What's new

CULT SOS !!!

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around
They've been in Australia since 1950 and they have a whole whopping bloody 2163 members, downtrending from 2507 in 2006.

Indeed, it is very worthwhile to point out that in a nation where Scientology was explicitly outlawed by statute in the past, they still exist. "Let's just outlaw Scientology" is a strategy tried and abandoned in the past, so people who advocate that in this age should be viewed warily as ignorant of what they are trying to destroy.

The point is to minimize new members and assist those already struggling with the question of continued affiliation, and never to try to wipe it out. Trying to "wipe it out" as the aim merely encourages extremists to persist in rhetoric and methods that are ill-considered and largely self-gratifying. Furthermore, this approach reinforces the core membership of Scientology in refusing to abandon the church, if for no more reason than spite and grudge against extremist anti-Scientologists they have endured the spew of for so many years. "Won't give them the satisfaction" of seeing them quite, essentially. Resentment is a frequent motive for irrational behavior, such as persisting as a core member of Scientology long after a rational motive for it has gone.

Resentment is also a frequent motive for irrational behavior such as using rhetoric and tactics that merely harden an opponent's resolve to remain affiliated with something they might otherwise abandon. The example of Australia is proof of that, as Purple Rain helpfully directs attention to.
 

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around
...

Take a brief moment to consider of how an unsuspecting wog might view these hyper-laundered testimonials. Then compare that meticulously sanitized shore story to the actual reality of Scientology's roaring, behind-the-curtain inferno of human rights abuses, crush regging, bankruptcies, declares, kidnappings, imprisonment, beatings, disconnections, lies, fraud, shattered dreams, black ops and fair gaming.

The cult works with such feverish sociopathy to make the nightmare of Scientology appear ever-so-normal to trusting wogs. . .


An even broader sweeping comparison is apt. Consider how many loyal Catholics did NOT join in protests when other Catholics were very publicly roasting the RCC for systematically protecting priests who are serial pederasts. Instead many loyal Catholics criticized protesters for their anti-church activity, despite the glaringly obvious need of reform. And consider that the RCC's ongoing missionary outreach is still making new members and also marginal or lapsed Catholics move closer to core Catholics in loyalty despite massive exposure of the "let's butt-sex little boys" facts.

People joining and following a religion have been doing so in the face of unsavory facts more or less throughout history. One must carefully sort out one's own reasons for detesting some religious group from the state of mind of a potential newcomer or core adherent of the religious group in question. If we don't know what is actually happening in those successful phone calls that actually happen and result in a joiner, we don't know if our criticism is well aimed or not concerning the area we should most want to win in - the potential joiner sitting on the fence about joining or not.

The extremely soft approach on the phone and in person when dealing with a newcomer who is to be treated as "confused" about Scientology if they have negative views of it is another winning tactic that has been relied upon over the decades. In the 1970s an imaginary Google search "Scientology is . . . " would like have answers such as:

- "Scientology is Satanic",
- "Scientology is a cult", and
- "Scientology is a marketing scam disguised as a religion",

all extremely au currant answers to the basic question "What have you heard about Scientology?" Strongly negative views of Scientology are nothing new - they are decades old. Any of these answers would receive a very patient and tolerant "handling" for being said, even said repeatedly and with conviction, both then and now. The human touch matters, as does temperate language.

I recall with great dismay seeing the 1980s be a growth era for Scientology even though former members were being noisily open about good reasons for not joining this "criminal cult". They packed fresh joiners into hotel meeting halls (which they rented and controlled of course as the safe space they needed to communicate from), which is neutral territory that didn't require anyone to step into a strange and unfamiliar "org" or "mission", and they got scads of people to try Book One Dianetics or such. They grew in numbers even as long term loyalists were dropping the church in droves.

People respond well to a patient and persistent effort to address their negative perceptions. It is a Scientology staple to "handle negative perception" as the first step in recruiting, and it is easy to come across over the phone as a patient and reasonably deliberating sort of person. Speak normally, in both manner and choice of words, and you ARE normal.

How do RCC members in the same family who have stridently different perceptions of the RCC protecting sexual predator priests deal with each other? Either unsuccessfully, or with patience and a willingness to listen and deliberate very civilly if they want to be successful with each other. Same deal here with Scientology. It is that demeanor in private conversation that controls so much.



 

Innominate Dude

No Longer Around
Can you prove the cult will be around for decades, or is that just smug, self-approving arrogance? Or did you mean it will be around for decades, as you announced decades ago?

I can only extrapolate from history and make educated guesses.

Historically, Google "Miller great disappointment" and then search about on the web a bit to find that the Seventh Day Adventist church is going strong to this day despite the last reason for anyone to believe in the Millerite vision vanishing, it seemed. It even has long had a parochial school system similar to the Catholic system, long before the upsurge in religious schools of more recent decades. It has been shedding children who leave the slightly cultish group at a heavy rate despite all that effort put upon cradle-to-adulthood indoctrination, but still grows. Many people don't even recognize who the SDA are, but they are going strong, despite most other Christian denominations regarding them as cultish all the while and wishing they'd go away.

That's one example of something that looks like its on its last gasp of breath enduring a hell of a long time because a small core of believers needed it to.

Consider a raggedy ass bunch of believers in a nearly dying bizarre sect of Judism who were so ineffectual and few that a guy named Saul of Tarsis could go around harassing them at will. Anything they had been promised about glorious events that would justify faith was a fizzle, there was just a rumor of its great leader actually showing up naked on a beach sometime after he was supposed to be dead, but nothing else to speak of why he could ever be important emerged. Why should it be expected to endure? But Saul decided to tell people he'd met the Exhibitionist Zombie Himself, became the Apostle Paul, and you can't get rid of those irrational bastards if you live in the Western world these days. Even mighty Soviet Russia had its durge sung over it by Orthodox Christian priests it used to harass. Someone needed it to survive, and starting from few such needy people it thrived and is dominant over much of the world today.

That's another example of something that was damn near stamped out but endured a hell of a long time.

I could cite historical example one after the other.

To understand why a religion endures you must understand why its most loyal adherents will endure hardship and disappointment repeatedly without abandoning it. That task was anathema to even discuss on a.r.s., a matter of derision for anyone to take seriously on the clambake site, and isn't really all that welcome here either. Dialogue is dominated by those who wish to mock and see the falling away of less committed adherents as proof that their derision and mockery is thoughtful enough to be adequate. For a group full of people who once were insiders, it is almost like willful ignorance is the rule now.

Is there ANYONE, I ask rhetorically, genuinely interested in why The Beast doesn't die easily?

You have to understand the core adherents to understand the longevity of a religion, and why they need to believe in it.

My educated guess is that the Church of Scientology limps along in this world, at least in the U.S., even on the day I am passing from it. The only realistic ambition is to contain it to is irreducible die hard core.
 

Wants2Talk

Silver Meritorious Patron
Mormotology - a new YouTube tactic positioning scientology as on-par with Morman.:omg:[video=youtube;4DpOQDu0G_Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DpOQDu0G_Q[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFFHjlh8LJA
[video=youtube;rx2pMd-CXOU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx2pMd-CXOU[/video]
 
Last edited:

Knows

Gold Meritorious Patron
You Tube actually posts the most watched videos so $cientology can't buy their way to the top like Google! :happydance::happydance::happydance:
 
Top