A sickness on this board.

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

There is a sickness on this board. It is a mental weakness that affects some of the posters here.

Some of it stems from still maintaining a Scientology world view even though they have left the cult.

The major symptom of this mental weakness is when a person believes that they know the answers to what is really going on in the world and that they are one of the few that really see it and understand it.

They know it all. They are experts on any subject they think about.

They know that the major events in the world today are brought on by conspiracies.

They know that Obama wasn’t born in the United States because they know his birth certificate is a forgery.

They know the U.S. government brought down the World Trade Center on 9/11 with controlled explosives.

They know that the “official version” is always a lie.

They know that we are living in a police state.

They know Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 and they know that the U.S. Seals did not recently kill him.

They know that the New World Order is dropping poison chemicals on American citizens.

They know all these things and they know things that the rest of us poor mere human sheep don’t know.

Many times I’ve battled with these people on threads, mostly for fun.

At first, I thought it was just poor and silly reasoning on their parts.

But it isn’t fun anymore, because it seems apparent now that it is a mental weakness that is afflicting these people.

Skepticism is healthy. But these people are not just skeptical.

They are obsessed and fanatical that the world exists as they see it in their minds.

The kindest thing I can is that their paranoid obsession is a remnant of their time in Scientology.

But I think perhaps it is also because some of them find themselves old and alone and having to deal with the humbling fact that they were members of a cult.

Some of them through the best years of their lives.

So they display their madness here, where they will find a sympathetic audience.

They have my sympathy. It is very, very, sad situation indeed.

We all have baggage, from the cult, and from life in general.

But we are not doing them any favors humoring their insanity by labeling it as just another viewpoint.

It is time we try and help these people and try to ease them back into the real world.

I know I will be criticized for saying something out loud that many of us realize quietly.

But they won’t wake up from their nightmare if we let them sleep.

The Anabaptist Jacques

It's not just this board, boards all across the internet are full of people who can't think for themselves but believe they are the only ones who can think for themselves. They are perfect candidates to become members of cults and believers of conspiracy theories, and suckers who fall for every new remedy which is endorsed by a con man claiming to be a doctor or expert. Twenty years ago I would have never believed so many people like this existed but the internet and AM talk radio has given them a platform to gather and a well stocked pond for con men to troll, just look at the products being advertised on a radio station or a website and it gives you a very good picture of what audience they are targeting ... miracle cures, penis enlargement, miracle weight lose supplements, magic hair regrowth tonics, investments and preparation for this week's coming apocalypse ... est.

 

[elwood]

The predelection for believing in conspiracies is not limited to any specific group of people. I see it all over the internet and even among acquaintances that I would never have believed capable of such abberrations. It also seems to me that the "conspiracy theory" crowd is getting larger - quickly. It's a bit scary, really.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

The predelection for believing in conspiracies is not limited to any specific group of people. I see it all over the internet and even among acquaintances that I would never have believed capable of such abberrations. It also seems to me that the "conspiracy theory" crowd is getting larger - quickly. It's a bit scary, really.

It seems there is a correlation between the amount of cable news or AM radio a person listens to, to their susceptibility to believing conspiracy theories. When you are bombarded with ridiculously opinionated commentary and extremist propaganda posing as factual news, conspiracy theories begin to look like factual news too. And this isn't limited to politics, I see it in sports, religion, medicine, government, technology, business, entertainment, the weather ... just about everything. I was getting a bottle of water from a vending machine the other day and heard a guy say 'they' place the cans of carbonated soda on the highest rows of the vending machine so when the can drops to the slot it is shaken up and will spray out soda as you open it, so you have to buy more cans of soda to quench your thirst.

If they turned off the AM radio, cable news, logged off of the computer, and got laid more often, these thoughts wouldn't enter their minds.

 

[degraded being]

Don't forget
anyone
anyone
anyone
anyone.

