Just another Trap?

[Nicole]

I thought this morning about this topic.

If I am in contact with CO$ Scientolgists is it a good way to open them the way to leave Co$ in that way to explain that exists other ways to practise Scientology. I read and heard it in the last time very often.

Is that way right or wrong. Is it just another trap, or not? :confused2:

Is it better to go complete Anti - Scientology, or not?:confused2:

I am not sure about this topic and I want to hear other opinions.


BTW I am personaly totaly Anti Hubbard.

 

[MrNobody]

I thought this morning about this topic.

If I am in contact with CO$ Scientolgists is it a good way to open them the way to leave Co$ in that way to explain that exists other ways to practise Scientology. I read and heard it in the last time very often.

Is that way right or wrong. Is it just another trap, or not? :confused2:

Is it better to go complete Anti - Scientology, or not?:confused2:

I am not sure about this topic and I want to hear other opinions.


BTW I am personaly totaly Anti Hubbard.

Well, my experience with firm believers of any belief system is this: A conversation with a brick would have been more fruitful and entertaining.

In other words: It doesn't work that way. All you'll get is pre-meditated crap they've been taught to give you. Remember: You are not dealing with free humans here, you're basically dealing with programmed bots. Sounds harsh, but that's basically it, in my opinion.

I think the best you could do, is: Be well prepared, ask the right questions, and insist to get your question answered. Don't let them weasel out or change topic. Don't accept evasive answers. It will be hard to do that, since they are very well trained in these tactics.

There is a study manual from Hubbard on how to deal with (critical or investigative) journalists that has been published on WWP IIRC, and possibly here too. Find it (maybe someone here can help you with that), and study it well. That'll give you an idea about what you will be up against.

I'd give you the link, but I can't find it right now. That, BTW, is another tactic: Drown the real information in a pool of other information.

So good luck, and make sure you KNOW what you're up against, before you start.

EDIT
OK, Here's an article I found: http://www.xenu.net/archive/media/young-quill.html

 

[Nicole]

It was a general question. I read enough Hubbard - trash and I know how they deal with journalist, critcs etc.

The question is, is it general the right way.

To explain: I read on an Anonymous Homepage that exist other ways to practise Scientology, if you want to leave CO$...

My question is to the Ex Scientologist (maybe Freezoners and Indipendents) if that is the right way to post this info on a blog.

IMO it is wrong, for me it is leaving or not leaving.

But maybe my opinion is wrong and I want to review it.

 

[MrNobody]

It was a general question. I read enough Hubbard - trash and I know how they deal with journalist, critcs etc.

The question is, is it general the right way.

To explain: I read on an Anonymous Homepage that exist other ways to practise Scientology, if you want to leave CO$...

My question is to the Ex Scientologist (maybe Freezoners and Indipendents) if that is the right way to post this info on a blog.

IMO it is wrong, for me it is leaving or not leaving.

But maybe my opinion is wrong and I want to review it.

Did you read the link I later added to my reply to your post? I think it's one everyone should have read who is dealing with $cn.

However, since the Wog world is a very scary place for many scilons, I think leaving the organization and going Freezone would be a good start.

OK, I'll STFU and GTFO now, and let the EXes have their say.

 

[Nicole]

Did you read the link I later added to my reply to your post? I think it's one everyone should have read who is dealing with $cn.

However, since the Wog world is a very scary place for many scilons, I think leaving the organization and going Freezone would be a good start.

OK, I'll STFU and GTFO now, and let the EXes have their say.

Thanks for the link.
I react a little bit wrong and hard. Sorry!

But I know how CO$ works I am very well informated and I read the link, I read these things in books etc. also in German.

And again I am sorry, today isn't my day

 

[MrNobody]

Thanks for the link.
I react a little bit wrong and hard. Sorry!

But I know how CO$ works I am very well informated and I read the link, I read these things in books etc. also in German.

