Scientology is all bad

[Purple Rain]

Her last post in that Total Spiritual Freedom thread seemed to indicate that she's receptive and willing to see that LRH was "up to no good".

Straw man is an interesting way to put it, and I can see where you are coming from. You tend to write more than a sentence or two so it's probably fair to say straw man in your case. In the case of other people who responded in her intro thread, she took their conclusory statements and made assumptions about their thought processes. I think that I probably wrote some of the longest posts I have ever written on ESMB in that Total Spiritual Freedom thread. There really was nothing to assume about my thought process, so I didn't see her doing the straw man thing at all. Maybe she was already starting to have her eyes opened by the other exchanges on here.

I don't have a problem with the truth, and I certainly don't feel that anyone should be protected from it. More like I try to support my very unfavorable conclusions about LRH and the Tech, because I don't expect anyone to take my word at face value.

Well, as I said I think you're doing a great thing and I do hope you're right. I don't follow that person so I wouldn't know.

 

[Demented LRH]

"The second group is seriously pissed off or seriously depressed at having been taken by the cult and refuses to acknowledge that there is anything good about Dn/Scn. "
NoName.

I suppose, I fall into this category because this the closest one that describes my mindset. However, this classification is based on the false premise that only the people who have suffered as the result of their encounter with Scientology deny the Tech completely. What about the journalists, including Tony Ortega, who did not have personal encounter with the Tech, and who nevertheless believe that Scientology is crap?

My encounter with Scientology was brief and painless, I did not suffer from depression or any other form of psychological damage after I got disillusioned with the Tech and the Hubbard persona. In the end I was able to see that the Tech is totally unscientific because it does not fit the criteria that all reputable sciences meet. In other words, the Tech is a quackery that only a person with complete lack of knowledge of scientific methodologies fails to see.

My opinion about Dn/Scn is unbiased because they failed to damage my psyche; I do not have a personal score to settle, and I do not hate Hubbard whom I see as a mentally retarded individual. Of course, not everyone agrees with my assessnebt of Hubbard's mental state, but, from my perspective, a retard cannot produce anything of value for obvious reason.

 

[Panda Termint]

What prompted the title of this thread was the assertion by Scientologists that I and some others are saying Scientology is "all bad."

No matter how often I show such people that I don't think that Scientology is "all bad," they insist that I do think it's "all bad."

Because they have failed to "handle" me to their satisfaction, I am placed in a category of "SP," "bigot," and "Anti-Scientologist."

So, therefore, I must think that Scientology is "all bad."

My analysis of Scientology, although it recognizes positives, is unacceptable to Scientologists.

It is not enough to recognize some positives, one must he satisfactorily "handled."

Failure to handle = entheta being.

And, of course, "entheta beings" regard Scientology as "all bad."

Stupid isn't it?

Afterthought: With the current intra-Scientology war, it's alright to say that some things in Scientology are bad but, inevitably, it's explained that these are not really Scientology, but Reverse Scientology.

I've never thought that about you. I "get it" on the All Bad deal.

Now, can we address your (apparent) idea that certain posters here are doing "handlings", using "spin", being "covertly manipulative" etc here on ESMB, when all I see them doing is expressing an opinion.

I don't think you need to label them or their commentary as agenda-driven just because they disagree with you or you disagree with them.

What do you think?

 

[Veda]

Wait, you mean the Textbook on Psychopolitics isn't Scientology??? It's REVERSE Scientology and BLACK Dianetics? That explains EVERYTHING!!!!

The Textbook on Psycho-politics has been called the blueprint for Scientology, and I think that's a fair description.

Yet, according to this analysis, at least, it contains some positives.

These positives serve as disguise, as deceptive lead-in, and as a kind of solvent to keep the glue from hardening until the person is immersed in Scientology. It also recognizes that the positives, separated and by themselves, would no longer be Scientology

To thoroughly describe Scientology it's necessary to describe all of Scientology, including its positives.

And thoroughly describing Scientology, and having others understand that thorough description, is probably what Scientology fears the most.

'Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology', a.k.a. 'Revisiting the Textbook on Psycho-politics' http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/ambry1.html

Contents

Examining the 'Brainwashing Manual' http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg with the purpose of better understanding Scientology 4

Introduction: A Brief Outline of Scientology Doctrine, Public and Confidential 6

"White Scientology" - The Battle Tactics Doctrine - Brainwashing Manual Tech - Scientology is Multi-layered - Exploiting the Positives: the Cheese in the Trap -

Background 9

Origin of the word "brainwashing." and of the "Russian Brainwashing Manual"
L. Ron Hubbard writing to Scientologists on the subject of the Brainwashing Manual
Departing briefly from the Manual: A look at private tactics later shared with insiders
A publicized statement
A private explanation
Hubbard vs. the "Asiatic Hordes"
Back to the Brainwashing Manual: Excerpts from Hubbard's third public statement on it
Kenneth Goff's 1956 version of the Manual
Scientology's "No-answer answers."

Excerpts from the Brainwashing Manual/Textbook on Psycho-politics 14

"Editorial Note": Hubbard. assuming the guise of the phantasmal "Charles Stickley"
"An Address by Beria": Hubbard, pretending to be Lavrenti Beria, chief of the Russian Secret Police
The Main Text of the Manual: Hubbard, masquerading as an arrogant Russain Brainwashing expert
"Pain-Drug-Hypnosis"

The Layers of The "Scientological Onion" http://exscn.net/content/view/178/105 17

Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Modern Scientology 19

Correspondences between the Brainwashing Manual and the Battle Tactics policy
On “Survival”
On Surviving the Atomic Bomb
On an individual Scientologist influencing leaders
Scientology is devious by design

Front Groups - Layer Zero of the “Scientological Onion” 20

“It is not necessary that the term ‘Communism’ [Scientology] be applied at first…”

Layer One - The publicized portion of Scientology 23

“White Scientology”
Scenario: (An application of “White Scientology")
“By reason alone”
Auditing

Descending into Layer Two of the “Onion”: The “In-Organization” Strata 27

“…[Scientology] under the guise of [‘White Scientology']…”
Exploitation of the process of abreaction
Playing one thing off another or “counter-playing”
“Loaded language”: the seemingly enlightened “counter-played” with the manipulative
Tone 4, “entheta,” “theta,” Suppressive Person
The Thought Limiting clichés of Scientology
Publicized, “In-organization” and Confidential Scientology “Ethics”
“…aligning the individual against the desire not to conform…”
Side effects of “critical thoughts”
Dominion over the loyalties of individuals

Layer Three of the “Onion”: The Confidential “Upper Levels” of the “Bridge to Total Freedom” 33

“…avoid the understanding of the layman…”
Highest of the “upper levels” must remain a mystery to the membership
Operating Thetan or O.T.
Aleister Crowley, Head of the O.T.O.
O.T. III, The “Wall of Fire” into which Hubbard “took the plunge” to save Mankind
Exploitation of the paranormal

Layer Four: “…a well trained individual who serves in complete obedience…”
The Sea Organization, the Rehabilitation Project Force, and the Five Card System 36

The Sea Organization: “Custodians of the O.T. Levels”
“…the only loyalty which should exist… is to the State [Scientology].”
Sea Org Ethics under Commodore Hubbard on the Flagship
“Refusal to let them sleep over many days…”
The Rehabilitation Project Force
“Filthy food, little sleep, nearly untenable quarters…”
“…the first loyalty [to himself]… is destroyed…”
“Degradation and conquest…”
The children’s and teenagers’ RPF
“A certain amount of fear…”
The RPF’s RPF
The Five Card “Team Share” System
“The technologies of psycho-politics…”

Layer Five: Confidential Scientology Policy and Tech for “handling” uncooperative outsiders 46

The Fair Game policy and “philosophy”
“…find or manufacture enough threat…”
“Direct the attention of the authorities…”
Scientology’s unscrupulous use of the legal system
“We will no longer put up with our religion being criticized…”
Discourage inquiry
Defamatory data on file; “Culling”: Searching “religious confessional” (auditing) files for embarrassing or intimidating items
Background: The Commodore’s Intelligence Network
The policy of covert attack and publicized PR “defense lines”
Scientology’s Multi-layered Public Relations tech
Scientology Intelligence tech
Data collecting, and Attack or “support” Intelligence
Creating incidents that reflect badly on others
“Data needed by Ops on each located who”
Attack or “support” Intelligence - The Covert Ops study course and checklist
“Persons in his vicinity to whom he is emotionally involved…”
Coerce them into signing prepared “retractions” or “confessions”
Plenty of bogus “documentation”
One justification for unscrupulous covert methods
Treatment of VIPs and celebrities
Goal of talking over “mental health” and “political guidance”
Full knowledge of Intelligence tech must be denied to the general membership
“Deception, chicanery, lying, manipulation and outright criminality”
“She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me”
Scientologists believe in a planet-wide conspiracy against L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology
The Scientology Hierarchy

