How to Talk to OT's About Debbie Cook

[NoName]

I don't want to derail the thread about today's hearing, so I'm starting anew.

As someone who has never been in, but agreed to read (independently) materials to maintain goodwill with an in friend, would it be advisable to ask my in friend (I suspect a VERY low level OT) about their opinion of what's been in the media about Debbie Cook?

If so, how should one go about bringing up such a delicate subject?

I'm not sure that my friend got the email, but I have reason to believe that it is possible. Nay, likely.

 

[freethinker]

It's all over the news so you could say you saw a news blurb about it and ask them what they know. Their reaction or response should let you know where to go from there.

They will either talk about it or shut you down but you won't know anything unless you bring it up.

 

[Free to shine]

You could ask their opinion on this video, say you are concerned by it. They may or may not read, but if they do....

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scient...ms-kidnapping-torture-before-she-left/1214690

 

[TheRealNoUser]

There's no such thing really as a "low level OT". Anyone who has made it to any OT level has already chugged the koolaid and has been trained to D/A any questions that may be entering into critical territory. After all, they are "risking their eternity" by talking to you, never mind the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they have already spent. Believe me, they don't want to spend more money getting sec-checked a minute longer than they need to - all because of a conversation that you started.

If you want to say anything, just ask if they have heard of Debbie Cook. If they say they have never heard of her - they are lying and obviously want no part in your discussion. You then have two choices:
a. Let it slide, and never mention it again.
b. Push the point, show them the articles, and force a discussion.

If you choose the latter, you risk losing your "friend" permanently.

I would recommend asking an expert in these matters such as Magoo. She has been there and done it, and knows what all the buttons are - both to avoid and to use.

Best of luck.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

The answer is you have to be really sneeky or a person will close defences like a clam. (pun intended)

I would just slip into a conversation something like, 'what's all this fuss about Debbie Cook, all about?''if friend is uncomfortable just say something like, ''Oh don't worry, I was just curious as it's in the paper, did you get to see that film you wanted to watch? it was on this week....''
Don't stop there though, a week later again ask questions and change the subject don't need an answer just to start thought processes. '' it does sound violent, of course it can't be true, how is your dog by the way?'' Then have a great conversation about something the friend really enjoys. A couple of weeks later ''what was the name of that girl who died but they covered it all up...did you see the sunset yesterday? it was so beautiful!'' Change the subject again to something different.

 

[chuckbeatty]

I don't want to derail the thread about today's hearing, so I'm starting anew.

As someone who has never been in, but agreed to read (independently) materials to maintain goodwill with an in friend, would it be advisable to ask my in friend (I suspect a VERY low level OT) about their opinion of what's been in the media about Debbie Cook?

If so, how should one go about bringing up such a delicate subject?

I'm not sure that my friend got the email, but I have reason to believe that it is possible. Nay, likely.

Tough question.

Per numerous LRH pieces of tech, the TRs, the Dissem Drill, the How to Handle Black Propaganda, all these basic LRH techs for dealing with critical material, I think maybe just asking your OT friend's opinion along these lines:

"How do you think this material coming out of Debbie Cook's testimony should be handled?"

Ask them to listen to Debbie on that video, read the key articles where she details events, and then ask the OT "How do you think we as Scientologists should deal with this?"

And then leave them with that.

Their own minds will start rippng the fabric of their protective sheets away.

Debbie's video of the court and the things she's quoted, are pretty straightforward and even an OT onlines would not think badly of her since she's not showing misemotion about Miscavige.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Tough question.

Per numerous LRH pieces of tech, the TRs, the Dissem Drill, the How to Handle Black Propaganda, all these basic LRH techs for dealing with critical material, I think maybe just asking your OT friend's opinion along these lines:

"How do you think this material coming out of Debbie Cook's testimony should be handled?"

Ask them to listen to Debbie on that video, read the key articles where she details events, and then ask the OT "How do you think we as Scientologists should deal with this?"

And then leave them with that.

Their own minds will start rippng the fabric of their protective sheets away.

Debbie's video of the court and the things she's quoted, are pretty straightforward and even an OT onlines would not think badly of her since she's not showing misemotion about Miscavige.

Mark A. Baker

 

[GoNuclear]

Talking to your average oatee about Debbie Cook would probably be as productive as talking to DM about his smoking habit.

Pete

 

[chuckbeatty]

Talking to your average oatee about Debbie Cook would probably be as productive as talking to DM about his smoking habit.