And again I am sorry, today isn't my day

No problem

 

[Nicole]

No problem

 

[Feral]

I thought this morning about this topic.

If I am in contact with CO$ Scientolgists is it a good way to open them the way to leave Co$ in that way to explain that exists other ways to practise Scientology. I read and heard it in the last time very often.

Is that way right or wrong. Is it just another trap, or not? :confused2:

Is it better to go complete Anti - Scientology, or not?:confused2:

I am not sure about this topic and I want to hear other opinions.


BTW I am personaly totaly Anti Hubbard.

Worldwide several experienced Scios have left and hit the field hard. The result has been a mass defection of course aided by Dm and his greed.

We currently think that about half of the Scios that were in up to the inception of Anonymous have now defected.

The generally accepted formula is not attacking Hubbard or the tech. Scios are pre-programed to reject that flat out. Salesmanship 101 is to keep your opinions to yourself. I would not have listened to anything negative about the tech or Ron, in fact simply critizing them branded the person a criminal in my mind. When they get out they'll work out how much of a Scio they want to be.

Use the Hubbard refs to show them how the CofS has become the antithesis of what it promotes itself to be. Carmel and I had a pretty successful operation going but it ran it's course, for my part I wrote up my routine into a letter that I sent out at the end of 2008 to every Scio on my address book.

Also let them find Marty if that's what they need, he's created a soft landing for those who have been harmed by DM's practices!

When I first got out the most important thing to me was whether I could finish my bridge out side and that is very much the case now, even though I'm no longer interested.

 

[themadhair]

Some people don't believe in scn itself, but the CoS. The whole strong 3D aspect hooks a lot of people, and the image of a vibrant and successful group clearing the planet is very alluring.

 

[Kookaburra]

It was a general question. I read enough Hubbard - trash and I know how they deal with journalist, critcs etc.

The question is, is it general the right way.

To explain: I read on an Anonymous Homepage that exist other ways to practise Scientology, if you want to leave CO$...

My question is to the Ex Scientologist (maybe Freezoners and Indipendents) if that is the right way to post this info on a blog.

IMO it is wrong, for me it is leaving or not leaving.

But maybe my opinion is wrong and I want to review it.

I think that for some Scientologists, the idea of the bridge still being available to them if they left may be of significance. If the person has a real concern with losing his spiritual salvation. I wouldn't push it though. Just a comment that it exists and leave it at that. All you are doing here is handling an objection.

The real issues need to be confronted. Disconnection being used as a control mechanism. Same with sec checks. Co-erced abortions. Out exchange. International crashing stats covered up with PR. Tech alterations. Wholesale declares. Elderly Sea Org members being dumped to fend for themselves with $500 severence pay. Lack of promised results. Staff beatings. False imprisonment. Being told what to think, when Scn is supposed to get you thinking for yourself. All the cancer deaths on Solo Nots.

People come out of Scientology in stages. Usually the most obvious thing is that management is bad. So start there. You should find some point of agreement. Take it from there.

This site is a great one for finding a crack in the armour.

www.friendsoflrh.org/

 

[Panda Termint]

I think that for some Scientologists, the idea of the bridge still being available to them if they left may be of significance. <...snip>

I'd suggest that for True Believer scientologists it is a matter of the GREATEST significance. Almost all scientologists have a lot of trouble accepting that "actual" scientology is available outside of the confines of the CofS.

This data is hidden from them, questions about it are verbotten and, if they've even heard of the Freezone, it's dismissed as off-beat squirrelling and not "real" scientology. I've seen scios burst into tears upon learning the truth about this.

The threat of "denial of Bridge" is what holds so many disaffected scios in the CofS. In many cases, it's the only thing holding them.

