Bill Frank's story about brainwashing (thread merge)

[Emma]

Thanks Paradox for that repost of a RVY classic.

 

[chuckbeatty]

Good points Chuck but have you considered how much a steady stream of recruits from offspring can prolong the life of an organization. Sea Org labor is very close to slave labor as far as wages and maintenance. RPF labor is even cheaper.

Take a Sea Org member, supposedly earning $50 a week. Probably, due to low income weeks, etc. they earn about $30 a week, their food allotment could be another $35 a week and perhaps berthing costs are $35 a week for a total of $100 a week and this is for an 80 to 100 hour week. There is no medical care to speak of, no taxes are paid on this, no insurance and no retirement set asides.

For a minimum wage worker, I don't know the actual rate, but about $8 an hour, they would earn about $320 a week for the first 40 hours and then lets say time and a half for the next 40 hours or about $480 a week. There is $800 a week just in payroll plus federal and state taxes, medical coverage, and workers comp and liablity insurance. An 80 hour a week employee at minimum wage would cost and emplyer about $1,200 a week as opposed to approximately $100 a week for an S. O. member.

Just think how much easier it is for an organization to survive paying only 1/12th (or about 8%) the going rate of a normal employer. I AM SURE THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THAT SCN IS LASTING LONGER THAN YOU WOULD EXPECT. THE OTHER BIG REASON IS THAT SO MANY FAMOUS AND WEALTHY CELEBRITIES ARE INVOLVED. The big celebs make huge donations and they also recruit other wealthy people. This also contributes the the organization's longevity.
Lakey

In 2000-2003, while on the PAC RPF, we did renos for the Western US IAS reg office, and those people in the IAS office pull in a hefty chunk, I think a couple hundred Gs weekly, just WUS IAS office.

Of that, they pay to the PAC Estates, for the rooms and boards of all the WUS IAS staff, about 20 persons.

The other PAC Orgs today chip in their cuts for each of their staffs' rooms and boards, which means their berthing costs and food.

THAT all total, from AOLA, the CLO WUS, ASHO D & F, and whatever other "units" have offices at the complex, like the Gold Relay Office (forget it's actual name), the CMO Cont Unit, etc, any of the Sea Org units chip in their costs.

It just so happens that there is STILL a lot of Scientologists still dribbling on lines at AOLA today, witness on Marty's blog the info about AOLA being sort of running at a steady stream of people (like the FSO is continuing to run at a steady stream, again confirmed by recent defectors who have witnessed FSO's production).

So this all means the Sea Org staff ARE able to feed and uniform themselves.

Between the upper Sea Org service orgs, and CC Int has always been very stable, under Dave Petit, for a couple decades now, and they are self sufficient essentially.

The DO have the income, AOLA, FSO, ASHOs, CC Int, and actually, while on the RPF, the PAC staff ate a little better than the HGB (middle managment staff at the HGB), until the HGB started carting their food over from the complex, which they do today, so their food is equal.

In my years of eating Sea Org chow, from 1975, till when I routed OUT of the Sea Org, in 2003, I'd rate the food at the end, as good or better than ANY of the years in the 1980s, and when I left in 2003, it was slightly better than when I got to the complex in November 2000 (coming to the complex from the Int RPF, where we had excellent chow brought to us in the hot boxes, from the Int Base, where the chow is the best of the whole Sea Org echelons, and even on the Int RPF, from Jul 96 till Nov 2000, our chow in hot boxes brought to us at Happy Valley, was better than the chow at PAC when I arrived at PAC, and PAC's food was better than the HGB per the HGB staffer's opinions, and people from the FSO told me the food at PAC was a little better than the FSO, the staff food I'm talking about.)

I think the Sea Org creature comforts, berthing, was the "best" at the end, when I routed out, 2003, compared to any prior years in the Sea Org, with some exceptions.

I saw a general creature comfort for Sea Org staffs, in the HGB (middle management level) and PAC Sea Org echelon, IMPROVE over the years.

All of the PAC building are internally renovated.

I believe a MAJOR increase to the creature comforts is from the
IAS income source.

With the IAS doing regging at each cont, attached to ALL Sea Org bases, THAT is a NEW and stable, and scott free cut of income that goes INTO the Sea Org basic survival things, the food and berthing, since there is a slight trickle down, as the IAS Cont units PAY money to the Estates Orgs of each Sea Org base.

At FSO and Int Base, the food and berthing isn't particularly necessarily effected, since at the FSO and Int Base, they get their Sea Org food money as their cuts of the FSO profits weekly. HGB gets a cut of FSO profits, and all CSI, which includes the HGB orgs and OSA, get their FSO weekly income cut.

On Marty's blog, these details of the stable income scene are some of the unfortunate truths of the intransigence of official Scientology.

