Posted by Thinker on December 01, 2009 at 10:10:46
In Reply to: Re: Letter of apology posted by AndyNoc on November 30, 2009 at 11:55:00:
(Note: this post was resubmitted on Dec 2, 2009 by "Thinker" with minor corrections and edits)
WHY CHANGE? Reformations and restructurings are costly. Historically, organizational entities do not fix what is not broken. They have restructured and self-regulated only when threatened with extinction. The threat of obsolescence can come in the form of legislatively-ordered shutdowns, or can be due to nothing more than their entering a terminally unprofitable phase from running a natural course of events.
Maria and Peter would like to suggest that their "change journey" is not a result of desperate survival measures to counter any of the above, but rather altruistic self-regulation.
It is important to note that the Charter--considered by many to be the biggest reformation in TFI--was only implemented because TFI was left with no choice. Berg had decided that TF had to stop running for a change, and stand and fight a high-profile custody case in the UK. In exchange for a more positive ruling, the Lord Justice Ward forced changes on the movement to ensure basic human rights and protection for all children. The Charter was born as a result. Without the heavy intervention of the law, there would still be no basic human rights in TFI. But TFI made it seem like change for the better was all their own idea.
Change is costly, and as a rule, is about survival and profitability. There is much to suggest that TFI is now entering a "change journey" because it has to, because operating business-as-usual is no longer profitable or tenable. It has to draw a bigger circle to include more people, because exclusion is no longer profitable. It's all the about the money:
They will likely introduce, if they haven't already done so, a new category of membership where former members can tithe or send donations in return for some token GP publications.
They want to keep former members as friends because it is potential income, and because it is far less costly than constantly having to hire lawyers to fend off enemies.
It is costly for their organization to have to take care of its old and aging, so they are setting them free, now in their 50s and 60s, to pursue their goals in life, to take care of themselves. How generous!
They have figured out that it is more respectable and a safer financial bet to live off of salaries rather than donations, and therefore want to allow further education and gainful employment in their ranks.
The FCF is under investigation by the government and a major source of free money risks being cut off.
WHAT IS AN APOLOGY? There are legal definitions as well recommendations (backed by social studies and case analyses) on what constitutes a worthy apology (see ). Peter and Maria have met none of the normal criteria for former members--the people they are supposedly apologizing to--to perceive them as sincere.
A crucial part of the reparative process is dialog. Did Maria and Peter embark on this "change" through dialog? There is a lot to suggest despite their attempts at humble and contrite tones, that they are still perched in their lofty, unassailable positions, talking down to former members, talking at former members rather than dialoging with them:
"Mistakes were made" is not taking full personal responsibility. It is a passive acknowledgment of inescapable historical fact and a cop out at best.
"As the Family’s current leadership, we want to personally apologize for any ....." is not the same as "I hurt you by doing such and such, I know I was wrong, I am sorry for that, and this is how I aim to make it up to you. Is there anything else I can do for you?"
"some teenagers or young adults were strongly reprimanded in Family publications" is very vague.
Many of the people they have personally hurt and are hurting are still alive today, and available for dialog and negotiations, yet Maria and Peter approach it as though there is not much they can do about the past, like it all happened 200 years ago. They talk about "eras" within TFI history to subtly reinforce this idea.
Is Maria really reaching out to former members? Has Maria contacted the people in her former immediate household--such as Mene, whom she called demon-possessed and meted out cruel and unusual punishment to--and apologized to them? Has she apologized for the pedophilic and incestuous activities (incest is not just defined by biology, but parental-child relationships as well) she condoned and participated in?
Why does Maria generalize when she can be specific? Why not retract (not just purge and censor as they have done) The Last State () and admit that she was wrong to beat up, tie up and systematically rape a normal teenager for simply daring to question her grandfather and wanting to choose for herself--"choice" which Maria now claims to support?
We need specifics. Without these specifics, this generic apology letter is nothing but hollow, pretty words--nothing more than a carefully-crafted form letter.
WHAT HAS REALLY CHANGED? Will TFI still have insider-main-core elites vs. outsiders-not-everyone-can-be-a-soldier class-B non-citizens? Will they still have DO and GP literature? There is a lot to suggest that the TFI structure of inner and outer sanctions remains intact.
Trying to appear magnanimous in this apology letter, Maria and Peter have, with their position at the core center, announced the "change journey" concept, which is supposed to diffuse to the outer layers. This leaves a lot to be desired. A show of magnanimity is not nearly the same as arriving at settlement conclusions through grassroots consultations with the very people they have estranged. This is seizing of the moral high ground, and it is offensive to people with legitimate grievances: "we're new and improved, so it's up to you to forgive us now. Ball's in your court!"
Maria and Peter are still "blameless," passing the buck for breakdowns in dialog with the second generation as being due to "misinterpretations" of their directives and publications. In other words, they are not responsible for branding and labeling "detractors" as blood-dripping Vandari, etc.; it was all a misunderstanding.
Maria still harps the usual line that harmful sexual behavior towards children happened only from "1978 through the mid-1980s." The TFI official line is that it was all stopped by 1986, but I'm sure we can collect affidavits from people who witnessed inappropriate activity happening way past that year. As late as 1994 Maria was still explaining to members (see Maria Monologues) that Berg's sexual activities with Mene were not inappropriate, that the Law of Love applies across the board to all ages, and that adult-child sexual activities are not inherently wrong. She clarified that she had only made all those statements against adult-child sex for the sake of appeasing authorities, and that it would be a shame if members didn't understand this.
Maria apologizes for destabilizing family units, but how many people in her immediate staff were separated from their spouses in order to go work in WS and for "the Folks?"
Maria and Peter claim to be re-evaluating TFI culture. How about a re-evaluation of all their prophecies which have not come true, including the ones about Davidito being one of the two End-time Witness of Revelations in the Bible, which resulted in his being raised accordingly, which only caused him and other children harm. Or how about re-evaluating the corner-to-God Jesus-speaking-through-me culture, which resulted in this mess in the first place? WE NEED SPECIFICS!
Maria apologizes for the Victor program, but Malaysian Mary, who was one of the program's gulag commanders and who was ordered by a court of law never to be allowed near children for what she did to them, continued to be placed in childcare positions afterwards. Is this indicative of what an "apology" really means in TFI terms? By actions such as these and many others, Maria and Peter demonstrate their insincerity. Sadly, "it is not possible to change the past." But Maria and Peter have not realized nor wanted to understand that there is actually still a whole lot they can do to genuinely redress it, NOW, like coughing up known child abusers, some of them in leadership positions, and letting them face the law. And according to law, it is possible to pay for damages retroactively.
