Re: Scientology 1/2

From: Dace (
Date: Sun Jan 20 2002 - 23:09:35 GMT

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "Re: A Confusing Example"

    Received: by id XAA10752 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:12:51 GMT
    Message-ID: <013301c1a207$8820b440$b186b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: Re: Scientology 1/2
    Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:09:35 -0800
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0130_01C1A1C4.791A1920"
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


    > > It takes two to tango. It's not as if there's an evil cult gobbling up
    > > innocent victims.

    > Well, actually, there *is* an evil cult gobbling up victims, innocent and
    > non alike.

    It's not so much that the cult gobbles up victims but that the new recruits, for whatever unconscious reason, voluntarily submit themselves to the evil. No one is enslaved by the cult. None of the members of the cult can be considered innocent. Even those born into it are no longer innocent once they reach adulthood. There's no such thing as brainwashing. Each of us is an agent in our own deception.

    > And if this does not concern you from the damage done to people
    > and their families, consider if from the standpoint of supporting these
    > people on the dole when they get old and are "offloaded" by the cult.

    Of course it concerns me. The question is how to oppose it effectively. If you engage in the same kind of tactics to oppose the cult that the cult utilized against you, you're just going to get yourself in trouble. Keep in mind that what you're opposing is a collective form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Clinical narcissists are notorious for driving to people nuts. When the otherwise sane person goes ballistic against the insufferable narcissist, the narcissist can turn around and say, "Look, this guy is crazy. Somebody protect me from this madman." General opinion then turns against you.

    > > Those who do the training aren't so much controlling the minds of the
    > > new recruits as unconsciously passing on the toxic memes already
    > > established in their own minds.

    > I am sorry, but I don't really see the difference you do between being
    > controlled by a meme and being controlled by other people (who are
    > generally controlled by a meme or memes).

    The difference is that in the first case you're dealing with impersonal evil. We prefer making it personal so that we can vent our anger against an individual. Like when you bit the arm of that guy who was trying to enforce a restraining order against you. Sometimes we need to express our rage, but you can't bite impersonal, memetically-driven evil.

    > 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.

    Hubbard may have been cynical in some ways, but the core delusion-- that he was the savior of humanity-- was in place long before Dianetics and Scientology. He conceived the delusion, and then it took on its own life in the form of the organization. This self-perpetuating delusion no longer needs the person who gave birth to it. The umbilical cord has long since been cut. As long as the money keeps circulating through its veins, the autodelusion lives on.


    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 : Sun Jan 20 2002 - 23:32:50 GMT