 

[Gadfly]

Sometimes a state of paranoia is not so "unjustifed". Even, and sometimes especially when, LOOKING AT THE FACTS.

The person who willy-nilly invalidates all conspiracy theories is as dumb as the person who randomly believes every conspiracy theory that shows its face.

People meeting secretly, planning secretly, involving themselves in secret behaviors that often are NOT in YOUR best interest, while also doing their best to PR you with a perception of something else entirely? Please, NOT on THIS wonderfully aware and intelligent planet! How dare anyone actually think that people on THIS planet would do such things! (sarcasm)

THAT is one of the things that Scientology DOES. And, they were NOT the originators of deceitful, manipulative, and SECRET shenanigans. Far from it. VERY FAR FROM IT!

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Veda, I'm sure that I am a founding member of this group. And now that you, TG1, PurpleRain and maybe others have recently questioned the authority of TSA (and disagreed with TAJ) you may have joined me.

Good thing as i was getting lonely.

Disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it.

Constantly altering and misrepresenting what people say does (like you have just done)

So we can start with that: lying.

You are lying when you repeatedly try to convince others that I or anyone else said or believe something that they didn't say or believe.

Maybe I should put it another way...

If you repeatedly lie by trying to convince others that someone said something they didn't say...you may be a nutjob!

At this is where Scientology comes into it. Some cult members and some former cult members sometimes cannot understand what other people are saying to them.

They are assimilating what the other person says through the filter of their own prejudice.

The literalness people often develop from the use of Study Tech, that is, looking only at words and not at the context that those words are used to give them meaning is a factor too.

Veda's response of pointing I that I said "They' They, they," in a post is a perfect example. The context and grammar was right for my using the word "they."

But he could not understand the context and only saw the word "They," which is a bad word in the cult.

It is a bad word because the cult thinking doesn't consider context.

You lied when you implied to others that I accepted the authority of TSA.

You lied because what I said repeatedly is that I questioned your authority to know what is best for airline security.

Maybe you aren't intentionally trying to deceive people. Maybe you truly are sub-literate. You certainly shows signs of it.

But you just demonstrated what I was talking about in my opening post.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

TAJ

I buy into some conspiracies and others I leave well alone. For those that I consider 'conspiracies', I only point out the inconsistencies and obvious errors----I do not propose my own theories nor suddenly embrace someone else's theories because if it is a conspiracy, vital information to deduce what really happened will always remain unavailable.

As discussed on the Conspiracies thread, it is conceded that the OCT around JFK is bogus, but suggestions as to what really happened will never be properly deduced until all those confiscated cameras and film rolls are made public (assuming they weren't destroyed).

Did Marilyn Monroe commit suicide, or was she murdered?

Officially, Michael Hutchence committed suicide in a Rose Bay hotel room by hanging himself with a belt attached to a door knob. Ask anybody who saw that room prior to clean up, and there is no doubt in their mind that it was death by misadventure (as in auto-erotic asphyxiation). So, which do I believe, something told me by first-hand witness(es), or the "official" coroner's finding?

What about the Concorde? Why was Air France fined over the hotel crash, when it was actually caused by a DC-10 engine bracket dropped in the middle of the runway because it had been refitted with incorrect bolts? I suspect that in ten years' time the DC-10 engine bracket will be reclassified as "conspiracy theory", leaving the marvel of engineering known as the Concorde to be left carrying the blame for all those deaths.

RPX

 

[uniquemand]

I don't think it's a mental weakness. People are looking for causal agents. They see a problem, they assume there is a cause, and they look for it. The reason it gets crazy is that people don't seem willing to accept complexity. There can be a single cause, there can be multiple causes, and there can literally be nearly infinite causes, and when you try to oversimplify to a single cause, it can result in stupid or paranoid conclusions.

People also seem to need their "morning hate". Rather than look at their own lives, and decide what to do, what to change, how to improve things, they'd rather focus outward on enemies fed to them through hate groups, media channels and gossip.