They (official Scientology) ARE unfortunately more stable than in earlier years, and I think one of the key things is the IAS commissions that the orgs get, for pushing their parishioners to MAKE those IAS donations, for which the orgs get their commissions on those IAS donations, and then the IAS Cont regging units themselves are an added NEW income source that helps with the local Sea Org base creature comforts.

I think the dirty little secret in the Cont Sea Org units, is that the IAS payments to the Cont Estates Orgs, is enough to keep the whole Cont Sea Org bases FED each week, and the building utilities costs all dealt with.

So, that's the money stablity.

Now, another dismal fact I've observed.

Not all defectors from the Sea Org go SP and into the independent or change of religion category.

Some ex Sea Org members, we need surveys, but the damn LA region is FULL of probably thousands of ex Sea Org members who work at Scientology businesses (businesses made up by mostly ex Sea Org members and ex GO staff, and ex regular Scientology Org or Mission staff, and all manner of Scientologists).

The number of ex staff Scientologists who work in what we call "Scientology businesses" is goddamn huge, and should be surveyed.

My old boss, Al Baker just quit the Sea Org, and works in some Scientology company in Glendale now.

The number of ex staff, ex Sea Org, in the world, THE VAST MAJORITY are somehow suckered into being in Scientology businesses, they get suckered into buying books, since it's okay to buy books even if you haven't paid your freeloader debt.

Even I, not having paid my freeloader debt, the first year OUT of the Sea Org, off the PAC RPF, I lived in a half way house I call it, but it was a house owned by an LA Fdn staffer, and he made it into a rooming house that was filled ONLY with staff at LA Fdn, or working at Scientology businesses, and I worked for an ex Gold Staff member who had 4 Scientologists, the rest wogs, in his Cabinet shop business in Burbank. I did that for a year, left LA, moved to Pittsburgh, and since July 2004 started posting on Clambake and then A.R.S.

But my perception and watching what is happening, they have a stable NEW source of "public" in the form of ex staff, ex Sea Org.

SO MORE detailed surveying of their sources of income, and more raw info is needed.

I don't seem them tanking, no matter what.

These exposes are helping them adapt.

They are downsizing, I think Keith Henson, correctly noted on ARS some time ago, that they needed to downsize to survive, and I think that's one thing DM would agree with Keith Henson, and that's why they downsized the Int Base.

The Int Base was too big and Gold/Int was NOT producing like the IAS "sector", nor producing like the Sea Org service orgs and FSO are producing stable income for the movement.

Gold Base was a drain, technically,with not enough income being driven into the orgs for all the slick promotion and products coming out of Gold, plus for all the reasons in Marc Headley's must read book (Marc's book is a gold mine of info, and the maps in his book alone are so damn important and historical, showing ALL of the Int Base buildings, and Miscavige is probably right about Gold Base not being viable and thus the decision to downsize Gold Base is correct, but Gold Base economics is out of my pay grade, I think LRH's ideas of marketing and promoting Scientology are wrong in the long run in any event, since the whole marketing is positioning, and positioning as Scientology does it is dishonest. Scientology's a talk therapy and high volume exorcism of dead space aliens, and it should just honestly advertise itself for what it is). Correct positioning for Scientology honestly should be like the gaudy ads in the late 1960s, early 1970s, just advertise it for all its gaudy science fiction stuff, since it truly is science fictionesque whole track high volume exorcism of dead alien souls which have been mentally gunked up due to the Xenu hydrogen bomb Wall of Fire/4th Dynamic Engram and 36 1/2 days of bad mental implanting in the special 3D movie theaters to all those mass murdered deal alien souls, that today infest us all, supposedly!)

A couple years ago other former Int Base marketing people, Shelly Corrias Brit, for one, said that it was impossible to market Scientology to the public and get results like were expected, and that's just a big agreement with what you said above. Scientology can't be sold like it used to, leaving in my opinion, only their offspring as their captive audience and recruit pool.

Gold Base I don't think has much dent in the income scene, and LRH was daft to think Gold Base and becoming the international dissemination org for the planet, was ever going to become viable. It's the mass deceptive product sales marketing unit on the planet.

With the internet with the truth about Scientology's "upper levels" who wants to buy high volume exorcism techniques for imaginary dead space alien souls that supposedly infest one?

Scientology's turned in on itself, and as long at it makes babies in the Scientology community, the new kids who don't see the internet, and don't eject out of their parents crazy science fiction high volume exorcism religion, the kids who get suckered into their parents Scientology world, the numbers that make up the bottom part of the movement, after all the suckers suckered into it so far die off, that'll be the deciding long range point.

I think the huge 1970s influx of Scientologists, the baby boomers, we'll see Scientology's decline I think more slowly.

and also for now, there are a lot of the foreign Sea Org members stuck in the FSO and other Sea Org orgs, who came over for a better life in the US, and were jazzed to be in the Sea Org and get their Bridge for free. Those make up a chunk of the FSO and some Sea Org orgs. THose that get kicked out of the Sea Org, settle into Scientology businesses, become to varying degrees Scientology public.

