Celebrating DM's Total Failure

[Voltaire's Child]

Hi, Taansy,

I wasn't offended at all! I figured that my post was probably strongly worded and that you weren't expecting it.

Given the right subject and situation, (dunno if you've seen some of my flame wars on a.r.s. and OCMB- sometimes I've really climbed down people's throats- when they initiated crap, I gave it back to 'em- in spades) I can be vehement at times...after all, don't forget 100% bitch covered bitch with creamy bitch center! (I also saw another one I really liked: "51% sweetheart/49% bitch- don't push it")

It's just so damn appalling...this stuff with DM. And every time I think I've got a lot of info as to what's going on, I read new things.

I really think that with a number of people, if they had joined CofS, staff here or there or even SO and been treated maybe kinda strictly but without this insanity, these coerced abortions, this disconnection, this stuff with the Cadet's org, this now you're ok oh oops now you're expelled stuff, RPFing, etc- that many people would have stayed and some of those who left would have done so more on a peaceful amicable basis. And CofS wouldn't have the big big big huge black eye it has now.

I really hate it when people take advantage of other people's help lines. As LRH says, that's where a lot of aberration comes from...

 

[Tanstaafl]

Hey Fluff,

Thanks for that. I respect your viewpoint.

Personally, I'm trying to get to a place where I don't feel any need to "retaliate" but I will if it's fun. However, sometimes I try to sublimate feelings of anger/injustice/bitterness and it really doesn't help, so I'll let rip if I'm sure someone is really asking for it. Last week's interchange with "Open (Ha!) Mind" is a case in point.

I guess no-one becomes a Zen master overnight!

Cheers

tanstaafl

 

[Voltaire's Child]

See, thing is, the thetan does himself in. That's where karmic retribution comes from, according to LRH. And I believe that.

But it does not work. It comes at some other time, and you get these bad things happening to good people scenarios. Nobody learns from it- they just get more pain.

What if it was done at the time, right after a coup, a justice action, in controlled circumstances? Wouldn't that work better than a jail term or a big fine?

I personally think that's the only way DM would learn.

And, yes, I was good and pissed when I posted before, but now I am pondering justice.

 

[Zinjifar]

Personally, I'm trying to get to a place where I don't feel any need to "retaliate"

tanstaafl

I think it's important to define 'retaliation' very narrowly. When there is an ongoing evil, and, in the case of Scientology, there is, then the primary purpose must be to stop it. In some circumstances, with organizations; nations; individuals, 'retaliaton' can be seen as a 'teaching instrument'. Do this; this bad thing will happen. The hope being that the conduct is trained to stay within acceptable bounds.

To a very small extent, this has happened with Scientology, and, the most blatant and visible harassment and criminality has gone underground and invisible (as invisible as possible.) So, in a way the 'punishment' has been successful, but, far from enough. The evil continues; more carefully, and, to some extent, the evil has become *worse*, in being concentrated on those least able to defend against it. Against individuals like Keith Henson, the families of Scientology hostages; the captive Sea Orgers.

It's obvious that no amount of 'retaliation' or 'learning' will cause the Scientology Organization to change its ways; it can't. The necessary changes would make it *not* Scientology.

So, it's not about 'retaliation' at all; it's about *stopping* the evil. Stopping the Disconnection; the harassment; the abuse; the criminality.

The purpose to exposing the 'Church' (and the philosophy that drives it) is not to 'train' the 'Church' in behaving civily. It's not about punishing the 'Church' for its activities. The purpose is to expose it to the public and law enforcement and regulatory agencies to the point where they *can't* ignore it and allow it to continue to operate. Opponents of the Scientology evil do not have police or prosecutorial powers. They don't have enough money to fight millions of dollars and corruption in the civil courts. Scientology operates secretly and, the correct way to deal with it is to strip away its secrecy, which is exactly what is going on. Slowly but surely. It's happening here and on ARS and on OCMB and in the media and in word of mouth.

Still, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what's still hidden. Hopefully we're approaching the point where the people who *should* be investigating Scientology will do their jobs, and, every inch of public exposure brings that closer.

It's not 'retaliation'; it's social conscience.

Zinj

 

[Tanstaafl]

I think it's important to define 'retaliation' very narrowly. When there is an ongoing evil, and, in the case of Scientology, there is, then the primary purpose must be to stop it. In some circumstances, with organizations; nations; individuals, 'retaliaton' can be seen as a 'teaching instrument'. Do this; this bad thing will happen. The hope being that the conduct is trained to stay within acceptable bounds.

