|
|
|
This much is true. The irony of course is the military itself often employs heirarchial, top-down, individual-destroying programming in order to churn out mechanical killer-drones. It's not that cults are dangerous rule-breakers it's that cultic thinking leads some people to do harm to themselves and others. The only thing that is being recruited by this group of non-military A-listers is an informed mind.
|
|
|
|
One man's cult is another man's reality ... This much is true.
Is it? That's like saying some people prefer murder while others don't. Or because some people are schizophrenic it's not a mental health problem. And the essence of this tale isn't irony, although you can hold it that way. (Deprogrammers use some cultic techniques, which doesn't make them a cult.) You seem to be saying that the essence of dealing with cultic thinking is to simply provide information, which seems like a rather naive faith in rationality. "Deprogramming" does a great deal more than that, and it's not always successful.
As for whether cults are "rule-breakers," perhaps not in a general sense. In a general sense they're rule-followers, but what they do is exempt themselves from the rules the general culture follows. Some aren't aggressive, while others are, but they all seem to see themselves as exempt, and empowered by the vision of an ideal society. Now that's pretty ironic, because what they actually end up creating is a pathological society, about as far from an ideal as it's possible to get.
|
|
|
|
One man's cult is another's reality . . . That's like saying some people prefer murder while others don't. Or because some people are schizophrenic it's not a mental health problem . . . that's silly
Not at all. It's not saying there isn't a right or wrong to being a murderer. It's not saying schizophrenia is a problem; or committing murders is not a problem. It's a problem to us because we are aware that it is a problem. To the murderer or schizophrenic it's not necessarily a problem, it's how things are. To a person in a cult it is their reality not necessarily a problem. To those of us who have been in that cult and are informed out of it (not naive - that is how many of us were de-programmed) it is a personality cult and therefore a problem. The irony I was referring to was that in some instances there is the possiblity of a cult-like conditioning process in any military force not just some Marines' boot-camp, by example. And the military attempting to de-program its enemy and change their views is certainly not new. I certainly have my views on Jihadists and the likelihood of other combatants separating them from their viewpoints. I think that we agree though on your further elaboration: As for whether cults are "rule-breakers," perhaps not in a general sense. In a general sense they're rule-followers . . .
I don't agree with: but what they do is exempt themselves from the rules the general culture follows.
This is way too broad a generalization for the concept of both cults and general culture. Some aren't aggressive, while others are, but they all seem to see themselves as exempt, and empowered by the vision of an ideal society. Now that's pretty ironic, because what they actually end up creating is a pathological society, about as far from an ideal as it's possible to get.
In some instances I might be in total agreement with you but like I said, one man's cult is another's reality. This is what clashes of civilisations, religions, POVs is all about.
Modified by Dr.wow at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 19:31:35
|
|
|
|
Not at all. It's not like saying there isn't necessarily a right or wrong to being a murderer. It's not saying schizophrenia isn't a problem; or committing murders is not a problem. It's a problem to us because we are aware that it is a problem. To the murderer or schizophrenic it's not necessarily a problem, it's how things are.
Well, I'm sure Bin Laden thinks he's a highly principled good citizen of the Ummah, but so what? I mean, it's not "how things are", to get right to the point. It's how things aren't. The irony I was referring to was that in some instances there is the possiblity of a cult-like conditioning process in any military force not just some Marines' boot-camp, by example. So, what do you actually know about the military? Anything? There's lots of irrelevant irony in life. It seems meaningful only because whe choose not to prioritize sensibly. Again, in this case the irony is that you don't grasp the reality of the military, but insist on promoting your prejudice about them. The truth is that the military is only cult-like in the context of a cultic national identity (N. Korea at present, the Pakistani Intelligence Service when it created the Taliban, etc.)
In some instances I might be in total agreement with you but like I said, one man's cult is another's reality. This is what clashes of civilisations, religions, POVs is all about.