There's a lot of those that make up the movement, and keep its wheels turning.

 

[paradox]

Thanks Paradox for that repost of a RVY classic.

 

[degraded being]

Re Olska and Thrak on why people stay(ed) in.
Some thoughts.

1. All life is suffering (or something to the effect). ref. That buddha guy.
2. I want to have no suffering.

3. Someone has promised me number 2.

3. I believe them.

4. I lack the education or ability or desire or opportunity or humility or courage to question 3.

5. Number 4 is obstructed by deception, manipulation, mental and physical restraint and force, and an willingness to totally enslave.

Dianetics promises the removal of pain. Emotional pain and physical pain (psychosomatics 70% of man's ills)
All the other kinds of angst, frustration, failure, upset, incompetence.....
It's all from engrams and when you get rid of those all your pain will be gone....what else does that? Morphine, heroin etc, but the pain comes back when the drug wears off just as the pain comes back when the Dianetics session wears off. The pain comes back when the new staff member friends "ARC" wears off. No problem. We have some other process/rundown to take away the pain..and we know how to remove the pain forever, just keep going......imagine that,we can take away everything you don't like forever.

Take away "everything I don't like forever".....so we are not talking specifically about *pain* anymore?
Nooooo, we are beyond that now, we have done dianetics but life still keeps coming up with things that are inconvenient, things that we could not or did not control, and that was, and is, inconvenient and sometimes very upsetting. But I do not have pain anymore, I am above that, I have ARCXs. ARCXs can be brought under control. I am handling my life with the tech. I am handling life with the tech. Have to say though, I still want to handle everything forever by going to the top of the bridge and life will be a flowing, easy, cruisey game of enjoyment and self fulfillment. And I want my Ls too!

Ls? Yeah, I have some "body issues" they are not really MY issues, they are issues ---m-y b-o-dy - has. That thing over there. It has a few somatics. Not me though. It's not pain. I am waaay above that lowtone stuff. I'll just put my body with it's somatics into that chair and talk to the auditor, and that body's pain will go away.
It works great, but think I better get another one of those "L"s; there are some things which are still invalidating my certainty that I should be able to remove every inconvenience in life, at will.

Did I say inconvenience? Yes, it's not just about pain, that MEST viewpoint stuff. It's about inconvenience caused by the stupid idea that I am a human meat body from the mud. Take away "meat body" "mud" and you still have "human" which is good enough for some, poor stupid bastards, I have to enlighten them; Human is not good enough for me. It just invalidates the truth that I can and will control and get rid of every inconvenience in my life -and all my lives.

All the inconveniences i have to suffer along the way, physical, mental, ethical, are part of the the reason I am on lines. They keep proving that I still cannot control every inconvenience in my life. I will get there. To the top of the bridge. If I question that promised freedom I will be suffering forever. That hurts.

 

[chuckbeatty]

An organization like Scientology can not survive on offspring alone, it's dysfunctional management and ever increasing overhead will bury it. A con game like Scientology needs a steady stream of new cards to play or it folds. Scientology can not survive in an open society, it will continue to die a slow death just as all of the other scams that promised unobtainable results. For some reason Scientology had a better run than most probably because of the timing, if anything that is about the only thing of value it has to offer, a case study in why it managed to last as long as it did.

Scientology is misunderstood, because LRH wouldn't define it.

Scientology is talk therapy at the lower levels, which intends to ripen its believers into their past lives, if they haven't already learned to believe in past lives; and at the upper levels it is high volume science fiction exorcism of dead alien souls.

LRH doesn't define Scientology properly, he's run a big altered definition on his followers and the world, about what Scientology is, and the whole lot of Scientologists and even ex Scientologists are trained to spout LRH's definition of Scientology.

Scientology is a talk therapy science fiction spiritualism high volume exorcism religoin, with a totalitarian authoritarian administrative cult mind control setup with the members today aspiring to Hubbard's megalomaniacal science fictionesque goals of eventually reaching out and salvaging the whole universe, once earth is "handled."

That's what ought to go on their promo posters and TV ads.

The insularity, shielding themselves, has been pretty effective, so the battleline, I see, is the internet. Keeping themselves from reading the truth on the internet is their only way to keep their members from quitting once they find out that OT levels 3 - 7 are all about high volume dead space alien exorcism.

Telling Scientology kids the Xenu story and explaining the Wall of Fire and Fourth Dynamic Engram, and that the "upper levels" OT 3-7 are all about exorcism of the dead space alien souls, I think is the best way to keep the Scientology ANYONE from going up the Bridge all the way.

