The Capture Stories, Escape Stories, and Atrocity Stories of Anti-Scientologists

kimmy schmidt dog.0Sociologists who study the issues surrounding religions and cults have identified 3 types of stories that form a socially-constructed narrative of a leave-taker’s experience inside their former group.

These types of stories are not unique to Ex-Scientology. They have been found to occur as common coins passed around by leave-takers who assume a role which sociologists call “the apostate role”.

I’ve written about this before, but I am going to define these terms again here.

The Apostate Role, a role that a minority of leave-takers assume, is one type of role among 3 which have been identified by sociologists.

The Defector role: an organizational participant negotiates exit primarily with organizational authorities, who grant permission for role relinquishment, control the exit process, and facilitate role transmission. The jointly constructed narrative assigns primary moral responsibility for role performance problems to the departing member and interprets organizational permission as commitment to extraordinary moral standards and preservation of public trust.

The Whistle-blower role: defined here as when an organization member forms an alliance with an external regulatory agency through personal testimony concerning specific, contested organizational practices that the external unit uses to sanction the organization. The narrative constructed jointly by the whistle blower and regulatory agency depicts the whistle-blower as motivated by personal conscience, and the organization by defense of the public interest.

The Apostate role: defined as one that occurs in a highly polarized situation in which an organization member undertakes a total change of loyalties by allying with one or more elements of an oppositional coalition without the consent or control of the organization. The narrative documents the quintessentially evil essence of the apostate’s former organization chronicled through the apostate’s personal experience of capture and ultimate escape/rescue.

The American sociologist Lewis A. Coser defines an apostate as not just a person who experienced a dramatic change in conviction but

“a man who, even in his new state of belief, is spiritually living not primarily in the content of that faith, in the pursuit of goals appropriate to it, but only in the struggle against the old faith and for the sake of its negation.”

When a person decides to take on the Apostate Role, he usually teams up with others who are also playing that role. And in order to be a legitimate member of this group, the new person has to get his stories about his former cult/religion straight. To stay in this group, Sociologists have found, (and I have experienced first hand), that the new group member needs to accept and promulgate three types of stories about his former group.

These three types of stories are called

Capture Stories

Escape Stories

Atrocity Stories

An example of a Capture Story introduces the idea of the “deluded follower” who was under “hypnotic mind control” in order to be captured against their will into the religion. This story which serves as an example, comes from Mormon apostates from the 1800s, goes like this:

At this time I was wholly unacquainted with the doctrine of magnetic influence; but I soon became aware of some unaccountable power exercised over me by my fellow traveler. His presence seemed an irresistible fascination. His glitte¡ eyes were fixed on mine; his breath fanned my cheek; I felt bewildered and intoxicated, and partially lost the sense of consciousness, and the power of motion . . . I became immediately sensible of some unaccountable influence drawing my sympathies toward him. In vain I struggled to break the spell. I was like a fluttering bird before the gaze of a serpent-charmer.

An Escape Story.. well. We’re very familiar with these. Almost every Int Base Escapee has an escape story. Few of which I actually doubt. Marc Headley wrote a great book called Blown For Good – which was all about his escape story from Scientology’s Int Base.

The question becomes, “What about the anti-Scientologists who never were at Int Base?”

Chris Shelton, a person who is playing the Apostate Role for all that it is worth right now, was also in the Sea Org, but not at Int Base. He told me his escape story. He routed out “standardly” and became a public Scientologist in Minneapolis. It wasn’t until the Church forbid him from even helping out staff at the Minneapolis org, and made a female Scientologist he was in love with disconnect from him, that he realized that, after 25 years, Scientology was a cult that needed to be taken down.

Most other non-Int Base Sea Org members I know left the same way – they routed out standardly or walked out the door and never came back. And I know of no Class 5 or mission staff or public Scientologists who had to “escape” in any way. But which escape stories are told over and over? The stories from the kookiest place in Scientology – Int Base.

