PTS and SP, as concepts

[GreyLensman]

This is purely speculative because I haven't been inside an org for many years now, but after I left the CofS I was told that no one in the CofS is allowed to name a Scientology staff member (much less Miscavige himself) as an SP.

Which leads me to this suggestion;

I think the truth is that the CofS is afraid of the tech of SP / PTSness because it knows it's bigger than they are. If either staff or public were allowed to carry out an SP rundown, on any scale, and were allowed to name any terminal as an SP which came up, the Church would be in big trouble.

There is a precedent for this; according to Pilot, the CofS once piloted an ethics rundown which was both comprehensive and very searching. They ended up withdrawing it because it put the people it was run on in open conflict with the Orgs and CofS policy, which they tried to fix - good for them, but not so good for the CofS which promptly declared them.

PTSness we might have to agree to differ on, but as has been pointed out by a number of people in this thread, a number of other authors have described personality types or disorders not all that different from SPdom. Are they to be rejected as well?

If Scientology actually produced OT's, the first thing a free being would do is look at the organization and the universe around it, cognite and try and fix the organization - which would of course fail, and then the being would actively work against the organization and drop allegiance to it. The only way you can remain in the Cof$ is to betray your own observations. Can't be done any other way. So the more able beings leave, because they can't ignore their own conscience and integrity, and the "OT" beings remain and hold a blindness in place in order to do so. That's hard to do, longterm, quite a skill. Makes them terminally stupid in the long run.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

This is purely speculative because I haven't been inside an org for many years now, but after I left the CofS I was told that no one in the CofS is allowed to name a Scientology staff member (much less Miscavige himself) as an SP.

Which leads me to this suggestion;

I think the truth is that the CofS is afraid of the tech of SP / PTSness because it knows it's bigger than they are. If either staff or public were allowed to carry out an SP rundown, on any scale, and were allowed to name any terminal as an SP which came up, the Church would be in big trouble.

There is a precedent for this; according to Pilot, the CofS once piloted an ethics rundown which was both comprehensive and very searching. They ended up withdrawing it because it put the people it was run on in open conflict with the Orgs and CofS policy, which they tried to fix - good for them, but not so good for the CofS which promptly declared them.

PTSness we might have to agree to differ on, but as has been pointed out by a number of people in this thread, a number of other authors have described personality types or disorders not all that different from SPdom. Are they to be rejected as well?

Actually you can name a staff member as your SP. Then the case supervisor (such as myself, when I was in the Sea Org, I was a C/S) would program you for sec checking for your overts and crimes and then find the underlying evil purposes. False Purpose Rundown, for False PTSes. False PTSes are people who name "good hats" as SP's. And "good hats", really, are a matter of opinion.

What a perfectly screwed up system. A cult. Blind, blind, blind!!!!

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Actually you can name a staff member as your SP. Then the case supervisor (such as myself, when I was in the Sea Org, I was a C/S) would program you for sec checking for your overts and crimes and then find the underlying evil purposes. False Purpose Rundown, for False PTSes. False PTSes are people who name "good hats" as SP's. And "good hats", really, are a matter of opinion.

What a perfectly screwed up system. A cult. Blind, blind, blind!!!!

Thanks for the info, but that's sort of what I meant - you can't name a staff member as your SP with impunity.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Thanks for the info, but that's sort of what I meant - you can't name a staff member as your SP with impunity.

Correct.

I was just saying what happens when you do name a staff member as an SP.

We are on the same page. I was just trying to show the consequence of doing so....

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

If Scientology actually produced OT's, the first thing a free being would do is look at the organization and the universe around it, cognite and try and fix the organization - which would of course fail, and then the being would actively work against the organization and drop allegiance to it. The only way you can remain in the Cof$ is to betray your own observations. Can't be done any other way. So the more able beings leave, because they can't ignore their own conscience and integrity, and the "OT" beings remain and hold a blindness in place in order to do so. That's hard to do, longterm, quite a skill. Makes them terminally stupid in the long run.

