Livia,

What I was trying to say, until most of you here tried to tear me into little shreds for saying it, was that perhaps we should just look a little more closely at the reasons why we were drawn to M, and why we stayed so long.  I stayed a long time myself, so am most certainly including myself in this.  It's just an interesting line of thought, and there's nothing wrong with examining a phenomenon from every angle - or is there, in your book?

Livia, what made you susceptible and vulnerable, specifically?  I've already gone over my personal situation many times.  Maybe it's now your turn.  If I remember correctly, this was the very same issue you left off at, about a year or two ago, the last time you posted regularly on the forum.  It's yours to work out, Livia because you're bringing the issue to the table here, not anyone else.  People here are individuals not a collective "we."  People grow at different and individual paces, not on a time schedule.  Besides, from my vantage point most of the "older" posters here already understand their specific vulnerabilities and bring interesting perspectives and stories to the discussions here based upon that.

I believe some Western governments have looked at the whole phenomenon, and decided not to prosecute cult leaders for mind control, or make cults illegal, for the very reason that the very concept of mind-control is in doubt - or unproven.  (France is an exception)

That's inaccurate, but you'd have to read most of the literature (both sides of the mind-control versus "apostates=liars," which is the sociologists of NRMs versus cult experts argument) to get a full perspective on the subject.  There are a lot of politics involved in academia concerning this issue that has extended to the resulting court decisions especially in the U.S.  But that would require me writing a long article to explain it to you.  Plus, it has been discussed at length here, in case you are unaware of it.

So - there seems to be a generally-held view here now that mind-control is an indisputable reality.  The conclusion then drawn is that M is 100% responsible, and that our particular vulnerability to him at that time is somehow irrelevant.  Even the fact that if we hadn't swallowed M's line, we were probably ripe for swallowing someone else's is deemed irrelevant.

You're generalizing again.  Why you've decided to broad-brush people on this forum is puzzling to me.  And, what's the point in speculating that if I hadn't fallen for Rawat's con, that I would have fallen for someone else's con?  If you want to get to the bottom of your personal confusion about this, you probably need to get specific about your own involvement, which, btw, is exactly what folks talk about on this forum all of the time.  Haven't you noticed that? 

What I find somewhat disturbing now, if disturbing isn't too strong a word, is the evidence here that some of us (myself included up to a year or so ago) are succumbing to "group-think" again.  Someone expressing a contrary view to the accepted analysis taking precedence here is quickly leapt upon and pretty much hounded and insulted until they apologise, rephrase or reword what they said, or leave.  The number of supportive messages I receieved (from exes not premies) (and I receieved lots) is clearly symptomatic of the numbers of exes out there with the same views but who no longer feel comfortable posting alternative views here.

You've gone over the top, Livia  This is a discussion board for folks who have been in a cult and have left it.  Within that framework, lots of things get discussed, but sure, it gets repetitious at times.  That doesn't make it "group think."  Maybe that's what your "recent exes out there" feel uncomfortable about.  Ever think of that?  Newly exited premies sometimes try to venture into open discussion, but it can feel unfamiliar, because with regards to the Rawat cult (or any cult) disagreement has never been allowed.  That can feel very uncomfortable and scary, but it's not the fault of the posters on this forum -- it's a symptom of leaving a cult.  I've seen it happen many times over the six or seven years I've posted here.

New people register and post here all of the time.  There are plenty of excuses for all those "unknowns" out there who sit back and complain and complain and complain about the forum, then seem to get an "older ex" to post here and complain for them.  I wonder if they realize how personal they are getting with the regular posters.  You know what that looks like?  It's like someone looking inside of a room filled with people who are talking, then the observer says:  "Clear that room of this person, that person, oh, yeah, and especially that person, because I don't like them, or what they say, and I'm just not going into the room if they are still there!  Go on, older-ex, go in there and tell them for me because I'm too afraid to walk into that room, and won't do it unless my conditions are met."   That's just strange thinking, IMO.  Besides, posting on this forum provides no magic formula for working out one's personal issues after having been in a cult.  Some people may need therapy but that's their personal decision that has nothing to do with this forum because the forum's limited, and the reasons people post here are varied, individual, and frankly, no one else's business.

One little problem though - the posters with strong intellects and a bullying tendency may well be prone to intimidating others who are less confident about their own thought processes.

That is just a dumb-assed excuse.  I've been hearing that excuse for years and not just on this forum.  If people want to post, they'll post.  I call it the SOGOTP syndrome which stands for  "Shit Or Get Off The Pot."  People who want to post do post -- that's taking personal responsibility.  And by gosh, most people post with a fake name, so where's the huge risk, I wonder?  You sound as if you want all the people who have strong personalities and high intellect to stop posting to make way for...I don't know who.  That's kind of a weird argument and is actually in opposition to how things work in the real world.  Are you trying to somehow dumb down the forum?

I glanced at the forum again, saw all the same people going over and over the same stuff and thought "how long should it take to get your anger out?"  Surely more than a couple of years is longer than is good for anyone.  Visit, post, question, analyse, understand, grieve, rant and rave - fine.  Even for a couple of years or so.  But then - move over and make room for others who may need to go through the same stuff in a supportive environment.  If you don't, then the clear danger is of succumbing to yet more group-think in a closely-knit group yet again, and creating an environment where new posters don't feel safe to say absolutely anything they want without quickly being inveigled into yet another way of thinking.

So what?  It's really no one else's business why anyone posts here or for how long.  Plus, if someone decides they want to be angry, they can -- I don't recommend it, but it's still no one else's business.  People don't live their lives based on your timeline and by saying this stuff you're generalizing and insulting people.  It reminds me of one of the posts you made here this year complaining about your friend(s) who are chronically depressed and not getting better fast enough for you.

Btw, having an abusive spouse isn't the same thing as having a cult leader.  There are some similar dynamics, but it's just not the an apt analogy. Some women who have lived in abusive relationships often do take quite a bit of time (yes, sometimes it takes years and the average number of times women attempt to leave is ten times to finally leave) to work the whole thing out.  In addition to that, it's the women who have survived abusive relationships, have grown and worked out their issues, who offer themselves as volunteers to lead discussions for the fresh, new women (or men) who have just recently left an abusive spouse. 

Folks like posting here and if someone wants to post on the forum the rest of their life, that's their business not yours or any lurkers, either.   It's especially not Rawat's business or any premies' business.  Your thinking is confusing on this.  As I said, there's really one topic on this forum and there is repetition but that doesn't make it group-think.  Show me a couple of premies and I'll show you group-thinking.  

I think the best recipe in life is to speak for oneself, do for oneself, think for oneself, laugh and cry for oneself, work and play for oneself, and have lots and lots of fun along the way.

Well, back to vacationland,

Cynthia