You might ask yourself – as I did for years – Where is law Enforcement? Why haven’t they done anything about this? There are standard responses for these questions in Apostate Ex-Scientology. But I have found that these standard responses act as thought-stopping cliches which hide the real answers behind them.

In this critical examination of these types of stories that we tell ourselves, the process of separating these out and analyzing their details is important. Why? Because we need to have truth and accuracy if we are to locate the actual abuses in Scientology that need to be addressed and corrected by law enforcement or any other governing force in the real world. Facts are important, especially if you want to win court cases and force the Church of Scientology to change.

So here is a list of atrocity stories that I am familiar with from Scientology. There is no attempt here to make these false in any way. This is an attempt to identify what these sociologists are talking about, and to critically examine these stories in order to test their veracity.

In order to do this we need to step back – cool out – and think about what we’re telling ourselves.

The Paulette Cooper Story
The Lisa McPherson case
The Ellie Perkins Murder

Can anyone think of any more?

NOTE: I realize that these stories are considered sacred in anti-Scientology and must never be questioned or challenged. Well that’s one of the things that kept me in Scientology for 16 years, and in Ex-Scientology for the same amount of time.

Questioning our sometimes insidious assumptions using critical thinking is mandatory after Scientology. This is the process that keeps us learning and keeps us evolving in our lives after Scientology. Without it we stultify and stagnate.

Think of all the Escape stories, Capture stories, or Atrocity stories you have heard or told yourself and others about Scientology over the years, and list them in the comments section below.

54 thoughts on “The Capture Stories, Escape Stories, and Atrocity Stories of Anti-Scientologists”

  1. I personally feel that anyone who lost money by donating to the IAS (International Association of Suppressives) especially and then the other donation programs, experienced atrocious treatment. It shows how jaded we are, that those kind of financial crimes against us are not considered “atrocities”

  2. Ok Alanzo, but what about The Paulette Cooper Story are you saying needs re-examining? What Jeff Marino tried to do to Paulette, while working for the Guardian’s Office? Or what…

    I’d say that besides that inhumanity of that example, what stands out to me is that to even run a “black op” like that is an admission of failure – an admission that you cannot deal with the person directly and “win”.

    • I’m saying that this is one of the atrocity stories that Scientology apostates share with each other. Believing them and investing all kinds of personal angst in them, screaming for “justice” for them, using these stories to recruit new people and resources from the larger society to “take down the cult” is all part of group membership.

      I’m not saying they are false. I’m saying let’s analyze them with these tools provided by social scientists and scrutinize them a little closer, and with a wider context, than the True Believers are.

      Catholics have the stories of the Saints. Buddhists tell each other incidents from the life of Gotama Siddharta. And Scientology apostates trade these stories as part of their belief system. If you don’t believe in these stories, you are out. If you do believe them, and repeat them as much as you can – you’re in.

      And the more effectively you communicate these and recruit people in to believing them too, the higher you rise in the group.

      For me, just learning that there were such a things as capture stories, escape stories and atrocity stories in all apostate groups from all religions was a very eye opening experience. It gave me context, and let me step back, cool out, and really look at these stories – almost as if for the first time – that I’d been telling myself for so many years.

      • Ok, I see what you’re saying now Alanzo.

        I think you are right that these do get used as recruiting stories by those with less than stellar intentions for *why* they are recruiting. No doubt about that at all.

        • I don’t think they have less than stellar intentions.

          Scientology apostates believe very sincerely in what they are doing and they feel that they are doing something very good for society. They are as sincere and well-meaning as most all Scientologists are.

          I;’m saying that, as with all true believers, they do not necessarily scrutinize their own beliefs for accuracy and factualness.

          And if they are going to try to get courts and attorneys involved, they need real-ass stories with actual facts that can be prosecuted. If not, then the Black PR value of the story, whether its factual or not, is fine for their purposes of recruitment and maintenance of the uniformity of belief in their group.