Spot on.

 

[Veda]

HA!!! I'm OT and I'm still IN!!!!!​

-snip-

So the more able beings leave, because they can't ignore their own conscience and integrity

-snip-

But they can, and did, and some still do.

Hubbard had refined Scientology to a pretty slick and efficient psycho-political operation by the 1960s and 1970s. It tricked and used a lot of smart and able people.

"Assert and maintain dominion over thoughts and loyalties through mental healing..."​

A few examples...


Martin Samuels was one of the most successful Mission holders, plus founder of the Delphian School. He was a member of Scientology for many years before leaving and writing:


Hubbard operated according to a couple of key patterns.

The first pattern involved basically decent well intentioned people... no one was able to rise in the organization to a point of any real proximity to him, without being attacked and vilified...

And of course the next person thinks he or she is immune [from this pattern]...

The next pattern: It's reap and rape. Hubbard would let the reins loose. He'd let people believe they really could get on with it... He'd let people believe they really could prosper to the full extent of their own ability, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

And, with that kind of freedom, prosperity does occur, Inevitably, though, he'd come along and rape and pillage and rip off and take what had been produced. The most dramatic example of this was '82, '83, when he 'raped' his most decent people in management along with the mission holders, and looted the entire mission network.

And look at this pattern... He surrounded himself with absolute hooligans as 'managers'; guys who beat the shit out of people. This man, who 'is this OT, the author of Science of Survival, completely able to predict human behavior', surrounded himself with ruthless people - like Miscavige - who got there because they emulated Hubbard's savagery. They emulated his total willingness to completely break, use, and discard another person.

And then after their hands were so bloody - and the only reason their hands were bloody was that they were doing what Hubbard wanted - when it finally started to get to the point where it couldn't be tolerated by people anymore, Hubbard wiped them out. Then he said. 'My God! I didn't know!' Scapegoat. He even did that to his own wife, who went to jail in his place...

But the thing that's amazing, and to me terrifying, is the characteristic of the mind, my mind, your mind, and apparently many other people's minds, where I could buy this horseshit, where I could participate in it.


John McMaster, "the world's first real Clear," SP Declared in 1969, was a member of Scientology for many years, before saying:

He [Hubbard] got the technology to the point where he had a sort of assembly line as he called it. And he told me how he was putting all these 'square ball bearings' on the beginning of the assembly line, and then turning them into 'round ball bearings' at the other end. That was his idea of 'standard tech'.


And this from another able person, Alan Walter, who was a member of Scientology for many years before he left and wrote:


...Ron had Julia Salmon thrown overboard... Julia was [in her fifties], terribly overweight, and could not swim.

The people who threw her overboard struggled to get her over the side; she was terrified; she kept crying out "I cannot swim!" On her way down she hit the side of the ship - I could hear her screams - it was obvious she was injured and drowning.

The people on the deck all stood around too afraid to do anything. Fearing to originate any action less the become the target of LRHs displeasure.

I ran and jumped over the side and rescued her. I then pulled her over to the ladder that led up to the ground level of the dock........it was about 20 feet straight up. She could not climb the steps. I had my shoulders under her butt pushing her up..... no one still had come to help.......but at the top of that ladder stood LRH filming us.....such evil.......

Anyway after an immense struggle with Julia's help I was able to push her up to the top of the ladder....finally some help arrived.

Over the years the unthinkable thought pushed forward more and more....it was 'that I observe that LRH was demonic at that time'. I did not want to know that, did not want to believe that.......that was too incredible to be believed - even for me - I did the usual make nothing of myself....'you're seeing things' 'what do you know' 'you've got overts' - much easier to blame self than confront what is...

 

[Leon]

There is no confusion at all, Veda.

There is such a thing as a Sociopath/SP. This is real and is attested to by mainstream psychology.

There is such a thing as a person who is under the influence of, or is dominated by, a Sociopath/SP. This is also attested to by mainstream psychology.

