|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : Inside Out
Undue Influence | from Jules - Saturday, March 20, 2004
accessed 2924 times One of the reoccurring topics on this web site is the issue of responsibility and blame. Participants on opposite ends of the spectrum regarding their opinions of The Family have said that other people should “stop the whining” and “quit blaming the Family”. Since exploring the impact of being raised in the Family is, for me, one of the primary reasons for this web site, I’ve been doing some thinking about why this issue keeps coming up. One thing that I dislike a great deal about my own use of language is the distinctive grammar and punctuation that bears a great deal of resemblance to the Family’s publications. I over use quotation marks, put whole sentences in brackets, put commas before “and”, and use run-on sentences all the time. Look at anything I have written and you can clearly see these grammatical errors. It annoys the hell out of me because I know I am doing it when I do it, I know it’s incorrect and I know where it came from, but I still can’t help myself. I find it difficult to express myself without this incorrect punctuation.
Besides the grammar, there is a distinct style that I use for the content of what I write that is also recognizable from Family publications. Good writing should start with a clear premise, clearly explain the reasons for reaching that premise (with opposing arguments when needed), and then summarize the conclusion. Even though I know this, I usually have a difficult time starting with my point. I have to build up to it, and yes I know I am doing this right now. I also tend to use a lot of emotionally charged words like “must” and “will” and even a lot of rhetoric at times. Again, I know I am doing this, but find it very difficult to write comfortably without doing so.
From what I understand of Noam Chomsky’s theories of linguistics, he put out that grammar and syntax is an intuitive and subconscious process that we use in communication without being aware of how or why. A native speaker of a certain language or dialect has an innate grasp of the syntax of their language that someone who learns the language as an adult will never have. Having been raised in the Family, I am a native speaker of Family dialect. I can rattle off the unique phrases, acronyms and terminology that most people do not understand at all. One reason why there have been so few people posing as former members on this web site who actually are not, although this is a public site, is because the average person has no clue what the hell we are talking about.
When I left the Family I did actually make quite an effort to change my vocabulary. I read books with a dictionary in hand and looked up words I didn’t understand. I tried to catch myself whenever I used or thought a “Family term”, and used a thesaurus to look up other words that I could use instead. The reason for this is that I think being aware of what I was saying and why was the first step in changing it. Obviously I still have some ways to go, but I can, with some effort, (and I try to do this if I am writing formally or creating technical documentation, etc.) write in a manner that is not so strangely “Family”.
Growing up in the Family, language was not the only thing that I absorbed through osmosis. Every culture has distinct values and behaviors particular to the people within it. Having spent much of my childhood in England I am not big on hugging or touching other people. North Americans tend to be a lot more demonstrative and it still makes me uncomfortable when someone I have just been introduced to grabs me and hugs me. I don’t like crowded places and feel very uncomfortable when an uninvited someone is in my personal space.
The Family was a unique culture with distinct values and customs that I largely absorbed the way any child growing up learns about their own society; through observation and interaction. The values and behavioral patterns I acquired often influence my actions and social interactions now. Part of what I try to constantly do is to evaluate my own behavior and thought patterns to understand why my initial reaction or impulse is what it is. As with my language, I believe that being aware of what I am doing and why is the first step in making changes that can help me identify and overcome patterns that are unhealthy or simply unhelpful to me now. There are many things that I do or feel that are definitely not typical of people in my society. I used to assume that there was just something wrong with me and that I was irreversibly flawed. However, understanding things from a cultural aspect helps me to deconstruct my own behavior and make sense of why I seem to again and again make certain choices without feeling that I am just stupid or bad.
For instance as a member of the Family’s fulltime workforce since I was 11, parental figures and authority figures are all mixed up into the same sort of thing to me. The people in charge took responsibility for every part of my life and while part of me resented them, there was also a strange, symbiotic type relationship. I needed someone to notice me, but I did not want to ally myself with these people. An environment in which I was needed and depended on because of my work and yet was a constant thorn in their side was what I learned to develop. Because I saw them as parental figures, I assumed that their interactions with me were based on their feelings towards and perceptions of me and not that they might have been just having a bad day or stressed about something else in their life. In my life now I have a difficult time appropriately relating to my superiors in the workplace. I tend to interact with people with authority over me the way I did with “shepherds” in the Family. For me, understanding why I perceive minor slights from those I perceive to be in authority as such major events has been helpful and has begun to help me to understand why I react the way I do.
Another example of the culture I grew up in is that we were always At War. There was an enemy behind every grassy knoll and fellow comrades standing with us. Everything was analyzed and “spiritualized” to the extreme. There was no tolerance for differing viewpoints. The only choices were “for us or against us”. If someone openly differed from us, we felt threatened and we would lash out strongly at the people or person that we perceived to be attacking us. Even if we listened to the other view at times, it was never to actually understand what they were saying, only to find a weak point in their argument to strike at. Yet people that were our friends in the Family, no matter what they were like, were often trusted completely almost instantly. I find this either/or attitude in myself now all the time, especially in my relationships. I have moved in with a boyfriend after just six weeks because I believed they were someone I could trust, and did trust, completely inappropriately without knowing nearly enough about them. I have also been paranoid and defensive to the extreme in relationships because I was sure it was a “battle” or a game to them, and one that I had to win. Understanding why my reaction to relationships is fight or rite has helped me to at least not make the bad choices I so often have in the past.
One final example is that in the Family there was a special link to the divine that permeated every aspect of life. Rain was never just rain; it was some secret message that going to the park that day would be a horrible mistake (when you live in England, that is more significant than people might think). If you were sick, there was some hidden reason behind the illness. God of course could do no wrong, so anything bad that occurred was actually my own fault. There were two underlying messages here. The first was that we were somehow special. If we could control the weather, there was some special underlying power that we had tapped into that most people did not have. The other was that bad things happened to bad people. If people suffered, in some way they themselves brought it on themselves. While I am now an atheist, I see the residual effects from this cultural belief in my life all the time. Some of it perhaps is positive. Positive affirmation has been proven to be a powerful force in a person’s life. Believing that I can make something happen, because I am a lucky and positive person can and has actually helped my goals to become reality. While controlling the weather might be suspect, believing that I can accomplish something because I have willed (and am willing to work at) it to be so does actually help my self-confidence when taking something on.
On the other hand, the notion of people basically deserving what they get is not a good thing. Of all the things in myself I hate, this is perhaps the one I hate the most. I have perhaps been the hardest on myself in this regard, but my initial reaction when faced with calamity or something painful is “well I guess I deserve it”. When it comes to truly empathizing with others, there is often a coldness in myself that I consciously despise. I no longer share the faith that was the basis for this value judgment, and yet like an unwanted houseguest, this response still sticks around long after the party is over. Perhaps part of it is because everything in the Family’s society was either one way or the other, good or bad, right or wrong. If someone who was somewhat like me had experienced certain things, then the implication was that I would or could experience that as well. If it was all just their own fault, then I could definitively say that I was not like them and therefore safe. To think that we are all vulnerable, sometimes for simply random reasons, is a terrifying thought. At least, like the other cultural values I learned that are not helpful, I am beginning to understand why I react this way and can then make a conscious decision to not choose to judge or blame others for the pain in their own lives or to hate myself for the turns of fate that bring hardship.
