Auditing Process is Mind Control ???

once it did not cost so much And i believe the older exes tell it use to be fun.

These extremes were not always this extreme

I too often often like to think the relationships I had with various ex-girlfriends were really not that bad, until I run into them somewhere or they call me to talk and then I remember exactly why we are no longer together.

Any time I'm at an airport bar waiting for a flight and see a soldier coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, I buy them a drink and converse with them, they too often say there were times they had fun over there too.

Lets not pretend that Hubbard's intentions were honorable, he was a conman from day one. If people had fun it was in spite of Scientology not because of Scientology.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
I too often often like to think the relationships I had with various ex-girlfriends were really not that bad, until I run into them somewhere or they call me to talk and then I remember exactly why we are no longer together.

Any time I'm at an airport bar waiting for a flight and see a soldier coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, I buy them a drink and converse with them, they too often say there were times they had fun over there too.

Lets not pretend that Hubbard's intentions were honorable, he was a conman from day one. If people had fun it was in spite of Scientology not because of Scientology.

A lot of men fel from grace lately. Kissinger apllied fair game policies too at critics I recently found out.

Winston churchill was a racist bastard and a supressor of womens rights and Edgar Hoover was a criminal a 1000 times more than LRH
 

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron
A lot of men fel from grace lately. Kissinger apllied fair game policies too at critics I recently found out.

Winston churchill was a racist bastard and a supressor of womens rights and Edgar Hoover was a criminal a 1000 times more than LRH

o well then. I guess that makes it OK about fair game and forced abortion and RPF and disconnection and all that abusive stuff that LRH demanded in his directives.
Others did it, too, so it must be OK.

challenge
 

AnonKat

Crusader
o well then. I guess that makes it OK about fair game and forced abortion and RPF and disconnection and all that abusive stuff that LRH demanded in his directives.
Others did it, too, so it must be OK.

challenge

No I does not I was just cynical in general about leaderfags. In the end the most important thing is accountability wich is often lacking the biggest example is politics.
 

This is NOT OK !!!!

Gold Meritorious Patron
Conversation, to some extent, is mind control. Capitalizing the term doesn't change it. "Mind Control". Ooga Bugga! I think that there is some truth to the idea that Hubbard wanted to dominate the minds of his followers, and that this culminated in the indoctrination of the Sea Org or in auditing with the "Security Check". However, while you could characterize all auditing as mind control, you could also characterize all sales as mind control, as well, or any other form of interaction where you are trying to get another being with a mind to change their behavior or thoughts/feelings as mind control, and therefore, I feel it's kind of a meaningless term used to characterize any methods which we want to disparage without actually saying anything at all useful.

Please see Robert J. Lifton's The future of Immortality and Other Essays for a Nuclear Age, especially the chapter, Cults: Religious Totalism and civil Liberties.

Here you can study his concise eight criteria for defining mind control.

And trust me, it IS useful and it IS meaningful.

Screw it, I'll just list them here:

1. "milieu control"
2. mystical manipulation" (or "planned spontaneity")
3. "the demand for purity"
4. "the cult of confession"
5. "sacred science"
6. "loading the language"
7. "doctrine over person"
8. "dispensing of existence"

Hey folks, make some comments - let's talk about this.
 
Last edited:

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Well, I'll trust you when you make the case. I see those points as certainly potentially dangerous, particularly when coupled. I would like to hear your viewpoint on why it is useful and meaningful to talk about mind control.

I think it is useful because it is enlightening to know how we affect each other, and ourselves. I think it is meaningful because once freed (significantly: might not be possible to be totally freed: a program needs a language, and as Chomsky and others have pointed out, language can define what can be understood, included or excluded from perception- multiordinal languages like mathematics may transcend this limitation), a person can find their own meaning, rather than defining their meaning in terms of the corporations that control broad-casting networks, or in their local preacher or parent's terms.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
See my earlier points. Every interaction between two sentient beings involves some degree of mind control. The essential point, IMO, is not that there is mind control occurring, but that there may be issues of informed consent.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Paul,

I agree that he makes some mistakes about session patter but he is not completely wrong.

Dulloldfart said:
He talks of "NLP trigger words" as if NLP is an established valid science. It isn't.

I don't know but I am still looking into this subject.

Here is another example that you might consider or explain:
Derren Brown Hypnotizes People on a train! - NLP Hypnosis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4aB6vvVliE&feature=related

What is your explanation for this? Is this a hoax?

Regards
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Cults and Corporations?

Please see Robert J. Lifton's The future of Immortality and Other Essays for a Nuclear Age, especially the chapter, Cults: Religious Totalism and civil Liberties.

Here you can study his concise eight criteria for defining mind control.

And trust me, it IS useful and it IS meaningful.

Screw it, I'll just list them here:

1. "milieu control"
2. mystical manipulation" (or "planned spontaneity")
3. "the demand for purity"
4. "the cult of confession"
5. "sacred science"
6. "loading the language"
7. "doctrine over person"
8. "dispensing of existence"

Hey folks, make some comments - let's talk about this.


I'll just throw this out there. Certainly "cults" (which may be in the eye of the beholder) are egregious examples of wielders of these controls.