To a very small extent, this has happened with Scientology, and, the most blatant and visible harassment and criminality has gone underground and invisible (as invisible as possible.) So, in a way the 'punishment' has been successful, but, far from enough. The evil continues; more carefully, and, to some extent, the evil has become *worse*, in being concentrated on those least able to defend against it. Against individuals like Keith Henson, the families of Scientology hostages; the captive Sea Orgers.

It's obvious that no amount of 'retaliation' or 'learning' will cause the Scientology Organization to change its ways; it can't. The necessary changes would make it *not* Scientology.

So, it's not about 'retaliation' at all; it's about *stopping* the evil. Stopping the Disconnection; the harassment; the abuse; the criminality.

The purpose to exposing the 'Church' (and the philosophy that drives it) is not to 'train' the 'Church' in behaving civily. It's not about punishing the 'Church' for its activities. The purpose is to expose it to the public and law enforcement and regulatory agencies to the point where they *can't* ignore it and allow it to continue to operate. Opponents of the Scientology evil do not have police or prosecutorial powers. They don't have enough money to fight millions of dollars and corruption in the civil courts. Scientology operates secretly and, the correct way to deal with it is to strip away its secrecy, which is exactly what is going on. Slowly but surely. It's happening here and on ARS and on OCMB and in the media and in word of mouth.

Still, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what's still hidden. Hopefully we're approaching the point where the people who *should* be investigating Scientology will do their jobs, and, every inch of public exposure brings that closer.

It's not 'retaliation'; it's social conscience.

Zinj

Thanks for that Zinj but I think you've quoted me out of context. Maybe I didn't make that clear.
That remark was in reference to hitting back against personal attacks/offence.

As for OCMB: there's a wide cross-section of folks there but a strong element of people who are just low-toned name-callers with nothing to offer. They don't bother me.

 

[Zinjifar]

Thanks for that Zinj but I think you've quoted me out of context. Maybe I didn't make that clear.
That remark was in reference to hitting back against personal attacks/offence.

As for OCMB: there's a wide cross-section of folks there but a strong element of people who are just low-toned name-callers with nothing to offer. They don't bother me.

I probably did But, it's a common misconception in Scientology Criticism (especially nowdays, with all the new blood) and a pet peeve of mine, because it plays right into the 'Church' paradigm of 'They attacked us first! So, whatever we do is justified!'

Whatever 'retaliation' is, it must have some point. There must be some *reason* for it; not retaliation for the sake of retaliation.

And, that goes for private squabbles too. Retaliation for the sake of retaliation is just a recipe for more retaliation, like a Hatfield/McCoy feud or Sicilian blood feuds and on and on. Worthless and *worse* than worthless.

There's a German phrase; 'Was soll Dass denn sein, wenn es mal fertig ist?'

Which translates roughly to 'What's that supposed to be when it's done?' There's nothing stupider than the person who's justification for their own 'bitchiness' is 'They started it!' There's no surer recipe for escalating 'flame warfare' than 'I'm just helping my friends'.

What's stupid is, *it's just pixels on a screen*. The people who think they're (virtually) pounding people with a 'clue stick' etc. are missing the point that *nothing is happening*. There *is* no 'retaliation' because there is no *pain*.
Sticks and stones may break your bones; but flamewars are just noise.

Zinj

 

[duddins]

What's stupid is, *it's just pixels on a screen*. The people who think they're (virtually) pounding people with a 'clue stick' etc. are missing the point that *nothing is happening*. There *is* no 'retaliation' because there is no *pain*.
Sticks and stones may break your bones; but flamewars are just noise.

Zinj

A sad truth Zinj.
The good news is that things have changed. People like me are now able to spill the beans on the internet....more information gets out. More people connect up. A network builds. We could not do that before. There was nowhere to go...no way to trust anyone....

(the Xfiles like 'Trust Noone' theme was/is a real consideration)

We can go beyond the sticks and stones by bonding together. Cohesion....

There are so many more stories out there to be told. Building a safe place to state them, a must.

We have to accept that retaliation may be way out of our hands. It does not mean that eventual justice will not be served, and it does not mean that other good people won't suffer, unfortunately.

But..we can be here for them too. To help break down the layers of brainwashing and indocrination.

Virus's and bacteria are the smallest classifications of organisms. In terms of biomass they are insignificant. But damn can't they do damage.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I probably did But, it's a common misconception in Scientology Criticism (especially nowdays, with all the new blood) and a pet peeve of mine, because it plays right into the 'Church' paradigm of 'They attacked us first! So, whatever we do is justified!'