These are just some of the many, many influences of the unique culture of The Family. For me, this is the point of exploring the values I was taught and how they affect me now: I don’t have many answers for myself, but understanding the questions is the first step. It’s not “whining” to explore how what we grew up with has influenced us; I think it is in fact the first step towards owning our own lives. If we don’t know that we (and look at how many of our exmember parents still do) use Family terminology, and that it is not something that helps us integrate now, how can we begin to choose words that help people perceive us in more appropriate ways.
If we don’t look at or understand the value sets that were taught to us as children that would sabotage our lives now, how can we even to begin make decisions that help us move away from that? For years I believed that I had things pretty much figured out, but the more I am able to reflect and understand my own psyche, motivations and impulses, the more I realize that there is so much to sort out and through. To me life is a journey and the destination doesn’t matter as much as what we learn along the way. This is why for me, understanding my past is so crucial. If I refuse to look at where I have been and understand what I have carried away from there, how can I hope to leave it behind and to truly move on? |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Shaka
Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 22:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good shit, Jules. Keep it coming.
An adoring fan
(reply to this comment)
| from Jules
Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 19:55
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Why does every almost every thread on this web site end up being an argument over nothing?
Exister, I can't believe your outlandish statements in this thread and I'm hoping that you are again just joking. Your tireless rhetoric, while creative and stirring, only clouds the issues. Waving your list of "secret Family apologetics" around and launching into monologues aimed at anyone who doesn't take your dogma at face value does not constitute a "rift", and certainly not between people who believed any of the Family's teachings and those who did not. Who cares what anyone used to believe? A lot of children believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too. Perhaps we could have some rants and “rifts” over this as well, The Tooth Fairy Apostates vs. The “We Always Knew it Was just Mum” people? Personally, one of the reasons I left the Family in the first place was to get away from this sort of nonsense and intolerance.
By your criteria, I am a "secret Family apologetic" (if you could pass that on the Family I would appreciate it, the hate mail and prayers for my death get a little annoying sometimes). When I was a teenager I believed that the Family was where I was going to spend the rest of my life. I believed what I had been taught and that "serving God" was the only thing I should do with my life and that the Family was the best place to do it. I was a “sold out” young person, who believed that everything former members said was “evil lies”. You don’t know me, you don’t know my life and you don’t know why I believed that.
You keep going on about people who left the group as adults. Although I had just turned 20 when I did leave, I tried to when I was 13 and was kept locked up in "isolation" after that. I actually ran away a number of times, the first time when I was 8. I was picked up hitchhiking by a man who said he was a plain clothes police officer (by some amazing stroke of luck he actually was--8 year olds should not be hitchhiking) and returned to my parents. Does that make me more of a "true ex-member" than someone who only tried to leave when they were a teenager? I don’t think so, any more than someone who left in their thirties is less of a “true ex-member” than you or I. Most people made the best choices they could with the information available to them at the time. Everyone who has left the Family has had the courage to start their lives over, despite the challenges we all faced, and to build something authentic for themselves on their own. That takes strength and integrity.
Personally, while other people I know had worse experiences than I did, I experienced a great deal of abuse and trauma in the Family. I struggle with the long-term effects of that every day. I don’t think it’s fair though to judge or rail against people who did not. Their experiences are their own and they have the absolute right to their own views on their own life. By the same token it’s extremely offensive to me when people dismiss my own feelings as invalid just because that was not their experience.
The purpose of this web site was not to demand that anyone else believes or thinks a certain way, haven't we have all had enough of that already? It was supposed to be a place for us to speak our own truth, which comes from our own personal experiences. No one has the right to tell another person how to react to their own experiences, whether Zerby (or Ne Oublie) to say that we should all be positive and forget the past, or you to say that everyone who doesn’t hate everything about their childhood is just like the FGs in the Family. I have a great deal of respect for the integrity, intelligence and resilience of most of the participants here, you and Ne Oublie included, even when our opinions differ. We are all smart, capable people, doing the best with our lives that we can and no one needs or wants anyone to tell them what they should think. All we can do is try to listen to each other and to hear and respect what we have overcome and who we are now.
(reply to this comment)
|  From exister
Thursday, March 25, 2004, 09:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Jules,
I don't recall ever telling anyone what to think, though the more impressionable among us may have interpreted my statements this way. What I won't shrink from though is telling people exactly what I think of their position. If you find my rhetoric tiresome then don't read it (or are you required to filter all comments?) It is my impression that enough people find what I spew entertaining or provocative to warrant my continued spewage.
I myself detest despotic demagoguery, but I am not averse to using terms like "List of COG Apologists" to make a point. Too many of us are unaware of the diverse and subtle way that our upbringing still dictates our thought processes, and if by some outrageous, inflammatory remark I can get people to examine the cult's lasting influence on their lives then I have no qualms about making such remarks.
I realize that some of us think that through endless revelatory narrative we can come to some resolution of our current situation. That is fine and I don't dispute that, but that is not what stokes my flame. I am pissed off that the Family ever existed and was able to facilitate the brutality and suffering that it did. Because I am pissed off I will continue to denounce the Family in the strongest possible terms, and if any of you want to come to the Family's defense well then, in the words of Doc Holliday, "I'm Your Huckleberry."
Granted, as the admin you have the right to silence me at your whim, but you would be hard pressed to find adequate justification for doing so.
Have a great and geeky day, exister(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, March 25, 2004, 15:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Exister, you said: “ many of us are unaware of the diverse and subtle way that our upbringing still dictates our thought processes, and if by some outrageous, inflammatory remark I can get people to examine the cult's lasting influence on their lives then I have no qualms about making such remarks .” While in principle, that is a noble reason, in practice, how is that working for you? Has anyone “received your correction” and thanked you for opening their eyes with your inflammatory rhetoric? Have you managed to “break the chains” of the cult’s lasting influence on anyone through your sweeping generalizations?
Personally, I find I have a strong adverse reaction to anyone trying to “shepherd” me or towards people making indiscriminate statements about myself or my life when they know nothing about it. I think that giving people room to make their own choices and respecting their right to their own beliefs is much more conducive to meaningful dialogue. If frenzied lectures on the evil of our ways actually convinced people, no one would have ever left the Family. You yourself said that “This site is about victims feeling some semblance of respect from the only ones that can truly empathize with them, their fellow victims.” This is what I am trying to say.
