Cult Mind Control: How Cults use Thought Stopping / Pausing

Discussion of cults generally - not specifically related to the SES or its related organisations.
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:13 pm

Cult Mind Control: How Cults use Thought Stopping / Pausing

Postby Justice » Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:07 pm

Anyone interested in how Mind Control Cults use 'Thought Stopping / Pausing' as part of their indoctrination and control process can listen to an interesting radio broadcast that was aired on ABC News on ABC Radio National in Australia.

The broadcast consists of an interview with Steven Hassan, 'America's Leading Cult Counsellor', during which he explains in detail how this technique is used by cults (and was used on him!) to achieve total control.

The interview begins after about 5 minutes of general Australian news which they didnt edit out, so you can either skip forward 5 minutes or listen to some Aussie news!

The web link for this is: ... 6_2856.ram

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:32 am

Intersting interview Justice - thanks for the link. As a local I really should listen to Radio National more often.

I must admit I was multi-tasking while I listened, so although I heard some comments about 'thought stopping" in relation to the Moonies, I don't recall hearing about 'pausing". Perhaps you can paraphrase what he said?

Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: LONDON

Postby mm- » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:39 am

Interesting link Justice- Thank you.

Steven Hassans discussion, on cults introducing phobias to their members so that they are unable to leave or function outside of the group is actually something, which has worried me and other parents.

One of the biggest fears parents have when withdrawing their children from St James is that somehow by giving the required terms notice, children will be indoctrinated and brainwashed further to the point where the child may be led to believe that by leaving, they will either not be happy or that they will be made to believe that leaving itself is the wrong thing to do- therefore creating an aversion either to the new school and people or to the parents themselves. It has been suggested by other parents that a child will need to be deprogrammed after leaving St James. This is a worrying thought.

The question is, if Steven Hassan's interview is anything to go by do we as parents remove a child from the school without giving the school notice, just in case the same technique is used at St James?

Does anyone have any experience of this at the schools?

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:57 am

It has been suggested by other parents that a child will need to be deprogrammed after leaving St James. This is a worrying thought.

MM - I suggest you try talking via PM to TD (temporarily duped) who has just gone thru the process of withdrawing their child from an aussie school.

She/He may not have all the answers - but they have just 'been there done that" with withdrawing a child from an SES (SoES) school. It may help.

Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:13 pm

Cult Mind Control

Postby Justice » Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:09 pm

A wide range of other TV and Radio broadcasts on Cult Mind Control can be seen at:

Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby mgormez » Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:48 pm

I've a mirror of an old video archive of about 260 megabytes here

Mostly on scientology but also other groups are discussed
Mike Gormez

User avatar
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 am

Postby Stanton » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:52 pm

Justice! You have ignored the thread asking you to introduce yourself. Please do so, stating your connection - if any - to St James.

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

steve hassan etc

Postby ross nolan » Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:26 am

I posted the link to ABC radio's 'the spirit of things ' interview with Steve Hassan some time ago -- it is a sub link to "the religion report' if anyone has trouble finding it (A google search with a few key words will get you there fairly easily .)

Let's let Justice! decide if and when he or she wants to "out" him/herself -- listen to what is said not to whom is saying it -- this is anathema to those who must follow someone and bathe in reflected glory,wisdom or whatever -- think again of poor Brian (life of ...) trying to get people NOT to follow him or quote his, misheard, statements . Blessed are the cheesemakers .

A stody of comparative religions would reveal very similar techniques of 'persuasion' based on an understanding of human psychology -- cults attract those who are looking for answers to the big questions and are naturally thinking about matters of good and evil,ultimate meaning, the nature of things and so on -- in short just like the blurb in the SES/SOP's public ads -- it is also astonishingly like the list of characteristics attributed to people who develop depression because they have a world picture that is built around just and ethical expectations -- when these are not met they turn inward and punish themselves for their responsibility for things going wrong .

See the website of English (ex pat Australian) psychologist Dorothy Rowe and he book Depression : the way out of your prison. for some real fresh insights into the similarities between mind control techniques and religions and explanations as to why the 'self programming' in depression as well can be so insidious and hard to break.