Layer Six: The Core of the “Scientological Onion” 69

“…virtually a pathological liar…egotism… lust for power, and vindictiveness…”
“We must be like the vine upon the tree…”
The elusive “1000 page” official L. Ron Hubbard biography
“It’s a trap not being able to prevaricate”
Conscience as an “impediment”
The L. Ron Hubbard Fan(atic) club

Epilogue 74

Freeing the Positives

Addendum 76

"Dr. Hubbard's" FBI letters written concurrent with the appearance of the Brainwashing Manual 77

L. Ron Hubbard assumes the identity of Dr. Hubbard Ph.D DD - Patriotic Concerned Citizen
Letter of 29 July 1955
From a letter dated 7 September

A further look at Scientology's Covert Intelligence Tech 79

"Categories of Data Needing Coding"
A glimpse at a covert operation, and of public strata "policy" used as a cover for applied covert policy
An example of public strata "policy" used as "cover" - this time used on Scientologists by Scientology
"Ops Planning"
What to "Vet" or delete from sensitive internal messages that may be scrutinized by outsiders

Bibliography 82

Notes 87


L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?, 2nd edition:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0942637577/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-0654802-4263319


IMO, Scientology is a mix of both "white" and "black" Scientology. These are intertwined. Hubbard spent decades carefully, systematically, weaving these together to become Scientology.

 

[shadow]

A person's viewpoint is likely based on a cost/benefit evaluation of the experience.

A person who had to dig through a pile of sh*t but found a diamond may feel there was value in the experience. However, a person who had to dive into a septic tank and only found a dime, may not feel the same way.

 

[Div6]

I've never thought that about you. I "get it" on the All Bad deal.

Now, can we address your (apparent) idea that certain posters here are doing "handlings", using "spin", being "covertly manipulative" etc here on ESMB, when all I see them doing is expressing an opinion.

I don't think you need to label them or their commentary as agenda-driven just because they disagree with you or you disagree with them.

What do you think?

Good luck with that Panda....lol.

 

[Purple Rain]

Originally Posted by NoName
Dillpickle - I think that there are three goups of people on ESMB.

The first group thinks that Dn/Scn is essentially a good thing, LRH is a saint, and Davey is the problem because he took something good and corrupted it.

The second group is seriously pissed off or seriously depressed at having been taken by the cult and refuses to acknowledge that there is anything good about Dn/Scn.

The final group tends to either be pragmatic or many years along on their way out. This group won't indulge in any sort of wheat/chaff exercise, but they won't deny that you had wins and that they were real (at least at the time). They won't deny that Dn/Scn can feel like it is helpful, and may still use some of the tools that they learned while in. But this group also tends to feel that the Tech is very limited, and will seek answers outside of the Tech. Because really, if your only tool is a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail.

-snip-

Originally Posted by UnifiedField
I think those of us in the third group know that if we dared to say something - anything - positive about anything to do with Scientology we will get jumped on from all sides, accused of being gullible, hypnotised, deluded, mistaken or just plain WRONG.

UF

"If we dared to say something - anything - positive about anything to do with Scientology we will get jumped on from all sides, accused of being gullible, hypnotised, deluded, mistaken or just plain WRONG."


I, and others, have acknowledged and discussed the positives in Scientology, and neither I, nor the others, have been "jumped on."

At least, I don't recall having been "jumped on," etc., but I probably have been "jumped on," etc. a few times; however, it doesn't stand out in my mind. It's not important to me.

I take a lot of care to look at each individual post rather than aligning myself with any particular "group". I do this with voting also, voting on issues rather than party lines. I am personally quite uncomfortable with the definitions specified above. These categories strike me as being like a quiz in a woman's magazine where none of them accurately describe the reality of my personal situation. I understand the human need to put people in boxes, but I think it is counterproductive.