The extent of abuse one experienced in the Family has no relevance to their own beliefs while a child in the group. Merry Berg arguably suffered more than anyone at the hands of the Family. Merry didn’t leave the Family on her own but was sent to her aunt. Regarding her beliefs as a child, Ricky said:
“In my opinion, Mene was a very kind, gentle girl who really wanted to please God, and please the adults around her. She pissed us off sometimes, but not because she was mean to us—rather, because she was so nice, and too good! It seemed like she really was trying her best to keep the rules and jump through all the stupid, inane little hoops they forced us through, while we were trying our best to get out of as much as we could, and away with as much as possible. However, because she was so idealistic, it wasn’t long before the glaring contradictions between what Berg’s supposed ideals were, and his actions, became too much for her to dismiss.”
Would you laugh at and deride her?
Not long after Merry left she wrote an article about her experiences: http://www.excult.org/merry.html I wonder what some of the more militant participants on this web site would have said to her in response, just due to the terminology used and religious nature of her article, if they did not know who she was or if her story had not now been confirmed by so many other people. I would like to think she could have found support and acceptance for who she was, not be insulted and derided by people who had no respect for or concept of what she had experienced.
Hypothetically speaking, someone who was being obnoxious and arrogant might try the same attempt at shoving enlightenment down your throat on you. They might want to tell you that you are really secretly being influenced by the cult and your own upbringing, doing something like this for example:
Exister : “I am not averse to using terms like "List of COG Apologists" to make a point … if by some outrageous, inflammatory remark I can get people to examine … their lives then I have no qualms about making such remarks”
Berg: “ I threatened to call one of those first chapters we wrote "God's whores". I was going to really shock people! I love shocking titles that provoke people and wake them up".
"I'm an extremist, a radical, a fanatic, and in order to pull some people half way, you have got to go all the way in the opposite direction!".
“[I like to] shock people, challenge them, stir them up, arouse them, awaken them out of their lethargy, even cause them to explode over something I have said, at least get them to do something to spur them into action one way or another.”
Exister: (Makes sweeping judgments and divines the “status” of people he does not know and has never met based on his interpretation of their comments on a web site)
Berg: (Makes sweeping judgments and divines the “spirituality” of people he does not know and has never met based on his interpretation of their comments, looks or his own racial and even astrological prejudices)
If you are anything like me, you might tell that person who took it upon themselves to piously enlighten you on how you were “just like Berg” to shove their unsolicited guidance where the sun didn’t shine.
Perhaps I just don't understand what it is you hope to accomplish. I don't always read everything here. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From itsxena2u
Saturday, March 27, 2004, 19:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Excuse me! Mr. Noodle Doodle! But I can spell a hell of a lot better than some guys. Besides, I don't trust anyone who doesn't put at least some information about who they are in the directory. Yours is not even in there. I wonder how I can post comments under a different name or even a name that is not found in the directory? I wonder how people do it? Unless its Jules.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nancy
Thursday, March 25, 2004, 18:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
You know, it kind of bothers me that someone like Andy, who suffered horribly as a result of, among other things, peers who purposely reported on others in order to win favor with adults and superiors is being singled out here. It also seems odd that some of the people doing the singling out appear to have been a bit like these "reporters" when in the cult. Are we recreating something here?
Personally, I think Andy has earned the right, even beyond the natural rights he already has, to be pissed off and say so whenever he finds an opportunity. I do also recognize that there is a line with regards to speaking ones mind. It lies where doing so infringes on the rights of others. I'm not sure if Andy has done that. I'm just commenting on my perception of this thread.
I think there is also an underlying issue here which has yet to be discussed, that of guilt on the part of some individuals who stayed longer than others and participated more with the Family than others, the "sold out" as they are sometimes referred to. Those who stayed into their adulthood seem to have some issues with wanting to make distinctions between responsibility among individual members. What I would ask them to remember is that those of us who are most vocal left long ago when things were much different and much worse. Back then, there were no or very few adult SGAs. There were clear lines between who were the abused and who were the abusers. Things might have changed and become more complicated as SGAs reached adulthood.
Yet, when we realize that the beef of those who left back in the day and who suffered the most is with the organization and certain individuals, in particular, then it might help some newly ex-member SGAs to feel less threatened. Listen, I understand feeling threatened. I will vehemently defend my good name and reputation for the sake of custody of my son. An accusation that one of us has ever hurt or participated with anyone who has hurt children is very serious, and I would never take it lightly. No one here, and I'm sure Andy will agree, is accusing any newly ex SGAs of victimizing other SGAs. Our primarly accusations lie with the people in authority who directed the schools, combos and homes in which we were abused and molested and, subsequently, with the organization which supported and allowed these individuals to operate.
It might help us all to make some distinctions. At the same time, I would ask those who have made comments to which some of us who suffered a lot back when have taken offense is that even the slightest hint that the Family was right in its action and we were somehow responsible for what we went through often re-victimizes us all over again, as it supports the doctrines that the Family has promoted all along, that being that they are divine and anyone against them is against God and going to hell and wrong. It's difficult to understand if one has not experienced it themself. I'm even far enough away now that I don't often experience the PTSD anymore, and I will admit that I suffered quite a bit, but I remember what it was like back when I did feel it quite accutely, so I can still empathize with those who are still struggling with what happened to them.
Everyone's experience is different, but there are also some common themes. I also think there are some vast distinctions which is evidenced in how some of out younger siblings who were not abused as severely or at all act and think and how those of us who were do. There is also a pretty big distinction between most of us in our late twenties and early thirties experienced with regard to severe abuse and what a very small number of individuals around our age were able somehow to escape and in most cases ended up staying in the Family a lot longer.
I can tell you that I don't know what it was like to have been treated with care as a child and not to have known abuse on many different levels all the time. I don't know how some people escaped that as it seemed to be everywhere I went. I would just ask those few to realize that just as I and others cannot imagine an abuse free childhood, they most likely cannot begin to imagine the experiences we had and their far reaching effects on now our very removed adult lives. Nothing can undo what we went through. I think that some things can be eased, however, with understanding and acceptance. I've often heard it said by abuse victims that validation of what they went through is very healing. The problem with our group of abuse victims is that we have never experienced validation because the Family denies their actions and continues to operate.
I don't know about Jules' intents except for what she has written here and there, but there are lots of websites out there for well-adjusted young people. There appears to be only one for those of us with these common abuse experiences, this one. If at no place other in the world, we should be able to find validation of our common experiences here among others like us.
I recently read a very serious abuse allegation against a childhood friend on this website, an ex-SGA to be specific, by another ex-SGA. The accuser did not have first hand knowledge, only hearsay from another child at the time. The accuser is also VERY CLOSELY affiliated with a staunch supporter on this site of going after only those individuals who have been proven guilty in a court of law. The irony and contradiction struck me. I have thought about it for a few weeks. I think the differences between these two groups of people, those who suffered abuse and left awhile ago and those who did not and stayed, while not the only differences among us, but just one for sake of argument, can be reconciled a bit by realizes the point I drew from this incident. That being that we do well to not judge individuals who have tramatic experiences which we have known and which are so extreme that they are difficult to understand without first hand knowledge. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From okay yeah whatever
Monday, March 29, 2004, 12:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hmmm, I don't know where Jules ever defended her secret crush's right to impetuosly call anyone who didn't agree with them a cult apologist rather than take part in a meaningful discussion. Personally, I dont have a problem with exister's comments and I think it makes this site alot more interesting -- sometimes it's fun to watch these mini flame-wars. Exister did say that he thinks anyone should be able to post anything they want, so I guess we need some good pro-cult posters here to satisfy exister's need to yell "cult apologist" and nancy's appetite for bashing people so the rest of us can have level-headed conversations and be able to admit that "yeah I was sold out when in TF and believed it was the best" without someone yapping, "Cult appologist", "so how much money did you give TF today", "are you fucking Zerby today? Cuz I'm a lawyer and I'll sue you if you are", etc, etc, etc.