For children force fed and involuntarily exposed to the SES claptrap there is a different effect and resolution than to adults who 'tripped over' them and got sucked in only to realize later that they had been deceived and had their faith and trust betrayed .

Is there a place for a thread for adults who went into the SES/SOP to recount their reasons for being attracted and how it hooked them ?
(Steve Hassan recounted his idealistic plunge into the Moonies and later painful awareness of his having been deceived -- he knows of what he speaks )


Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:13 pm

steve Hassan

Postby leon » Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:39 pm

Steve Hassan
Combating cult Mind Control page 196.

Cults and religious Freedom

"Nothing would grieve me more than to learn that this book has caused anyone to become religiously intolerant"

worth remembering.

Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:32 am

Cult Mind Control

Postby AntonR » Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:18 pm

Post deleted
Last edited by AntonR on Wed May 17, 2006 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:05 pm

Postby Zathura » Mon Feb 20, 2006 2:48 pm

Justice. One of your better posts. I am writing another long one because I tink I have a lot to say. I'm sure I'll run out at some point. But this is an important moment in process, 'post report' and I personally think my contribution is quite valid. Read or don't read. I've read it a few times and I find it interesting a second and third time. It is not a final argument but it takes in a lot and expands the horizen of what is and isn't a cult and whether being a cult is to be in such a pariah position in society.

* Concerning the use of silence, let me just point out however that all Eastern religions have forms of silence/pause/meditation and so does Christianity have prayer/meditation/reflection. From a scientific view the use of such things could either result in praise (1970's endorsement of TM by prominant scientists) or censure such as the warning by this physcologist. There are two views on these things if one is to take the whole of society together and work from that platform. The view you express here is one side of the scientific debate. I am not a religious person but bear in mind that billions of people take part in similar or slightly similar exercises as this pausing/ falling quite and letting the mind still down. That's in the East. You only have to look at the majority of advertisements in the West also for cosmetic and theraputic creams/medicenes to notice that showing persons doing yoga, meditation - persons in ' blissed outness', in extacy and the ultimate 'divine' often combined with the sensual pleasure that accompanies such transcendental experiences are very popular bait methods to lure people into a belief that the product is life changing.

* The Catholic Church has had interfaith relations since the sixties but because of dwindling church attendence and belief is very paranoid about cults. This could explain a small segment of the self rightiousness MM displays 'against' cults, Maybe people don't want to be saved by Justice or M and M's. Peanut or chocolate? I certainly would have paid you no heed when I was in a cult. Incidently usually people are too serious about their spiritual journey as a living day to day in your face reality to even really consider people trying to tell them their beliefs are mindless and part of a sheep herding. People curently in the S.E.S just don't want to know. they don't want to be saved. Maybe Mand M's attitude is the patronizing one. To be sure to all those people she deems to be sub citizens his or her attitude is remarkably patrononizing and rude. I 'still' highly value my time in S.E.S and various other 'cults'. When you talk about a life view would Smarties particularly like it if I ripped apart Catholocism which is very easy to do. Might there not be something of great importance in MM's religion only to M and M. Is M and M mentally disabled by 'his or her present or past attachment to Catholicism. Perhaps she takes some bits leaves others. This is normal. Complete dependency on one's spiritual path is an unusual neurosis. Sure it happens but not often. People are usually grounded in the real world. Just like most of those in the S.E.S are and certainly the school is with it's use of 'spin'.

* Cults are big in Western society. Five hundred in England it is said. I've been affiliated to three myself . I don't get sucked in by them though. That 'could' be open to debate although if you were to hear my views, 'my religion' (personal religion, which incidently as far as I can see must be as valid as anybody else's life outlook) which you probably would not be interested in and deem a self indulgent irrelivance, you would realise I have very eccentric and original views indeed. However the subject of personal outlook is what is on trial here. That is the issue when it comes to religions of all sizes. At the end of the day everybody is responsible for their own mind and outlook irrespective of any religion. Perhaps you don't believe or agree with this? If people want to be a part of the S.E.S what business is it of yours? At best you can only have a very patchy black and white view. At worst you are intolerant or would seem to be. This fortunately is the most free country I've ever been in and I've travelled a fair bit. Now you are free to have your do goody self rightious view but I am also free to point out the possibility of these characteristics in it. Some people would agree with your outlook some with mine. This is the nature of human thought. Which means neither of us is 'right'. Except by that argument it does annul the validity of your intollerant 'anti' stand on the wider stage as an absolute vision. And mine. And you are more interested in being seen as valid than I am. So you are probably the greater loser. I have no violent views or outlooks to defend. So I escape relatively unscathed except if people label my argument specious.