These concepts are well recognised , they are described, persons who display these characteristics can be recognised by anyone trained on it.

So that is fine. And a proper use of such concepts would be to learn how to recognize them and to treat them as such, each according to his/her nature. That's all good.

Hubbard, however, abuses this phenomena by branding persons, to whom the descriptions/classifications do not apply, as being sociopaths/SPs. He did this for anyone who disagreed with him or who sought to discourage anyone from doing his subject or any of the host of reasons he laid out in his High Crimes P/L, or, in fact, for any other reason that took his fancy at the moment he did it. A mere whim was good reason enough.

This is clearly an abuse or misuse of the basic concepts of what a sociopath is.


There, now that wasn't too hard to understand , was it? I reckon most people can "get it".

Can you?

 

[Veda]

Re: PTS and SP, as concepts - the tech tech tech tech tech tech works!

-snip-

misused his own tech

-snip-

-snip-

Hubbard, however, abuses this phenomena

-snip-

First it was "abuses his own tech."

Then it became "abuses this phenomena."

My point was made re. the first comment.

Hubbard used his tech.

You've airbrushed Hubbard's "tech" in your own mind.

 

[Enthetan]

But the thing that's amazing, and to me terrifying, is the characteristic of the mind, my mind, your mind, and apparently many other people's minds, where I could buy this horseshit, where I could participate in it.

...
...Ron had Julia Salmon thrown overboard... Julia was [in her fifties], terribly overweight, and could not swim.

The people who threw her overboard struggled to get her over the side; she was terrified; she kept crying out "I cannot swim!" On her way down she hit the side of the ship - I could hear her screams - it was obvious she was injured and drowning.

The people on the deck all stood around too afraid to do anything. Fearing to originate any action less the become the target of LRHs displeasure.

I think we all dodged a major bullet, from Scientology not having been more successful than it was.

Consider the abuses that we saw and rationalized were "for the good of mankind", and then just stopped thinking about. Be glad it's come apart before we got to the stage of building ovens for the people Hubbard didn't want around.

 

[Leon]

Re: PTS and SP, as concepts - the tech tech tech tech tech tech works!

First it was "abuses his own tech."

Then it became "abuses this phenomena."

My point was made re. the first comment.

Hubbard used his tech.

You've airbrushed Hubbard's "tech" in your own mind.

Your splitting of hairs is quite astonishing. I suppose you reckon Enthetan's calling overboarding an 'abuse' was also wrong and should be a 'use'.

 

[Anonycat]

If you aren't so bad, Jon Atack said he'd merely torture you. I guess that's more of the tek.

In 1968, Hubbard introduced the practice of "overboarding". A photograph of this practice was published in Scientology's magazine "The Auditor", issue 41, with the caption: "Students are thrown overboard for gross out tech and bequeathed to the deep!" [JCA-95]. Overboarding was used as a punishment for failure to comply exactly with Hubbard's orders. At about the same time, the tank punishment - where individuals were put into the bilge tanks and kept awake for 84 hours - and the chainlocker punishment - where individuals were put in the dark, cramped, waterlogged, rat-infested and filthy chainlocker. Witnesses have said that even children were put in the chainlocker at Hubbard's order.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: PTS and SP, as concepts - the tech tech tech tech tech tech works!

Your splitting of hairs is quite astonishing. I suppose you reckon Enthetan's calling overboarding an 'abuse' was also wrong and should be a 'use'.

I can see where he's coming from (there is a distinction between tech and the concepts it's based on), but all the same, as even I know from an introductory course, there is a proper procedure to follow when attempting to determine whether or not there is a suppressive on your lines - it takes a metered interview and a list - and nothing I've read in accounts of the history of Scn (such as in "A Piece Of Blue Sky") suggests to me that Ron made any serious attempt to practice it himself. His deciding someone was an SP was little more than a decree from on high that everyone else was supposed to take his word for.