 

[Veda]

A person's viewpoint is likely based on a cost/benefit evaluation of the experience.

A person who had to dig through a pile of sh*t but found a diamond may feel there was value in the experience. However, a person who had to dive into a septic tank and only found a dime, may not feel the same way.

For me, the main reason for thoroughly describing Scientology is to help others to avoid, or recover from, being fooled by Scientology. And it's not possible to thoroughly describe Scientology without, occasionally, mentioning the positives - and the positives are a key element of the mind-trap.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Good luck with that Panda....lol.

I think Div6 is right.


Mark A. Baker

 

[NoName]

Well, as I said I think you're doing a great thing and I do hope you're right. I don't follow that person so I wouldn't know.

Thanks!

I take a lot of care to look at each individual post rather than aligning myself with any particular "group". I do this with voting also, voting on issues rather than party lines. I am personally quite uncomfortable with the definitions specified above. These categories strike me as being like a quiz in a woman's magazine where none of them accurately describe the reality of my personal situation. I understand the human need to put people in boxes, but I think it is counterproductive.

Fair enough. My motivation for acknowledging the positives is this:

For me, the main reason for thoroughly describing Scientology is to help others to avoid, or recover from, being fooled by Scientology. And it's not possible to thoroughly describe Scientology without, occasionally, mentioning the positives - and the positives are a key element of the mind-trap.

Others might actually believe in the positives. In that regard, I agree that the categories are crude. The bottom line remains that there are other entheta sites that are maybe better suited for people who want the wheat/chaff exercises or continuing to practice Scientology.

To use another (maybe better) analogy, in legal writing you don't ever want the reader to have to fill in any logical gaps in reasoning. Most people don't speak or write like that, and it takes a huge amount of effort to pull off. But when dealing with the newly out, those logical gaps may end up filled in with the black/white cult-think. Failure to handle = entheta. That's what I was trying to avoid having happen in those lengthy posts.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... To use another (maybe better) analogy, in legal writing you don't ever want the reader to have to fill in any logical gaps in reasoning. Most people don't speak or write like that, and it takes a huge amount of effort to pull off. But when dealing with the newly out, those logical gaps may end up filled in with the black/white cult-think. Failure to handle = entheta. That's what I was trying to avoid having happen in those lengthy posts.

Not just legal writing. Any well-formulated argument is constructed in that fashion. What seems 'obvious' to some most frequently reflects the private prejudice of the advocate. Commonly they fall apart with a more thorough & accurate analysis.


Mark A. Baker

 

[shadow]

For me, the main reason for thoroughly describing Scientology is to help others to avoid, or recover from, being fooled by Scientology. And it's not possible to thoroughly describe Scientology without, occasionally, mentioning the positives - and the positives are a key element of the mind-trap.

Yep, that is the key. Discuss the good, bad, ugly and other options. My nephew had done lots of research into different philosophies and when he found where much of scn had been pirated from, he started providing info on the alternative philosophies along with his criticism.

 

[Purple Rain]

Thanks!



Fair enough. My motivation for acknowledging the positives is this:



Others might actually believe in the positives. In that regard, I agree that the categories are crude. The bottom line remains that there are other entheta sites that are maybe better suited for people who want the wheat/chaff exercises or continuing to practice Scientology.

To use another (maybe better) analogy, in legal writing you don't ever want the reader to have to fill in any logical gaps in reasoning. Most people don't speak or write like that, and it takes a huge amount of effort to pull off. But when dealing with the newly out, those logical gaps may end up filled in with the black/white cult-think. Failure to handle = entheta. That's what I was trying to avoid having happen in those lengthy posts.

I am interested in what you think were the logical gaps in my posts to that person.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

That behavor is mirrored in Hubbard's PTS handlings:

Handle or Disconnect

There is no other option available "per the tech".

Hubbard talked about "two-valued logic", and how his "multi-valued logic" (gradients) was senior and better.

Except Hubbard often ENFORCED two-valued logic in Scientology. This is just another of many examples of the blatant contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard's world of Scientology is often very "digital", where the only options are either "0" or "1".

If this then do this.

If that, then do that.