Whatever 'retaliation' is, it must have some point. There must be some *reason* for it; not retaliation for the sake of retaliation.

And, that goes for private squabbles too. Retaliation for the sake of retaliation is just a recipe for more retaliation, like a Hatfield/McCoy feud or Sicilian blood feuds and on and on. Worthless and *worse* than worthless.

There's a German phrase; 'Was soll Dass denn sein, wenn es mal fertig ist?'

Which translates roughly to 'What's that supposed to be when it's done?' There's nothing stupider than the person who's justification for their own 'bitchiness' is 'They started it!' There's no surer recipe for escalating 'flame warfare' than 'I'm just helping my friends'.

What's stupid is, *it's just pixels on a screen*. The people who think they're (virtually) pounding people with a 'clue stick' etc. are missing the point that *nothing is happening*. There *is* no 'retaliation' because there is no *pain*.
Sticks and stones may break your bones; but flamewars are just noise.

Zinj

Ah, the good old overt-motivator sequence.

"There's no percentage in a piss fight".

I agree with your general point Zinj, however, I do think you can "damage" someone's reputation - which is not okay unless you have proof/evidence of allegations or you were a direct witness to events.

If CoS can't deal with name calling they may as well pack up and go home right now. These guys sure love enemies. Perhaps the way to disintegrate the Church is for critics to love bomb them?

Hubbard loved to generalise about what the public does and doesn't like so I'll do likewise. The public loves to see someone who is criticised/slandered to rise above it and hates someone who throws shit back. Degrade one thetan and you degrade us all.

Cheers

tanstaafl

 

[Jimmy Cricket]

See, thing is, the thetan does himself in. That's where karmic retribution comes from, according to LRH. And I believe that.

But it does not work. It comes at some other time, and you get these bad things happening to good people scenarios. Nobody learns from it- they just get more pain.

What if it was done at the time, right after a coup, a justice action, in controlled circumstances? Wouldn't that work better than a jail term or a big fine?

I personally think that's the only way DM would learn.

And, yes, I was good and pissed when I posted before, but now I am pondering justice.

Fluffy,

I suspect that the concept of Karma won't really work on DM, at least not in this lifetime. From what I can piece together, DM really is a True Believer, and at the same time has been absolutely corrupted by his absolute power as dictator of Co$.

DM appears to be a complete psychopath, unaware that he is doing anything wrong. And incapable of believing that he is doing anything wrong. DM has surely justified all of his actions as the greatest good for Co$, and salvaging this sector of the universe. "We would rather have you dead than incapable."

I don't see DM 'doing himself in' unless and until he sees that he has done anything wrong or out-ethics. Think along the lines of Caligula, a completely whacked-out emperor. No conscience at all, hence no guilt.

DM learned from LRH, and then went even more bat-shit crazy. (Please don't take offense, I know you respect LRH, but for the most part *I don't*)

Psychopaths do not have a conscience.

And I minored in Psychology in college (though I forgot most of it over the years) so perhaps have a slightly skewed viewpoint on this.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I think there could be degrees of psychopathology. I think that this is the only thing that would get through to him. And it might NOT work as you point out, J.

BUT it would work better than a monetary fine or a jail sentence, IMO.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I think there could be degrees of psychopathology. I think that this is the only thing that would get through to him. And it might NOT work as you point out, J.

BUT it would work better than a monetary fine or a jail sentence, IMO.

In a nice long prison sentence in a regular US prison, I would imagine that quite a few things would get through to him.

Paul

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I've always been in favor of letting the punishment fit and correspond to the crime.

I would want there to be no disconnection (not using this word in the Scn sense) between what he did that was wrong and for which he is being punished and what the penalty was.

Despots and tyrants and sociopaths in history- and now- they've always lacked empathy.

But yet when somebody wants to kill them or hurt them, it's oh no, not me.

 

[Zinjifar]

I've always been in favor of letting the punishment fit and correspond to the crime.

I would want there to be no disconnection (not using this word in the Scn sense) between what he did that was wrong and for which he is being punished and what the penalty was.

Despots and tyrants and sociopaths in history- and now- they've always lacked empathy.

But yet when somebody wants to kill them or hurt them, it's oh no, not me.

Davey needs to have *all* his personal property confiscated (as does the 'Church' itself) to repay damages, then 20 years in prison with limited canteen privileges, then, if he's a good boy, his parole officer can help him get a job at Macdonalds when he gets out. If he can pass the lie-detector test.

