Are Freezoners Scientologists?

[Pixie]

Oh I agree with you - the reason I keep drawing the distinction is an important one.

On several threads the assertion has been made, correctly, that a Scientologist cannot be critical of Scientology without leaving it. Fluffy has been one of the major people trying to refute that by saying "well I'm a scientologist and I am critical".

What is even funnier about that is that Fluffy, back when she first came on to the internet, was, indeed on lines and part of her posting "rationale" was an effort to show how real scientologists could engage in free thinking and public debate.

She was declared and expelled for doing it. She is indeed a woman of principle. I admire her greatly for it.

The clue should be, for FZers and Fluff agreers , the phrase "woman of principle". It is impossible to be a person of principle and be a scientologist.

Contrariwise I would suspect that it could be possible to be a Free Zoner and a person of principle.

Well said Mick.. I couldn't have put it better myself..

 

[Div6]

It's a relatively simple set of steps that can happen over a really short time, or a rather long time (even as long as 30 years). It goes like this:

1) One gets caught up in the "bubble" of the so-called "religion" because it is DESIGNED to distract one from all other areas of life (reading other works, having "other fish to fry," etc.), because it actively SUPPRESSES many, many facts about its origins and its operations by way of "information management," and because manipulative techniques are used to make the "religion" APPEAR to be a wonderful thing.

That's the "mindfuck" part. It happens early on, but since by its very nature it is a "mindfuck," it doesn't become obvious until later.

2) Then some unpleasant facts leak into the bubble.

3) The participant notices more and more little "outpoints" as they accumulate.

4) The participant experiences "cognitive dissonance" and suspects there may be more to this story than meets the eye.

5) The participant does some research, and thanks to the availability of information made possible largely by the internet (a recent historical development) discovers the layers of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and manipulation outside the "bubble."

That's the "reasoning" part. It can happen quickly, or it can happen over an extended period of time -- depends on a variety of factors including intelligence, education level, the availability of information, the depth of the person's involvement, the extent of the person's contact with influences outside the "bubble," and many more that could be mentioned.

6) Upon discovering the whole truth about the so-called "religion" -- the Founder's true intentions, the unsavory activities carried on outside the "bubble," the manipulative techniques intentionally used for the "mindfuck" part, the participant makes a stand against the ugly truths and unsavory activities and denounces them.

That's the "personal integrity" part.

Right. Exactly.

Now, in making a stand against the ugly truths and unsavory acitivities, is it more productive to use exact time place form and event of such, or emotionally tinged generalities?

I prefer the former....I find the latter demagoguery, or an effort to suppress, after inviting understanding.

 

[olska]

Now, in making a stand against the ugly truths and unsavory acitivities, is it more productive to use exact time place form and event of such, or emotionally tinged generalities?

I wonder what you mean by "emotionally tinged generalities?" Maybe you could provide an example. Is that code for the scientology term "Human Emotion and Reaction?"

Could any person, any human being, make a stand against the ugly truth and unsavory activities of an organization which had manipulated and duped them so as to take from them years of their life, their financial resources, perhaps their family and friends, and most certainly their sense of honor and integrity WITHOUT some expression of emotion?

I seriously doubt that possibility, nor would I expect it -- in fact, since emotions are such an integral part of human life, I'd find it really odd.

 

[Div6]

I wonder what you mean by "emotionally tinged generalities?" Maybe you could provide an example. Is that code for the scientology term "Human Emotion and Reaction?"

Could any person, any human being, make a stand against the ugly truth and unsavory activities of an organization which had manipulated and duped them so as to take from them years of their life, their financial resources, perhaps their family and friends, and most certainly their sense of honor and integrity WITHOUT some expression of emotion?

I seriously doubt that possibility, nor would I expect it -- in fact, since emotions are such an integral part of human life, I'd find it really odd.

How about "My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly" ?
Without specifics, its an emotionally tinged generality. The "ARC Break" mechanism so thouroughly covered on Acad Level III. You can't audit over them, if you do the PC will get worse.

I DO expect expression of emotion. Something is terribly wrong if there IS no expression of such. BUT when countering injustice, time place form and event is also needed.

 

[Zinjifar]

They don't call it MindFuck for nuthin.