Scientology's biggest current weaknesses are David Miscavige and the Xenu/body thetans/Wall of Fire/Fourth Dynamic Engram/36 and 1/2 days of mental implants that gunk up the minds of all the supposed zillions of dead space alien souls (body thetans) that infest us all!

And if that doesn't "work" to spare people wasting their money on the high volume exorcism, then at least they in Scientology can evolve more like normal religons which have gotten over the hump of having their "secrets" exposed. Which they WILL get over those humps too, and I think they'll just keep going on no matter what humps they have to get over.

 

[paradox]

Before closing, let me make a couple more points of parallel.
No abusive relationship starts that way. In fact, the chances are
that if the guy had slapped her on the first date, there wouldn’t
be a second one. No, the abusive relationship starts with sweetness.
When I was reading about abusive relationships, that came up constantly,
how the guy was so nice and sweet. No, the abuse is gradual. It
starts with some criticism and when the woman accepts it, then there
is a little bit more. When she accepts that, the man does more as
he introduces CONTROL. If she protests, he backs off until he can
reestablish the control. It is called a GRADIENT. (Ironically, Scientologists
will be familiar with that word.) The woman comes to accept more and
more and becomes convinced that it is something SHE is doing wrong.
As it is increased, the sweetness tapers off until it is finally dangled
in front of her like a carrot. Somewhere along the
line, the physical abuse starts. If she breaks too hard, he is sweet
and comforting and maybe even apologetic, bringing her back under
control. That is the key. CONTROL. (Another word Scientologists
know well. Hubbard even had his own definition for it and processing
addressing control.) Then one day the beatings are regular and she
loses her self-respect and dignity.

After just re-reading the above portion of the RVY article, I realized that even the ARCX drechnology mentioned in the OP of this thread, and its handling, fits the hubbard control mechanism. I recall whenever an ARCX would be addressed in session that I was really never satisfied because I always knew the "other shoe would drop" soon and we'd be running the crap out of O/W and MWH. The ARCX carrot was never gonna cut it. But it was always there for the "handler" [auditor, ethics terminal, senior executive, abuser, et al] to get his foot inserted into the crack of the doorway as an opening to reassert control.

Fucking drechnology.

 

[degraded being]

Scientology is misunderstood, because LRH wouldn't define it.

Scientology is talk therapy at the lower levels, which intends to ripen its believers into their past lives, if they haven't already learned to believe in past lives; and at the upper levels it is high volume science fiction exorcism of dead alien souls.

LRH doesn't define Scientology properly, he's run a big altered definition on his followers and the world, about what Scientology is, and the whole lot of Scientologists and even ex Scientologists are trained to spout LRH's definition of Scientology.

Scientology is a talk therapy science fiction spiritualism high volume exorcism religoin, with a totalitarian authoritarian administrative cult mind control setup with the members today aspiring to Hubbard's megalomaniacal science fictionesque goals of eventually reaching out and salvaging the whole universe, once earth is "handled."

That's what ought to go on their promo posters and TV ads.

The insularity, shielding themselves, has been pretty effective, so the battleline, I see, is the internet. Keeping themselves from reading the truth on the internet is their only way to keep their members from quitting once they find out that OT levels 3 - 7 are all about high volume dead space alien exorcism.

Telling Scientology kids the Xenu story and explaining the Wall of Fire and Fourth Dynamic Engram, and that the "upper levels" OT 3-7 are all about exorcism of the dead space alien souls, I think is the best way to keep the Scientology ANYONE from going up the Bridge all the way.

Scientology's biggest current weaknesses are David Miscavige and the Xenu/body thetans/Wall of Fire/Fourth Dynamic Engram/36 and 1/2 days of mental implants that gunk up the minds of all the supposed zillions of dead space alien souls (body thetans) that infest us all!

And if that doesn't "work" to spare people wasting their money on the high volume exorcism, then at least they in Scientology can evolve more like normal religons which have gotten over the hump of having their "secrets" exposed. Which they WILL get over those humps too, and I think they'll just keep going on no matter what humps they have to get over.

Do you mean a *pseudo* talk therapy?

 

[chuckbeatty]

The excerpts below would seem to be additional "admissions" from Hubbard. In this case, made to David Mayo around 1978/79. This won't be news to many on ESMB, but some curious lurkers might find it interesting.

Excerpt from the 1991 David Mayo article on 'Clear'. (And a link to the complete article. http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html):

"It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were 'clear' at a certain point, and that they therefore had no reactive mind...

"[Clear] is not an attainable state (at least given our present level of technology)."

And here's an excerpt from author Russell Miller's interview of David Mayo from August 1986. (Complete interview: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/mayo.htm) :

"What worried me was when I saw things he did that showed his intentions were different from what they appeared to be. I began to realize he wasn't acting for the public good or for the benefit of Mankind...