So no, I wouldn't say Hubbard "used the tech" when declaring someone an SP, any more than, say, Stalin did when he sent someone to the gulag after he'd had a bout of indigestion.

 

[Veda]

Re: PTS and SP, as concepts - the tech tech tech tech tech tech works!

I think we all dodged a major bullet, from Scientology not having been more successful than it was.

Consider the abuses that we saw and rationalized were "for the good of mankind", and then just stopped thinking about. Be glad it's come apart before we got to the stage of building ovens for the people Hubbard didn't want around.

Your splitting of hairs is quite astonishing. I suppose you reckon Enthetan's calling overboarding an 'abuse' was also wrong and should be a 'use'.

Now you're being ridiculous and deliberately attempting to confuse others.

What you've achieved, however, is just to confuse yourself.



"Your writing [tech] has a deep hypnotic effect on people and they are always pleased with [your tech] what you write...

"Your psychology [tech] is true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."

L. Ron Hubbard, 1946



In recovering Scientologists, the last trance to be broken is the "tech" trance.

 

[Veda]

Re: PTS and SP, as concepts - the tech tech tech tech tech tech works!

I can see where he's coming from (there is a distinction between tech and the concepts it's based on), but all the same, as even I know from an introductory course, there is a proper procedure to follow when attempting to determine whether or not there is a suppressive on your lines - it takes a metered interview and a list - and nothing I've read in accounts of the history of Scn (such as in "A Piece Of Blue Sky") suggests to me that Ron made any serious attempt to practice it himself. His deciding someone was an SP was little more than a decree from on high that everyone else was supposed to take his word for.

So no, I wouldn't say Hubbard "used the tech" when declaring someone an SP, any more than, say, Stalin did when he sent someone to the gulag after he had a bout of indigestion.

You seem to have (the generality) "tech" as being entirely (or mostly) benign. It isn't.

The link below outlines the Hubbard operation, and its tech: visible, behind the scenes, deeply secret; its tech: beneficial, manipulative, exploiting and hurtful.

These "techs" work together, forming the ingredients that constitute the Scientology trap.

Each "layer" (see link) has instructional know-how from Hubbard: "tech."

Scientology and its "tech" are not honest subjects.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?2697-Table-of-Contents-Psychopolitics-revisited

 

[Claire Swazey]

I worked with hundreds of ex-felons for five years in a "get back to work program" and can attest that 99% of them are regular guys and ladies just like you and me who got off in the wrong direction at some point. They were not, each one, individually, suppressive people according to the definitions.

That's similar to what my husband told me.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I have often thought that Scn had a lot of concepts that could be abused and that may have been ok and even helpful outside the cult. However, we do know that Hubbard was nothing but self serving, ever. And as previously noted, he did come up with things like overboarding. Other things like freeloader debts, disconnection, the RPF and crazy staff contracts, too, right?

That's exactly why people question his motives.

I do think that Hubbard was fairly perceptive-when he wanted to be, and that he did notice certain mental mechanisms. So he hit on a number of things that really resonated with people- that made them say "hey, I've seen stuff like that. This guy is on to something!". So that's probably at least part of the explanation with this PTS/SP stuff.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

PTS and SP tech? OMG.

How many times do I have to tell some of you people that there is no tech. I mean, go to your rooms and think about what you did or get out some clay or somethin', will ya?! LOL.

Hubbard Law of Commotion: For each and every piece of tech there is an equal and opposite piece of tech.

Scientologists cannot seem to clear this concept for some reason*. They get all disoriented and discombobulated when a win randomly pops up somewhere. Kind of like a 6 year old kid at the bowling alley who uses those lane "bumpers" and miraculously bowls a butterball that turns into a strike with astonished, wide-eyed amazement when it happens.

Let's make this simple. Envision a Scientology casino where only Scientologists can play. Now let's select a random group of 100 true believers and break them into two (2) groups. The 50 person teams go off to separate training rooms to learn the tech of gambling. Their training materials contain RULES FOR WINNING.