Zinj

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Div 6, I think that all the "rudiments" are just really one kind, even though they are presented as several. Every single one of them, if "out"- is a "present time problem". (Hey, yo, it's ok for me to use Scn-ese cuz I'm in the FZ section. Plus, I put those phrases in quotes so as not to alarm the delicate sensibilities of others.) Every single one of those things would pull the pc's attention away from case/session, etc.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

As most of Scientology has earlier and deeper roots - at best Scio is a Johnny come lately gatherer of much of those earlier deeper roots - once you pierce the Scio Matrix - and get your deeper roots.....being told you are a Scientologist when you obviously are not - then acts as an enforced wrong item.

It's also bad for someone to be told they are not something when they are. It comes down to-- people shouldn't tell other people what to do or be or what that person IS. There's Scn-ese for that, but I'm sure y'all know that already.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I wonder what you mean by "emotionally tinged generalities?" Maybe you could provide an example. Is that code for the scientology term "Human Emotion and Reaction?"

Could any person, any human being, make a stand against the ugly truth and unsavory activities of an organization which had manipulated and duped them so as to take from them years of their life, their financial resources, perhaps their family and friends, and most certainly their sense of honor and integrity WITHOUT some expression of emotion?

I seriously doubt that possibility, nor would I expect it -- in fact, since emotions are such an integral part of human life, I'd find it really odd.

Making a stand against something would not preclude a show of emotion about that subject or thing.

The only time "human emotion and reaction" can constitute a problem is if it gets in the way of what one is doing. If it's appropriate for the given situation, then it's not a problem. If it gets in the way, then it's not appropriate for that situation, and so it is a problem.

I don't think it's a good idea (and this harkens back to an earlier discussion) where someone frequently cries at work or throws tantrums at the grocery store or jerks off in class amidst many expressions of incandescent joy amidst that activity. But there are situations where the cries of grief, even the occasional tantrum (I'd throw a big freaking tantrum if the Mansonettes broke into my house and were going to kill me anyway. You'd better believe they'd get an earful before they finally dispatched me. Heh.) or the shouts of orgasmic glee would be not only appropriate but expected- even...um....required in some cases.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

So it boils down to this as a criterion (IMO)

"What is the person trying to accomplish?"

 

[Free to shine]

Holy Christ.

Ron's 'Comm Cycle' is what allows ESMB to function?

..and, the earth goes around the sun because Ron thought so.

Zinj

 

[olska]

How about "My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly" ?
Without specifics, its an emotionally tinged generality.

Well the statement you reference above is an opinion, and is a statement of the author's observations and conclusion, which was accompanied by several detailed specific points illustrating how and why that particular author had arrived at that particular opinion/conclusion.

So while I personally wouldn't view that statement as "an emotionally tinged generality," I see that you do, and as I did ask you for the example, I thank you for replying with an example of what to you looks like "an emotionally tinged generality."

Now, back to your statement ...[The bracketed phrase within the quote below is to remind or apprise readers of my previous statement to which your quoted statement refers.]

Now, in making a stand against the ugly truths and unsavory acitivities [as an act of recovering ones personal integrity], is it more productive to use exact time place form and event of such, or emotionally tinged generalities?

I'm going to take a chance and guess that when you used the word productive in the quote above you actually meant effective, since no "production" was under discussion. (If I'm wrong about that, feel free to delineate what "production" you were referring to.)

As to which is more effective in making a stand regarding one's principles and values -- delineating the exact time place form and event of ugly truths and unsavory activities, or speaking in what you view as emotionally tinged generalities -- that completely depends on the audience and the context.

If you're both the speaker and the audience (as in working things out for yourself in a journal or internal dialogue) the important point is not in how you communicate the ugly truths and unsavory activities, but only that you recognize those as being contrary to your own core values and reject them. Thus it is that one "recovers" and renews one's own personal integrity.

Which is what you asked about several posts back when you posed this question:

And tell me, how does one exist in a "religion" for 30 years and then come out the other end calling it a "mindfuck". Where is the personal integrity and reasoning in that?

If you're giving a speech or writing an opinion piece intended to inform, inspire, and/or rally a general audience, then emotionally tinged generalized summaries of personal observations, discoveries, beliefs, experiences, opinions and conclusions fit perfectly in that occasion.