However, when I step back a moment and sort of cross my eyes, I can see that other highly defined groups also act this way, although to a lesser extent:

Corporations
Sororities and fraternities
"Acceptable" fundamentalist religions
Big law firms
Political parties (particularly at the county level in the U.S.)
"Movements" of various kinds
Graduate school
University departments
College and professional sports clubs and booster clubs
Addiction treatment centers
Cancer treatment centers
Country clubs (especially small-town ones)
Most arms of the military
Intelligence agencies

Aren't the eight "cultish" elements above really just exaggerated aspects of all groups? The more rigid the group, the greater the danger to the group, the greater the danger to members of the group if the group fails, the more emotional the central issues of the group, the more exaggerated become the cultish elements of the group.

Individual freedoms of human beings is a pretty modern concept. Heretofore, we've mainly been members of groups and expected to contribute to those groups pretty visibly to obtain the benefits of belonging to the group.

I really have no ax to grind here, but just wanted to respond to your request that we actually discuss something. It's an interesting subject, no doubt.

TG1
 

Thrak

Gold Meritorious Patron
See my earlier points. Every interaction between two sentient beings involves some degree of mind control. The essential point, IMO, is not that there is mind control occurring, but that there may be issues of informed consent.

I think you're arguing about semantics. You could say any time someone influences your mind it's mind control but what I'm talking about is this:

^ Langone, Michael. "Cults: Questions and Answers". www.csj.org. International Cultic Studies Association. Retrieved 2009-12-27. "Mind control (also referred to as 'brainwashing,' 'coercive persuasion,' 'thought reform,' and the 'systematic manipulation of psychological and social influence') refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated."

That's a bit nastier then getting someone to wear a red shirt instead if a blue one.
 

This is NOT OK !!!!

Gold Meritorious Patron
How about this:

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised

Janja Lalich, Ph.D.
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

  • The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
  • ‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
  • ‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
  • ‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
  • ‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
  • ‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
  • ‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
  • ‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
  • ‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
  • ‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
  • ‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
  • ‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.
  • ‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
  • ‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
  • ‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

I'm in retail. Yes I use persuasion to "talk-up" the benefits of my product. But it's done in relation to competitive products in my industry, it's not done to control the other person's entire existence.

My point goes to "Purpose". All that "star high goal" crap in Scientology combined with the intensive "re-education" (TR's, metering, study tech, GAT, GAK, RPF - all done over and over and over again across years and decades) get's all the staff and many of the public walking in lockstep to waste their own lives and the lives of others. And they don't even realize they're doing it!

This is a kind of mind control WAY BEYOND commercial PR & Marketing efforts.

The only places where it's done on a larger scale that I know of is in countries like North Korea.
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
I watched the first video and 1/2 the second one. I'm not impressed.

The guy is waving around a NED pack from about 1978 and said he did the course. I did that course too. This was when Dn was run before the Grades, and so the student auditor did not need to be trained up to Class IV, etc.

He pretty much starts off the 1st video with a couple of clips of famous CofS nutters saying "What are your crimes?"-type comments, including Ax's famous video with George Baillie. He says that such actions are *produced* by Dn auditing. Well, they aren't. It is Hubbard's SP/PTS writings that are back of such idiocies, and the irrational willingness to use them.

The rest of it is similarly sloppy. He talks of "NLP trigger words" as if NLP is an established valid science. It isn't. He describes a Dn session that is generally false (but not always). I get the idea that the Dn that *he* personally received was probably like that, but he is generalizing that to include all Dn auditing.

I don't think Dn is a wonderful tech at all, as it sends the pc off down the track looking for stuff instead of bringing charged incidents up to present time naturally under their own steam. If the topic under view already flattened, the pc is going to go looking for stuff that isn't there, and if the auditor is insisting there is something there he will *invent* it. I can't think of the number of times I told my Dn auditor "this chain is flat" (thank you, your needle is floating) as well as supposedly F/Ning on some incident way down the track. I agree that many of these were probably false, but not all.

Probably his main error is in generalizing Dn auditing to *all* auditing. Very little routine Scn auditing (Grades processes, say) goes E/S into possibly-imaginary past lives at the drop of a hat.

Paul

Despite requoting you yet again, this guy is not competently explaining Dianetics, even at Book One level. Not once did I push a pc beyond "basic" and when a pc went "track" which was unexpected, I only ran what the pc originated and pursued nothing further. I had no reason to believe that a pc was "making stuff up" to please me, because I always looked for "earlier" only if the current incident wouldn't lift.

I guess that because (a) I had already successfully hypnotised other kids at school, and (b) because I treated the person's mind like a computer (being careful not to leave conflicting commands or incorrectly nested loops), this limited the confusion that could be created by "the tech", and I still believe that Dn when used with WHITE intention rather than BLACK, it can be useful in helping people, but I also think there comes a point when Dn is no longer of any real use, and by the placement of the Dn goal posts, that person is now "clear". I know there are huge differences between Dn "clear" and the continuous moving of the Scn goalposts of "clear", and see no point of arguing about this here.

I also believe that in some situations there are approaches to a problem that easily supersede Dn.