The implication of this POV is that the more powerful cult wins and defines itself as a non-cult, which is simply a distortion of what happens in real life. In actuality the least cult-like military establishment defeats the more cult-like simply because it's better able to adapt to objective reality. Consider the profound difference between the US military during WWII and the Nazi military, as discussed by Steven Ambrose and Ernie Pyle; or the similar distinctions between the "Terrorist Insurgency" in Iraq and the US Military, as discussed by Michael Yon. If there's any doubt about who will win the conflict it doesn't reside in the military, but in the home culture, which is not too sure of itself and relatively uncommitted to the fight.
But getting back to the topic, I think you've misidentified the attribute of intentionally using violence as a defininng characteristic. Using that criterion you'd have not only missed EV as a cult, but would have missed Hamas in the early '90s. You'd also have tended to identify the opposition to slavery during the American Civil War as a cult phenomenon. Although one could argue that suicide/murder is a unique characteristic of totalitarian cults, the intentional use of violence certainly isn't. On a more basic level, you just refuse to provide any purchase. It may be difficult to identify cults, but it's difficult to identify explosive devices planted on a commuter train. That doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't try. The truth is that cults have defining characteristics, and we aren't that concerned at the margins because even if we miss such a cult the chances are it's not dangerous anyway. If some refuse to identify Sant Mat as a cult the chances are it won't be the end of the world, because Sant Mat (including EV) is relatively passive.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I don't grok what you're talking about. "Everything is everything" might be true, but it's not terribly useful for programmatic purposes.
|
|
|
|
I think we have to go back to your original post to come to an understanding about my response. You said: The argument is therefore that the military deserves the same consideration as the A-list to which this Forum belongs in the minds of most anti-Rawat activists.
I think that you are going too far in drawing links between militaries, non-military A-listers as you describe them such as police forces and this forum. The military or the Australian Police Force's (in your example) actions of actively "de-programming" jihaddists (and we can just imagine what these de-programming techniques are lol) being linked with the kind of benign exorcising of demons and the lancing of cultic thinking and Rawatism that goes on here seems to me to be extreme and unwarranted.
Modified by Dr.wow at Sat, Mar 11, 2006, 07:29:16
|
|
|
|
Four of my children, my son-in-law, my nephew, my brother and my father are veterans of the United States Army. Our Army is NOT a bunch of "killer-drones". No doubt there are some in the Army who are not what we would wish. That, however, is true of virtually every profession you care to name. Our Army is better educated than ever before in its history. Most of our soldiers are sensitive, caring individuals. One of my sons, who entered the Army after college, when asked why he did replies: "I can do it. The people I care most about in the world can't, but I can and if it keeps them safer, I will."
I have talked to young men who have come back from Iraq. They speak, with tears in their eyes, of having to draw a weapon on children who are running up to the soldiers. As soon as they know they children are not armed or booby-trapped, the weapons are down and the candy comes out of the pockets. I imagine you only have to see a booby-trapped person or body explode one time to know a horror none of us who sit around and criticize can even imagine.
Here is an Army story you won't hear on the news, but is the kind of thing that happens all the time: Two of my sons were serving in Iraq at the same time, though not together. My son, Gabe, made Sergeant while in Iraq. The Army brought my other son, Jake, from another unit to pin the Sergeant insignia on his brother. Someone took a photograph of that. It is a treasure. No big deal, no fanfare, just regular stuff. The work of "killer-drones"? Hardly.
If anyone wishes to discuss this further, I will be gald to do so through e-mail. Please request my address. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
I meant to challenge the "wisdom" of the poster by observing that he doesn't seem to have ever been in the military, or he'd know better than to compare it to a cult. It would actually be more valid to conclude that a media establishment that deliberately censors stories like yours is more "cultic" than the military, which is represented in hundreds of routinely-ignored milblogs across the internet.