Whereas, if you're writing a scholarly research paper or presenting a case in a court of law, the exact factual time place form and event would be essential.

The "ARC Break" mechanism so thouroughly covered on Acad Level III. You can't audit over them, if you do the PC will get worse.

I don't know where you're going with that statement, or what it has to do with recovering or renewing one's personal integrity after having been aligned with a group that has manipulated one through deceptive practices, so please enlighten me on its relevance.

I DO expect expression of emotion. Something is terribly wrong if there IS no expression of such. BUT when countering injustice, time place form and event is also needed

You're right -- "countering injustice" is well served by the facts of time place form and event, especially if one is dealing with the justice system, courts of law, and the like. But is that the subject of this discussion thread? If so, I missed it.

 

[Div6]

Further fragmenting the quotes is getting a bit much for me, hopefully I will address your questions.

Re: Production. Back in my day I spent time as an ARCX auditor. Basically, I would go visit people at their homes (the guys the Reg's crushed sold, or whatever..). The whole idea was to "cure" the ARC X. To find the correct source of "by passed charge". The idea being that if it was truly found, the ARCX would disappear. This was a production post. There were unreal expectations (ie: the people would then come running back in to the org, check book in hand, etc). And while there were a FEW cycles like that, most often it took quite some doing to get some one to even agree to go "back on the cans".

So I was looking at it from the old viewpoint. "Effective" is a good word too, it depends upon what the "outcome" is that you are aiming for.

Re: "the ARC Break Mechanism". There is a "cycle of recovery" that is talked about in recovery circles.....Denial, Shock & Disbelief, Anger and Personal Responsibility. Below "Personal Responsibility" we see LOW or NO ARC for the subject or area. (http://www.drirene.com/victim_recovery.htm is just one of MANY pages about this.) Where I was going with that is that often you have to allow the person to come up through their anger, etc before you can even begin to address the "personal responsibility" issues.

As for injustice...it goes back to my "observation" that the statement made was made more out of emotion than reason. I would love to see the discourse that supports that assertion. But to me, it seems more an opinion arising out of the Anger band of recovery from a "destructive cult". So the cycle has a way to go yet (imho). Your mileage may vary.

 

[olska]

Re: "the ARC Break Mechanism". There is a "cycle of recovery" that is talked about in recovery circles.....Denial, Shock & Disbelief, Anger and Personal Responsibility. Below "Personal Responsibility" we see LOW or NO ARC for the subject or area. (http://www.drirene.com/victim_recovery.htm is just one of MANY pages about this.)

Thanks for clarifying for me your reference to the "ARC Break Mechanism" from your previous post. I find it most interesting that you would pick that particular reference (see link above) as an illustration of your statement ...

Where I was going with that is that often you have to allow the person to come up through their anger, etc before you can even begin to address the "personal responsibility" issues.

I would agree that there are parallels between Dr. Irene's "Victim's Stages of Recovery" [from abusive relationships] and the process of recovering from involvement in a destructive cult. The following (in red) is quoted directly from that site:

Recovery from codependent victimhood usually occurs in a series of often overlapping stages. Here is a rough outline of what you may expect, though each individual is different:

Duh... Denial Stage. The victim is relatively brain dead here. Your energy is spent on justifying your abuser, working overtime to "make him or her happy," and hiding the truth from yourself. You often pay with physical and / or emotional symptoms. Your self-esteem is non-existent.

The wording belongs to "Dr. Irene," the bold emphasis is mine. Applying this to the stages of "recovery" from scientology (or other similar cults) I would place most "practicing scientologists," who continue to follow LRH ideas and/or agenda, in or out of the CoS, at this stage.

Regarding the accuracy of the last sentence, your self-esteem is non-existent: Scientologists often appear to be quite confident and to have a high level of self esteem; but I venture the opinion that for most who are in the "denial" stage regarding the cult, their "self-esteem" rests on their being defined and defining themselves as a scientologist -- an identity created by Hubbard to capitalize on a person's need to "be someone," and to "feel important and worthy." Take away the identity of scientologist and the person is left lost and floundering, with no self-defined identity, and a complete loss of self-esteem.