 

[uniquemand]

Scientologists in the Church are trained to think of all other practice of Scientology as "squirrel". If you can get them to look, well, it's a start. However, it's unlikely. If they will look, they'll probably go back and forth on it a lot. However, once they start accepting the authority of others than Hubbard and the Church, I think you've done them a favor. From that point forward, teach critical thinking. Seriously. In fact, I would START with "critical thinking". In the Church, this is considered a Bad Thing. Ask them why. Then, if they will consider the idea that critical thinking could be the basis of civilization, and that civilization is a good thing, point them here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/logifall.html Compare it to "data series", so that they can see the value in analyzing an idea, rather than just accepting it.

However, unless they are already on the brink of leaving, I don't think you'll have any luck with any of this.

 

[Terril park]

Mike Rinder and Steve Hall did a survey of why people stopped
supporting the current COS, I've snipped and copied part of it below.
Note that this would mostly be filled out by people on Marty's and Steve's blog. And these would be people newly out. This group of people are different from the rest of the FZ in that they would have left in the last year roughly
or whatever time Marty started the Truth rundown reports in the SP times.
Its also clear that these people were not attracted to the Freezone previously. In fact an offer of auditing to one of " Marty's People" by someone highly trained was met with the comment " I don't want to have anything to do with squirrels." Marty himself thinks I'm a bit squirrely. Its good that Marty is reaching people the FZ hasn't previously reached, and
his public are probably representative of people still in COS even if its
they are only nominally in.

Its clear there are many reasons for those in the COS to find reasons to leave, and Mike's survey gives a good picture. Note that none of those reasons apply in the Freezone. Also its important to note that those who
having endured recent abominations in COS and are still there find the tech
to be of enormous value. At least potentially. If they know its available outside COS they will then have no reason to stay in COS. Unfortunately they will have been indoctrinated into the COS view that anyone doing scn outside the COS is a "squirrel" in other words not able to deliver "proper" scientology and maybe even dangerous. In fact its within COS that its dangerous.

In short if you want to get people out of COS in most cases it would be essential for them to know that they can get services outside COS, and
that most of the highly trained and successful practitioners are already outside COS. Encourage them also to read the net. They can make their
own choices as to how to proceed with Scientology.


--------------------
Not too surprisingly. OUT TECH was the most common response. Of the 68% who answered with this, most said it was problems with Clear or being sent back to re-do steps on the Bridge.

64% said it was the VULTURE CULTURE that shoved them out the door. More horror stories of late night reg visits, money being taken off account without permission, absolutely no concern for Bridge progress – just relentless and incessant “Give me your money. All of it. Now. Take a loan and give me more.”

The next highest percentage (36%) was squirrel ETHICS/INJUSTICES. Many mentioned being on the other end of an ethics cycle where the Church protected a big contributor in direct violation of standard policy.

35% said they saw Tommy Davis or the wicked witches LYING on TV or read the over-the-top Freedom Mags. Its always good to know what a great job the C of M PR machine does to swell the ranks of those who see the real truth.

And Dear Leader’s IDEAL ORG strategy apparently only fools some of the people some of the time because 33% said they saw the lies as they had been in the orgs and knew they weren’t expanding, in spite of what the Chairman of Bullshit was trying to shove down their throats.

25% also said they saw the INTERNET and various write-ups/KRs from Mary Jo, Jason Beghe, Haydn, Jeff, Sherry, Geir, Paul Haggis etc

 

[Zinjifar]

Do you have any statistics on who on Marty's Blog is 'newly out'? Or is this just the preferred PR story?

Zinj

 

[Nicole]

My problem is, I am having allways my father on my mind. I see him standing there and how we discussed. I explained him what is wrong, I told him the crimes etc. and it helped him.

I thought allways it is better to go complete Anti- I would do with persons they are drug depend in that way, but there is a big difference.

Also is a difference between my father and other CO$ Scientogist. My father and me we loved each other, there was a trust. If I get in contact with a CO$ - Scientolgist, that person doesn't know me. That person directly hates me. Maybe it is really the right way to tell a Co$ Scientolgist that they can practise Scientology without that crime. If they aren't able in that moment to understand it, maybe it reach their mind and they find a way out of the trap.