But if there's a theme I'm attempting to comunicate here it's not that what we're doing is right (though I believe it is), but that the distance between a violent/aggressive and a passive cult isn't as great as people think. Some people apparently see violence is the unifying characteristic, rather than the cult dynamic... so presume that anyone willing to learn and employ violence must be cultic. That's lack of understanding.
|
|
|
|
The purpose of my post was not to select out nor cast specific aspersions upon the U.S. military. I used the words "the military" which is a generic reference (I'm not an American). Let me also be clear and say that I appreciate any sincere and dedicated service, armed or otherwise, in causes that are for the greater good and for just causes. Well, more specifically, for causes that I deem to be for the greater good and for just causes; and therein lies the rub. The mother of a son who has just blown himself into a million pieces in the market-square could consider him a hero and martyr for the Islamic world or for some political cause. It's the perspective that differs. My words then were meant to convey a sense of irony of how good intentions, and/or how our version of reality, can be subjugated and abused by both militias and militaries alike. At the end of the day we all come to our individual conclusions about right and wrong. In the case of cults and Rawat in particular I post here because I have drawn my own conclusions from the information available to me. In response to what you say, I share your sense of pride in both your sons and the noble intentions of the U.S. army in bringing them together to reward their service. Respect to you and your family.
Modified by Dr.wow at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 20:39:38
|
|
|
|
>but is nonetheless grounded in the same robust principles as this very Forum (cults are dangerous rule-breakers)< Don't cast your functionalist cloud over me ! It's not the rule breaking that bothers me - it's who benefits from the rule breaking. N
|
|
|
|
So, you're against people benefitting?
I mean, it's true that if people benefit from an act they'll keep at it. This fellow, Eli Berman, has done a lot of research on cults and discovered that non-rational belief systems provide people with benefits that are important for survival and well being, which is part of what gives them power. Basically, the cost of subscribing to irrational beliefs is low and the benefits are high. As the cult is able to provide more benefits--including social welfare, employment, etc.--it becomes even more powerful. And he's also shown that even though some cults are aggressive and violent, while others aren't, even the passive ones are but a short step from adopting aggression. Hamas was largely a passive cult, with a belief system that saw suicide and murder as evil, until it was in their interest to change the beliefs. Once that decision was made the beliefs changed in a matter of months.
The larger issue is that we have a particular and ongoing problem with totalitarian cults. We tend not to take them seriously until they start blowing things up on a massive scale. And even then we may not take them seriously enough. We keep expecting people who subscribe to such systems to just snap out of it on their own. Some do. Most don't.
|
|
|
|
>So, you're against people benefitting?< I wrote - in respect of 'rule breaking' that it was not the rule breaking that bothered me but that - it's who benefits from the rule breaking Did I really need to emphasize WHO In terms of the Rawat cult, all of the rule breaking ultimate benefits one individual - although of course there may be numerous psychological kick backs for the cult members. If there was some opposite Elan Vital led by the antithesis of Rawat, which also achieved a global income of $10 - 15 million p.a - but instead of using it to feed the bloated ego of one freak - applied it the actual alleviation of poverty - then I would be far less inclined to concern myself with the 'rule breaking' that supported the obtaining of the income. Morally dubious ? Yes ! But like said regarding your 'functionalism' Count me out. N
|
|
|
|
Did I really need to emphasize WHO Actually, the fact that people benefit disproportionately doesn't bother me that much, in and of itself. For instance, there's something of a problem with CEO salaries, but I don't think it's the source of all evil in the world. And disproportionate income could just reflect ambition, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Plus, it ought to be clear that the members of the cult must be getting something beyond a modest "psychological kickback." If people didn't benefit from what he's selling they wouldn't buy, even though there are covert techniques to rope them in. I can understand how the "social injustice" of establishing a kind of King or Emperor over this little flock might get some people riled, but the important thing for me is the potential for disruptive or aggressive rule-breaking. That's what makes a cult different from MacDonalds. (One could argue that the use of antibiotics in production of the Big Mac creates a huge long term hazard, but it's largely unintentional and certainly not deliberately destructive. At most it constitutes depraved indifference.) One of the things a cult deprogammer might point out, however, is the vast differences between what's expected of the leader and the followers, as well as the difference in their living conditions. But as rich cultic cleptocrats go, Arafat was a lot richer than Maharaji, and his "followers" a lot poorer.
|
|
|
|
Hi Juan,
You said, "The argument is therefore
that the military deserves the same consideration as the A-list to
which this Forum belongs in the minds of most anti-Rawat activists."
What A-list is that then Juan?