"He told me he was obsessed with an insatiable lust for power and money. He said it very emphatically. He thought it wasn't possible to get enough. He didn't say it as if it was a fault, just his frustration that he couldn't get enough."

Great post.

LRH should have stuck with his fiction writing, and just RUN back to fiction, and told everyone clamoring for MORE Dianetics, to build their own better bridges if they wanted to.

I'm reading LRH's "One Was Stubborn" for the 3rd time. It's LRH's 1940 story, he wrote it in the Knickerbocker Hotel in New York City, and the hero is a farmer who doesn't agree with the way the world is disappearing, and it's as entertaining as the Wall of Fire / Fourth Dymanic Engram and Xenu's hydrogen bombing 36 and 1/2 day implanting of zillions of dead humanoids' souls.

LRH's old pulp sci fi stories would have made for nicer final memory of him, before "he went crazy and made a lot of other people crazy" (what Arthur C. Clarke on a radio show told a Scientologist who called into the show trying to get a favorable comment from Clarke about Hubbard, and instead got that honest assessment).

LRH should have just stuck to his fiction adventure / sci fi writing.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... The problem is, intrinsically, deep down, we have a sense that we are “withholding/restraining” something . . . but we have been missing it is us doing it to ourselves. So to ask for the generality of a “W/H” in the way it is being done with the presumption you’ve done it to another is a very destructive act. And it is to be noted, it will produce the BPC and upsets necessary to cause you to want to get the hell out of and away from there! Ditto the things we have “done” (to ourselves) we regret doing and have long ago hidden from self. ...

Nicely summarized, R. As you say the key to breaking the cycle lies in understanding how 'overts' may apply to 'self' (aka 'flow 0').

Overts on others, where they actually do exist, need to be addressed and appropriate responsibility assumed. But where they are imaginary, then 'mocking them up' serves only to undermine the integrity of the individual and render them readily controllable.

... It seems obvious to me now, that the mis-use the O/W tech in the form of constant sec checking is a malicious control mechanism and one also designed to rip mega $$$ out of people. It is also very destructive.

Very much so. As per 'scientologese' it becomes a 'wrong item' as well as an invalidation. It's never a valid tool of 'spiritual tech' and when done willfully, as it is in the Co$, it is a criminally malignant attempt to enforce control and undermine individual free will.


Mark A. Baker

 

[chuckbeatty]

Do you mean a *pseudo* talk therapy?

Yes, of course. Pseudo, or quasi, or quack, or non peer reviewed, or ALL of the above.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Re Olska and Thrak on why people stay(ed) in.
Some thoughts.

1. All life is suffering (or something to the effect). ref. That buddha guy.
2. I want to have no suffering.

3. Someone has promised me number 2.

3. I believe them.

4. I lack the education or ability or desire or opportunity or humility or courage to question 3.

5. Number 4 is obstructed by deception, manipulation, mental and physical restraint and force, and an willingness to totally enslave.

Dianetics promises the removal of pain. Emotional pain and physical pain (psychosomatics 70% of man's ills)
All the other kinds of angst, frustration, failure, upset, incompetence.....
It's all from engrams and when you get rid of those all your pain will be gone....what else does that? Morphine, heroin etc, but the pain comes back when the drug wears off just as the pain comes back when the Dianetics session wears off. The pain comes back when the new staff member friends "ARC" wears off. No problem. We have some other process/rundown to take away the pain..and we know how to remove the pain forever, just keep going......imagine that,we can take away everything you don't like forever.

Take away "everything I don't like forever".....so we are not talking specifically about *pain* anymore?
Nooooo, we are beyond that now, we have done dianetics but life still keeps coming up with things that are inconvenient, things that we could not or did not control, and that was, and is, inconvenient and sometimes very upsetting. But I do not have pain anymore, I am above that, I have ARCXs. ARCXs can be brought under control. I am handling my life with the tech. I am handling life with the tech. Have to say though, I still want to handle everything forever by going to the top of the bridge and life will be a flowing, easy, cruisey game of enjoyment and self fulfillment. And I want my Ls too!

Ls? Yeah, I have some "body issues" they are not really MY issues, they are issues ---m-y b-o-dy - has. That thing over there. It has a few somatics. Not me though. It's not pain. I am waaay above that lowtone stuff. I'll just put my body with it's somatics into that chair and talk to the auditor, and that body's pain will go away.
It works great, but think I better get another one of those "L"s; there are some things which are still invalidating my certainty that I should be able to remove every inconvenience in life, at will.

Did I say inconvenience? Yes, it's not just about pain, that MEST viewpoint stuff. It's about inconvenience caused by the stupid idea that I am a human meat body from the mud. Take away "meat body" "mud" and you still have "human" which is good enough for some, poor stupid bastards, I have to enlighten them; Human is not good enough for me. It just invalidates the truth that I can and will control and get rid of every inconvenience in my life -and all my lives.