Zinj

 

[Leon]

The following is undoubtedly part of DM's hat material:

Excerpt from Article Six of Ability Major 4, re Straightwire, etc.:

"Another thing which Freud assumed was that guilt underlay these hidden memories as their primary propulsive mechanism. This was not necessarily true, for you will discover that anyone, no matter how innocent, who has been struck, if he has been struck hard enough, will begin to believe that he must have been guilty of something. In other words, he gets a reason why he has been punished, which may or may not have any actuality in fact. In other words, any sudden blow or duress can be expected to have as its consequence the feeling that one has been guilty. In order to stay a reasonable or rational being an individual has to assume that there must be a reason for everything. This is not necessarily true at all. Thus, guilt comes about merely from a blow or duress. I imagine if you put a man in prison long enough he would be absolutely certain at the end of that time that he had committed the crime for which he was incarcerated. I suppose that if you questioned a man long enough about his guilt, if this questioning were under duress, he would begin to feel he was guilty of the crime of which he was being accused, which accounts for many of the confessions which are brought forth by third-degree methods. Even the police have begun to question these, having discovered all too often that the person was really innocent although he now believed he was completely guilty. Thus, we have the fact that physical pain and unconsciousness in a memory would produce a HIDINGNESS in the memory, since a person would not want to confront a painful picture, and would bring about a feeling of guilt."


No one can say the man is not on-source.

 

[Whitedove]

The following is undoubtedly part of DM's hat material:

Excerpt from Article Six of Ability Major 4, re Straightwire, etc.:

"Another thing which Freud assumed was that guilt underlay these hidden memories as their primary propulsive mechanism. This was not necessarily true, for you will discover that anyone, no matter how innocent, who has been struck, if he has been struck hard enough, will begin to believe that he must have been guilty of something. In other words, he gets a reason why he has been punished, which may or may not have any actuality in fact. In other words, any sudden blow or duress can be expected to have as its consequence the feeling that one has been guilty. In order to stay a reasonable or rational being an individual has to assume that there must be a reason for everything. This is not necessarily true at all. Thus, guilt comes about merely from a blow or duress. I imagine if you put a man in prison long enough he would be absolutely certain at the end of that time that he had committed the crime for which he was incarcerated. I suppose that if you questioned a man long enough about his guilt, if this questioning were under duress, he would begin to feel he was guilty of the crime of which he was being accused, which accounts for many of the confessions which are brought forth by third-degree methods. Even the police have begun to question these, having discovered all too often that the person was really innocent although he now believed he was completely guilty. Thus, we have the fact that physical pain and unconsciousness in a memory would produce a HIDINGNESS in the memory, since a person would not want to confront a painful picture, and would bring about a feeling of guilt."


No one can say the man is not on-source.

Yeah and he cant be more in denial than this as he keeps doing that very thing to MANY people. What an hypocrite!

 

[TheSneakster]

not important

 

[Whitedove]

I don't think he's "in denial" on this. I think he uses that principle quite *deliberately* - a blatant use of "Black Scientology" (knowingly using Scientology Tech to worsen people's condition instead of improving it).

Of course, it was Ron Hubbard himself who first sanctioned the use of Black Scientology against C of $ "enemies" by the old Guardian's Office - a practice that continues to this very day with OSA ("we're not the G.O. anymore").

I'm not sure whether I will ever be able to forgive Ron Hubbard for this heinous spiritual crime.

The Sneakster

I believe he believes that what he is doing is 'for the greatest good'. He has learned that from Hubbard and he is rotten to the core cause of it.
That is why I am saying he is in denial.
Criminals usually justify their actions. I have a very hard time believing someone can be so mean.
But maybe you are right. I never met the guy so I dont know whether he reallly justify all his actions or do it just for the kick of it.
But I totally get your point and I know for a fact that Black Dianetics and Scientology is used not only by DM cause I saw some $cientologists doing it without even being aware of it. I didnt know than that is what it was as it only introverted me but now because of what I have been learning on the internet I understand it more.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I think he believes it's for the greater good in the same way that sr clergy during the Inquisition and other eras who were hurting people and making all those powerplays believed they were following God's will or the way the Al Quaeda freaks believe they are following God's will.

Because they are rationalizing.

Which means, deep down, they KNOW they are f.o.s.

 

[TheSneakster]

not important

 

[nexus100]

Exactly so.

If you even consider you need "justification" for any act you will or have committed, you have already admitted you think it is actually *WRONG*.

The Sneakster

Can't it be just a bit wrong? Not entirely but with a little excuse it's okay?