And as a keen historian, I must say I don't agree with Richard Sanchez comment about the value of a history book on warfare that doesn't mention weapons, and only writes about "the human mind". I don't think it would be worth the paper it was written on- although I'd be most happy for him to point out an example and prove me wrong.
I don't think the jihadist's want anybody's soul- they just want the barbarian christian invaders to stop bombing them and go home.
Isn't the term "military anti-cultism" a bit of an oxymoron?
I feel like I'm standing at a bus stop in the rain, talking to myself. It must be time for my medication.
Anth the regularly programmed quite contrary how does your garden grow?
Modified by AJW at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 10:33:31
|
|
|
|
And as a keen historian, I must say I don't agree with Richard Sanchez comment about the value of a history book on warfare that doesn't mention weapons, and only writes about "the human mind". I don't think it would be worth the paper it was written on- although I'd be most happy for him to point out an example and prove me wrong. There wouldn't have been much of a Cold War without the cultic aspects of Marxism, or much of a WWII absent the crazy belief system of the Nazis. (Not much of a Peloponnesian War, for that matter, without the social mind control of the Spartans over their own peple and the Helots.) I think Richard could mount quite an argument, actually. I don't think the jihadist's want anybody's soul- they just want the barbarian christian invaders to stop bombing them and go home. That's not what they say, in their own correspondences with one another. Not that the first objective in the "Method of Muhammed" isn't to obtain a nation-state-sized sanctuary funded by oil money, and free from "outside intervention." But believing these folks would then become peaceful shepherds seems more like a psychological need than a rational conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Hi Scott, The way I see it, there really is a "clash of civilizations" brewing and it's just going to get worse and yes, indeed, it's fueled by weird cultic thinking in several quarters. But it's just too big a topic for us here and would swamp our focus. So let's all have a nice day, eh? What else you got? 
|
|
|
|
Question:
If
you could live forever, would you and why?
Answer:
"I
would not live forever, because we should not
live forever, because if we were
supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live
forever, which is why I would not live forever,"
--Miss Alabama in the 1994 Miss USA contest
. (On
September 17, 1994, Alabama's Heather Whitestone was selected as Miss America
1995.)
"Whenever
I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can't help but
cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that, but not with all those flies and
death and stuff."
--Mariah Carey
"Smoking
kills. If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life,"
--Brooke Shields, during an interview to
become Spokesperson for federal anti-smoking campaign.
"I've
never had major knee surgery on any other part of my body,"
--Winston Bennett, University of Kentucky basketball forward .
"Outside
of the killings, Washington has one of the
lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC.
"I'm
not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the
president."
--Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of
subpoenaed documents.
"That
lowdown scoundrel deserves to be kicked to death by a jackass, and I'm just the
one to do it,"
--A congressional
candidate in Texas.
"Half
this game is ninety percent mental."
--Philadelphia Phillies manager, Danny Ozark
"It
isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air
and water that are doing it."
--Al Gore,
Vice President
"I
love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix."
--Dan Quayle
"We've
got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
--Lee
Iacocca
"The
word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman
Einstein." -
--Joe Theisman, NFL
football quarterback & sports analyst
"We
don't necessarily discriminate. We simply exclude certain types of
people."
--Colonel Gerald Wellman, ROTC Instructor .
"If
we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
--Bill
Clinton, President
"We
are ready for an unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
--Al Gore, VP
"Traditionally,
most of Australia's imports come from
overseas."
--Keppel
Enderbery
"Your
food stamps will be stopped effective March 1992 because we received notice that
you passed away. May God bless you. You may reapply if there is a change in your
circumstances."
--Department
of Social Services, Greenville, South
Carolina
"If
somebody has a bad heart, they can plug this jack in at night as they go to bed
and it will monitor their heart throughout the night. And the next morning, when
they wake up dead, there'll be a record."
--Mark S. Fowler, FCC Chairman
Modified by Juan Carlo Finesseti at Fri, Mar 10, 2006, 22:31:29
|
|
|
|
I don't think the jihadist's want anybody's soul- they just want the barbarian christian invaders to stop bombing them and go home. LOL!
|
|
|