I remember I read about "squirrel" in a HCOB from 14. Februar 1965 and 30. August 1980. It is very importand for a Scientologist to let Scientology staying allive.

They think freezoners squirrel, they directly think Indipendents squirrel.

I think a part of waking up is to have a free decision and that includes to decide which way to go without to get controlled.

But it doesn't change my personal opinion about Hubbard and that I am going on to educate about his evil things.

I think that for some Scientologists, the idea of the bridge still being available to them if they left may be of significance. If the person has a real concern with losing his spiritual salvation. I wouldn't push it though. Just a comment that it exists and leave it at that. All you are doing here is handling an objection.

IMO that is a good way. With that I can live without big doubts.

 

[FinallyMe]

I don't see that it should be either one or the other - to imply that there is only one choice, based on what your opinion is, can be a mistake for the person in front of you. I think that if you apply basic advertising concepts, you find out from each person what is real to that person, what that person's buttons are, and you go from there. Their buttons tell you what of the vast array of truths about Scientology would resonate with that person. What's wrong, really, with letting them know that auditing and training is still available to them outside of the Church? Whatever your opinion is, it applies to you, but not necessarily to someone else.

 

[Terril park]

Do you have any statistics on who on Marty's Blog is 'newly out'? Or is this just the preferred PR story?

Zinj

I don't have a preferred PR story.

Almost all on Marty's blog have not responded to my
decade of promotion of the FZ.

A few long time FZers are posting there.

Even me occasionally.

So.

What?

 

[Jachs]

Knowing

Your completely right, indoctrinated into the assumption that how could it possibly go divert off couse, i for one definitely took on the stable datum all is well ,and although initially inherently used the whats true for you is true for you before i arrived i soon threw it out.

If the ACTUAL truth was known by myself about auditors in the field delivering standard services and the absolute destruction of the tech in the CO$,i myself would have reached for it and im certain innies would too.

I have already directed 3 ex scientologists to the actual truth using references and examples of policies violated by COB to Freezone and am in contact with 2 current innies showing them the same references.

I myself caved in under a campaign of hard selling ,covert, ruthless tactics and never saw it as an outpoint, concluded it as my outpoint because that was the only culture i knew from when i began in the CO$ since 1991 in London.

Mike Rinder and Steve Hall did a survey of why people stopped
supporting the current COS, I've snipped and copied part of it below.
Note that this would mostly be filled out by people on Marty's and Steve's blog. And these would be people newly out. This group of people are different from the rest of the FZ in that they would have left in the last year roughly
or whatever time Marty started the Truth rundown reports in the SP times.
Its also clear that these people were not attracted to the Freezone previously. In fact an offer of auditing to one of " Marty's People" by someone highly trained was met with the comment " I don't want to have anything to do with squirrels." Marty himself thinks I'm a bit squirrely. Its good that Marty is reaching people the FZ hasn't previously reached, and
his public are probably representative of people still in COS even if its
they are only nominally in.

Its clear there are many reasons for those in the COS to find reasons to leave, and Mike's survey gives a good picture. Note that none of those reasons apply in the Freezone. Also its important to note that those who
having endured recent abominations in COS and are still there find the tech
to be of enormous value. At least potentially. If they know its available outside COS they will then have no reason to stay in COS. Unfortunately they will have been indoctrinated into the COS view that anyone doing scn outside the COS is a "squirrel" in other words not able to deliver "proper" scientology and maybe even dangerous. In fact its within COS that its dangerous.

In short if you want to get people out of COS in most cases it would be essential for them to know that they can get services outside COS, and
that most of the highly trained and successful practitioners are already outside COS. Encourage them also to read the net. They can make their
own choices as to how to proceed with Scientology.


--------------------
Not too surprisingly. OUT TECH was the most common response. Of the 68% who answered with this, most said it was problems with Clear or being sent back to re-do steps on the Bridge.