I don't think these videos really expose the scam, but they provide a good starting point for people who want to find out more.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
Despite requoting you yet again, this guy is not competently explaining Dianetics, even at Book One level. Not once did I push a pc beyond "basic" and when a pc went "track" which was unexpected, I only ran what the pc originated and pursued nothing further. I had no reason to believe that a pc was "making stuff up" to please me, because I always looked for "earlier" only if the current incident wouldn't lift.

I guess that because (a) I had already successfully hypnotised other kids at school, and (b) because I treated the person's mind like a computer (being careful not to leave conflicting commands or incorrectly nested loops), this limited the confusion that could be created by "the tech", and I still believe that Dn when used with WHITE intention rather than BLACK, it can be useful in helping people, but I also think there comes a point when Dn is no longer of any real use, and by the placement of the Dn goal posts, that person is now "clear". I know there are huge differences between Dn "clear" and the continuous moving of the Scn goalposts of "clear", and see no point of arguing about this here.

I also believe that in some situations there are approaches to a problem that easily supersede Dn.

I don't think these videos really expose the scam, but they provide a good starting point for people who want to find out more.

This would be the useful way than. Some sort of counselling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOlteNk0UkI

He does talk about drills beforehand AND not judging or analysing the process. I find that a starting point.

I guess it kills the magic.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Not once did I push a pc beyond "basic" and when a pc went "track" which was unexpected, I only ran what the pc originated and pursued nothing further. I had no reason to believe that a pc was "making stuff up" to please me, because I always looked for "earlier" only if the current incident wouldn't lift.

And that's the crux, or, at least one crux of the problem. Scn/Dn theory says *will* lift, unless there's an 'earlier'. So, when it *doesn't*, it means there *is*.

Zinj
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I think you're arguing about semantics. You could say any time someone influences your mind it's mind control but what I'm talking about is this:

^ Langone, Michael. "Cults: Questions and Answers". www.csj.org. International Cultic Studies Association. Retrieved 2009-12-27. "Mind control (also referred to as 'brainwashing,' 'coercive persuasion,' 'thought reform,' and the 'systematic manipulation of psychological and social influence') refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated."

That's a bit nastier then getting someone to wear a red shirt instead if a blue one.

That description is definitely nastier. Although, wearing a red shirt can get you killed.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Paul,

I agree that he makes some mistakes about session patter but he is not completely wrong.



I don't know but I am still looking into this subject.

Here is another example that you might consider or explain:
Derren Brown Hypnotizes People on a train! - NLP Hypnosis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4aB6vvVliE&feature=related

What is your explanation for this? Is this a hoax?

Regards

I didn't watch that clip. I doubt if it is a hoax. I've got a book Derren Browne wrote, "Tricks of the Mind." He comes across as extremely honest. With regards to "hoaxes," from memory he says in the book that he would be crazy to try a hoax. What if one of his shills sold their story for £50,000 to a Sunday newspaper? It would ruin his career.

He explains how he does his tricks — in general terms — in the book. He is very specific about his abilities and what he has trained himself to do, including things like remembering the exact sequence of all 52 cards in a freshly-shuffled deck as part of a card trick he is doing. He goes into huge details of how such memory feats can be done by anyone.

There's a 14 page section in the book on NLP, as well as occasional mentions throughout the book. I'm not going to try and summarize it, or pick the most cogent criticisms, but I will quote a chunk. He did an NLP course. He says, "The course I attended was large (four hundred people) and highly evangelical in its tone." A page later he says (from pp 185/6):

At the end of my course, which lasted only four days, I was given my Practitioner certificate. I didn't have to pass any tests or in any sense 'earn' my qualification. In many ways the course was about installing a 'go for it' attitude towards changing oneself or others for the good, so somehow, any sort of formal test would have seemed disappointingly pedestrian. So the four hundred or so delegates, some of whom were clearly either unbalanced or self-delusory, were set free after a highly evangelical four-day rally to potentially set themselves up as therapists and deal with broken people under the banner of NLP. We were told that after a year we should contact the organization and tell them why we should have our license renewed. If we had been using our NLP creatively, they would send another certificate for a second year of practice. Because spending those few days in the company of hundreds of would-be NLPers had put me off ever practicing it as a profession, I didn't think to contact the organizers again. But after a year or so I got a letter reminding me to call them to talk about sorting out a new certificate. I ignored it, but a short while later received another communication saying that they would be happy to send me one anyway if I would get back in touch. The ease with which they were happy to dish out their certificates struck me as suspect, and again I ignored their request. Not long after that, a nice new unsolicited certificate dropped through my letterbox, qualifying me for another year of practice.​

[That is the end of that section on NLP.]

Paul
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
This would be the useful way than. Some sort of counselling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOlteNk0UkI

He does talk about drills beforehand AND not judging or analysing the process. I find that a starting point.

I guess it kills the magic.

DOF (Paul) and I were describing the double video with white board. This guy is supposed to be NED trained, yet his explanations are vague and rather uninformative.

I have seen the entire Video of the segment you have quoted, and this is a guy investigating Scn via the Freezone because no normal org would allow someone to "objectively" test the auditing process.
 
Top