Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Stories From Inside Scientology' started by ozzie, Mar 28, 2008.
Telling your story is helping end this terrible blight!
Holy fuck, reading a story like that and Terrill wants to know the difference in cult data analysis methods?!
I'm glad you described the insanity of this group while Hubbard was in charge. Shows that the "good old days" were just as insane as now and the apples don't fall far from the tree. The tech wasn't perverted by DM, he's just continuing down Hubbards path of megalomania and paranoia.
It's true. While I was in sometimes I would long for "the good old days", meaning my early years in Scientology. Since getting out I have come to realize how horrendous the first decade was, and how equally horrendous the next decade was, and how equally....
I must admit I noticed that too. :confused2:
The good old days which were horrendous are actually much better- believe it or not - as compared to those stories by BFG, LBV and other old friends (Musical Chairs, Seances, etc.) Really makes me glad I left earlier than them & they agreed!!!
There was always some kind of thought that in the rough times that things were always going to get better. That had changed to - it can always get worse and be more oppressive!
Prefer M3 and M7 to both. Not done M1, but hear good reports.
The Commodore Hubbard/Xenu-Bridge 'Freezone' serves a function as a kind of half way house for members of $cientology, and that's good, but, IMO, too often it seeks to attach itself to humanitarian efforts, such as that of ex-Sea Org member Chuck Beatty, identify itself with such efforts, and use them as a means of recruiting those, still confused by their Scientology experience, "back into the Xenu-tech fold." I suppose that's to be expected, still it's a bit unwholesome. IMO.
The L. Ron Hubbard fan club folks - despite their best efforts at "ARC" and "PR" and presenting "acceptable truths" to the readers of ESMB, have a hard time recognizing what the 'Anderson Commission Report' recognized over 40 years ago, that Scientology was a mental-healing-coated Brainwashing Cult:
Personally, on a thread such as this, so valuable in its contribution in providing information and insights, and so heart-wrenching, I wish Terrill would at least omit that photo of the grinning Hubbard, standing on the deck of his 'Flagship', a photo he presents in every post.
While some are innocently unaware of it, and others more knowingly prefer to sweep in under the rug, Scientology has been a deceptive and abusive personality cult - per its founders design - since the 1960s. What's changed - more than anything - is that its outer-"mental healing"-layer has diminished in thickness and spaciousness, and the Cult is now in a preservation phase, more than a growth phase.
By the way, the 'Data Series' is a non-confidential portion of the larger body of confidential writings called "Scientology Intelligence Tech."
Those enamored with the Data Series may wish to examine "the rest of the picture," so as to gain a better perspective.
If others are using a version of tech to help others who am I to complain? ....but on this thread in light of Ozzie's story....
well I am going to quote myself from earlier on in the thread:
"Just in case anyone is still curious about why so many of us feel so deeply negative about Scientology in general,
....Remember that some of us were near the very top of the org board, and saw what was really happening.
The intense out tech, the use of policy to destroy others, the re-write it as you go handlings done on staff.
As a former member of management, I know that things like this occurred and regularly."
It became difficult to see any good in Scientology from where we sat near the top.
My head is still reeling from this!
That's kidnapping plain and simple! - And those policemen had to be the dumbest jerks I ever heard about!
So.. What to learn from this?
Leaving that cult requires forgetting all about the 'Leaving and Leaves Policy'. One leaves Scientology suddenly, stealthily and fast. This story explains why better than anything I've seen. Problem is to get this info to those in there..
Another thing that comes to mind is what Scientology makes people into.. That nanny acted on scn policies and doctrine. She acted together with the rest of the scinoes around. The Org itself was actually taking a mothers children from her! - Based on Hubbards teachings about SP's, ethichs and the rest of the 'tech'.
Scientologists believe in 'engrams' and the 'Reactive Mind'. They believe that with the 'tech' they can recognize 'banky' behavior in self and others. Yet that nanny behaved in ways I'd call psychotic and insane, and illegal too. She did so with the backing of an organized group of scientologists.
I've suspected hypnosis and mind control being used on myself when in. Based on my own behavior and reactions to things, which were out of character for me. I usually don't put up with crap like I did at the GO.
This story reinforces my suspicions. How can people with 'working' minds act like this?
And Ozzie herself not going to the police!?
I understand why she didn't.. Conditioning that is so pervasive and powerful that Mind Control is the only term that describes it. Calling it 'implanted' describes it too... So.. Hubturd told us about 'implating'. Something far down the track in fancyful science fiction settings. Being blown up by hydrogen bombs and watching movies. Being shat out the rear end of an Oscene Dog and a having a Voodoo body in a box at the Implant Station on Mars.
Implanting, conditioning and hypnosis is less theatrical! - It is done little by little in Scientology. Studying. Being persuaded and hoodwinked with 'logic'. Believing in 'gains' to be had. Being threathened and battered. Overwhelmed by 'authority' and maneuvered into a corner intellectually. Being made into a liar to oneself!
If you get confused by all that.. Then who the hell ARE you!!??
What we see here is the 'product' of Scientology!
I recently gave all my Scientology materials away to a Freezone auditor in Tampa Bay area. I have a lot of shelf space now.
I gave mine to my lawyer in 1987.. Curiously I regret that now. I could use 'em for documentation.
heh.. I'm sort of surprised that you did that Vin.. I had an impression that you valued the stuff, or at least some of it?
Glad to hear that you are taking the Idenics course. I still have a fondness for my PDC lectures, and the SOP8C drills.
I hate to say this, but if she had not already went to court and received custody it wasn't kidnapping in the legal sense and the cops had no choice. The reason I know this is I left my now ex-husband the first time in 1995. I took or daughters while he was in jail for assaulting me. Later, he was acting like he had changed so I gave him visitation. Keep in mind I had not went to court for custody at that point. I let my girls spend pre-Christmas with him and I was supposed to get them back Christmas Eve night. He refused to return them and there was nothing I could do. About a week later, New Years Eve night to be exact, I went back to his place with a really good friend. That friend is now my fiance, long long story there. We went under the guise of a visit. When we got there I picked up my baby girl and had my friend get my other daughter. I think having him with me made me more ballsy, lol. Anyway, we took my girls and left and stayed at another friends for the night due to me being afraid he would come and take them back. I did end up going back to my husband a few months later, but that's another story. Anyway, just letting you know, the cops really couldn't do anything until you have legal custody or a protection order.
Is that so!? - Well, I'm still flabberghasted.. That nanny was not any relation to the kids. So how could she be allowed to refuse their mother? - Their father wasn't there as I understand..
But of course. Those cops may have had no other choice.. Unless they were paid by the scamcult.. But that's even too paranoid for me!
Sorry, I forgot the father wasn't present at the beach, in that situation IMHO the nanny should have went to jail for kidnapping if she refused to allow her to take them. The biggest thing to me was why the the** the nanny wasn't arrested for assault and battery. :confused2:
I am just guessing here but I am sure that Ozzie was trying to avoid being suddenly declared and not getting a chance to talk to the children in the future, or something like that. When you are in the process of getting out of that madhouse sometimes your thinking is skewed.
As for nanny getting charged with kidnapping. No she would not be charged - she was acting in loco parentis. If the father had instructed her (or if he would say that later) not to release the children to anyone but him then she would have been liable had she let them go with Ozzie - unless Ozzie had a court order.
IN regard to the punching I am surprised that Ozz let the bitch get away with it, Ozz is one tough lady.