          • I don’t think we’re disagreeing, per se, its probably a different understanding of the word “they” here.

            Mine was more narrowed to the fact that not every person involved in this millieu is sincere and well-meaning. I was simply trying to point out the idea that the ones that *are* sincere and well-meaning can certainly have that taken advantage of and directed in ways it should not be.

      • Man I think you are really reaching here: “Catholics have the stories of the Saints. Buddhists tell each other incidents from the life of Gotama Siddharta. And Scientology apostates trade these stories as part of their belief system. If you don’t believe in these stories, you are out. If you do believe them, and repeat them as much as you can – you’re in.
        And the more effectively you communicate these and recruit people in to believing them too, the higher you rise in the group.”

        You’re reading to many papers and books written by pointy headed professors. “Sociologist” is just a five dollar label that means, “Don’t know shit about real life”.

        • Sociologists study the social animal side of human beings as social animals. That’s why they are so valuable when studying groups like cults.

          They try to analyze and illuminate the parts of our lives that we often overlook and take for granted. Phillip Zimbardo, the researcher of the Stanford Prison Experiment, and Robert Cialdini, the author of “Influence” and Jonathan Haidt, the author of “The Righteous Mind”, are all social scientists and with out them no Ex-Scientologist would know very little about cults like Scientology and how it works.

          The other thing about social scientists is that they are not in practice, needing patients to pay their bills like most psychologists are who are looking to get you to pay for your “recovery” from cults.

          Understanding and perspective is all you need to “recover” from being in a cult, per se.

          So no, I would not agree that sociologists “Don’t know shit about real life”. Not this area of real life, at least.

        • More often than not, that is an unfortunate truth, LS. But I think there’s probably at least one or two exceptions, probably from people who were actually well-meaning and sincere who did have something useful to say or a useful observation to offer. Unfortunately, they probably didn’t realize what they were being roped into underneath the innocent sounding “social science” or “social research” subject titles.

        • I have to agree LS. These people don’t have a clue. Scientology is much more complicated than other NRM’s and I’m not saying Scientology is a NRM as it’s a quack therapy hidden as a NRM, LOL.

          I mean how many religion’s have the complexity of scientology? There is the org board, the chart of attitudes, tone scale, drills and TR’s, tons of Hubbards lectures or rhetoric speeches to persuade, books, The Academy or course room meant to sound all Plato like, LOL. Then there are all the HCO PL’s and HCOB’s.

          Have any of these sociologists really studied what hubbard said and wrote, no, of course not.

          I take their studies as complete useless BS when it comes to scientology.

          PS: Did I forget to mention their are no clears or OT’s. Laughing out loud.

          • Wait a minute!!

            Before you go putting down the sociologists just remember what your Science Officer of the USS Anti-Scientology, Chris Shelton said about David Bromley one of the sociologists I’m reading right now:

            ” I’m quite sure that Bromley is dead to Scientology forever because this is the first and maybe only chapter in this book [Scientology by James R Lewis] that describes in detail Scientology’s confidential upper-level OT3 materials including a summary of Xenu and body thetans that would be tantamount to heresy to Scientology and there is no way that they are ever going to pay him or use anything he writes or says in the future”


            [Bromley] “is not apologizing so much as he’s just remarking on the plain fact of what Scientologists are doing – as Bromley puts it – the successful process of constructing LRH as a prophetic leader has involved establishing the reality of lrh over lafayette ronald hubbard. Bromley then goes into scientology mythology and this section is an almost one hundred percent accurate breakdown of the entire philosophy of scientology. Bromley proves, without question, that he understands this subject to the level I suspect very few academics have bothered to find out.”

            So there you have it. A glowing tribute and stamp of approval from the Authority himself, Tony Ortega’s Science Officer, Chris Shelton!

            • Oh that Chris! He just gets carried away sometimes. I’ll KR him uplines to Bunker Int.

              Gib can you brief Chris on Sociologists? Let him know that they’re now declared along with Alanzo and Andy Nolch. Thanks.

            • I’m not sure what your beef is with Chris Shelton, he’s not my science officer or authority and I figured out the scam of scientology before Chris Shelton hit the scenes, but I do appreciate what he done, as well as you Alanzo. I think he is missing the data of Hubbard’s use of rhetoric as are others, including the sociologists, but that’s ok, not many understand. It’s a hard topic.


          • Now hold on……no clears or OTs? Oh come on! You’re just making that up you Anti Scn fanatic. Are you ESMB OSA?


            • funny, no I’m not ESMB OSA, here are my thoughts, I’d thought I would build a bridge between ESMB and Alanzo’s blog, since Alanzo caused himself to be banned at ESMB, so I’m driving traffic or viewpoints or discussion between these two blogs, although one is a blog and the other a discussion board.

              I like Alanzo and hence post here. Just mending things, It’s a zen thing I have, or hope to achieve, LOL

  3. Raul Lopez-fraud
    Maria Pia Gardini-extortion, coercion
    Marc And Claire Headley-coerced abortion, physical attempts to stop them from leaving
    Me-cult attempted to get my husband to disconnect (prior to expulsion #2), coerced into joining staff, lied to, attempts to intimidate into staying on staff (expulsion #1)
    Friends of mine were made to disconnect

    There are hundreds of accounts. I give credence to at least 95% of them as far as abuses go.

    I have noticed that many people who sang the praises of Scn “tech” and would have sworn (when they were in) , in true believer fashion, that it wasn’t hypnotic-later (after leaving) said they didn’t like it or it never helped, then proceeded to hammer, harangue and hassle anyone who ALSO left but who still liked the “tech”. So those types of accounts seem to be a situation where, to put it tactfully, people seem to reevaluate their past experiences and come up with a different perspective. And some get as evangelical as an ex smoker in Marin county or Seattle or somewhere…

    But like I said I am disinclined to discount accounts and testimonies of abuse and experiences. They have too much consistency with names and details matching up.

    Ever read Mick Wenlock’s story? Holy crap! Do I question that this ever happened to him? Never!

    Good friends of mine were in the SO putting up with all the crap, go into the nursery, find their baby sitting alone, neglected, soaking wet- and they told me: ” I got my wife and my child the hell out of there.” Do I believe them? ABSOLUTELY!!

    • Claire wrote:

      “So those types of accounts seem to be a situation where, to put it tactfully, people seem to reevaluate their past experiences and come up with a different perspective. And some get as evangelical as an ex smoker in Marin county or Seattle or somewhere…”

      This is common in apostates of all religions.

      I’m reading a paper now which gives an interesting sociological theory on what causes that reevaluation of their past experiences which helps them to come up with a different perspective.

      We’ve all seen this. And some, like me, have lived it.

      This is my new fascination. And it is very helpful in my recovery as an Ex-Scientologist.

  4. I don’t think it’s accurate to put former members in just one of three categories. In my experience on ESMB most ex members who shared their stories mostly discussed their disconnection, financial collapse due to donations, lost time in the real world, failed relationships, run-ins with other members and staff, gang bang sec checks and heavy ethics cycles, negative effects of certain auditing procedures, etc… Most did not relate stories of capture, escape, or atrocities because they didn’t have those stories to relate. Like I said on the other thread most of those experiences come from the SO, especially if one served in close proximity to DM. Which of course was the case with Marc Headley, Marty Rathbun, and Mike Rinder.

    I also don’t think it’s accurate to label all former members as being “Anti-scientologists”, which is what you seem to be doing. Marty of course went even further and called them the Anti scientology cult. Anyway, it’s perfectly natural for an ex member to go through a certain period of being a very devout vocal anti-scientologist. I think it’s part of the healing actually. You went through it. I went through it.

