Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Date: September 14, 2007 11:47PM
Dear Joe
While never having met your mother Joe, I can only assume that she is somewhat “feisty” in nature given that she is one of the few individuals who have been able to stand eyeball to eyeball with the Great Deciever himself and stare him down……(…hence he was then forced to return to his lair, tail between his legs, and in sheer spite, create the “dysfunctional families” thread on his website in order to persuade himself that he could still “pull one over” your mother, by demonstrating to her how very much that her son was still in his clutches)……
The new dysfunctional families thread permits David the ease of “monitoring” you with the touch of a button, doesn't it Joe!….you have to “prove” how independent you are of your family because if not, that would serve as evidence of “looking back” after puting your hand to the plow…and little Joe would then be subject to grievance meeting after grievance meeting until he learnt to discipline himself back “into the spirit”….
You can’t as much as email or phone your parents independently now, can you Joe, ….because that would enable you to engage in "unsupervised communication", external to the Orwellian nightmare of David McKay’s evil empire….(…which is the “Kingdom” that you are now actively promoting and encouraging others to join…..)
The Surveillance of the Lambs, you might call it!….(Mmm….wasn’t that a film? Now that I think of it, in respect of the “relationships” he has with others (consuming their very lives!), David does have that passing similarity to…oh…what has his name…? Hannibal Lecter?...doesn’t he, Joe?)
Feisty or no, however, …. I can see though, that you may be right in your criticisms of your mothers’ abilities to discern the wider lessons of history,…you of course being so gracious as to point out that her own “systemite” bias.....(Do the JC’s still persist with the Children of God terminology, David purloined from them? ) prevent her from seeing the broader truth behind the superficial circumstantial details……….
Quite rightly Joe, you point out that any minor incidences of Slavery that may, or may not have, occurred in the early history of the Quakers, are generally insignificant when taken in context of the wider picture of the world and its history……
The early Negro Americans worked long hours for no more than the food they ate and a bare minimum of clothing and shelter; they were regularly humiliated, degraded and deprived of sustenance where they got “uppity”; they had no civil rights in relation to they lives they were forced to lead, were restricted in the movements they made, were not permitted to own any major possessions and were denied any independent income….
You are so right Joe…..when you look at the wider picture it all makes sense,…Your mother just doesn’t have the wisdom to see it, does she!!….the enslavement of any early African Americans to a hatefully prejudiced white ruling class who bullied them into submission, is really insignificant from the perspective of the larger milieu from which this admittedly sad, but not particularly significant history must be interpreted…..it of course means little that some individual Quakers, or wider society may have condoned such practises…. given that such practises are barely any different from the circumstances of your OWN current enslavement.
Hmmm….Now I see your point…..