Re: Scientology 2/4

From: Keith Henson (
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 20:03:24 GMT

  • Next message: Lawrence DeBivort: "RE: Why memeoids?"

    Received: by id UAA04097 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 20:07:02 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
    Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:03:24 -0500
    From: Keith Henson <>
    Subject: Re: Scientology 2/4
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk

    > >Yes, certain vulnerable people will respond very positively to attention,
    > >matter where it comes from, but this doesn't mean they've lost all
    > >over their own beliefs.
    > I think there are such people. Some of them recently flew airliners into
    > the WTC. I cite Jim Jones' cult, the Heaven'g Gate cult, the Aum Cult,
    > the Solar Temple as just a few such cases. Any time you see people doing
    > seriously counter survival acts or neglecting their children for some
    > cause, their minds have been parasitized.

    Exactly. Rather than falling under the control of malevolent individuals,
    their minds have been parasitized by the same leaches feeding on the minds
    of their leaders.

    This varies from cult to cult. Sometimes the leaders are as screwed up as
    the followers. Scientology is like that, I deposed David Miscavige back in
    1998. In the middle of the deposition he broke into this rant about being
    buggered in public. The transcripts gets posted every 2 months or so on
    a.r.s. If you can't find it let me know.

    In other cases, the leaders are utterly cynical about their sheep like
    followers. I think Hubbard started out with nothing but contempt for his
    followers (you can see it in the abusive names he used such as "selling
    them a bridge). Later he was a victim of the guru trap and started
    believing he was infested with thousands of murdered space alien spirits.

    > >Does a wife-beater exert "mind-control" over his
    > >wife when he apologizes and showers her with attention and affection?
    > Yes.

    Consciously, the wife-beater believes he's somehow justified in his
    behavior. This delusion becomes collective when his wife acquiesces to it
    as well. A violent marriage is still a partnership. In many cases, the
    wife is easily capable of opting out but stays nonetheless. Unconsciously
    she craves receiving the abuse as much as he craves dishing it out. This
    may sound harsh, but it's preferable to viewing women as weak and helpless,
    childlike and enslaved. All humans are capable of self-liberation. We are
    free. We are responsible for our actions, even if we join a cult. We
    aren't children under the spell of a witch.

    While I think both may be caught in a dynamic psychological trap, I think
    interviewing a bunch of women at a shelter would give you a more realistic
    view of the business. Might I also suggest you might not want to express
    the above to those women?

    > >There's a difference between exerting charm and brainwashing.
    > Only in degree. We are, every one of us, involved in trying to mind
    > control the people around us. For example, both of us are trying to get
    > other people to think like us (adopt our memes) right here on this list.

    Charm and mind-control are precisely as different as reality and fiction.
    If persuasion counts as a kind of mind control, then the term is clearly

    I don't see why. Full blown mind control of the kind that flies into the
    WTC is at the extreme end of the spectrum. Me signing to buy that stupid
    bed is somewhere in the middle, and asking someone nicely to pass the salt
    is near the other end. Many things in life lie along lines like this.

    > >The idea of mind control is rendered superfluous by memetics.
    > I don't think so, though the "controller" may become a meme rather than
    > another person. "Mind control" is an imprecise notion, but what do you
    > what happened to Patty Hearst?

    If it's memetic, then why insist on calling it mind control? Control
    implies a controller. It personalizes what is actually an unconscious,
    memetically-driven process. Patty Hearst was responsible for her actions.
    She allowed herself to be seduced by the rebel meme.

    I don't think you have read that story. Patty made the '"choice" many of
    your and my ancestors made. Live or die. The ones who made the die choice
    are not our ancestors.

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 20:47:22 GMT