Re: provision
Thorwald wrote:
Quote:How did this word (or, for that matter, many other "common" words) come into use for the cult's very narrow definition and use? Who was the first to suggest they use "provision" for their fraud? A provision is a good someone needs, yes, but how did it enter their vernacular to describe quite literally begging for goods to support a lifestyle without any recompense?
When I was in the cult (1972-74), the term we used for provisioning was "procurement." The definition of this word is:
Quote:To bring into possession; to cause to accrue to, or to come into possession of; to acquire or provide for one's self or for another; to gain; to get; to obtain by any means, as by purchase or loan.
However, this term also has the implication of "pimping" or "obtaining for illicit intercourse or prostitution." Ironic that the group went from "procuring" to "provisioning" about the same time FFing got started. If you dig through the old MLs, you might find some commentary about "procure" versus "provision." I vaguely remember some discussion about these words and how we shouldn't call someone a "procurer".
I did my share of procuring/provisioning, btw. The idea was to bring along a sister as eye candy, and at 20, I more or less could play the role. My instructions were to smile and be "winsome" so we could "win some." I liked working with some of the provisioners (who were always guys) better than others. Some guys were very charming and seemingly sincere. I hope they went on to successful careers in the system as salesmen or public relations reps. Others were
gonif, a Yiddish word for someone who "operates on the shadowy borders of illegality and/or impropriety, and gets away with it, and is not quite an outright crook." I felt embarrassed working with this kind of provisioner, because they were such blatant users. They invariably burnt out donors by asking for too much and imposing on the generosity and kindness of strangers.
What I really disliked most about the Family way of life was how we were always sizing people up for what we could get or hang on to--whether they were potential kings, sheep, Egyptians that we "spoiled" for goods and services, Systemites to be conned, or Romans to be avoided. This is what continues to revolt me most about Family leadership, btw, their pervasive view of human beings solely as objects of utility.