*There is a lot of interesting stuff in the world and society for people interested in spiritual issues. To just slam them all as 'rubbish' is one way of looking at them. Organized religion has been on the decline for a hundred years. Cults have come into replace that void. Often many of these cults are related to Eastern gurus who in their own country would be seen as quite official. Not a 'cult figure' at all. Shantanand Saraswati was one of four 'popes' in India. This is a fact. That they have four perhaps makes him more like the archbishop of a country. But infact one has to be 'enlightened' to fit the post so it is rather more 'special' in India than the post of archbishop, at least to an Indian. The archbishops in England don't claim any kind of 'god consciousness'. These are the facts as some people would see it. A lot more in fact than are on this site.This may be why there has neither been a mass exodus from the S.o.E.S or by parents of St James or by followers of the main religion of India. Next to these forces what can mere mortals like us say or do?

* With the parents at St James is it possible that they want to be where they are and want their children to be there too? In fact it is rather obvious. People are different. Just cause you or I can't understand them doesn't mean they don't themselves have very valid motives or reasons for their beliefs and actions. What is more invalid? The fact that you are ranting against their set of beliefs or they are ranting against yours. I have never met one person quite the same. People are allowed to believe in something contrary to the opinion of Justice and contrary to every person on their street. The mistreatment is a different issue. Physical violence is just not a main feature of the S.E.S in all it's 70 year history. The people who have serious claims do have serious claims. But would you blame the whole British army for the abuse of some, or the whole Church, every vicar and priest, for the sexual abuse of three hundred or so of their number out of thousands? Governments swallow a small group of complainents just as most institutions do because you can't pin the abuse of individuals on the institution as a whole. This is the way of the world, In my view the shady transparency of the schools is infact the thing they should be most careful about. But any legal check would not close them down but just ask them to be more obvious and transparent. This site is good as a starting ground to air the ideological inconsistancies of the S.E.S of which the contrast between the ideals of sexism and unity is one. And the newspapers would be a good temporary airing place to in some ways force the schools to modernise but it won't close them down and it won't legally change anything.

* Justice has still not presented the legal approaches a person might make to claim redress. He is letting down anyone who is in too poor a state of mind to make up their mind themselves which are the people I'm sure he's directing his vision of justice at. What law can people claim under when the cut off date in all the cases was 15 to 20 years ago. It's too late to do anything about it legally. Bad PR is the only option. Also it would seem a substantial amount of people just want true resolution, a 'genuine' apology and the real sense that things like this won't happen again. Even with those that wan't resignations the demands are fairly moderate and also probably right. The majority of people on this site aren't screaming they are hurting and actually do want justice. Real justice. Which is not 'an eye for an eye' but the assurance, real assurance of real improvement to do with S.E.S recruitment, sexism and the treatment of children with respect. These would seem to be the unifying aims of the majority of persons here. I could be wrong. Justice seems to be a lone cowboy. I might be wrong there too. Justice seems to have let balance and objectivity completely go and seems to have turned into a feiry vortex. The inflamation marquerades as intelligence, as legal savyness, as interest and participation in a common cause but it seems to me he is trying to set the agenda and trying from motives that are purely blinding anger completely forgetting that other people might want to resolve all this pain and hurt not take it further and further into a legal arena where almost assuredly a quagmire would result and the plain victory that Justice's posts imply would not be forthcoming. Justice sounds good but could be highly damaging. He is promising a fool's paradise.