Pete

Well the good thing is there is so much easy access to good info, so that non scienotlogist friends of "OTees" can slip info to the "OTees" and I favor the more benign communication, since that gives the "OTees" less reason to "cut communication."

I'm for using communication from the outside world to as many official members as possible, since they are the ones who ultimately have to do some defending themselves, of the faults in their religion and doing something about it.

Debbie's effort was a one shot thing, now she's in the "enemy" category.

Those "OTee" friends that non Scientologists have, those "OTees" are some like Debbie was asked in the after interviews, where Debbie says some "un-friended" her on Facebook, but they are still privately her friends.

I see the problem as majorly the rules.

You have to move into the "apostae" and "excommunicated" ranks and still be a Scientologist in your heart, to even speak up.

If you speak up within the ranks, there's the rules that come crashing down on you, the "SP Acts" in the 2007 edition of the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" book, the SP acts that the likes of Jojo Zaw.... quoted when Jojo urged people to"un-friend" Debbie, it's the rules that are the problem.

The apostate-excommunicated more benign Scienotologists dispense with those SP Act scapegoating rules.

I further would ask my "OTee" colleague, "What's so bad about Debbie Cook? Didn't she do a lot of good as the Captain Flag Service Org? Why does official Scientology act worse than the apostate/excommunicated Scientologists who love and still practice the principles of Scientology that are more benign, like the ARC triangle, and The Way to Happiness? It sure doesn't sound like The Way to Happiness is even applied at all at the Int Base where Debbie was hazed and slapped and psychologically tortured!"

I think some talking like that, DOES make a difference.

So to the person who asked, those are some MORE suggestions of what to say to your "OTee" colleagues, if you are a non Scientologist out there wishing to talk some sense into the extremist sheepish supporters who are told NOT to listen to Debbie Cook.

Get them to listen to Debbie Cook, and they'll see she's NOT being even misemotionally attacking of anyone but of Miscavige.

 

[Caliwog]

Asking a Scientologist about their opinion is a good way to see the "PR" that the Church is telling its members.

I had a Scientologist tell me that the Time magazine article (Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, still online at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html) resulted in a boom in Church membership.

Go figure.

I don't use my real name because I have no wish to alienate my Scientology friends and acquaintances, in the slim hope that I might be able to help them see the light some day. I cannot tell you how strong the urge is to ask some of them about the current goings-on, but I am very hesitant as a) I think they would cut communication with me or b) if they figure out I'm an Anon, they would probably write a knowledge report on me.

And goodness knows what they'd say if they knew I was behind the Caliwog blog!!!

One thing I have heard from others, and observed to be true, is that YOU CANNOT TRUST A SCIENTOLOGIST. Especially an OT. Their allegiance is to the Church (if you are a Scn, read as "the good of mankind") over friends and family.

Remember, NOT reporting on an observed "crime" makes you culpable. That means Ethics action and no bridge movement.

I'd let it be.

By the way, I have made some progress with a friend who is drifting "off lines." I can't say I got this person out of Scientology but I think I am helping reinforce that their choice was the right one.

 

[chuckbeatty]

Asking a Scientologist about their opinion is a good way to see the "PR" that the Church is telling its members.

I had a Scientologist tell me that the Time magazine article (Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, still online at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html) resulted in a boom in Church membership.

Go figure.

I don't use my real name because I have no wish to alienate my Scientology friends and acquaintances, in the slim hope that I might be able to help them see the light some day. I cannot tell you how strong the urge is to ask some of them about the current goings-on, but I am very hesitant as a) I think they would cut communication with me or b) if they figure out I'm an Anon, they would probably write a knowledge report on me.

And goodness knows what they'd say if they knew I was behind the Caliwog blog!!!

One thing I have heard from others, and observed to be true, is that YOU CANNOT TRUST A SCIENTOLOGIST. Especially an OT. Their allegiance is to the Church (if you are a Scn, read as "the good of mankind") over friends and family.

Remember, NOT reporting on an observed "crime" makes you culpable. That means Ethics action and no bridge movement.

I'd let it be.

By the way, I have made some progress with a friend who is drifting "off lines." I can't say I got this person out of Scientology but I think I am helping reinforce that their choice was the right one.

Well I sympathize with that, and I'm not informed enough on workers' rights issues, to know if they fired you, for making any kind of invalidative questions of them, if you have a leg to stand on in fighting being fired, etc.