I mean, what's this fucking defense of "poor andy"? I think he has the right to make his comments, but hey if he wants to trash other people for being sold out when in TF and for not being all consumed by rage like he and Nancy are, then it doesn't seem like he'd get his feelings hurt if someone calls him on it. I do think there are people's feelings here and the issues are sensitive enough for some that yelling "cult apologist" could hurt someone. I guess it's not like "andy" would care about hurting someone trying to get through stuff, he probably just wants to get a rise out of people.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Monday, March 29, 2004, 20:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, shut the f*ck up with that Andy talk. Only I call him Andy!
BTW, Andy, ever see Sixth Sense? Ever think, "I'm surrounded by [stupid] people"?
"No more roast beef for you!!!"
I swear to God it's the joy and pleasure I derive from the whit and intellect of a select few on this site, well, maybe a good twenty or thirty, with, of course, a top ten usual suspects, that keeps me coming back despite reading some stuff that takes everything in me to keep from beating my head against the wall from the sheer madness of it. I'm going to need something witty from Joe, Alf, Jules, Tim or Albatross real soon otherwise I see the abyss of the opinionated overcoming me. Help! I'm drowning in mediocrity mixed with strong emotion, spelled and punctuated incorrectly and peppered with cult lingo!!!(reply to this comment) |
| | From okay yeah whatever
Monday, March 29, 2004, 12:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hmmm, I don't know where Jules ever defended her secret crush's right to impetuosly call anyone who didn't agree with them a cult apologist rather than take part in a meaningful discussion. Personally, I dont have a problem with exister's comments and I think it makes this site alot more interesting -- sometimes it's fun to watch these mini flame-wars. Exister did say that he thinks anyone should be able to post anything they want, so I guess we need some good pro-cult posters here to satisfy exister's need to yell "cult apologist" and nancy's appetite for bashing people so the rest of us can have level-headed conversations and be able to admit that "yeah I was sold out when in TF and believed it was the best" without someone yapping, "Cult appologist", "so how much money did you give TF today", "are you fucking Zerby today? Cuz I'm a lawyer and I'll sue you if you are", etc, etc, etc.
I mean, what's this fucking defense of "poor andy"? I think he has the right to make his comments, but hey if he wants to trash other people for being sold out when in TF and for not being all consumed by rage like he and Nancy are, then it doesn't seem like he'd get his feelings hurt if someone calls him on it. I do think there are people's feelings here and the issues are sensitive enough for some that yelling "cult apologist" could hurt someone. I guess it's not like "andy" would care about hurting someone trying to get through stuff, he probably just wants to get a rise out of people.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Friday, March 26, 2004, 19:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Tom, I agree with you that Nancy has some very provoking insights and for one, appreciated her writing what she did.
I know you meant this comment as a compliment and I sincerely apologise if I seem ungracious, that is not my intent, but having been raised in a cult, reading something like this makes me feel very uncomfortable. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Thursday, March 25, 2004, 19:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy, thanks for your comment. I for one appreciate and respect a clearly laid out opinion.
Frankly it’s difficult for me not to take certain comments personally and feel attacked and hurt when sweeping statements are made. I’m trying, through dialogue here, to understand the perspective of other people without being offended or feeling invalidated, but it’s not easy. To be accused of being a Family apologetic, after I have put my own neck out so far to speak my own truth and enable others to do the same is upsetting. It’s cost me a lot personally to actually do something about the injustice in the group, and I know it has been the same for other people who have actually taken action regarding the evil in the Family.
That’s perhaps part of the problem here. These issues are raw still and people can still be hurt by uninformed accusations or generalizations made by others. That’s why I think it’s not appropriate to do this and this is precisely what I take exception to, no matter who is doing it.
The assumption that the children taken from their parents in raids were hurt by the experience and innocents suffered comes from what the Family said. The people who were there and experienced it know what it was like and their opinions should be listened to and respected, and those opinions may be very different from what the group said about it. For someone who was grateful for the changes that came about from outside intervention and the rescue from abuse, someone ignorantly repeating the group’s propaganda without any actual knowledge is offensive and upsetting.
Making assumptions that people who tried to obey the Family’s rules and who were idealistic about what the Family claimed to be and tried be good “disciples” are collaborators and sell-outs is also offensive. As I said Merry Berg was one of those children. To want to punish someone for what they once believed is extremely unfair IMO. Many people who were “true believers” suffered just as much abuse as those who did not, but did not even have the tools of anger or outrage to cope with what they experienced.
To tell other people that they should just keep silent and forget their experiences is also offensive. Off-handed “stop the whining you losers” from people who have no idea of what others have overcome or what it’s like to live with the aftermath of abuse is insulting and cruel. Assuming that those of us who are angry about the Family’s crimes are “bitter losers” is uniformed and offensive.
I think we have all earned the right to voice our anger and disagreements. It’s the generalizations, accusations and fracturing that bothers me. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Friday, March 26, 2004, 11:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy, thanks for the clarification. I guess by the same token I was quite bothered by the singling out of JW based on what I know of him and his experiences. I have a great deal of respect for JW. He is a man of integrity and exceptional intelligence. Unfounded attacks on his character by someone who knows nothing about him to me epitomizes the risks of gross over-categorization and assumptions.
A few comments on a web site cannot be taken as indicative of everything about a certain person. There is often much more to the back-story than is stated here. If there are any “rifts” that frequently develop among participants, I would suggest that it is more between people who know each other and those who do not. Something that seems like an innocuous statement or question might trigger a reaction that looks completely out of proportion to a bystander, but to someone who understands where the offended party is coming from and why the initial statement is inappropriate, the response seems completely justified.
An explanation of why the statement/s are inaccurate and offensive is helpful and I have learned a great deal about other points of view when people take the time to explain. However, for me anyway, it’s also very difficult to disclose personal information and to get into personal details in a public forum like this, especially when debates are heated.