There's also a tendency for people to try to act outside their real sphere of influence, knowledge and competence. Rather than admit that they simply don't know something, they pretend they do, and then start trying to wield influence (that they don't really have) concerning it, and do so incompetently. When 9/11 happened, it scared a lot of people, and people obsessed about it. I wasn't one of these, because I was too wrapped up in personal dilemmas. I came to the arguments and debates later, and was interested in seeing the videos, some of which I found compelling, but short on facts. I realized that unless I was on the inside track, where I needed to know the information (and was cleared for it), I was not going to receive it barring some bad handling of internal intelligence. The same is true of other conspiracy thinking. It's a fun, interesting diversion, but I'm not on the inside track.

It's one thing to admit this, and ASK for the information, or engage in speculation, and quite another to think you KNOW something that you clearly don't. Former "OTs" might have difficulty with this, as they are expected to have (and probably thought that they did have) an inside track, higher responsibility and power, etc.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

When I got into the cult it was the seventies, the air was thick with the after smell of dope smoke and conspiracy theories were everywhere. None dare call it conspiracy was talked about constantly in the orgs.

Let's face it politicians do plenty of stuff without informing us mortals of why they are doing it. There actually are conspiracies. Russia really was making it easy for drugs grown in Afghanistan to get to the West. The CIA have done some pretty unbelievable things to it's own citizens. We have so many news channels and documentaries, and yet we are kept in the dark.

Saying that I do agree that most of them are smoke screens for what's really going on. We will have to wait probably fifty years before the truth will start to emerge. I doubt I would have enough brain cells by then, should I still be around, to make any sense of the information that comes to light.

One lesson we can learn from history is that history books are full of lies and truths. We can though know more about world war one now than we did in 1914.

Another lesson to be learned is that people will all sit around discussing the current events from the papers as if they know all the facts. We do not know enough to make any conclusions.

Every now and then a failed conspiracy comes to light, like a Jewish cemetery in Jerusalem desecrated with swastikas, a few years ago. It was found that that the extremists that did it were in fact Orthodox Jews, stirring shit against their Islamic neighbours. People do conspire together to make things happen, not always good things.

So yes there are people that conspire. There are also people that use crazy conspiracy theories to give a bad name to those trying to expose real conspiracies.
But I haven't a clue about what's real or just nut job. I hate to admit to it, but I'm open minded.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

I don't think it's a mental weakness. People are looking for causal agents. They see a problem, they assume there is a cause, and they look for it. The reason it gets crazy is that people don't seem willing to accept complexity. There can be a single cause, there can be multiple causes, and there can literally be nearly infinite causes, and when you try to oversimplify to a single cause, it can result in stupid or paranoid conclusions.

People also seem to need their "morning hate". Rather than look at their own lives, and decide what to do, what to change, how to improve things, they'd rather focus outward on enemies fed to them through hate groups, media channels and gossip.

There's also a tendency for people to try to act outside their real sphere of influence, knowledge and competence. Rather than admit that they simply don't know something, they pretend they do, and then start trying to wield influence (that they don't really have) concerning it, and do so incompetently. When 9/11 happened, it scared a lot of people, and people obsessed about it. I wasn't one of these, because I was too wrapped up in personal dilemmas. I came to the arguments and debates later, and was interested in seeing the videos, some of which I found compelling, but short on facts. I realized that unless I was on the inside track, where I needed to know the information (and was cleared for it), I was not going to receive it barring some bad handling of internal intelligence. The same is true of other conspiracy thinking. It's a fun, interesting diversion, but I'm not on the inside track.

It's one thing to admit this, and ASK for the information, or engage in speculation, and quite another to think you KNOW something that you clearly don't. Former "OTs" might have difficulty with this, as they are expected to have (and probably thought that they did have) an inside track, higher responsibility and power, etc.

When people allow cable news, AM talk radio or a cult form their reality, it is a mental weakness, a self-inflicted mental weakness.