* It is easy to be gullible to the anti cult people also. David Boddy is perfectly willing to admit (I hear) that the S.E.S IS a cult. Perhaps he thinks 'So what?' What you call something doesn't make much difference. 'Cult' is a definition used to describe people who find official dogmatic religion unsatisfying and go for orthodoxies on a more minute scale. Many people, myself included make no distinction between religion or belief involving more than one person. in my opinion if you have a religious or ehthical/religious/athiest/darwinest/ communist set of four loonies at the end of the road group of any kind then you have a sect or cult. It is all in my opinion the same monster or angel depending on your view. I don't happen to respect either S.o.E.S or Catholicism in an ultimate way. They are both too trite for me. But I can see interest there. Cults meet in smaller numbers and have often more odd sounding belief structures. But in general this is an illusion created by their cult status. The S.E.S down to the few arranged marraiges is pure Hinduism without the back up of thousands of years of cultural integrity that includes the tradition of the supression of women and reincarnation. The guru disciple relationship in India is a matter of national tradition. The Hindu God pantheon is a multitude of different recognised God and Godess cults. This apparently is O.K and a group of people in London with similar roots is not. There has been no sex abuse in the S.o.E.S which in the Catholic church has very recently been relatively widespread.

*Just like the Church has the Pope and the Buddhists the Dalai Lama so cults always have leaders. All of society seems to unfortunately work around this idea of leaders. People aren't sharers. They are leaders or followers. What I find irritating is people who follow one line of thought through to the exclusion of all others. Certain secular people do this also like yourself, and MM seems a recent convert to your leadership and scheming. This is just turning the idea of manipulation and thought control around on it's head a bit. It is just a game. Please don't take it too seriously. You can have a mildly cult situation like St James and the S.E.S. There is no sex abuse and quite large amounts of free will. Everyone that joined my foundation group left. We weren't especially strong minded and there were16 of us. You can take a parent, feed them with all this information gleaned from official sources and show small signs of all your source information in the group of persons you are exposing. But if those official sources were really pfficial then the S.E.S would have been banned years ago. They are just more opinions among opinins just like te law of the land is just an opinion. it changes quite drastically every 25 to 50 to 100 years. You can turn these small signs that fit the views of these official cult agencies into windows and chasms and black holes of evidence and suddenly MM is paranoid that every S.E.S parent is of a certain type, with certain beliefs etc. But she forgets the larger version of the world. The world is a massive melting pot of ideas of all kinds and in the West, especially in non religious England societies advertise themselves as products you find out more about later or not depending on your interest. Do the hair loss advertisements advertise a genuine cure? I doubt it but they are allowed to advertise. Most advertisements try to bring out the most appealing qualities of their product. Most advertising is lies. Most school prospectuses are filled with self promoting gaffe.The S.E.S and St James I'm sure meet the legal requirements of transparency. Now there are similarities but the Stepford Wife conformity and dullard syndrome just isn't in my opinion what the reality of the mental condition of S.E.S parents are. My father is very much an alive person but very right wing and my mother is actually the most beautiful and sweetest and alive person I know. So MM in my opinion is paranoid. Notice I have not been rude or offensive here. I am just stating an opinion.

* To be paranoid is a state of mind not something to be insulted about. If you find it insulting then you can' t be too sure of yourself for it is meant neutrally not as an insult. If you are not paranoid and I am wrong then you won't get insulted. You'll just see the comment as it is meant as a point of view. There is nothing to get agitated about unless you already are agitated and coming from a moving place of friction and unsurity in yourself that is trying to keep a certain view screened up at all cost no matter the argument. In these situations, and I am not saying it is your situation, MM , people feel threatened because they are not really sure of their own stand and they start claiming to be insulted which hides the reality that their solid viewpoints had been knocked and this has caused unrest dissappointment and a certain stature of self belief has been snatched away. In this confused state the person just throws away the subtelties of the opponent argument and claims both to others and in self deception to have been insulted which diverts the attention away from the real arguments. Instead of answering the real issues, the defendent points to a few uses of 'offensive language'. I am not saying this is an accuate assessment of our situation. It is just a hypothesis.

* Having been on an S.E.S week I can tell you that the early hours and zoning out periods produce peace and disorientation in equal measure. (for me). Being in a foreign environment day after day with no world and just texts and discussion and silent breaks in equal measure can be very peaceful or disorientating depending on the mood. It's a kind of double thing.

* The fact is however I think people over stress the lack of self will that people have in the S.E.S have. Nothing else can explain the fact that thousands of people have left the S.E.S as well as thousands staying.