Again, that’s why I think it’s important to remember that all of these things should be approached with caution. These are complex issues and discussions can be emotional minefields. If someone broaches a topic in a brash and aggressive manner and accuses other people of being “sympathizers”, “brainwashed” “supporting child abusers”, “whiners” etc., it provokes anger and equally harsh counter accusations. I think it’s a little unfair to then cry foul. I guess, IMO, discussions should be approached and initiated with the understanding that we basically get back what we give out. I believe that if one wants understanding and support for our own experiences, the best way to achieve that is to give the same to others. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Friday, March 26, 2004, 14:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
You might be right, Jules, but I think frequent posters can’t help but reveal at least some sides of their personality here. I don’t have to meet you to know you’re brilliant; it’s obvious from your posts (well, I have met you, but that was eons ago…)
I’m afraid some of us aren’t quite as noble as you, myself for instance: I don’t really care who I offend and I certainly don’t visit this site to bond with anyone, I’ve got plenty of real life friends. It’s fun to let off steam with people you don’t know. I suspect Exister has similar motivations for his outlandish comments.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Friday, March 26, 2004, 13:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
What I find to be ironic is that JW is related, in a manner of speaking, to the incident I described above. I DO NOT want to debate the merits of the accusation. I DO NOT want to upset the one accused or his wife. I DO NOT want to discuss it at all because it is too volatile a subject, and NO ONE I know has any first hand knowledge to even comment. I bring it up only because it illustrates the stark contrast between polarized views and personal friendships. I am adament that people should speak of first hand knowledge, what they have experienced and witnessed, only. I have spoken before about abuse I witnessed and the after effects I have seen my friends experience. The farthest I have ever gone in discussing abuse is to bring up abuse which I either experienced, witnessed or saw the scar and resulting trauma. When I haven't witnessed the actual abuse, I am careful, even when I believe my friend and have seen the scars. Therefore, I am fairly confident whenever I get into a heated discussion of the actual facts of which I am speaking. I feel pretty safe both morally and legally in my positions. I know that I could testify of my knowledge in court, and it would not be considered hearsay. Because of my confidence, I have never called foul in a discussion here, even when attacked. I can hold my own and I can dish-out as much as I take. I have even drawn attention to when the reverse has happened to me, someone has called foul on me for my response to them or someone else. I have drawn attention to how I was responding in those incidents to statements made by someone else. I am a firm believer in the glass houses analogy. In fact, I have to be careful how far I will let a discussion go due to my habit of returning every punch. Sometimes, I've realized that it has become a waste of time and better to just blow it off depending on with whom I am conversing. All that to say, I don't think I've started anything then called foul. Rather, I usually get into something after it's begun to develop or to back up someone with whom I share a particular opinion.
With regard to Andy and JW, I agree that we don't always know everything. I don't always agree with Andy, just most of the time. I also, rarely agree with JW, but I don't know him, like you say. I suppose it's easy to speak of what we know when we are discussing our own opinions or knowledge. I think it's easier to enter into shaky ground when we are defending a friend, but it's hard not to do so, especially given that the topics usually concern issues which revive childhood trauma and never being able to respond or defend ourselves or friends back then, makes us want to do so all the more now. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Friday, March 26, 2004, 13:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let me also make clear that JW is not the one who was accused of child abuse in the incident I described. He has not been accused of anything. I don't know him personally, so like Jules said, I really can't make any comment on his character. Further, I know of no accusation against his character. The incident I described involved someone else. JW just knows of the accuser. I brought it up only to highlight the differences in opinion when we know people on different sides of the argument. What's even more ironic is that I considered lochnymph's statements about me to be very deflamatory until she clarified them. It is a strange thing to stand on the other side of an issue I have a very strong opinion on. I think it sometimes helps temper our beliefs and emotions.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From exister
Thursday, March 25, 2004, 15:30
 (Agree/Disagree?)
"Hypothetically speaking, someone (Jules) who was being obnoxious and arrogant might try the same attempt at shoving enlightenment down your throat on you (and try to cloak it by using italics as a subtrefuge)."
By the same token you are lumping all radicals who feel passionately about something into the same category. So now anyone who argues their position passionately is a closet cult leader?
I still don't see how I am trying to "lead" or "correct" anyone. Maybe I am just predicating my behavior upon my knowledge that people are just as likely to ignore me as not. Heck, the very fact that you accuse me of trying to tell people how to think indicates that in your mind intransigent control of others is still the main objective of dialogue. Once again, the cult's influence on your thought processes.
Think however the hell you want people. Just make sure it how you want and not how Jesus wants you to.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, March 25, 2004, 16:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Come on now, I have better subterfuges on hand than italics. Once again irony seems to be lost on you.
My encyclopedic knowledge of Berg's writings disturbs me, especially since it's been ten years. I'm not lumping anyone into any category at all, but I can see why you take offense to the insinuation that your own opinions are just parroting Berg's. To throw something like that out as a blanket dismissal is offensive and annoying. That was my point.
Exister, in my mind the main objective of dialogue is communication. Not denouncing people who disagree with you as perpetrators, apologists, brainwashed and deluded, just because they disagree with you.
I agree with your last line and would add, make sure it's not how anyone else demands you think. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From itsxena2u
Wednesday, March 24, 2004, 21:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you so so much for this comment! You couldn't have said it better. While I agree with many points people make on this site and I understand their anger, I also wish these same people would understand the reason why some of us don't have that same anger. This is not to say that we are better than them by any means. I know a lot of folks have experienced a hell of a lot more abuse than I did. I think if I had gone through what they did I would be just as angry and infuriated. In fact, a lot of times I am when I hear the stories some people have told.
We all have ways of dealing with our past hurts, whether it be a lot or a little. I don't judge them for feeling the way they do but neither should they critize or judge me if I happen to see things a bit differently because of the different situation/s I was in. The anger should be directed at the abusers not the ones who have left and have decided to take a different aproach.
I have never committed any crimes against anyone. The fact that I stayed in TF as long as I did was because I was heavily brainwashed into thinking that it was the only way to receive God's blessing and inherit Heavenly rewards. I was scared to death to die and go to heaven and be held in "shame and contempt" for eternity if I ever left. Even though I confessed all the abuses that happened to me the shepherds I was told that the Family was not to blame but I was the fault of certain individuals that are no longer in TF. I struggled for years to try to swallow the "new wine" but I found myself chocking all the time. I figured that if I just took it like a grain of salt and not follow it so seriously that maybe I could just coast along and maybe things would get better but it didn't. I was always told that "The family at its worst is better than the System at its best". But how was I to really know that unless I left? How was I to leave if I was pressured into staying in order to avoid receiving God's judgements?
It has all been so confusing to me, I hope there are others out there who feel the same way.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From itsxena2u
Thursday, March 25, 2004, 17:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, I don't forget about it. It still makes me mad. But its much easier for the person who lived through the abuse to think about it more often and feel the anger. It's like when a friend from work died recently, we were drawn to tears. It took several weeks for a lot of us to come to grips with the fact that he was gone forever. But now that several months have passed, we still remember him but the pain is not as deep as it is for his wife and two kids. They will probably feel it for the rest of their lives.