64% said it was the VULTURE CULTURE that shoved them out the door. More horror stories of late night reg visits, money being taken off account without permission, absolutely no concern for Bridge progress – just relentless and incessant “Give me your money. All of it. Now. Take a loan and give me more.”

The next highest percentage (36%) was squirrel ETHICS/INJUSTICES. Many mentioned being on the other end of an ethics cycle where the Church protected a big contributor in direct violation of standard policy.

35% said they saw Tommy Davis or the wicked witches LYING on TV or read the over-the-top Freedom Mags. Its always good to know what a great job the C of M PR machine does to swell the ranks of those who see the real truth.

And Dear Leader’s IDEAL ORG strategy apparently only fools some of the people some of the time because 33% said they saw the lies as they had been in the orgs and knew they weren’t expanding, in spite of what the Chairman of Bullshit was trying to shove down their throats.

25% also said they saw the INTERNET and various write-ups/KRs from Mary Jo, Jason Beghe, Haydn, Jeff, Sherry, Geir, Paul Haggis etc

 

[Nicole]

I don't see that it should be either one or the other - to imply that there is only one choice, based on what your opinion is, can be a mistake for the person in front of you. I think that if you apply basic advertising concepts, you find out from each person what is real to that person, what that person's buttons are, and you go from there. Their buttons tell you what of the vast array of truths about Scientology would resonate with that person. What's wrong, really, with letting them know that auditing and training is still available to them outside of the Church? Whatever your opinion is, it applies to you, but not necessarily to someone else.

The persons about we talk aren't free in there desicion, IMO it is difficult to decide for them what is the right way. (That doesn't mean that my way is allways the right one.)

But we are talking about Scientology - Tech bondage and depent people. I want to stay by the example of a drug therapy. If you make a drug therapy you have to take care that the depent people didn't find a substitute drug.

If I take an indoctrinated Co$ Scientologist and I open him the way to a "substitute drug" isn't it for me the right way. It is like I would give a drug depent person another addiction.

The Auditing Tech etc. is created from Hubbard with evil ulterior motives. It should make humans addicted and limp.http://www.stmi.bayern.de/imperia/m...fassungsschutz/scientology/system_so_engl.pdf

Because of that knowledge and lot of other thinks, I am having problems to say to a Co$ Scientolgist that Tech outside Co$ exitst. But like Kookaburra wrote it is allright to mention it, but I won't go in details.

 

[MrNobody]

My problem is, I am having allways my father on my mind. I see him standing there and how we discussed. I explained him what is wrong, I told him the crimes etc. and it helped him.

I thought allways it is better to go complete Anti- I would do with persons they are drug depend in that way, but there is a big difference.

Also is a difference between my father and other CO$ Scientogist. My father and me we loved each other, there was a trust. If I get in contact with a CO$ - Scientolgist, that person doesn't know me. That person directly hates me. Maybe it is really the right way to tell a Co$ Scientolgist that they can practise Scientology without that crime. If they aren't able in that moment to understand it, maybe it reach their mind and they find a way out of the trap.

I remember I read about "squirrel" in a HCOB from 14. Februar 1965 and 30. August 1980. It is very importand for a Scientologist to let Scientology staying allive.

They think freezoners squirrel, they directly think Indipendents squirrel.

I think a part of waking up is to have a free decision and that includes to decide which way to go without to get controlled.

But it doesn't change my personal opinion about Hubbard and that I am going on to educate about his evil things.


IMO that is a good way. With that I can live without big doubts.

The problem that I see: You're emotionally involved, which might stand between you and the things as they are. The things that are SO clear for you, that don't even realize them anymore, let alone mention them, are not the same things that are equally clear to the people you talk to.

Going complete anti is useful for you - it helps to gain some distance between you and the topic at hand. On the other hand, it definitely stands in your way when you try to communicate to people who are neutral or pro.

Get my point?