All the inconveniences i have to suffer along the way, physical, mental, ethical, are part of the the reason I am on lines. They keep proving that I still cannot control every inconvenience in my life. I will get there. To the top of the bridge. If I question that promised freedom I will be suffering forever. That hurts.

Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! There is a whole lotta (painful) truth in that post.

Outstanding!

 

[chuckbeatty]

The term "haters" seems to be quite common amongst those newly finding their feet outside of the CofS. It doesn't necessarily mean much except that it's become a sort of substitute word for what some used to think of as Suppressives, DBs, Merchants Of Chaos etc.

In my opinion, Ex-CofS members seem to need quite some time to overcome or come to terms with certain aspects of the indoctrinated mindset.

Labeling people as "this" or "that" sometimes allows one a sense of comfort when faced with the uncomfortable but it is usually a substitute for actually looking and confronting. It is a quite common mechanism in our society and is seldom recognised as intolerance for or inability to confront other viewpoints.

To me calling someone a "Hater" is not much different from labeling someone with a different viewpoint as "Stupid, Brainless, Moonbat" etc.

I found when I got out, that reading, I loved the NY Times, New Yorker magazine, my favorite is the NY Review of Books, just intelligent modern minds talking about the big issues on earth today, did MORE to get me OUT of thinking Hubbard/Scientology logic and verbiage.

Scientologists are stuck holding LRH's views.

Outside reading of smarter minds than Hubbard, is what helps the most, I found.

I also loved all the old TV shows critical of Scientology, full of ex members talking, particularly the members who were around Hubbard and told firsthand stories about Hubbard.

Hubbard's way of thinking has to be replaced in their minds, to get them OUT of all their pat sayings and OSA crafted counter attack and defensive deflective wordage.

In 1983, when I was on the "Routing Forms Research and Writing Project, the 3rd incarnation of this long project mission, I went to the filing cabinets that contained the original letters to and from LRH to his science fiction buddies.

IN those letters were quite a lot from famous writers. Heinlein's letters to LRH were the most touching, in my opinion. Heinlein was trying in vain to get LRH BACK to writing and OUT of the Dianetics stuff.

LRH was a goner.

Arthur C. Clarke was right. "...he went crazy and made a lot of other people crazy...."

And LRH went on to create the boxed off world of Scientology thinking and speaking, and OSA today has their OSA network order about how to survey and find the labels with which to label the "enemies", so that the enemies are positioned with what the surveys show are the WORST public images.

It's all LRH's forumula, LRH's tech, that OSA uses, to spread the labels, that the Scientologists all forward, this label message about the Scientology enemies.

If people have not read the Office of Special Affairs Network Orders, they should.

And thank Frank Oliver for leaking his OSA hat pack so we have those LRH OSA network orders to see what authorizes OSA to do their wordsmithing games on SCientology's "enemies."

 

[Panda Termint]

I'm happy to read that, Chuck.
I'm not quite sure why you quoted my post in relation to it (my post was in answer an earlier question on this thread).
I don't believe I've ever seen you labeling others or calling someone a "hater" (unless I missed it) LOL.
I support your efforts in gathering and exposing information about all that has occurred in the name of scientology.

 

[chuckbeatty]

The term "haters" seems to be quite common amongst those newly finding their feet outside of the CofS. It doesn't necessarily mean much except that it's become a sort of substitute word for what some used to think of as Suppressives, DBs, Merchants Of Chaos etc.

In my opinion, Ex-CofS members seem to need quite some time to overcome or come to terms with certain aspects of the indoctrinated mindset.

Labeling people as "this" or "that" sometimes allows one a sense of comfort when faced with the uncomfortable but it is usually a substitute for actually looking and confronting. It is a quite common mechanism in our society and is seldom recognised as intolerance for or inability to confront other viewpoints.

To me calling someone a "Hater" is not much different from labeling someone with a different viewpoint as "Stupid, Brainless, Moonbat" etc.

When the trolls go after you, they will use wrong indications, it's just agent provocateur stuff, that is the OSA tool kit, see the OSA Network Orders. It's known and accepted by them that it is okay for them to use the latest fad negative labels for persons known to have gone to the wrong side.

I found LRH's heavy penalties for Scientologists who knew "Ethics and Study Tech" policy penalties for using words that others doing Scientology training might misunderstand, or using MUs in dissemination, backfires majorly, by making the whole group of Scientologists fearful of just USING more expressive and accurate words, "bigger words", in their lives.

They are pegged by the MU penalties, pegged to go no further than LRH's verbiage, and stay within LRH's world of thought and prejudices, to be safe in their roles as Scientologists. They're afraid to venture into language and words that MIGHT reflect or give them insight into LRH's failings!!!