There are still millions of people in this country who believe Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_opinion_polls

Yes that is a mental defect.

 

[uniquemand]

I disagree. I don't think there is anything wrong with their mind. I do think there is something wrong with their conclusions, and that data they have accepted. There is a missing skill set, perhaps (logic, most likely). Could be something wrong with morality they've accepted, cultural values ("people who try to understand things are nerds"), but I very much doubt there is something actually wrong with their mind.

 

[Lurker5]

Another cult trait, that I have noticed, when there is a misunderstanding in commnication, is the word 'lie'. Is that another scno/cult way to shut someone down and introvert them, by calling them a liar? Then beat the shit out of them by getting personal?

I happen to agree with TAJ, in a lot of what he has been saying. I see it all the time on this board, but don't comment, because it is part of the process of BEING HUMAN. It is also part of the deprogramming process. A person, after a big life lesson, gets to a place where he/she thinks THEY know it all - NOW, and are perfectly clear, and rid of all the stuff, and THEY get arrogant and know-it-all.

Pride cometh before a fall. I too have been taken in by a sociopath, and it turned my life upside down. It just wasn't scno/cos. I got sooo good at spotting the con after that. Then I knew it all and got complacent. I got zapped again - maybe not as bad, and I saw it quick enough, but I got fooled. More than twice. It is a cycle - a human cycle of learning, arrogance in new knowledge, knowing it all NOW, then falling down (again) and learning some more. Repeat. And there are better sociopaths out there than lrh ever was - or dm could ever be. In fact, they love to target the know-it-alls who cannot be conned (again).

Mea culpa.

So - is this an "arrogant and know-it-all enough rant" to qualify for the club?

BUT - I beg for mercy. My ass gets kicked enough in real life - no need for any or all of you to take a whack. I am just pointing something out. As an outsider I can see it - too. Normally I just don't say anything. I let it pass. People are flawed. So what.

Is that another scno/cult trait, to not let little flaws in human nature just 'pass'? No WAIT ! Scno's sure did - and do - let lrh's 'little flaws' (ahem) pass. So maybe that is a scno 'rule', UNLESS - as Face has commented over and over on Shooting Stars thread - one is Source.

I am not talking denial of flaws and sociopathic traits. I am talking about not engaging in war. Protect self, fight like hell, but don't start the war.

I am a BIG believer in 'Projection'. That is sort of the fancy psychological way of saying people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones (or Pot calling Kettle 'black' . . .)

I live in a glass house - but I had to speak my mind here . . .

 

[MrNobody]

A few minutes after the OP appeared on the board, I began to write a reply; and the more I was writing, the more questions I had; so I gave up. Now, I think I have an answer to my question(s): "They" cannot wake up. Whoever or whatever "they" are, it doesn't work that way. "They" are a group, a self-validating entity, just as "we "are.

There's a good chance that an individual or three can be woken up, but a group? I don't think so - or at least I don't know how that could be done.

 

[degraded being]

A few minutes after the OP appeared on the board, I began to write a reply; and the more I was writing, the more questions I had; so I gave up. Now, I think I have an answer to my question(s): "They" cannot wake up. Whoever or whatever "they" are, it doesn't work that way. "They" are a group, a self-validating entity, just as "we "are.

There's a good chance that an individual or three can be woken up, but a group? I don't think so - or at least I don't know how that could be done.

You mention having had a lot of questions, which is interesting. Not really having questions, but having a lot of answers seems to be quite enough for some people. I think being awake means having questions. It's not always as comfortable as being in an answer filled trance either.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

You mention having had a lot of questions, which is interesting. Not really having questions, but having a lot of answers seems to be quite enough for some people. I think being awake means having questions. It's not always as comfortable as being in an answer filled trance either.

Yeah.

Like Voltaire said: "Doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is absurd."