I'm not trying to say that those who did not experience it first hand don't care or feel anger. It's just more vivid in the minds of those who did. I respect your feelings and your opinions even if I don't always agree. I have other ways of dealing with my past that work better for me. If rage is what helps you deal with it and help you move on, then that is what you should do. I do not judge you nor do I believe it is wrong for you to feel this way. I wish you the best along with everyone else here who is trying to get on with their lives. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from exister
Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fortunately I was rather adept at dodging "Word Time" and OHRs, so 90% of what I have read and written in my life was good, secular system junk. PTL for that, eh?
(reply to this comment)
| from
Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 21:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I relate to so much of what you’ve said.
I saw a program on TV a few months ago about people with inherent Frontal Lobe deficiencies. I also related to much of that program. The people with these deficiencies had problems sensing danger, and even when faced with a similar situation more than once were unlikely to learn from their previous experiences.
I think growing up in “The Family” has affected some of our perceptions of danger, and along with it our perceptions of reality, commonly accepted forms of behaviour, speech, communication etc. I know I have a tendency to think certain things are bigger than they are, and trivialise certain things which should be taken more seriously. – I can with out a doubt trace some of these reactions to my perceptions of reality/ right & wrong which I was taught growing up in COG.
I’m not a scientist but when I saw this program about frontal lobe development it seemed to strike a chord with some of my experiences. Maybe you know some more about this.
Another thing I’ve noticed, not just with myself, but also in others of similar predicament, is that we react to things in extremes. If we disagree, we disagree entirely, when we dislike, we dislike entirely, we don’t have much balance, and we don’t perceive shades of dislike, or shades or disagreement. I think this has to do both with what COG taught us, as in “Slamming the door on doubts” (any doubts, no differentiation between acceptable questions, small doubts or big doubts etc), no “middle ground” – “giving no place to the enemy” etc.
I think this ties in a bit with how our frontal lobes were affected as children, and partly why we have such difficulty finding any common ground with our parents in some instances.
I am personally, presently trying to realise various things I have been hating so viciously, and re-examining to see what shade they truly do fit into. Although this is an ongoing process, my realising that some of my hate has been irrational has been an enormous milestone for me & I have been feeling so much better lately. Also working on not over-reacting to things.
(reply to this comment)
| from Wolf
Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 00:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Very well written, Jules. Figuring out what we believe to be true and separating it from cult indoctrination is a long and difficult process. I think some have essentially rejected everything they learned in the cult, but that’s too simplistic. There are so many things to reexamine, I think it will take me most of my life. For example, I still tend to sympathize with Arabs in the Arab / Israeli conflict. I know this is a result of cult indoctrination, but until I find sufficient examples of Arab cruelty to Israelis, it will be hard to change my sympathies.
(reply to this comment)
| From Mydestinyismine
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 00:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just threw out all of Berg's teachings and went to the bible, regarding Christian teachings, to decide what I believe. Call me naive but I don't think the Arabs are "innocent victims". They got their warring history with Israel still going on and right now Israel has the upper hand. Berg hated the Jews and that's enough reason to suspect whether they really are that bad. I don't have first hand proof but I do know that in history the Arabs were barbaric when they controlled the middle east. It's a dog eat dog society and they just happen to still be using weapons there. (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 07:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is a very simplistic explanation to a very complex problem. I went the opposite way and sympathised with Israel without really understanding the depth of the problems in the middle east. However, after doing some research over the last several years, it's clear that while these fundamental, idiotic, suicide attacks do nothing to help the cause of the palestineans, the fact is that Israel, by occupying palestineans territories, is breaking international law and violating several UN resolutions. While every nation has the right to defend themselves against terror, occupying another nation because the other nation believes it has a historical claim to such territory is illegal. We went to war with Iraq in the 90's for similar reasons. The middle east problem is far more complex than I will ever have the time to understand, but simply forming views based on what was taught us in our childhood is immature and uninformed.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Justin
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 10:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is pretty straight forward. If you have stopped financially supporting the Family, when did you stop? Give us a date. If there are so many "grey" areas, let's clear them up. How long ago did you stop giving that group money? How long ago did you stop practicing their doctrines, specifically when did you stop sexually pleasuring yourself while you prayed? When did you stop teaching your children their beliefs? Give dates. Since you think that the practices of the Family are so "grey" and not easily defineable as either right or wrong, let us know how long ago you stopped affiliating with them. That would explain a lot. It couldn't be very long ago, since you just made a comment "as a former member of the Family" telling someone to do something. You seem to still identify with them at the very least if you are still speaking for them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Justin
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 12:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I didn't make any statements concerning what I believe. I simply asked you a question which you didn't answer. Giving money to a cult is not mandatory. Neither is being a member of a cult. Unless you were a minor held against your will, then everything you did was voluntary. If you were voluntarily a member of that cult a short time ago, it is your own intelligence which is in question. But let me make sure I have this straight, you supported them financially and you participated as a member, but you didn't practice their doctrines? Sounds like you were a half-ass cult member kind of like you're currently a half-ass ex-cult member. You can't decide where you stand. "Oh, it's so foggy. Everything is so grey. I can't see my hand in front of my face or know what the hell I am or what the hell I'm doing." When you figure it out, then let me know. It seems a simple question concerning when you stopped giving that cult your money and exposing your children to their doctrines has you all confused.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From exister
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 15:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Whether Justin was in the cult or not his statement above pretty much sums up my position. Once again there is a clear rift developing between those who never willingly participated in the cult's charade and those who did. The sad part is that I highly regard some of those who left as adults, just not the ones who are trying to compensate for their wasted years by straddling the fence.(reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 17:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think that whether or not someone participated in the "cult charade" willingly makes no difference (I am, of course, referring only to the religious aspect of the cult here--the abuse is another matter altogether).
Having been born and raised in the Family, we accepted our world willingly--as the norm--having no concept of the twisted environment we were actually being raised in. How could we have known? We had nothing to compare it to. Those of us who knew from the start, left earlier. Those of us who didn't, left when they discovered the truth. Does that make one group better than the other? Hardly.
I believe the rift we see here is a different one and it is between these two groups of people:
1) Those who believe that the Family, which is the very embodiment of evil, must be destroyed and everyone who sides with the Family in the least, can go to hell along with them.
2) Those who believe that certain individuals in the Family need to be held accountable for their criminal actions but that people have the right to believe what they choose. (When you consider it, minus the child abuse and the emphasis on sex, The Family would really only be another harmless Southern Baptist Church).
Obviously, the two categories I mentioned are meant to be on opposite ends of the spectrum ('right' or 'wrong' is irrelevant here) with the "straddlers", or those who couldn't care less, in the middle.
In my opinion, the religious aspects of The Family are too often thrown in with the criminal ones. Granted, the Family's beliefs and practices are a complex close-knit weave, but they are not fused.
I have little doubt that those who are actually doing something to bring the Family to justice (not just talking about it) will succeed because of the fact that they are keeping these two issues separate.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 18:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let me propose an alternative definition for category 2:
Those who lack the capacity for abstract thought necessary to see that without a sexually permissive environment, a body of literature that all but explicitly condoned child rape and an army of willing facilitators "certain individuals in the Family" would not have been able to rape and brutalize children.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 13:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dude, seriously. Is it going to benifit anyone or anything if I tell you when I stopped giving the cult my money? Grow up already.