I used to escape from Hubbard's world, in the Encyclopedias in the RPF course room, and in the Oxford English Literature Dictionary. Discovering the world is overwhelmingly smarter than Hubbard, is enlightening, and a good way to replace Hubbard's mindset.

 

[Rae]

Hi Rae - Nice to run into you again! Its been a full two years since I first arrived at ESMB and compared notes with you on our experiences under Yvonne at CCLA in the early 70's. I still have my mental picture of you holding up the weekly stat graphs for each division, smiling, having auburn fairly long wavy hair and wearing a white blouse and a dark skirt.

It looks like you have undergone some major changes in the last two years based on the contents of your above post. Well done on the gains which you have made.

Lakey aka Gary

Yes Gary, many, quite sweeping changes. And thank you for the stroll down memory lane. I guess one could say "those were the days". They certainly were, in truth. Another, very different world, all of us young with our hopes and dreams, our ideals and vulnerabilities of the '60s and '70s. Prime ground for something like Scientology to take root.

I wish you well my friend,
Rae aka Serah aka Sherry

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Either your grammar is rotten, or you just like being pugnacious.

I am writing to Rae, and speaking me to him about our having gotten conned in.

That "we" does not mention or draw in any notion of "everybody" and "all you" or "everyone" or such.

So, my dear, go take your attempts at trouble somewhere else

Those who wish to use the little bit of tech that has been put on this thread will benefit from it. Those who want to trash it will not benefit . . . it's a rather simple proposition

And let's be real, the thread and the opening post is a tech issue . . . if you don't like it or tech . . . . go where you don't collide with it. It's like, if you don't like porn, don't go into porn sites Even you once agreed with the good sense of that!

R

I still agree with the good sense of that, but this thread is about a brainwashing issue Roger, hence my interest in it.

I apologise though as I do (now) see that you addressed your post to Rae.



In all honesty your puerile digs at Zinj and Alanzo who are not here to defend themselves had irritated me earlier in the thread, I had suppressed the urge to respond then but perhaps should have said that the gloating at their demise is very unattractive to those of us who have a lot of time for them.

I have a horror of ESMB turning into a place where amateur self created therapist's feel too comfortable dishing out unwanted advice and tekky lectures. I expect that is because one guru is one too many (for me) in any given lifetime and my patience has already been used up by Tubs who was of course the ultimate amateur self created therapist (and complete con-artist as it happens) and that is the subject of this thread.

Posted by RogerB

What a wonderful thread this is.

In looking over it, all I see, apart from some of the earlier "can this be true, real? Is this really Bill Franks?" etc ., and a little DOX Plox, what I see is honest helpful postings.

This really is what ESMB is and ought exemplify . . . honest communication and exchange of truth such that folks are helped and healed.

And, to be blunt, I can't help thinking that the recent clean-up and freeing from some of our more prolific negative-put-down artists might just have something to do with the arrival of these valuable new members

Certainly this thread is free from the destructive diversions we've so often seen in the past.

Well, I have just honestly communicated, so we agree on that point at least.

 

[RogerB]

Chuck,

Nice accurate post, my friend.

You are quite right, the huge problem with the "innies" is that they have, in effect, supplanted their own good sense and perceptions of the real world with that of Hubbard's falsehoods, "data" and versions of "truth."

And the tragedy is, that operating on all this wrong or otherwise limited perception of the world, they screw up royally.

RogerB

 

[Infinite]

I see that asking uncomfortable questions makes people uncomfortable. Who could have guessed that.

Brainwashing. I can see it's the title of the thread. My question, in case you couldn't tell, is right on topic because it's about the so-called "brainwashing" that is the subject of this thread.

With the exception of a few cases of people on the RPF, it's not like scientologists were held in prisons, threatened with death by armed guards, starved and beaten every day. There was always the opportunity to walk away, quit, refuse to submit, refuse to go along with the program. Yes, there were consequences.

Those who CHOSE to join up always did have a choice, as the many who joined and then CHOSE to leave scientology (and deal with the consequences) before they "lost everything" have proven.

And just so you don't misinterpret what I'm saying, I believe the children who were raised by scientologists with scientology beliefs are a group with separate issues. Interesting though, that even many of them saw through the B.S. and CHOSE to leave scientology.

The question is WHY, when they DID have a choice did they stay and submit to the "brainwashing" of the cult which, as you pointed out, is the topic of this thread? Oh, and thanks for pointing that out.

Maybe if you pay really close attention and concentrate real hard, and look into this phenomenon deeply enough, you can uncover the difference between those who saw it was B.S. and CHOSE to walk away before they submitted to the "brainwashing," and those who CHOSE to stay and go further and futher down the (it's a metaphor) rabbit hole into deeper and deeper brainwashing.

And there you might find the key to educating people so they will not willingly subject themselves to such "brainwashing." If you're interested.