This is of course my own observation, but it is supported by the many, many stories told on this and other discussion forums of how people -- particularly those who had been in the cult for a long time and had gained much "status" within it -- felt when they were either expelled or, finding their situation intolerable, finally chose to leave.

Ugh! Shock & Disbelief Stage. The victim doesn't know which end is up! You have just learned about abuse and are shocked to realize that your relationship may be abusive! You need validation and support. You are just learning to trust your senses.

It is in this stage that many people leaving scientology find their way to the internet, and here to this forum or other such discussion groups. Here the hidden facts about the cult of scientology are brought to light, and the person's former world is turned upside down!

I observe that many of the "newbies" on this and other forums are in this stage, and they are indeed in need of validation and support, and a hand in learning to trust their own senses.

It is not uncommon, nor unexpected, for those in this stage to cling to a belief in Hubbard's good intentions, the validity of "the tech," and whatever straws of "goodness" they can find in scientology -- at least for a little while.

IMO the recovery process for non-CoS scientologists -- the Freezone practitioners, the "indy" practitioners, and so forth -- is arrested at this stage. Rather than progressing forward, these individuals often sink back to the "Denial" stage with a whole new set of "reasons why" they continue to align with Hubbard's agenda.

Ooops! Anger Stage. There is a sharp sense of outrage over what has been happening! Your victim's buttons are all showing! You are angry, defensive, blaming, and full of guilt now - and you are internally fighting all of it!

<snip>

In regard to cult recovery, this stage is self-explanatory, and also imo quite understandable, particularly if one has lost resources, family, and years of self-development opportunities to the deceptive practices of the cult. Emotional outbursts, the "highs and lows" of emotional roller-coaster, and "venting" and "rants" would be common and expected in this stage.

While that's not it's only purpose, a forum such as this can provide a safe space in which a person can work through this stage with the encouragement and validation of others who've "been there, done that" and thus have some understanding and sympathy.

Yippee! Personal Responsibility Stage. Finally. You are very clear on what's going on, you are able to stand up to your abuser. <snip>.

I believe that this is the stage in which EX-scientologists gradually extricate themselves from the "mindfuck" by deconstructing and debunking "scientology," and by recognizing its effects on them and on others.

Pointing out these effects in order to help others through the process, or to warn casual readers away from the cult and its offshoots, is part of this stage. Protesting, demanding one's money be returned, etc. are part of this stage, part of standing up to your abuser.

It is an ongoing process that is done "when it's done." Some get through this stage quickly, leave the cult and all things scientological behind and go off to build a new life for themselves with a new self-defined identity.

Some join what could be termed a crusade and devote most of their energy to exposing the cult's abuses and ensuring that others are not deceived, as they were.

In between those extremes are many gradations of personal responsibility as regards recovery from the scientology experience, as each individual works out their own new life at their own pace.

As for injustice...it goes back to my "observation" that the statement made was made more out of emotion than reason. I would love to see the discourse that supports that assertion. But to me, it seems more an opinion arising out of the Anger band of recovery from a "destructive cult". So the cycle has a way to go yet (imho). Your mileage may vary.

With that I disagree -- I think the statement [made by another author, earlier on this thread] was made as part of the "personal responsibility" stage, that as an opinion it was well supported by the author's observations and detailed description of those observations, and that it contained little if any anger or other emotion -- that is, it was made more out of reason than emotion.

But as you point out, YMMV.

 

[alex]

For years I accused Fluffy of not being a scientologist.

In fact I did it abusively.

Now, KSW notwithstanding, perhaps she is in my book, although she is further and further away from anything resembling the church.

alex (sorry fluff..)

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Oh, it's fine, Alex. Really. We're cool...

I do admit to being heretical.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

The thing about running an ARC break or running ANYTHING is not to explain anything away or go into agreement with Hubbard or anything like that.

In session, one faces up to whatever happened AND what the person being audited felt about it.

So it's not about making anything fit in with any Hubbardite worldview.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Thanks for clarifying for me your reference to the "ARC Break Mechanism" from your previous post. I find it most interesting that you would pick that particular reference (see link above) as an illustration of your statement ...



