George Glass
Patron
Hello George,
No, it's not the track I was aiming at. I didn't state it well.
Basically I was riffing on the "mind-controlled" label.
I just mean that it's easy for someone to regret an association
or a relationship or an action and say "well, I was just influenced"
by them. The outrage and moral indignation has often little to do with
the actions of the other party.
Like an ex-lover's tiff.
That's how I read almost all ex-Scn war
stories, "he said, she said" no substance, really.
Ah!
I see: The assumption of a more soothing personal narrative that puts its beholder in a more understandable position than a more perceptively neutral narrative that would indicate two parties to be equally responsible for whatever hard feelings were endured afterward.
Robert J. Lifton made notice of such phenomena occurring in his interviews for Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China. Some of the subjects he interviewed would subconsciously re-frame certain events in which they found themselves to be unacceptably overwhelmed to suit a more "heroic" perception of self. The authorities in China, similarly, would re-frame certain events to suit the "Communist" narrative.
In your case, for instance, facing a barrage of negative criticism oriented towards Scientology, you might be seeking a narrative which suits your position that Scientology isn't so much to blame as the individual who has found themselves in conflict with Scientology. By subtly scapegoating the individual, who, in all actuality, really is responsible for their own experiences, is it possible that you've found a more soothing narrative that justifies your position and experiences?
Such mechanisms seem to negate any argument contrary to whatever belief has been fostered by any individual. The wife complaining of the alcoholic husband might be coaxed into considering her own behavior to be damaging; her behavior to be the cause of his drinking. The husband of the sexually addicted wife might be persuaded to think her infidelity a result of his constant attempts to ensure her fidelity; her promiscuity the result of his "short-comings". By turning the ground someone stands on in their individual perception, to a metaphorical quick sand, one invariably assumes a position of power, and unless the actual truth of the matter is known, claims that assail the integrity of a hypothetical abuser seem rendered moot.
In essence, what you have said is that wherever an individual goes, they are bound to find themselves in conflict with one or more people because that would be the outcome of any interaction that individual would have. Certainly, there are individuals who actually do find themselves in conflict with almost anyone and everyone they come into contact with. Such deductions are reinforced by my own experiences in customer service. Dysfunctional individuals fail to see their role in the adversity of their experience and, invariably, wind up calling the customer complaint hotline to report the experience.
It is, however, not the fault of those who provide service, particularly when it can be established that 99.9% of all other customers don't have a problem with the service that has been provided. The more fortunate have an understanding of what is to be expected of their transaction and are therefore prone to leaving having had a beneficial experience. Conversely, 99.9 percent of people who leave Scientology seem to do so on "bad" terms. They have complained so bitterly about their experience that multiple websites disputing the validity of Scientology have been established. Entire message boards on the internet have found enumerable amounts of people with horror stories told of mistreatment administered by other Scientologists.
For all of this, it may be assumed by your characterization of them, that such mistreatment is the fault of anyone who claims to be maltreated. You have erected a logical teeter-totter that fosters the notion that the Church of Scientology is the victim of its consumer's dysfunction, rather than the perpetrator. You're certainly not the only one to do this, either. Tom Cruise has his own "neutral" proxies to promote similar conclusions that Scientology critics are guilty of religious intolerance; their fevered accusations, the result of ignorance akin to that of Hitler's henchmen against the Jewish people.