[Note: In the following message a German OSA representative, who I think is the one who said he left Germany because persecution was so bad there for Scientologists he had to go live in Los Angeles instead, describes conclusions that have been reached as a result of thinking in the style of Miscavige's reformed Scientology.]
Goals and Strategies of the Critic Cult
From: "sharky" sharky818 at yahoo.com Newsgroups: alt.binaries.scientology Subject: Ziele und Strategien der Kritikersekte. Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 19:47:05 GMTIn many posts here you get the impression that people do not at all understand what the goals of the critic cult are and with what strategies and methods they are being pursued.
Consultation and Information?
The fact of the matter is that no consultation is taking place nor is information being given out with these people. For one thing, the demonization and instigation against minority religions is irrelevant and therefore a genuine need for consultation does not exist, and for another, these people are highly unqualified for any consultation work.
"Consultation" is only being used by these people so that they can trick us out of tax money. More on that later.
So what is the goal of these "cult consultants"?
Lobbyists for Totalitarianism
The goal of these people is to destroy new religious groups. They are very aware that it takes more to attain this goal than just continuous defamation in the media, even though they have the favorable support of the official churches.
Therefore their strategies also include state-mandated measures against minority religions
The so-called "Enquete Commission" was an example of the attempt to misuse the democratic legal system for ideological witch hunts.
But now you can't just simply say I don't like Religion A or B, the state should ban them. That doesn't even happen in Germany.
Isolated cases are being used for stigmatization.
In any group with more than a thousand members, a minimum of misconduct or member problems can be found.
This case is then widely publicized and presented as typical behavior for group A, B, etc. For instance, stigmatization is attained by using the word "cult" while simultaneously using any means necessary to hinder any factual or expert discussion.
If this is successfully acquired for the consciousness of public opinion, that is when state measures can be invoked as justified for the "common good."
But since this is only propaganda from the critic cult, the state agencies quickly run amuck. They find out very quickly that there is nothing to the accusations of the critic cult, but anyone who says so is subjected to ruthless libel by the critic cult.
What kind of civil servant can afford to be publicly attacked by the critic cult as a cult sympathizer. Therefore people would much rather say nothing at all. The cartel of silence begins.
Postulate of unwillingness of members of minority religions
Nor can any in the critic cult afford to say that the state should forcefully interfere to stop people from being members in minority religions.
Therefore it is postulated that nobody joins a "cult" voluntarily. Along with the stigmatization of these groups, it is argued that "no intelligent person would voluntary join such a group."
As absurd as this argument is, its goal is clear. Once you can simply assert that members of minority religions are "involuntary" and "coerced," then naturally can state-mandated measures be promoted and justified.
This is the attempt of the critic cult to force the state into the mold and method of a totalitarian system.
Background and risk potential
Many members of the critic cult have brought with them the methods and strategies of their former C-groups. These people are a danger for democracy in Germany and politicians and businessmen must fight against this anti-democratic and totalitarian movement, before it does more damage to democracy and Germany's image.
Comment from Joe Cisar
I love and respect cults. Various viewpoints are necessary for a democracy, and cults provide these. There is a very small minority of cults, however, that receive a disproportionate amount of media attention. That is because there are good cults and there are rotten cults, just like there is good food and there is rotten food. Rotten food can be distinguished by a rotten smell, and rotten information of rotten cults can be distinguished by its inconsistency.
Presuming that there were such a thing as a critic cult, complete with a cult leader and cult policies and adherents, and presuming that this critic cult was going around demonizing people by calling them "cults", and presuming that the writer of the above objects to demonization, then why is the writer calling critics a "cult"? The writer himself appears to be doing the demonizing.
It can be concluded that Scientologists discriminate against and demonize cults and say that cults are totalitarian, the presumption being that Scientology is not a cult. This presumption is on the same level as the presumption that there is no such thing as brainwashing, that of self-denial. A person in self-denial is perfectly capable of demonizing a group by calling it a cult whose members demonize groups by calling them cults. To me, this does not appear to be rational behavior. In any case, it's not consistent.