* I certainly had problems with self will and also unresolved attitudes that came together and fixed when I left. So these self will issues are great and important but not quite as sinister in my opinion as all that. After all life on a general scale for everyone must be a gradual accumilation and process and working through for everyone in whatever environment.

* I have found it more reliable to investigate all these spiritual possibilities through books however and I have a strong athiest inclination as well. I much prefer being outside of the 'school' now for 6 years. The other cults I visited were just curios. I wanted to see other sects in action and I got a lot out of the other ones as well. The danger is this losing of oneself which acts as a curious counterpoint to the act of finding oneself. The two seem to swing around each other on a fading in and out roundabout as unseated leviathons vying for prominance or for the throne of 'reality'.


Lastly I will say since when does someone who just has a milder opinion have to be labelled 'confused'. I don't think I'm confused at all. I find it eminantly reasonable to hold the opinions I have and have come to them after a lot of hard work and shuffling through them in my own space. To say that I have been influenced by the S.E.S is obvious. To say that in equal measure I have not been influenced by all other ideas would be wrong. I am a vociferous reader and my reading list is wide and COMPLETELY outside the scope of S.E.S thought. If you find my position to be some kind of S.E.S covert despatch then you would be missing half of my personality out. Infact I would say the S.E.S amounts to about a quarter of my thought process. I am more esconced in contempory or recently contempory Structuralist and Post Structuralist thought and am massively interested in the Post Modern phenomenom. This should be fairly obvious in the no centered, fairness to all, disregarding of absolutes, attitude I have. I may not be to the left or the right of the arguments as presented here, but to me, and to many others may I add, my view, my way of rationalizing is straight ahead. There is no 'God', there is no 'Truth' and I am perfectly O.K. A lot of other people are as well. We are not confused or at least not confused enough to want to send our children to esoteric truth schools or ourselves turn to religion. I have developed this attitude as a person who has tried various religions and philosophies of all kinds from Nietsche to Derrida to Sartre to Heraclitus to Heiddiger to Jesus and found them all to be inconsistent and all to have certain valid points. This is not a confusion. It is the opposite and has nothing to do with St James or my pupilship there. I am my own human being and I don't get intimidated by religious leaders or teachers. Justices and MM's though are a different matter. They are very intellectually intimidating. Or not. Depending on the standard of play. In the postmodern view, which is just a hypothetical structure, however all views are welcome. I am not a post modernist either because whats that? However it is a good way of rationalizing the validity of all ideas and no ideas at this most idea ridden time in history in my view.
Seeing as the human brain doesn't seem to be able to hold all this at once, there being one idea then another then another oscilating to the forefront of the mind, it seems to me that in such a random and unstable environment people come to argue about truths that take over only for the moment then the next day or even minute or second dissappear. Never is the whole of human experience on an individual or mass level called up as this would seem to be impossible and ideas of all kinds would go nowhere given the counter balancing phenomenom that a general and broad view of all fragments of the mind would enevitably produce. There is always an argument that contradicts and when strung up next to each, each to each, the graph settles down at zero. It cannot be any other way. For every S.E.S zombie there is a natural person in there, just like for every mistreated St James kids there were 50 who weren't. For every intimidation there is a self belief that conquers this intimidation and for every cult belief there is a secular empirical belief to match. Confusion no. Balance yes.

Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:30 am

Zathura wrote:...If people want to be a part of the S.E.S what business is it of yours?..

I have no problem with people feeding their mind with whatever crap they so desire, but I do have a problem when it starts to affect other people. The other people here are impressionable children, who should be being taught tolerance in all things and not having their heads filled with sexist and homophobic views which incidentally have nothing to do with any religion.

The most important lesson we all learn at school is how to deal with and interact with people - the academic education is very much a secondary consideration. History is littered with non-academic success stories, but you can bet your bottom dollar that each of those successful people had a very good understanding of people. After many years in St Vedast (and I'm hearing the same from far more recent St James Pupils) I came out with a set of views that was just not contiguous with the society in which I was expected to make my way. It took me a very long time to un-learn all that clap-trap.