Yes, towards the end of my membership I decided against praticing Family doctrines and teaching them to my children -- at their age, this meant taking such drastic measures as removing the "God bless Grandpa and Maria" page from their flash card book. If that made me a half-assed cult member, then I am guilty as charged and proud of it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 11:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Incredibly I am starting to empathize with you just a little bit JW. At times our dialogue begins to resemble MaCarthyism or the Red Scare, with all this talk of "lists" and "true exers" vs. COG apologists. I know this is what Wolf really wanted to say to me yesterday, but for the life of him he just couldn't come up witht the historical terminology. Anyway as much as I dislike oppressive fanaticism, I don't mind coming off that way if it means I get to denounce the Family in stronger terms. Besides, running my mouth like a despotic demagogue on a web site won't hurt anyone in real life save those whose entire emotional experience resides on a server somewhere in Toronto (or is it Portland?). (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jerseygirl
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 13:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
JW! You're taking such a beating! Anyone who has been on this site for awhile should know better than to assume such ridiculous things about you. I agree with the sentiments but it is not you that they should be aimed at. Hope all is well and that you're still making pancakes for your darling daughters. PS--you live in TX?? This whole time I was sure you lived in Germany ;-P(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Hitler the Vandari leader agrees
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 13:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Right on, Jerseygirl. All anybody with half a brain has to do is read the "Hitler on..." articles to see what JW has to say about the Family -- definitely not apropos for a suposed Family apologetic. Tsk tsk.
JW, you are absolutely brilliant and anybody that knows you is probably laughing right along with you at how hillarious the "Family spokesperson", "Family apologetic", "Family sympathizer" and "yada, yada, yada" accusations are.
Be well, my friend. And by the way, you haven't been a very good channel for Hitler lately. Doesn't he have something he wants to tell us? It sure has been awhile.(reply to this comment) |
| | From loch
Monday, March 22, 2004, 16:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
great article jules! As always. It explanes a lot of what I have been trying to figure out lately.
And wolf, I share your sympathies, but I can honestly say it's not from the way we were brought up. It started when a few years ago, I was watching the news, and saw a couple of 13 year old boys throwing rocks at Israili soldiers, they were fired on, and one of the boys had his head shot off! It was horrible, you could see his baseball cap fly right at the camera!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Monday, March 22, 2004, 20:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
And here appears the line between the educated and the opinionated. There is a difference. Education does not always come formally. It often comes in the form of experience. But, opinion doesn't really come in either form. It is just there waiting for a three second news clip on stone-throwing boys in order to take root and live forever. It's harder than a weed to kill because its roots are so deep, and they're impossible to see even when they're deeply planted in and fertilized by cult indoctrination.
Any opinion which closely mirrors that of one of the cult's extreme beliefs and doctrines should be suspect, for example anti-Semitism, misogynistic attitudes, sexism, homophobia and anti-American rhetoric. Oh, and I almost forgot, the propaganda that a woman's place is in the home to support a man and have babies and that any strong woman who speaks out against the oppression of her, her peers' and her siblings' childhood is "hatred spewing" "bitch".
I agree with Jules analysis of the affects of the Family in our lives. I certainly have a very acute sense of injustice due to having known it first hand and having witnessed and experienced suffering and never having been allowed an outlet for those emotions.
I have rejected nearly everything the Family taught on purpose. I abhor the vilification of rage. I think there is not enough rage. Without rage, a lot more evil would flourish in the world. Rage promotes change. When enough people get fed up with the exploitation and injustice committed by the cult the Family, then something will finally be done. More people need to say, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." Enough with the qualification of the evil committed by the Family. Enough with the acceptance. The Family may change some of their evil ways, but nothing can undo the acts they have committed in the past. For those I say, "Where is your rage?" Why does it have to be the suffering of your own siblings or yourself in order to incite you? It should be enough that it was ever done to anyone in the name of God. It should be enough that one child suffered. It doesn't matter if that child grew up to later be a lawyer or if that child never grew up and died at his own hand. That fact that a child suffered is an injustice which should invoke the rage of every human heart, especially those for whom such injustice touched their lives first hand. And no amount of "humanitarian aid project" fronts is ever going to change the evil the Family has committed. Nothing can undo the suffering they have caused. Nothing. And that should insight everyone to rage. "Rage against the dying of the light" until the tide of justice sweeps across those that have perpetrated these acts in the name of God. And let them call us "hate spewers" until they cannot call us names any longer. Let them call us Vandari and apostates. Let them call us wolves and blood dripping demons. Let them call us whatever they like, just as long as I never lose my rage and feel even the slightest bit neutral about that child beating, child raping, child neglecting and child exploiting cult. And if anything I was exposed to as a child myself in that cult not of my own free will has affected my attitude and rage against the Family, then that is one aspect of my upbringing I would not change. I’ll take all the poor spelling and grammar and dialect I had to get rid of, just to hang on to that part of myself which feels nothing but pure unadulterated rage for that wicked cult which has hurt the most vulnerable of its members, its very own children.
I believe it is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which tells us that if a child does not receive a particular need during certain crucial developmental stages in childhood that the child will forever feel that particular need whether it be for security, love, independence, etc. Therefore, according to this theory, the psychological harm and deprivation a child experiences can never be undone but will be grappled with through out a child’s entire life. Some of the harm inflicted by the Family would not nearly be as egregious if it had not been committed against children. As we see in some of the most violent criminals, childhood abuse can have far reaching effects beyond what most would initially imagine. And we wonder why as adults, some 10-15 years after escaping that cult, we still struggle with experiences that continue to affect us. At least, I take comfort in knowing that anger is a higher evolved stage in healing from trauma than is sadness and internalization. Only after the guilt and shame is overcome can one begin to express emotions directed at the cause of one’s suffering rather than internally at one’s own self. Some people here more gifted with words than me could right a book, “Leaving a cult for Dummies,” or, “Ten stupid things people do to themselves after leaving an abusive religious cult.”
(reply to this comment) |
| | From agrees
Thursday, March 25, 2004, 02:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Why are people angry? Why is there rage? –
People have had dignity stripped from them. – And not only but were taught as children to believe that having their dignity stripped was “good for them”, or “made them a better person”.
Aside from the obvious stripping of dignity with regards to sexual practices and peoples personal identities and privacy, dignity was stripped in other many other ways as well.
For example, teaching that one should always “take the blame”, that one is a “chess piece”, that ones children, families, marriages, possessions are expendable upon the wishes of “leaders”, the list goes on and on. Growing up with this kind of mentality makes for people who have lost their dignity, without even realising they’ve lost it.