Good to hear your input thought on how they act, and that OT members act worse than non-OTs, that is a turnaround from what Scientology's supposed to benefit society. Their OTs are supposed to be better than normal human beings, and it's at least good to know the truth, that those OTs are not acting better, but acting worse.

I'd like to know if that is an unchanging condition with the OT staff you interact with, over years, and I'd like to know if their behavior someday changes.

 

[cakemaker]

I don't want to derail the thread about today's hearing, so I'm starting anew.

As someone who has never been in, but agreed to read (independently) materials to maintain goodwill with an in friend, would it be advisable to ask my in friend (I suspect a VERY low level OT) about their opinion of what's been in the media about Debbie Cook?

If so, how should one go about bringing up such a delicate subject?

I'm not sure that my friend got the email, but I have reason to believe that it is possible. Nay, likely.

Don't treat it as a delicate subject.
Be up front. Get his thoughts and opinions and don't argue about it.
Like many Scientologists, their world is getting rattled by the news and he'll be trying to make sense out of it.
There's a lot more that's going to come out. Nature will take it's course and has its own timetable.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Tough question.

Per numerous LRH pieces of tech, the TRs, the Dissem Drill, the How to Handle Black Propaganda, all these basic LRH techs for dealing with critical material, I think maybe just asking your OT friend's opinion along these lines:

"How do you think this material coming out of Debbie Cook's testimony should be handled?"

Ask them to listen to Debbie on that video, read the key articles where she details events, and then ask the OT "How do you think we as Scientologists should deal with this?"

And then leave them with that.

Their own minds will start rippng the fabric of their protective sheets away.

Debbie's video of the court and the things she's quoted, are pretty straightforward and even an OT onlines would not think badly of her since she's not showing misemotion about Miscavige.

Okay, my response is a riff on what Chuck said, and takes it one step farther.: (Yea Chuck!)

Since Scientologists LOVE to HELP, and since the more OT one goes the more certain and arrogant one gets about being a know-it-all about all things COS...

Use that!

You put yourself in the place of one who needs their help...you were reading this book (whatever they recommended) and started to discuss this idea that interested you (pick one) from it with a friend (make it an authority figure in your life) your boss, your parent, your significant other, whatever...when THEY said this incredible stuff about Scientology Executives being BEATEN and HELD CAPTIVE and EMOTIONALLY ABUSED at the Headquarters someplace in California and this person emailed you these news articles about Debbie Cook being sued by COS... and you saw this video of testimony from the news source, and you are just SO SHOCKED, and you just didn't know what to say to this person, you were astonished! That they wanted you to stop reading any Scientology literature and not get involved, and you weren't sure what it was all about...and could they help you to understand it? And how should you handle it? Send them the email links to the news articles and vids.

Make them work a little for their dissemination brownie points...You do know that if they can get you to sign up for a class or buy books, etc...that they get a cut of the action? It's a racket not a religion, and evidently the big push to sell books is ON with all of them.

Scientologists are taught how to lie as part of sales and "dissemination", and they do lie a great deal. Do not have any compunction about beating them at their own game with an "acceptable truth" of your own!!!

In order to help you "handle" this entheta, chances are good they will read it themselves...and you come off as one who sincerely is seeking their help with understanding a difficult situation and communicating about a relationship issue that has arisen for you because of your interest in Scientology, rather than as a troublemaker.

Believe me, if you play this right, it will work. Even if there are no long conversations between you two about this, chances are good they will LOOK at the data, motivated by a desire to help, and eventually, the information will impinge on them, it can't help but do so.

Good luck!

It's hell having a friend who is a Scientologist.

 

[NoName]

That's funny, because I was working on a plausible shore story for how the video was emailed to me and it was something like what you're suggesting.

But I decided to hold of for a few weeks/months to see if his own rebellious nature leads him to look first. I figure that the trait that got him in is the trait that will get him out.

 

[chuckbeatty]

That's funny, because I was working on a plausible shore story for how the video was emailed to me and it was something like what you're suggesting.

But I decided to hold of for a few weeks/months to see if his own rebellious nature leads him to look first. I figure that the trait that got him in is the trait that will get him out.

One angle, one that even I got told when I was in the "RPF's RPF", by my RPF therapist/auditor, no less, my auditor said to me:

"Yea, there are even people who are declared who still love and support LRH and the Scientology movement!"

THAT is a big outpoint, when you hear that, and it just made my ears POP, when my auditor told me this!