Where do you draw the line. If a person wants to study as part of a fundamentalist group that believes that terrorism is justified, then technically that's fine, but the day he goes out to commit an act of terrorism then he has crossed the line. It is for this reason that such organisations are treated with the utmost caution. And while no-one is suggesting the SES is a terrorist organisation, the moment that one of it's members discriminates against a woman or tells a homosexual that they can be "cured" is the day they have crossed that line.

Zathura wrote:...But infact one has to be 'enlightened' to fit the post so it is rather more 'special' in India than the post of archbishop...

Sorry Zathura, but here you have crossed the line into the realms of SES fantasy. WTF is "enlightened" and who on earth can say that one person is more holy (or somehow better) than another. This is just a legacy of the SES, stuff that you believe in because you have had it rammed down your throat for so long that you have no other reference point. Be real - revisit some of that trash and re-examine it for what it is - absolute rubbish!

Zathura wrote:...With the parents at St James is it possible that they want to be where they are and want their children to be there too? In fact it is rather obvious...

It is certainly possible, but it is far more likely that they have no real understanding of the SES and it's views (unless they are ensconced themselves). So it is far from obvious. If the SES were so proud of what they teach then they should be shouting it from the rooftops - but no, they hide it away because they know they would be ridiculed. They discourage relationships with people outside the SES as they know that these have the potential of destroying the bubble that they work so hard to create.

Zathura wrote:...Physical violence is just not a main feature of the S.E.S in all it's 70 year history...

Very wrong - I quote from instruction that was given to the teachers in my time - "You cannot hurt the soul". So essentially they had license to beat merry hell out of us because they would only be harming the body - not the {insert appropriate Sanskrit word} real person.

Zathura wrote:...The people who have serious claims do have serious claims. But would you blame the whole British army for the abuse of some, or the whole Church, every vicar and priest, for the sexual abuse of three hundred or so of their number out of thousands?..

Any organisation, be it the army or the church, has a duty to ensure the well-being of those in it's care. Failure to do this is a criminal act. The difference between the two examples you have given is that both the army and the church have in the past taken responsibility for the un-authorised acts of a few criminals causing the harm of a minority of its members. The governors on the other hand, in suggesting that there were only a few minor acts and calling into question the criminality of these acts, are essentially trying to cover up the true extent of the daily abuse which we all (including the teachers of the time) know existed.

Recently the American press has been having a field day with the Bush Administration regarding the Cheney shooting. The quote that really rang a bell with me (and apologies if I misquote slightly) is:

"Don't they [The Bush Administration] know that the cover-up is worse than the crime"

It would be wise for the governors to take note.

Zathura wrote:...He is letting down anyone who is in too poor a state of mind to make up their mind themselves which are the people I'm sure he's directing his vision of justice at...

Now that's irony!

Zathura wrote:...What law can people claim under when the cut off date in all the cases was 15 to 20 years ago. It's too late to do anything about it legally...

Interestingly enough there is a story in the news today ( about a woman who received a payout because she was bullied at her school 12 years ago.

I am not aware of anyone seeking compensation from the schools (that's not what this is about), but it's worth noting that various limits of the time to claim for a criminal prosecution are obviously not a restriction put on private prosecutions.

Zathura wrote:...David Boddy is perfectly willing to admit (I hear) that the S.E.S IS a cult...

Actually, he has no choice - the SES places ticks in all the right boxes when it comes to defining a cult

Zathura wrote:...The S.E.S down to the few arranged marraiges is pure Hinduism without the back up of thousands of years of cultural integrity that includes the tradition of the supression of women and reincarnation...

Quite evidently not - if they were Hindus then they would describe themselves as so and would be far more accepted within society. I work with a number of Hindus and there is certainly no edict within their religion to get rid of any friends who are not Hindu. Likewise I haven't heard much mention of sacred cows in my time at SES.

Zathura wrote:...Everyone that joined my foundation group left...

Good - what was it that finally made you leave? Also did you all leave en-masse or did you just fall away like leaves from a dying tree?

Right, I finally got through all of that, but please take heed Zarutha - if you want your posts to be read by more than a hardy few then please make them shorter. You really don't need to cram everything into one post - the BB is not going to go away - you will have plenty of time to make as many points as you like.