I would agree that there are parallels between Dr. Irene's "Victim's Stages of Recovery" [from abusive relationships] and the process of recovering from involvement in a destructive cult. The following (in red) is quoted directly from that site:

Recovery from codependent victimhood usually occurs in a series of often overlapping stages. Here is a rough outline of what you may expect, though each individual is different:

Duh... Denial Stage. The victim is relatively brain dead here. Your energy is spent on justifying your abuser, working overtime to "make him or her happy," and hiding the truth from yourself. You often pay with physical and / or emotional symptoms. Your self-esteem is non-existent.

The wording belongs to "Dr. Irene," the bold emphasis is mine. Applying this to the stages of "recovery" from scientology (or other similar cults) I would place most "practicing scientologists," who continue to follow LRH ideas and/or agenda, in or out of the CoS, at this stage.

Regarding the accuracy of the last sentence, your self-esteem is non-existent: Scientologists often appear to be quite confident and to have a high level of self esteem; but I venture the opinion that for most who are in the "denial" stage regarding the cult, their "self-esteem" rests on their being defined and defining themselves as a scientologist -- an identity created by Hubbard to capitalize on a person's need to "be someone," and to "feel important and worthy." Take away the identity of scientologist and the person is left lost and floundering, with no self-defined identity, and a complete loss of self-esteem.

This is of course my own observation, but it is supported by the many, many stories told on this and other discussion forums of how people -- particularly those who had been in the cult for a long time and had gained much "status" within it -- felt when they were either expelled or, finding their situation intolerable, finally chose to leave.

Ugh! Shock & Disbelief Stage. The victim doesn't know which end is up! You have just learned about abuse and are shocked to realize that your relationship may be abusive! You need validation and support. You are just learning to trust your senses.

It is in this stage that many people leaving scientology find their way to the internet, and here to this forum or other such discussion groups. Here the hidden facts about the cult of scientology are brought to light, and the person's former world is turned upside down!

I observe that many of the "newbies" on this and other forums are in this stage, and they are indeed in need of validation and support, and a hand in learning to trust their own senses.

It is not uncommon, nor unexpected, for those in this stage to cling to a belief in Hubbard's good intentions, the validity of "the tech," and whatever straws of "goodness" they can find in scientology -- at least for a little while.

IMO the recovery process for non-CoS scientologists -- the Freezone practitioners, the "indy" practitioners, and so forth -- is arrested at this stage. Rather than progressing forward, these individuals often sink back to the "Denial" stage with a whole new set of "reasons why" they continue to align with Hubbard's agenda.

Ooops! Anger Stage. There is a sharp sense of outrage over what has been happening! Your victim's buttons are all showing! You are angry, defensive, blaming, and full of guilt now - and you are internally fighting all of it!

<snip>

In regard to cult recovery, this stage is self-explanatory, and also imo quite understandable, particularly if one has lost resources, family, and years of self-development opportunities to the deceptive practices of the cult. Emotional outbursts, the "highs and lows" of emotional roller-coaster, and "venting" and "rants" would be common and expected in this stage.

While that's not it's only purpose, a forum such as this can provide a safe space in which a person can work through this stage with the encouragement and validation of others who've "been there, done that" and thus have some understanding and sympathy.

Yippee! Personal Responsibility Stage. Finally. You are very clear on what's going on, you are able to stand up to your abuser. <snip>.

I believe that this is the stage in which EX-scientologists gradually extricate themselves from the "mindfuck" by deconstructing and debunking "scientology," and by recognizing its effects on them and on others.

Pointing out these effects in order to help others through the process, or to warn casual readers away from the cult and its offshoots, is part of this stage. Protesting, demanding one's money be returned, etc. are part of this stage, part of standing up to your abuser.

It is an ongoing process that is done "when it's done." Some get through this stage quickly, leave the cult and all things scientological behind and go off to build a new life for themselves with a new self-defined identity.

Some join what could be termed a crusade and devote most of their energy to exposing the cult's abuses and ensuring that others are not deceived, as they were.

In between those extremes are many gradations of personal responsibility as regards recovery from the scientology experience, as each individual works out their own new life at their own pace.



