the same misconception, though in different ways.

However, it again has little to do with hypnosis. It's just what human people tend to do. One of the many illusions one can fall into.

"Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking"

Cultish characteristics, shared by cultists and anti-cultists alike. Just read any "critical" forum and the reaction of most anti-cultists to dissenters to see how it works.

In my opinion, Hassan's concept of hypnosis is too stretched. In addition, he writes that most cults use hypnosis. I wonder whether cults use hypnosis at all and how often. It seems that this is one more point of misunderstanding caused by Hassan's mind control theory.

The point is that you do not need to use hypnosis at all to explain what happens in cultic groups. Quite on the contrary, it just muddles the water, and uses loaded concepts based on fear. I don't think any group uses hypnosis as such, and even the mere concept of "hypnosis" and "trance" has been questioned.

The irony is that "hypnosis" is itself a suggestion! In that, it joins together with "mind-control", brainwashing", and "subliminal influence", as I wrote on my subliminal influence page:

"What is the difference between subliminal persuation, mind-control and brainwashing? Basically, nothing. They all three are a way of saying that there exist some kind of magical process able to influence other people’s mind against their will, and they all three have been used to instill irrational fear and prejudice towards unpopular groups. Even though evidence to support any of these three myths have been quite thoroughly debunked, they keep having a potent effect in the mind of an uninformed public who tend to believe such a magical process exists, works, and is being used against unsuspecting victims."

Debunking Hypnosis Myths

Anti-Cult Controversies: Debunking Hypnosis Myths

However, instead of looking at current data, Lerma chooses to refer to an outdated 1956 handbook by a science fiction writer, A E Van Vogt that makes all kinds of arbitrary, unsupported assertions, stating them as if they were facts that Lerma appears to uncritically swallow whole. Sounds like someone needs to come up to present time and look at current research. [...]

In fact, what the much more recent actual research (as opposed to the proclamations of a sci fi writer) have shown is that people respond just as well to suggestions outside of hypnosis as they do under hypnosis. Of course, one trick of the pseudoscientists is to expand the definition of hypnosis so it includes just about everything in life, to it can then be invoked any time they want to show someone was under undue influence of hypnosis.

Although I never brought into some of the more extreme versions Lerma appears to buy into, I once bought into the theory that people are put into a "trance" state during Scientology's TR-0 that makes them more suggestible to whatever else goes on. This was before I became aware of the large body of literature on hypnosis that thankfully, one of the researchers on hypnosis cited in the Scientific American Article, Steven Jay Lynn, made me aware of. I had the opportunity to have a chat with Lynn on this topic and I later read, wrote and published a review of his excellent book on the empirical evidence on hypnosis, entitled Essentials of Clinical Hypnosis: An Evidence-Based Approach. I highly recommend people read this book, along with the Scientific American article to get a more accurate picture of what hypnosis can do and not do.

Sanctified Snake Oil and Anti-Cultism

AntiCultControversies : Message: Sanctified Snake Oil and Anti-Cultism:

"There is an article (and also a book by the same title) by Susan Sarnoff entitled Sanctified Snake Oil that is about what can happen when advocates of various causes get carried away and distort things to fit a cause. Sarnoff makes no mention of cults or anti-cultism, but what she wrote seems to fit some of what I see going on in some circles. I posted the article in the Files section of this list serv if anyone is interested in reading the full article. Here is how Sarnoff describes the “Snake Oil Paradigm”:

****begin quote (Sarnoff, Sanctified Snake Oil, p. 397, 1999, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services)

THE SNAKE OIL PARADIGM

1. Frame the subject so that it cannot be opposed.

2. Once the issue is defined, stretch the concept as broadly as possible in order to:
a.) Increase the size of the “target” group;
b.) Make the problem appear to be universal;
c.) Make the problem appear to be of crisis proportions.

3. Consider anyone who resists identification with the target group to be “in denial,” in order to:
a.) Define all “sufferers” as in need of “treatment;”
b.) Make treatment seem more effective because many of the treated will not suffer from the problem or will have a mild, easily treatable degree of the problem, and non-improvement can be blamed on denial.

4. Identify “poster children” who “suffer” from the problem but are appealing to the public (e.g., completely innocent and in no way responsible for their circumstances).

5. Use anecdotal evidence (preferably about “poster children”) and single, dramatic cases to publicize the problem.

6. Use biased or “cooked” data — if forced to present any statistical proof of the problem.

7. Confuse goals and processes.

8. Confuse satisfaction with effectiveness.

9. Ignore unintended consequences and never admit that they might emanate from the “solution.”

10. If criticized for any of the above, attack the opponents instead of their positions.

THE SANCTIFICATION PARADIGM

MEDIA

1. Write “human interest” stories on single, extreme cases, suggesting that they are “typical” of the problem.

2. Publish statistics without consulting source data or confirming accuracy.

3. Oversimplify complex issues and policies.

4. Publish the results of research studies without discussing the methodology of the research (e.g., samples, controls).

5. “Bury” corrections and retractions in back pages and small print.

End quote********

Sound familiar, anyone?

Monica

Steve Hassan's Upper Levels

This is a comment I posted on Lema Nal blog, as he clarifies Steve Hassan's theory about the supposed "cult identities" people under "mind-control" are supposed to develop in "cults".

Hassan's theory is similar to that the OT III Upper Level in Scientology and, IMO, is about as ridiculous.

Blog of Lema Nal: Post-Cult After Effects: Floating:

"Quote: 'However, he writes that his approach is that the 'cult identity' should be split into 'sub identities.' Then, some of these identities should be integrated into the real identity, and some put away. The result of this process is 'post-cult identity' which is, according to Hassan, is different from 'pre-cult identity.''

LOL - this sounds like Scientology, a 'thetan' with many 'body thetans', and one needs to get rid of his body thetans who influence the main thetan unconsciously...

Now, presumably, being part of a jogging club, would also create a 'jogging club identity' and, who knows, maybe 'jogging club sub-identities'... Not speaking of a 'pre-jogging club identity' and, if I ever decided to quit, a 'post-jogging club identity'...

God knows how many of these identities, sub-, pre- and post- identities we carry around.

I think I'll go to a Church of Scientology to get rid of them. May even cost me less than $100 per 30 minutes... ;-)"

Critical View of Steven Hassan and His Counseling

Interesting criticism of Hassan's approach.

Main points:

1. Focuses on results rather than information
2. Insists on special counseling from "cult experts"
3. High fees
4. Recovery presented as endless
5. BITE mind-control model confuses mind control with normal spiritual experience
6. Cult-like behavior in his own forum

Blog of Lema Nal: Steven Hassan and His Counseling

Steve Hassan Supports Magoo's Lies

Monica Pignotti, MSW: Inaccurate statements by Steve Hassan to CNN:"Hassan went on to say: "I have a friend, Tory Chrisman (ph), who was a member for 30 years and was OT-7, which is one of the highest levels, which John Travolta is OT-7, as well, who had -- has epilepsy and continually had seizures during her membership and kept appealing for help. And they kept giving her more and more auditing. And finally, she just went on medication and said, "Screw it," and eventually left the group. "

Monica Pignotti posts on her blog about a transcript from CNN in which Hassan, among other things, forwards Tory Christman's demonstrably false claims about her seizures.

Monica also mentions the fact that "Hassan also offers "reasonably priced" counseling at $100 for a half-hour phone session as well as other options that include people traveling to Boston to do "intense, deep work" with him for 6-8 hours per day for a period of a 3-4 days which he claims (without empirical basis) is the fastest most effective way to recover"

At this rate, Hassan may even be more expensive than Scientology who, like him, claims that psychologists are incompetent compared to their own method. By all means, that's twice what my lawyer charges, and he at least provides me with useful legal advices, not quack pop psychology based on the long debunked myth of "mind-control".

The Deprogramming Manual

The other day I was looking at this video, which I commented otherwise on Nov. 30. Apart from the sheer harassment factor, something else caught my attention.

In response to Anonymous' attack (frankly distasteful and ugly, it remains to be said nevertheless), the Scientologists accused them, with all apparent seriousness, to be associated with deprogrammers who horribly torture their victim.

And I thought to myself: "What? They still believe that?"

When I was in the CoS (and that's nearly 30 years ago now), I was also given to read horror stories, mostly based on the "Deprogramming manual", supposedly written by Ted Patrick, but in reality almost for sure a forgery by the CoS itself. I found it horrible that this kind of crime would still be allowed to go unpunished in our modern society. It is only when I got to read the actual Ted Patrick book, "Let Our Children Go", that I realized I had been lied by the CoS regarding forcible deprogramming.

Don't get me wrong. I still think forcible deprogramming is a terrible crime that should not go unpunished. But, compared to what the "Deprogramming Manual" depicts, it almost is child play.

And there I see Scientologists, 30 years later, who still believe this is what forcible deprogramming is, and who still think critics are criminals who indulge in it... Incredible...

They can't be more wrong. First, what the deprogramming manual describes is extremely exagerated, to the point it has little to do with it anymore. Second, forcible deprogramming itself has almost entirely dissapeared and is almost not practiced anymore. Third, not all anti-cultists supported it at the time, see Nan McLean, for example. Even less now. Fourth, not all critics are anti-cultists.

But, apparently, this seems to be what at least some Scientologists still believe. And you know what? Anonymous coming up with their frightening masks and gross slogans, harassing Scientologists and taunting them with Xenu, are playng right into the CoS' propaganda. It confirms to them that critics are indeed evil people associated with evil deprogrammers.

Tom Cruise: Human or Not?

From http://voices.washingtonpost.com :

We all know Scientology has made Tom Cruise a little weird (couch jumping, etc.), but who'd have thought that his crazy-eyed devotion to the belief system founded by sci-fi writer L. Ron Hubbard could lead to deep psychosis? According to some sources, the group's techniques include activities that increasingly cut adherents off from reality. This could be Tom's biggest role ever.

The author lists a series of wild behaviors on the part of different celebrities, but attributes Tom Cruise's excesses to Scientology. What about the other celebrities it reports about? And what proof does he have that it is linked to Scientology at all other than possibly being just a celebrity symptom? Not even that, it could be questioned whether jumping on a couch out of enthusiasm for having found one's true love is that crazy after all.

On top of this, the author also has to bring in the myth of Scientology creating psychosis.

Fail is fail, and bad journalism is what it is - but then it also is the reflection of a popular opinion artificially promoted by critics in guise of Scientology "criticism".

Note that in a typical double bind, the fact that Cruise is now acting "normal" and even apologizing for his past excess and for trying to push Scientology on to the public, is also, ironically, the sign of the evil of the CoS according to some critics.

Indeed, in this article, Jean-Luc Barbier writes (in French):

Pour un scientologue dire qu'il a eu tort ne signifie rien. C'est une technique pour que l'autre au final accepte votre point de vue de scientologue.

In other words, he claims that Cruise's apology is only an evil Scientology technique of the ever evil Church of Scientology to manipulate people.

It not only is a double bind, as in the case I reported here already, it also is a denial of right. Indeed, Jean-Luc Barbier does not simply say that he personally feels that Cruise apologies are not sincere, he is saying litterally "For a Scientologist, to say that he was wrong does not mean anything".

Scientology is made SO evil that the mere fact of belonging to such a group removes any right "normal" people enjoy.

This reminds me of the argument of Ted Patrick, saying that since cult members are "brainwashed", for them to claim that they joined voluntarily, and for them to protest being abducted and forcibly deprogrammed, does not mean anything. It is not a human right violation, since being brainwashed has removed his humanity and have made of him a robot.

In effect, Jean-Luc Barbier does the same thing. He denies the possibility of Cruise being just a human being like you and me, who maybe does make mistake sometimes.

Jumping on a couch or apologizing has little to do with Scientology at all, but more simply with being a human being.

Falun Gong, Forcible Deprogramming, and China

Quite a long time ago (I believe it was 2001), I wrote a page about the Chinese government apparently being in bed with forcible deprogrammers to adopt/adapt their method to their own brand of indoctrination.

Now I receive the following e-mail:

I enjoyed your website and I have noted some of the same issues regarding the Chinese cooperation with "international anti-cult networks". Besides the wholesale adoption of the ACM material by the Chinese, I am perplexed by the new reeducation system being so dramatically different from the Chinese norm of reeducation camps. Do you know of specific instances of ACM consulting for the Chinese government? Or other consulting by westerners?

I did not follow the issue since then, and nothing came up at my conscious level during all this time. If anybody has information on that subject, kindly post it here.

PS - I also blogged recently about a similar instance I came about regarding Saudi Arabia. However, in that particular case, the participants still have what seems to be a reasonable level of choice as to whether they want to engage in such discussion or not. That makes the whole difference, and in fact, in such a context, I do think the approach is a good idea. It of course would definitely be a bad idea and a gross human right abuse if it was imposed through force, as seemed to be the case in China when I created the page seven years ago.

A First Look at Stephen Kent's Narcissistic Rage Paper

Thomas Gandow posted on ARS today a possibly new paper from Professor Stephen Kent (PDF format, dated Jan 2008 thus not that new in fact).

This one, contrary to Jacobsen's paper just referred to in the preceding post, is not a "scholarly-sounding" paper. It is an actual scholarly one.

As with the previous Scientology-related papers, Kent seems to just want to "get at" the Church of Scientology, for reasons best known to him, if that's even the case.

This particular paper is entitled: "Malignant Narcissim, L. Ron Hubbard, and Scientology's Policies of Narcissistic Rage".

As usual, rather than actual field study and experimentation, he takes his information from popular critical information available through the Internet and anti-cult organizations.

Kent's papers usually get debunked at a later stage by reputable scholars engaging in a more in-depth analysis, supported by a broader field study that involve more than the unilateral viewpoints of critics and ex-members, as was the case for his study on the RPF.

In the present case, though, I doubt they will even bother.

First, through repeated challenges to his analysis and papers, Stephen Kent's credibility has suffered quite a few blows.

Second, the present paper is particularly ridiculous, because Kent basically says nothing else than the fact religious and Messianic zeal, and its corollary, intolerance to criticism, is a form of mental deficiency which he refers to as "malignant narcissism".

To "prove" his point, Kent launches in an extensive recitation of the same-old accusations made by critics towards the CoS: the Guardian Office operations, Paulette Cooper's harassment, and even R2-45.

The whole article seems like just an excuse to bring all this recitation up in a scholarly paper, and Kent makes sure at every stage to make the link with these and his claim that Hubbard suffered from the affliction he promptly identified miles away in space and time, and that supposedly translates itself in the equally meaningless term of "malignant rage".

The link he does, however, is nothing more than a simple statement:

"Tactics such as these, involving public humiliation and character assassination, reflected Hubbard’s narcissistic rage."

"Scientology’s campaign, which was a prolonged and aggressive response to Cooper’s publications and legal action, demonstrates the extent of Hubbard’s “narcissistic rage” and “need for revenge."

"‘Auditing Process R2-45’ dramatically demonstrates the manifestation of Hubbard’s malignant narcissism and, more specifically, his narcissistic rage. "

Frankly, not the best of Kent's paper, and one that will probably be simply ignored by his scholars peers, so ridiculous the arguments made that they are almost self-evident.

Not that Kent will care very much, since his aim seems to bring the bulk of such accusation in a scholarly paper, that will be extensively circulated around through the Internet by anti-Scientologists - just as his paper on the RPF is being circulated, and the papers debunking it ignored.

Same-Old Same-Old

There is a conventional separation in the academic study of religion between the anti-cult movement and the counter-cult movement.

The anti-cult movement qualifies what they call "cult" through certain behavior, to the point they have been accused of "medicalizing" religious beliefs.

The counter-cult movement mostly sees as "cults" those new religious movement that depart from key religious beliefs of their own, namely, that JC died on the cross for our sins.

The anti-cult and counter-cult movement are natural allies against so-called cults, though at times things haven't been so rosy. This was for example the case when Conway and Siegelman started to adapt their "Snapping" paradigm to religious fundamentalists in their follow up book, entitled "Holy Terror: The Fundamentalist War on America's Freedoms in Religion, Politics, and Our Private Lives".

While the anti-cult movement can be a danger to society when the natural outcome of its "mind-control" theory is not tamed, it at least points to a concrete phenomenon best described, in my opinion, by the word "indoctrination".

The counter-cult movement, OTOH, offers no such rationale, other than the fact it "identifies" all the "false prophets" who dare to depart from the sacro-saint miracle of the Good News of JC's advent and who supposedly seek to deceive the elects away from salvation.

That this, by itself, is itself cultish should be obvious for reasonable onlookers, and I must say I fully agree with Monica Pignotti's recent blog post about it.

Not surprisingly, her position gets mis-characterized as "hating Christians", just as anti-cultists call "cult apologists" those who question their absolute certainties, just as the CoS refers as "SPs" those who dare challenge Scientology's grandiose proclaiments, just as fanatical right-wing activists accuse those objecting to a senseless war based on lies as "anti-patriotic".

Same-Old Same-Old.

Truth Cultists

Theory cults, left and right

"The plain truth will never mollify a Truther. There's always a convoluted excuse - some inconsequential discrepancy to seize on, some photographic "evidence" to magnify into a blur of meaningless pixels - that will rationalize irrationality. Mrs. Palin could produce Trig's umbilical cord and it still wouldn't be enough. "

Michelle Malkin, the author of an excellent article in the Washington Times, refers to the myth of Sarah Palin not giving birth to her youngest son, Trig.

Malkin states above that "Truth cultists", which she calls "Truther", will never give in. They will find a way to rationalize the irrational, even when presented with incontrovertible evidences.

(We pointed out something similar just a few days ago, when we stated that contrary to more rigorous environment where the burden of proof is considerable, Internet myths can have a long live.)

"It's only a matter of time before someone accuses Mrs. Palin of planting fake breast milk on her pump," Malkin writes.

To balance things out, she uses the "Obama is not a natural born citiizen" myth to give an account of same but from the Republican side.

This reminds me of the more than tasteless "Scientology Murdered Moxon's Daughter" myth, where anti-cultists tried to turn in a somber conspiracy theory what is in fact a horrendous tragedy of a sensitive girl wanting to save squirrels from a transformer vault.

I remember reading fantastic tales from anti-Scientologists in order to make this tragic death fit in the "Scientology deaths" page (where it still is), even though there is really no causality.

It was one of the myths in which Keith Henson believed, even though there was not a shred of evidence, and with which he harassed Scientologists for months until he was convicted and jailed for hate crime.

Not to forget of course our loving and tender Anonymous friend, who blantly claims that "Moxon's daughter Stacy got fried in some electric wires, and he didn't give a shit".

Truth cultists indeed...