User avatar
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:18 am

Just a point about sexual abuse,

There are a number of 'iffy' things that happened both in St James and in the SES whilst I was there. Things that may or may not in the eyes of law be counted as sexual abuse. Certainly they were distasteful, certainly they involved a difference in sexes. Until you have a transparent organisation, it is unlikely that you will hear of many.

I have had a gutfull of your long posts Zathura, it seems the more you write the less you say.

Either you think the SES should change or you dont. If you are only 25% comitted to it, why not find something that suits 75% or even a 100% of yourself.

It is the relegating of everything to the intellect that bores me and ignores a full half of the human condition. Just what the SES did that led to the intellectualising of abuse. And yes that is small boys and girls being physically and emotionally damaged by teachers and tutors in whose care they had been placed in the pursuit of an intellectual ideal. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, whichever way you think about it.

At some point the posturing has to stop and you have to DO something. So what will you DO?

Enough of your confused mind-babble already!

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:05 pm

Postby Zathura » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:18 am

I left the S.E.S with great conviction six years ago and haven't looked back since. This does mean I still have some emotional ties. I don't want to be committed to anything. This is my commitment. I will save my atttachments for people and friends not institutions. It's a shame to hear such a normally tollerant guy being so damning. Oh well. I hope I make it up with certain posts that are more critical of the S.E.S. Kier everyone has a right to their view or views. So I respect your stand but hope I can convince you there is more to me than intellectual posturing. It is my feeling that one does have to have a political restraint when debating perhaps this runs against the self confessional ethic on this site. You yourelf seem to be half sticking up for the S.E.S quite often yourself. So I could call that confusing but actually understand it. It is a human feeling you have which I identify with.

So far I have two main points. No mass parent exodus is happening and the S.E.S is to greater or lesser extents a cult. There is nothing illegal about it certainly as it stands.

I have never been called mainly intellectual before so it makes a change. But I must point out that the it must be conceded that the more realistic wider parameteres that my arguments and view of the world take in are just that. A larger point of view. I do have more private opinions but I would never share them on this site. I would be ripped to shreds and why should I go through that? My angle is as a rambling post modern author pumping out facts to match the 'commited' people's facts. Whether I am a thorn or an irrelevence time will tell. Probably I'm just a contributor like everybody else. As an ex St James pupil nearer the beginning than is supposed I think there isn't a word limit for this kind of thing although I must expect a haranguing and can indeed take it. I have a fair amunt of distance from persons I haven't met for years and probably new as prefects/arseholes.



Will get back to Alban.

User avatar
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:45 pm

The further back you stand from events, the less you feel. The less you feel the smaller your capacity for compassion. If you use 'one' instead of 'I' you already distance the emotion from your person.

My point is that if you are not yet connecting with what it feels like, then all the different perspectives your mind can throw up will not take you any closer to understanding your heart. If you dont understand your own heart, how can you possibly think that feelings are important. If you dont think feelings are important then you must have missed the larger point of why it took people 30 years to post their stories of abuse. You must have real difficulty connecting with why people feel trapped in an organisation like the SES, and you must not connect with the way that they controlled you to an extent.

This is why I distrust the SES influence in ST James eductation. In the SES version of philosophy Chitta is 'wobbly', and wouldn't you know it, women have more of it than men. Awfly handy way of preparing the ground for misogyny that. If men are emotionless creatures why do men in the SES have a habit of having an affair at a certain time of life - come to think of it why are they in all their wisdom not able to simply 'rise above' the mid life crisis, or come to think of it, puberty.

My problem with the SES is that it is not honest, not honest with itself, not honest with its students, and not honest to the outside world. The desire for enlightenment is more than just a thought, it takes passion. Therefore the way to enlightenment can't be to shut down you emotional centre, that must be the way to madness. Hell, trying to control others is driven by an emotion too, fear/powerlessness.

Is it unusual in that? No.

Does that make it alright? No.

PS. Zathura, I can match you thought for thought, but if you dont undertand the emotional element of The SES and how it is used to control people, then I haven't the patience to just blab away for my own glorification. If you do understand it, then understand that most people on this site have had enough of the purely intellectual approach even before they came here. And yes, its alright to say how you feel.

Return to “Cults and religious organisations generally”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests