Quantcast
Channel: Cult Education Forum - "Cults," Sects, and "New Religious Movements"
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 12846

Re: Mooji a cult?

$
0
0
The Moo Group go to such extremes to eradicate any evidence of Mooji ever being involved with Radha- as though she no longer exists, or in fact never existed.

They ignore the fact that many people were present at Moo and Radha's wedding and that it took place only 7 years ago. Can people be so easily convinced that the wedding never happened? That Radha was a figment of their imaginations?

Possibly.

We have heard reports that the cult members are suffering short-term memory loss form their on-going trance induction and the incessant application of mind-control techniques. They are continually admonished to doubt their own thoughts and throw away critical thinking. Couple this with the fact that they are not permitted to engage in social conversations.... that silence is 'golden'....

We can see an amateur totalitarian state in operation. Information is controlled; language is controlled. People are watched around the clock.

Radha doesn't exist: therefore she never existed.

People are asked to sign non-disclosure agreements at Moo's ashram- the purpose of these documents is to intimidate people.... but they possibly also have the bonus effect of making people feel 'special' when they first arrive at Monte Sahaja. They are continually told that this is their 'one chance at finding freedom'. (When actually it is their one chance at experiencing slavery!) They are made to feel that if they leave the compound, they will never be 'free.'

I was recently contacted by someone who signed one of these non-disclosure agreements and so was terrified of speaking out against Moo that this person was warning others to keep quiet, too.

Sadly, this person was also physically assaulted by a Moo staff member while at Monte Sahaja. To this day, this person is dealing with the trauma of that incident.

I think there is a mis-understanding of what a non-disclosure agreement actually is. They are mainly designed to stop employees sharing trade secrets- they are not designed to prevent a crime being exposed or to prevent inappropriate behavior being exposed. (Not that I am an expert) I did find some information on-line:


[www.pbs.org]

"Those who sign NDAs can generally still talk in certain circumstances, like if they are subpoenaed or are reporting to an enforcement agency, such as the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission....

In fact, many experts say such agreements could be declared void if a judge determines that enforcing one would essentially violate public policy. For example, a contract related to a crime."

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 12846

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>