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

I disagree. I don't think there is anything wrong with their mind. I do think there is something wrong with their conclusions, and that data they have accepted. There is a missing skill set, perhaps (logic, most likely). Could be something wrong with morality they've accepted, cultural values ("people who try to understand things are nerds"), but I very much doubt there is something actually wrong with their mind.

Some would argue that people like Timothy Mcveigh and Ted Kaczynski are of sound mind, I personally believe they are paranoid and suffering from Psychosis, is it a physical, chemical or psychological condition? I can't really say, but it's certainly defective.

 

[Gadfly]

Yeah.

Like Voltaire said: "Doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is absurd."

The Anabaptist Jacques

Yes, it is so nuts. In Scientology a condition of "doubt" is considered a "bad" thing. But, the truth is that an aware, honest and intelligent human being KNOWS to what a tremendous degree he or she does NOT KNOW about so MANY MANY things. As I grow older I INCREASE my uncertainty about very many things, day by day, and for the most part, other than things that might affect my life or immediate physical survival, I have lost any uncomfortableness about it. It simply doesn't bother me at all. To me, honest awareness must include a general awareness of what you DON'T KNOW. And there is FAR more of THAT, than what you imagine yourself "to know with certainty".

I find that "certainty", for most people, involves simply accepting some set of "data as true", and that most people prefer the comfort of a convenient delusion over the discomfort of doubt and uncertainty.

 

[elwood]

TAJ

I buy into some conspiracies and others I leave well alone. For those that I consider 'conspiracies', I only point out the inconsistencies and obvious errors----I do not propose my own theories nor suddenly embrace someone else's theories because if it is a conspiracy, vital information to deduce what really happened will always remain unavailable.

As discussed on the Conspiracies thread, it is conceded that the OCT around JFK is bogus, but suggestions as to what really happened will never be properly deduced until all those confiscated cameras and film rolls are made public (assuming they weren't destroyed).

Did Marilyn Monroe commit suicide, or was she murdered?

Officially, Michael Hutchence committed suicide in a Rose Bay hotel room by hanging himself with a belt attached to a door knob. Ask anybody who saw that room prior to clean up, and there is no doubt in their mind that it was death by misadventure (as in auto-erotic asphyxiation). So, which do I believe, something told me by first-hand witness(es), or the "official" coroner's finding?

What about the Concorde? Why was Air France fined over the hotel crash, when it was actually caused by a DC-10 engine bracket dropped in the middle of the runway because it had been refitted with incorrect bolts? I suspect that in ten years' time the DC-10 engine bracket will be reclassified as "conspiracy theory", leaving the marvel of engineering known as the Concorde to be left carrying the blame for all those deaths.

RPX

a) It wasn't a "bracket". It was a thin metal fairing.
b) It didn't cause the crash.

 

[Veda]

Disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it.

-snip-

You got your panties in a knot in a prior thread, so you started this thread.

It ain't profound.

 

[uniquemand]

Some would argue that people like Timothy Mcveigh and Ted Kaczynski are of sound mind, I personally believe they are paranoid and suffering from Psychosis, is it a physical, chemical or psychological condition? I can't really say, but it's certainly defective.

I can't say. They certainly did destructive things that I disagree with.

Kaczynski's manifesto was a logical document, but his conclusions, IMO, were extreme. He seems to have fallen into the "Shades of Night" sort of dark picture of the future (where the future means no freedom because technology has enabled "suppressives" to dominate us all without room for escape). If you really believed that this was the case, and then took action to turn it back, this could be viewed as insane by people who did not believe this was the case, or tragically heroic amongst those who do believe it.

I would argue that "insanity" as a legal defense is meaningless. If the question is whether you broke the law or not, insanity is irrelevant. The question of what to do as a penalty for breaking the law might be changed by consideration of mental state, but whether the actual law was broken is another matter.

The definition of sanity is relevant here, and I don't think it's ever been established. There are lots of examples of "insanity", but no coherent definition of sanity, that I've seen.