Re to Ray on Dilema :Post and apology from below

Posted by Rocky on December 09, 2002 at 19:37:19

In Reply to: Re: moral dilemma posted by ray on December 09, 2002 at 17:17:36:

Dear Ray:

From what you say Ray I guess you were gone by the time the real shit happened. My post may seem to have had no point to you but it meant something to me at the time. Incorrectly as i now understand, I assumed you were in the inner circle as a major leader up until you left.

Any of that cadre of leadership would know in detail the sexual & physical abuses and berg's/P&M's personal insanity. Leaders who lied to protect or defuse those abuses should accept responsibility and make reasonable amends.

I also struggle to understand how any basically educated adult FG member who read through the Davidito book would continually fail to see the perverted and criminal nature of the contents. Never mind the thousands of other things berg wrote. This is a question that has aaalsobeen asked many times by SG's at Moving On. For my mistaken assumptions regarding your role and time in the family I certainly apologize to you for acting on them.

In regards to dismantling the family "at any costs" I wanted to make the following points.

- because the family is so vague and spread around the world and not really hooked into the system they have not had to be accountable for their actions to any outside body. The fronts and cover names are also a complicating factor
- in the above ground first world economy where the family gets their income from, in particular WS and top leadership, they are quilty of a number of serious crimes both as individuals and as a group. Labour exploitation, sexual and physical abuse or exploitational depictions and publications of children are all serious felony crimes with no statute of limitations.

- Any adult long time member can grow up, recognize their accoutability and leave the group. They are in the family of their own free will or are not and are being held against their will. If that is the case the only way someone can be freed if held against their own will is through outside efforts.

- In addition the family uses lies and fronts to avoid openly declaring that they have been and are a cult with questionable and very radical sexual beliefs and practices. They have continually avoided scrutiny over this long standing issue as well as many other issues.
- If they just came out and openly declared their position and beliefs there would be no need to dismantle the organization. It would dissmantle itself through the active disgust "marks" have for thieves and con artists once they have been exposed.

- One other strong fact is that the Sg's bore the brunt of the abuses by the family and they need to see a dismantling in order to confirm and further validate their suffering. Whether you or I or any Fg agrees or disagrees as to the dismantling methods used the SG's will accomplish this goal. It took 25 years for me to get justice from the Catholic church for the sexual abuse I suffered along with many other kids. Many of my fellow victims died before they got any recognition, validation or support for their suffering. The family did the same thing in many ways and it should be dealt with accordingly.

- It also seems to me that any time RF woke up, accepted his responibility and left the family he would find support and a place in ethical organizations that would truly appreciate his obvious talents. Based on my understanding of the justice system's general guidelines regarding sexual abuse sentencing and what I know of the incident in question it is unlikely that he would go to jail, particularly if he explained what happened, demonstrated sincere remorse, accepted counseling and made appropriate amends to the victim.

- As to the irony of my comment on the other board you have a valid question.

My context there I feel, is that some posters feel that we should all be united in mind and spirit and that to be otherwise is disunity. This is based on a premise that we are in some kind of an organization rather than a loose association that does not limit or attempt to control opinions.

My point, based on my understanding of you as a major leader, seemed to be a reasonable suggestion at the time and not a direction. If you were the leader I thought you were I still feel my view was reasonable. As my premise was incorrect it makes my opinion and suggestion to you regarding you being in conflict of interest by expressing of your views wrong and uncalled for. As I said up earlier in my blab, sorry!

As you know I am very biased regarding sexual and physical abuse issues so I hope you will forgive my intensity.

Sincerely

Rocky