Example: A child is taught that they are the reincarnation of Aphrodite and therefore she should be the personal property of some “head guru”, who can then use her at his whim to fulfil the wishes of some strange god. – This child is prostituted, this child is enslaved, this child is abused in the extremist of extremes – however the child may grow into adulthood, and beyond (should education continue to be deprived) thinking that they are being done a great honour instead of a great injustice.
I agree with Nancy and her rage because the more one is able to educate themselves, or become educated the more clear to one it is the extent of some of the extreme injustice, and stripping of dignity.
To most ordinary people being a prostitute/ pimp, paedophile would be the epitome of having no dignity for oneself or other human beings. – But the teachings of TF were to try and create a false reality where people who conduct themselves as such would think themselves to have dignity, and as in the case of FF’ing, think they were even on a level above others.
The reason why rage exists: partly for the reason of seeking justice, but I believe more importantly it is for those who are having to make up for such complete and total stripping of dignity that it is almost comparable (in some instances) to Holocaust survivors, and the rage is a way of conquering that.
I hope eventually that everyone of us who have left can be at peace with ourselves most of all, and still be able to pursue justice without the rage. – But I think the rage will continue so long as TF continues its methods of raising children and stripping dignity from people, and until the world is educated as to the truth of their actions, and until people individually feel they have moved beyond the harm inflicted when dignity is stripped in such extremes.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 07:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hear ya', Nancy! It infuriates me to see the apathy among some of us. Just because some may have had it easier than others, they shut thier eyes and ears to the truth. It's very hurtfull when one of your own doubts and belittles the experiences of so many. That job should be left to the cult leadership, yet we see some of our own picking up that torch.
Anger and rage has never done anything other than spur me on to work harder and overcome the cards dealt me in my childhood. For those who have managed to escape the cult unscathed to then suggest that those of us who haven't should let go, forgive and forget is unbelievable.
Maybe it's the same narowmindedness that can allow one to form one's political opinions based on 3 minute soundbites on the news, whether they be palestinians throwing stones, flags flying in support of an unjust war, or soldiers marching to their deaths under the guise of patriotism.
That narrow, tunnel vision is the same weakness that allowed our parents to raise us in an abusive, dangerous cult while turning a blind eye to the abuse their own children were suffering. I had hoped that those of us who left were smarter than that, but evidently, I was wrong.(reply to this comment) |
| | From wanna be more like Nancy
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 06:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you Nancy! The more that I read your wise and raging words the more I am able break the chains of mind control which TF has exerted over me for so many years, it is almost as if I am finally seeing the light! I now understand that we are in a legal war against the abuse perpetrated by TF. In this war we are led by those such as yourself who through their vast education and rage are able to stand for truth and justice against the masses of ignorant and mind-controlled zombies who live under the misconception that there may yet be some elements within TF which are less than pure evil.
It is only because of you and exister's raging that my eyes have been opened to this truth, and I just wish that everyone could partake of this same epiphany which you have helped me to experience. It fills me with rage to think of all the poor souls who are still enslaved to the bondage of TF and it's evil abusive mind-control, and I am filled with such encompassing rage that I am prepared to do anything to achieve the goals you have shown us of the utter destruction of TF and all that it stands for!
By your untiring efforts, you and exister are bringing meaning to the lives of so many, such as myself, who have been broken and abused by TF, and are forming a new nation by pointing us in the way of truth and rage. We would all do well to follow in your wise and raging footsteps, for you are the ones who have already been through this, and have learned how to overcome the evil influences of TF. We are so honoured to even be able to sit at your feet and kiss every word of rage which proceeds from your mouth, our dear queen and king of rage.
I have dedicated myself to reading your raging instructions every day so that I can learn to be more like you in the hopes that one day I might achieve just a fraction of what you have. I will buy and follow the guidance you will set out in your books "Leaving a Cult for Dummies" and "Ten Stupid Things People do to Themselves After Leaving an Abusive Cult". Then I may finally consider myself to truly have overcome the guilt and shame instilled in me by the cult enabling me to express my emotions of rage against TF. I know that only once I am able to agree with you 110% will I finally be free from any and all forms of mind-control. No longer will I allow myself to form opinions that are tainted by the mindset instilled in us by TF, but I will instead embrace every aspect of this new nation of rage as guided by Queen Nancy and King Exister.
I will also pledge 14% of my income to our new nation because I know that on my own I am unable to stand up against the mighty institution that is The Family, but together we can shine the raging light of truth on their abuses and once and for all bring them to justice for the crimes which they have committed against us, their own children. We are the abused children of the Children of God, and we are not going to sit down and let them walk all over us, we are going to fight back and show them that the law will no longer turn a blind eye to the evil they have perpetrated in the name of God!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Mydestinyismine
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 00:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not that educated and not trying to act like it. But I'm pretty sure my opinions come from experience. To me it just seemed you were bashing Loch again. I think suggesting that someone is still indoctrinated by cult teaching is a bit harsh. I'd take serious offense to it. You've been out a long time and have had time to deal with the past. However, some here haven't and should be given time and understanding. Here is one of the best places to express one's emotions of the past. Only exmembers can relate and understand what growing up in TF was like. But if you smash'm down all the time they'll close up and one of the purposes of this site will have failed.
I agree with you on the "Where is rage" part. I don't understand how some exmembers are sympathetic to TF. It's like aiding a felon and developing a bondship then trying to get others to understand why the felon is misunderstood or needs to be understood. I do understand sympathizing with members that are just simple trying to do good. But these same good people are hurting the futures of their kids and anyone else they convert. Although most do this blindly(brainwashed) it does not excuse the results. We know first hand and should look objectively at the present situation, not emotionally.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Justin
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 10:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Since when did crimes against children become fanaticism or suspect? Is the world of "grey", neutrality, detachment and apathy become so overwhelming that you can't see right and wrong? If it's a crime, then it's clear cut. Are you a socio-path that doesn't feel any emotions for anyone but oneself and cannot understand the laws of civilized society?(reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 11:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Are you sure you meant to ask me these questions?
It's funny how much people will assume about a total stranger, simply because they disagree with him.
"Since when did crimes against children become fanaticism or suspect?"
Tell, you what, Justin: Why don't you ask some of the more "fanatical" people on this site. I have very little experience with both crimes against children and fanaticism so I really wouldn't be able to help you on that one.(reply to this comment) |
| | from Andygirl
Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 21:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
I couldn't agree more, Jules. That is also my take on a lot of what is discussed on this site. If we refuse to acknowledge our past and simply try to forget about it, it will always be there to haunt us. The only way I have been able to change any of that Family learned crap is by recognizing those behaviours whenever they occur.
Coming here has rehashed a lot that I have forgotten or repressed. I believe that that is good thing. It never solves anything to sweep your woes under some sort of mental rug and try to pretend that it never happened. Because it will affect your life every day in subconcious ways. Being heard by a group of people who understand and have undergone similar experiences is also part of the healing process. The need to be heard and acknowledged and feel that somebody, anybody gives a damn about what you've gone through and how it still affects your life everyday is something that I am sure many of us share.
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]