With that I disagree -- I think the statement [made by another author, earlier on this thread] was made as part of the "personal responsibility" stage, that as an opinion it was well supported by the author's observations and detailed description of those observations, and that it contained little if any anger or other emotion -- that is, it was made more out of reason than emotion.

But as you point out, YMMV.

OK, but one quick question here; the awkward fact is that there are people who claim to have made actual gains from the Scn tech. There are also people who claim to have made gains from, say, psychosynthesis, anthroposophy (Steiner), dynamic meditation (Osho) and raja yoga.

Would you apply the same level of skepticism to all of these in determining whether or not they're telling the truth about the benefits they claim to have received? And if not, why not?

 

[olska]

OK, but one quick question here; the awkward fact is that there are people who claim to have made actual gains from the Scn tech. There are also people who claim to have made gains from, say, psychosynthesis, anthroposophy (Steiner), dynamic meditation (Osho) and raja yoga.

Not sure why you would describe the fact that there are people who claim to have made actual gains...[from the things you listed plus many you didn't] as "awkward" -- the fact that people make such claims is simply a fact and needs no qualifying descriptor.

Would you apply the same level of skepticism to all of these in determining whether or not they're telling the truth about the benefits they claim to have received? And if not, why not?

Nowhere in the post you quoted did I question (apply skepticism to) whether or not they're telling the truth about the benefits they claim to have received, or accuse anyone of NOT "telling the truth" about their subjective experience.

So your question is kind of like you asking me, do you still beat your dog? and if not, why not?

FYI, my personal belief and stance on subjective reality is that the line between the real, the delusional, and the hallucinatory is sometimes very, very thin and that while I might form an opinion about that difference from what I observe in others, I wouldn't presume to impose that opinion on nor judge that difference for another. EXCEPT if it was an obvious emergency, like someone high on drugs about to gleefully jump off a building with the delusion that he can fly, OR if someone asked me for a reality check, as in a woman friend "in love" asking my opinion on what the guy really meant when he said he was a sadist even though she's never actually seen him do anything sadistic....

Further, it is my personal opinion that most subjective "gains" come from the individual's belief that those "gains" are attainable coupled with that individual's faith in the process of attaining them.

Thus are "miracles" brought about and lives transformed. Just my opinion.

 

[Zinjifar]

Some people mainline placebos

Zinj

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Not sure why you would describe the fact that there are people who claim to have made actual gains...[from the things you listed plus many you didn't] as "awkward" -- the fact that people make such claims is simply a fact and needs no qualifying descriptor.

Nowhere in the post you quoted did I question (apply skepticism to) whether or not they're telling the truth about the benefits they claim to have received, or accuse anyone of NOT "telling the truth" about their subjective experience.

So your question is kind of like you asking me, do you still beat your dog? and if not, why not?

FYI, my personal belief and stance on subjective reality is that the line between the real, the delusional, and the hallucinatory is sometimes very, very thin and that while I might form an opinion about that difference from what I observe in others, I wouldn't presume to impose that opinion on nor judge that difference for another. EXCEPT if it was an obvious emergency, like someone high on drugs about to gleefully jump off a building with the delusion that he can fly, OR if someone asked me for a reality check, as in a woman friend "in love" asking my opinion on what the guy really meant when he said he was a sadist even though she's never actually seen him do anything sadistic....

Further, it is my personal opinion that most subjective "gains" come from the individual's belief that those "gains" are attainable coupled with that individual's faith in the process of attaining them.

Thus are "miracles" brought about and lives transformed. Just my opinion.

Apologies if I got you wrong. Anyone who claims to have had benefits from auditing is on the defensive here and I suppose I tend to lump people together in that regard.

It nevertheless wasn't my intention to claim that you're saying people who claim to have had benefits from the Tech are lying, but it did seem that you think those who have had such benefits are self-deluding.

In my experience there's nothing hallucinatory about blowing charge, especially LOTS of charge, any more than there is in having a thorn plucked out of your body.

You know something's happened when that occurs. I've been shrieking with laughter for minutes on end when something big has blown in session. A lot, in fact most, of the time it's not as dramatic as that but you know you've got a new and clearer viewpoint after an auditing cycle has completed, and that's worthwhile too.

I'm not saying the Tech's perfect, but IMO it needs to be improved upon rather than simply trashed.