    Now if a former member is still extremely upset after thirty years and continually freaks out if he hears of someone getting auditing in the Indy field, then yeah that person needs to do something else for recovery. It’s not healthy to leave the cult at 35 and still be pounding outrage on their keyboard at 55, 65 or 75. But the number of those who fit that category is quite small in my opinion.

    • LS wrote:

      “I also don’t think it’s accurate to label all former members as being “Anti-scientologists”, which is what you seem to be doing.”

      I am certainly not labeling all former members as being “Anti-Scientologists”. We both know that the overwhelming majority of people who got themselves involved in Scientology walked away and never wrote or said another word about it publicly to anyone. These are people who came in for 1 course, all the way to OT 8. They form the largest marjority of people who leave Scientology and there are two studies that I know of which prove that this is the largest group of all.

      One of those studies says this:

      “Sociologists Bromley and Hadden note a lack of empirical support for claimed consequences of having been a member of a “cult” or “sect”, and substantial empirical evidence against it. These include the fact that the overwhelming proportion of people who get involved in NRMs leave, most short of two years; the overwhelming proportion of people who leave do so of their own volition; and that two-thirds (67%) felt “wiser for the experience”.'[119]

      “According to F. Derks and psychologist of religion Jan van der Lans, there is no uniform post-cult trauma. While psychological and social problems upon resignation are not uncommon, their character and intensity are greatly dependent on the personal history and on the traits of the ex-member, and on the reasons for and way of resignation.'[120]

      “The report of the “Swedish Government’s Commission on New Religious Movements” (1998) states that the great majority of members of new religious movements derive positive experiences from their subscription to ideas or doctrines that correspond to their personal needs—and that withdrawal from these movements is usually quite undramatic, as these people leave feeling enriched by a predominantly positive experience. Although the report describes that there are a small number of withdrawals that require support (100 out of 50,000+ people), the report did not recommend that any special resources be established for their rehabilitation, as these cases are very rare.[121]”.

      So no. I am not defining all former members as Anti-Scientologists.

      I am defining Anti-Scientologists as former members and never-ins who want to, in descending order of militancy:

      1. Remove Scientology entirely from the planet, and make it illegal to practice it.
      2. Oppose anything Scientology says or does on any topic and routinely attack anyone else for giving Scientology any legitimacy at all – in any area.
      3. They control the narrative in their own social circles (such as message boards and blogs) to stay strictly within the narrative that will accomplish and maintain 1 and 2 above, and they vociferously seek to ban and discredit anyone who disagrees with their narrative.

      Those are the Anti-Scientologists I am referring to.

      And, in my opinion, when they are an Ex-Scientologist, they belong in the apostate group as defined above.

      By the way, the behavior I defined in 1, 2 & 3 above is not just my opinion, and does not just happen in Ex-Scientology. Social scientists have found that there is a small minority of people who act as apostates when they leave almost every religion and cult. There are even theories in social science for why some Exes become apostates and others don’t. This behavior has been studied by real live social scientists, and the science on this will be the topic of future posts.

      • Sorry, I meant to say “all former members active on ESMB or the Bunker” being labeled as anti-scientologists.

        • Geez-us LoneStar! You coulda mentioned that before I wrote that long response!! 🙂

          I think it’s clear that ESMB and the Bunker are dominated by anti-scientologists, with valiant attempts by others to withstand their onslaughts. Terril Park is a regular on ESMB and he is definitely not an AntiScientologist. HelluvaHoax!, Churchill and others certainly are.

          As I’ve shown here: “Let’s Play a Game! Who’s the Biggest Asshole on ESMB?”

          The important question is does this phenomenon of “the apostate role” really exist with real live people who play that role after Scientology?

          I’d say yes, definitely.

          • @Alanzo And yet, Terril Park lines up in total lockstep with these same people on certain points of attack – such as my husband and I, for example.

            As such, perhaps the framework of description is a little too narrow. Just anti-scientologists doesn’t quite seem fully accurate. It does capture or enclose a large number of the abusive people you mention, yes, but the fact that there are Indie scientologists, scientologists that ALSO do these same things towards certain people or lines of thinking, to me indicates that you don’t quite have your target quite accurately defined yet.

            I think if you focus on the attributes, or how they try to enforce a narrative on others ABOUT scientology, then you describe them all.

            A primary reason we get targeted by people from ALL these same splinters and so on, is that we don’t tow the line on people’s sacred cow narratives.

            We disturb the herd, and as Terril puts it, “influence others” – so you see, THAT is what these people literally consider a “crime”.

            Remember, the reason the powers-that-be wanted to create and control deviationist movements like Scientology, etc., is that they wanted to attract, and I quote:

            “Hence the major target of the doctrinal program is the developed, articulate mind. This mind, engaged in developing concepts and rationalizations and capable of projecting the same to others…”

          • I’m not so sure about that Alanzo. It seems to be a description that is more from the perspective *from* the cult or religion in question, *towards* the person that left. It just seems biased somehow, to me.

            Especially the slide-in of that implying that the person couldn’t have “moved on” if they still were vocal about real abuses. That is a huge red flag to me. Ask yourself, whom does it serve if all who left a religion or cult that was abusive, in actuality, “moved on” and never said a thing.

            I’m probably not saying this well, but hopefully you’ll get at least some of what I’m trying to describe here.

            • Absolutely – and this is one of the barriers to studying this stuff.

              The Church has used this on critics to get them to shut up and move on. And they’ve used it internally to dead agent critics, as well.

              It’s why, when I talk about it, some people are SURE I’m an OSA Agent.

              I’m calling it “taking a walk on the wild side.”

              And I kinda like it!

          • I think of it more as hard line or moderate critics-as to who’s what. Though I was labeled fence sitter a couple times…

            My personal benchmark is decency to other critics and how they refer to those still stuck in CofS.

            If they meet that standard, I don’t care how scathing they are of LRH, CofS, Scn, Dianetics. (Within reason)

            Second benchmark- accuracy in criticism. Do they accept every article, comment as long as it’s negative even if it conflicts with other ones? If so, then that critic had nothing of value to offer.

    • @LS

      “still be pounding outrage on their keyboard at 55, 65 or 75.”

      It doesn’t make sense to me THAT BY ITSELF should be characterized as a bad thing. For example, people of the jewish faith are still making sure that the outrage of WWII is not forgotten, as well they should be.

      There is no reason to soften actual crimes or actual abuses or lessen them just because time has passed. That could be just a new kind of denial, in that case.

      Some events really are just wrong. They will always be wrong, and should never be classified as anything else.

      Does that apply to Scientology activities? In some cases, yes, certainly. In ALL cases? No, of course not.

      • Oh, you mean the Jewish people who keep reminding us of the atrocities done to them in WW2 while turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to what the Israeli government and army is doing right now? Yeah. They sure learned a lot from their “holocaust”.

        • I lived in Israel in the early 80’s during the first Intifada. What you say here is a totally legitimate criticism of the government of Israel. I saw it with my own eyes.

          But the government of Israel is not “the Jewish People”.

        • You’ll notice I didn’t say “jewish people” LS. Its a pet peeve of mine that they get called that. They are not a RACE, it’s a belief system they follow. It was British intelligence that started that particular angle back at the time of the Protocols of Zion crap.

          That said, what are you talking about that’s going on in Israel? I don’t really follow the daily news that much. And even so, that wouldn’t change my point that was simply using that as an example.

          Do you think that because of whatever this is that is going on on Israel, that this now somehow justifies the changing of the holocaust of WWII from wrong to less wrong?

          That would be off-the-wall, to put it mildly.

          If you are talking about the hypocrisy of certain people of jewish faith, I whole-heartedly agree. That is accurate, and then some.

          But I don’t make the mistake of flat-lining it across all people of the jewish faith either.

          • I meant to say the “same Jewish people who….”, because not all Jews do what I mentioned above. Like any other people there is a wide variety of lifestyles, viewpoints, politics, etc… Even within the religion itself there are differences. Some Orthodox Jews are against Zionism for example.