It is entirely ROTE and no other options are available.

In many ways, Scientologists ARE like machine robots, following exactly the programming of the Scientology "software" (policies, tech, orders, "data", etc.).

Scientologists very badly want to go back to their "home" (universe).

They are simply following the instructions that came with the tech.

"Follow the Yellow Bri[STRIKE]ck[/STRIKE]dge Road."

 

[PirateAndBum]

Yeah but,,,,

but....

I wanna go home...

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker
Only for those, such as yourself, who see things that way.

No. Only for Scientologists.

Aside from Baker's condescension, there is another reason his posts are so "off".

He does not actually agree with the definition of Scientology, as subscribed to by Scientologists and defined by the Founder himself, in every HCOPL, HCOB, tape, book and the Scientology dictionary.

Baker has actually re-defined the word for himself. Scientologists call that a "crashing misunderstood". Wogs call it "confused".

It is noteworthy that the re-definition of terms is what Hubbard and other cult propagandists do.

 

[Gadfly]

Aside from Baker's condescension, there is another reason his posts are so "off".

He does not actually agree with the definition of Scientology, as subscribed to by Scientologists and defined by the Founder in every HCOPL, HCOB, tape & book.

Baker has re-defined the word for himself. Scientologists call that a "crashing misunderstood". Wogs call it "confused".

Thank-you for finally clearing up MY OWN confusion with the poster known as Mark Baker. You are entirely correct. I feel like a heavy weight has been lifted from my shoulders and head.

When a person chooses to use a different definition of a term than just about everybody else involved, naturally, he or she will appear "odd" (at least), and really strange or even nuts (at worse).

Note: Though, to some degree, many or all "indie Scientologists" also suffer from some similar version of this same sort of redefining of what is Scientology and a Scientologist (in direct contradiction to Hubbard's own overly clear HCOBs, HCOPLs, tapes and books).

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Yeah but,,,,

but....

I wanna go home...

Yeah, but you are home.

Earth is not a "prison planet". This is where we live.

Oh well, if you are bummed out. . .

1. Fly a Rud.

2. Have a beer.​

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Thank-you for finally clearing up MY OWN confusion with the poster known as Mark Baker. You are entirely correct. I feel like a heavy weight has been lifted from my shoulders and head.

When a person chooses to use a different definition of a term than just about everybody else involved, naturally, he or she will appear "odd" (at least), and really strange or even nuts (at worse).

Ergo...

I am a strict "vegetarian" but I had eggs and bacon for breakfast, a hamburger for lunch and steak for dinner.

I am a devout "Christian" but I do not believe in Christ, his teachings or the Bible-- and I attend Koranic studies with a Mullah and worship in strict accordance with Mohammed's teachings--in a Mosque with an Imam.

I am a Non-ESMBer; a person who does not read, participate in any way or post on the message board known as ESMB. I am not posting this, I am just communicating it in writing to let you know.

 

[Gadfly]

Scientologists very badly want to go back to their "home" (universe).

This whole thing about "home universes" is so STUPID. It is like the Scientology version of the Garden of Eden (which I also think is entirely stupid). A "spiritual being" in decent shape woudn't care about ANY of that.

Ones attention, if one were actually in "good shape", would being happily and calmly IN PT (not stuck on some PAST "home universe").

But then, most Scientologists are not actually "in good shape" - they are over-indoctrinated human beings who falsely imagine themselves to be other than a human beng (i.e. Homo Novus, OT, etc.).

If anyone here has studied the PDC tapes (I did), Hubbard pretty much makes it clear that ANY universe exists because of considerations and agreements. Even if there was some wonderful long-gone and forever-missed "home universe", it is really only just "another universe" - of course, with LOTS of "added significance" by the various Scientologists who pine for it.

It really cracks me up how amazingly convoluted and inherently contradictory the subject of Scientology is. On the one hand Hubbard talks about how considerations, agreements and significance need to be AS-ISED (or at least let go of) to "free the thetan" (I think there is some truth to that idea - when greatly reinterpreted from a Buddhist perspective), but then on the other hand he plants so MUCH MORE added significance & considerations about so many things into the mushy little heads of his over-zealous Scientologists.

And, so so many don't or can't see this - that they have bought into a whole new bundle of exaggerated significances & considerations.