GROUP A (50 people): Their 3 week training course in the tech of winning always begins with the words: "ALWAYS DO _____"

GROUP B (50 people): Their 3 week training course in the tech of winning always begins with the words: "NEVER DO_____"

Thusly, Group A and Group B have diametrically opposite instructions (tech).

When they graduate with great fanfare and testimonials (e.g. "Now I have total certainty that I will always win at the game of gambling!") they finally enter the casino to test their OT powers.

Naturally, Group A and Group B has the identical win/lose percentage since they are consistently doing the opposite thing. Think coin toss where "A" always guesses HEADS and "B" always guesses TAILS.

If they dutifully "keep Scientology working" they will ignore the losses and tell you about their wins. Naturally, the losses will be attributed to the next level of training/auditing which they haven't yet received. But they will be profoundly thankful for the wins and viciously attack anyone who mentions the losses.

In fact, there is a Hubbard policy/bulletin where he explicitly advises people to "IGNORE THE LOSSES AND MAKE THE WINS STRONGER"

Here we are in 2014, decades after Scientology has been thoroughly debunked and a few stragglers are still aimlessly wandering around the casino using their win tech and testifying about it to anyone who will listen.

THERE IS NO TECH PEOPLE! LOL. Hubbard gives opposite instructions on every conceivable red-on-white and green-on-white issue. He can never be wrong because he checked off both boxes on all the TRUE & FALSE questions. The random "wins" that happen from the tech are no greater than the "wins" that people have in every day life. On average, possibly quite less when you factor into a Scientologists life the harassment, treachery, financial duress, manipulation, coercion and terrorism that Scientologists suffer by reason of their involvement in the cult.

Scientology: It's a magic show for children who swear it's real magic.




* Hubbard Rule of 10: Even if a Scientologist had 10 dictionary, 10 word clearers and 10 pounds of clay, they still could not clear it. Because of the 10 points of KSW.

 

[Infinite]

There is no confusion at all, Veda.

There is such a thing as a Sociopath/SP. This is real and is attested to by mainstream psychology.

I would be grateful if you would, please, cite a single mainstream psychology text, just one, in which criticising Scientology and/or L Ron Hubbard equates to an act of sociopathy.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

There is no confusion at all, Veda.

There is such a thing as a Sociopath/SP. This is real and is attested to by mainstream psychology.

There is such a thing as a person who is under the influence of, or is dominated by, a Sociopath/SP. This is also attested to by mainstream psychology.

These concepts are well recognised , they are described, persons who display these characteristics can be recognised by anyone trained on it.

So that is fine. And a proper use of such concepts would be to learn how to recognize them and to treat them as such, each according to his/her nature. That's all good.

Hubbard, however, abuses this phenomena by branding persons, to whom the descriptions/classifications do not apply, as being sociopaths/SPs. He did this for anyone who disagreed with him or who sought to discourage anyone from doing his subject or any of the host of reasons he laid out in his High Crimes P/L, or, in fact, for any other reason that took his fancy at the moment he did it. A mere whim was good reason enough.

This is clearly an abuse or misuse of the basic concepts of what a sociopath is.


There, now that wasn't too hard to understand , was it? I reckon most people can "get it".

Can you?

Lol! I think I get your point Leon ... Tubs hubbard was a true socipath/SP (and a bit of a shit too) ... amirightorwot?

 

[Enthetan]

I worked with hundreds of ex-felons for five years in a "get back to work program" and can attest that 99% of them are regular guys and ladies just like you and me who got off in the wrong direction at some point. They were not, each one, individually, suppressive people according to the definitions.

Or, perhaps, they had learned the desirability of hiding certain tendencies, like their willingness to harm people in order to get what they wanted. Were you mostly dealing with people with minor drug offenses, or were you dealing with muggers, rapists, and murderers?

One thing the sociopath learns early in the game, is how to mask his true self.

[video=dailymotion;xc501v]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc501v_richard-pryor-on-arizona-penitentia_shortfilms[/video]