What? I thought! There are declared SPs who actually still like Scientology and LRH! How could that be!

Well Debbie's in that finely sliced category, and she is arguably proud of her 17 years of service as Captain FSO, for her years at CMO CW, and of all her years in the Sea Org, and she still loves LRH.

The closer the "SP" declared person is in character to the existing members, and good natured, the MORE it is a wrong to declare suppressive such a person like Debbie, so telling Debbie's story and stressing she loves LRH, loves the movement, is a supporter of the Sea Org setups that LRH built, the MORE cognitive dissonance will be generated in the skulls of those you tell these facts to, and to whom actually hear the Debbie testimony. Just be sure to put it in the context that she supports the movement, supports the Sea Org, loves LRH, loved her life serving in the Sea Org, and that really will give a thought POPPING experience for the faithful onlines Scientologists you relay this info to!!!

 

[NoName]

And to be clear (nice pun that I didn't intend), I know this person attested to Clear, but not sure if they're OT or still doing the preliminary courses to be able to go OT. But I'm not going to discuss those details publicly.

But it would be helpful if, for instance, someone were to post what all needs to happen between Clear and OTI because I could make sense out of it probably.

 

[Idle Morgue]

I know for a fact that most Scientologists still "in" and connected to family on staff - are not participating in Scientology - will not go to events, will not donate and are disillusioned with the so called "services". They are WAITING for Scientology to change and correct itself with it's "self correcting" justice system. I hope they do not hold their breaths - but good news nonetheless!

 

[Smilla]

A quote from yours truly:

"For thirty years, Debbie Cook fooled us into believing that she was an
upstat, highly productive, committed Scientologist, whilst secretly
being an upstat, highly productive, committed Scientologist. This, of
course, means that she is psychotic and a squirrel."

 

[Good twin]

I know for a fact that most Scientologists still "in" and connected to family on staff - are not participating in Scientology - will not go to events, will not donate and are disillusioned with the so called "services". They are WAITING for Scientology to change and correct itself with it's "self correcting" justice system. I hope they do not hold their breaths - but good news nonetheless!

Not such good news actually. The same thing happened in the early 80s and many of us got lured back into the cult when the correct "who" was discovered. The stage is set to get all the disaffected clams to "see" that David Miscavige is the ONLY thing wrong with Scientology and it's safe to get back on lines now that it's been handled.

The Scientology after the David Mayo sacrifice was different. We were dazzled by the newer gentler version of our church. I'm pretty sure the new kinder version that is being crafted now will be easier to obtain but just as much a mind fuck as the current brand.

 

[TG1]

Not such good news actually. The same thing happened in the early 80s and many of us got lured back into the cult when the correct "who" was discovered. The stage is set to get all the disaffected clams to "see" that David Miscavige is the ONLY thing wrong with Scientology and it's safe to get back on lines now that it's been handled.

The Scientology after the David Mayo sacrifice was different. We were dazzled by the newer gentler version of our church. I'm pretty sure the new kinder version that is being crafted now will be easier to obtain but just as much a mind fuck as the current brand.

Good Twin,

My experience in and recollection of Scientology in the early 1980s was very different from yours. For me, there was nothing kind and gentle about Scientology in the years following David Mayo's expulsion.

Mayo's crucifiction was only one of several WTF events I observed as a churchie Scientologist back then -- others included the Mission rape (which even I heard about) and the creepy, freaky, scary black-shirted Finance Police marching through the orgs and ASHO and AO. Those were the days when the repugnant status crap started to build in earnest, including the "When are you going to Flag next?" crap. The price increases begun already continued. Being a public Scientologist solidified as a rich man's game.

After 1983, I never did another auditing service. Appalled by the above, I didn't appreciate the lousy service I got at Flag. I also found I had zero interest in any more OT levels, having been turned off by the more BTs bullshit of OT4 and even less than zero interest in hunting down BTs on upper OT levels. Sayonara, baby.

Things are very different now compared to the 1980s. It seems clear to me that in 2012 and beyond, no matter what happens with the Church, general interest in Scientology is over. The Internet continues to kill any interest in Scientology, other than for novelty value. And the idea that good Scientologists don't read the Internet is silly -- of course they read it.

And once that starts, they can't unread what they read. It's like porn -- you've got to take just one more peek. And then one day you wake up in your bathrobe, having spent the past three weeks reading everything you can get your hands on.

It's over.

TG1