            But many Jews would take exception to your assertion that it is not a race, Virginia. There is the religion. Sure. But you first and foremost have to be a racial Jew to have “right of return” to the State of Israel. Converts are also accepted, but it is not as easy to get approved as a verifiable racial Jew is.

            I did not say the Israeli government is the Jewish People Alanzo.

            Virginia if you’re not aware of the atrocities, real atrocities, committed by the Israelis against the Palestinians then I can’t get you up to speed in a post. You know how to do research. Have at it if you’re interested.

            • Ok LS, maybe I will.

              You, and some “modern” people of the jewish faith would be misled if you thought that the “race” idea was always in existence. By and large, they did not consider themselves a “race” until AFTER the lead-up to WWI. Have done the research on that.

              No disagreement that it is NOW used that way, as you said, none at all.

              Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

              • Most Jewish people I know do not consider Judaism to be a race. It is a belief system and a culture. I know blue eyed blonde Jews (like my husband) from Austria, and dark eyed Semitic Jews from the Middle East.
                That may be different in Israel, the few Israeli. Jews I know seem much more “tribal” than racially oriented.

                • Judaism is not a race. It is the religion of the Jewish people. The Jewish people share a DNA strain, or type, or whatever its called. In older times the nation of Israel had 12 tribes. (Actually 13 if you count the priestly Levi tribe). Eventually Israel split into a northern kingdom and a southern kingdom. The northern kingdom was ten tribes. The southern kingdom was made up of the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin. (I’m pretty sure it was Benjamin). The northern kingdom was conquered and taken into captivity by the then mighty Assyrian Empire. They were removed from the land and taken north where most of them dispersed and sorta “disappeared”. Although a certain percentage later migrated back down to the area of Samaria, or northern Israel southern Syria.

                  Anyhoo…..later the southern kingdom was conquered and taken into captivity by the Babylonian Empire. They were removed to the area of Iraq and Iran today. As you probably already know King Cyrus of Persia allowed the southern tribes, dominated by Judah, to return to Israel and even gave them the resources to rebuild the Temple. Over time they came to be called “the Jews” because the tribe of Judah was dominant. It was the tribe of King David. It was also the tribe of Mary the mother of Jesus.

                  Not all “Jews” today are from the tribe of Judah, Levi and Benjamin. Some are from the northern ten tribes who at the time never called themselves Jews. But the Jewish moniker over the many centuries has stuck. My point is that they are a people. A race. Has there been intermarriage? Of course. More now than in the past though. Are the goyim allowed to convert to Judaism and “become Jews”? Yes, but it’s not encouraged. In fact out of all the major faiths of Abraham, becoming Jewish convert is the most difficult. They actually don’t want a lot of converts. They do not proselytize. Trust me….the Jews are well aware they are a race and are proud of it. They refer to themselves as being “of the tribe”. They should be proud of their racial heritage… a point. But they are also human, which means they have a problem with pride and arrogance. Just like the “Aryans” did, and do.

                • Lone Star – I didn’t find it a tangent, I found it interesting. If I can learn some things about Judaism from reading a blog, I’m more than happy about it. You’re presenting your general knowledge and viewpoints and I take it as that. (without being paranoid that you’re not “Source” in scio-speak – lol)

                • It’s boring to stay *totally* “on topic” all the time. Marty’s blog had plenty of side conversations which were often more interesting than the same old scn stuff.

                • To correct a detail regarding the tribes of Israel….There came to be 13 tribes due to the tribe of Joseph becoming two, Ephraim and Mannasseh, sons of Joseph. Levi was a priestly tribe, but it was also an original tribe always counted as one of the 12.

                • The guy who was or is the leader of the KKK justified his anti semitism by saying, “The Jews say they are the chosen people of God, but you have to be born into it.” (He said that, not me!)

Comments are closed.