Yadda yadda yadda - LURK MOAR - start here: http://paulsrabbit.com/levine.pdf

. . . <snip> . . . The essential questions that I will address in this declaration are whether an average person (without clear psychological pathologies) would have been able to make clear and independent rational decisions given the physical, social and psychological environment created by Scientology and, hence, whether the Headleys were deprived of free will in making such decisions.

Preliminarily, I wish to explain that “brainwashing” is a term that has been over-used and is quite misleading. Totalistic commitments, such as those which the Headleys undertook, are often described as the result of brainwashing. The term was originally coined by a journalist, David Hunter, to describe the apparently robot-like conversions of American servicemen captured in the Korean War. Hunter detailed a program of systematic torture that produced these effects. Levine, R., The Power of Persuasion: How We’re Bought and Sold (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003). The term brainwashing has taken on a vivid, frightening meaning over the years, as evidenced in films like The Manchurian Candidate. It is assumed to be the result of physical torture, forced brain surgery, or other coercive terrors.

As I will describe below, physical force was, in fact, a factor in the coercion of the Headleys, although it certainly was not of the magnitude of the torture that is stereotypically associated with brainwashing. This physical force played a large role in preventing the Headleys from making clear decisions. Pure physical force, however, is generally not an effective means of inducing the sort of long-term commitment that Scientology extracted from the Headleys. There is no empirical evidence that physical torture, i.e. brainwashing, is an effective means of long-term control. The core of the problem is that torture produces immediate compliance. Force induces fear, and fear leads to outward compliance but, without additional social and psychological pressure, the fear of physical harm is short-lived. The victim performs when the torturer is watching. But once the threats are no longer present, the victim feels no psychological compunction to remain in the situation. But in the case of people like the Headleys in an organization like Scientology, short-term overt compliance is not sufficient for the needs of the organization. Scientology needed members like the Headleys to commit to sustained work and dedication to the organization.

The sort of torture that is commonly associated with the term brainwashing does not appear to have been usual in the Headleys’ history in Scientology. What I believe did occur, however, was a more subtle, more potent form of control that transformed their reality and thinking in a manner that left them unable to make rational decisions. They were subject to social and psychological pressures that subverted control of their thinking, behavior, emotions, and decisions. Although this type of control can and did lead to pathological behavior and thinking, it is usually for the most part an extension of normal psychology – the common tactics of persuasion and influence that occur in non-pathological, everyday life settings. The differences between everyday persuasion and extreme control concern intensity and intent: In instances of totalistic control, such as the case of the Headleys, the psychological techniques are taken to extremes. The techniques are, also, often “manipulative” -- a term that, in a psychological context, refers to persuading or influencing people in such a way that the manipulator tries to get what he or she wants, or makes a person believe something in a calculating, indirect and somewhat dishonest way. The end product of the control to be described is pathological. However, the normalcy of the techniques, when applied with skill and subtlety, make it difficult for the victim to recognize just how pathological the coercive forces are until they are removed from the situation.

In this document, I offer my analysis of how the Headleys were manipulated and socialized by Scientology to a point where they lost their ability to make clear, independent decisions. Whether or not the Headleys sincerely believed in the tenets of Scientology, the pressures upon them made it extremely difficult to express their grievances and even more difficult for them to leave the organization. Again, this is not to say it was impossible for them to leave. Psychologists understand that, even under the most intense pressures, individuals react on a normal curve, meaning there are always outliers who defy the pressures. Given the intensity of the coercion in this case, however, I conclude with confidence that a normal person – which I define here as an average person – would not have been capable of walking away; and, I am convinced by these depositions, very few individuals experiencing this series of pressures would have been capable of clearly weighing the issues, costs and benefits that would enable them to make rational decisions. . . <snip> . . .

 

[RogerB]

Originally Posted by RogerB ;
One needs to click on the "more" button of the particular message of the post and it opens up just like the OP on this thread. The OP on this thread big issue that Bill is commenting on is the "Blow=ARCX thing revealed"

Though for me, the big thing is Hubbard's dishonest use of his knowledge and the paranoia over threat of loss of control of people,orgss and cn.;;All

l of the postings on tFacebookook chat appear in truncated form, and you have to open them to get all.

But actually, it would appear that Bill was either not on the lines in '63 when this tech was developed (Mayo, I'm sure was: he was an old HPA from NZ) or Bill had forgotten it and been embroiled in the later sec-check to death syndrome.

R

I didn't get in until 1968. Sounds like you have some interesting viewpoints and I would be interested in hearing them. Best, Bill Franks

Bill,

I have noticed the courtesy and good graces with which you have responded to the various replies to you.

You are to be applauded for it.

On my little bit above you are responding to here, I would like to say that what I wrote was in no way intended as any put-down of your experience. Indeed I have the utmost of high regard for it and deeply appreciate all you did and attempted to do for the good of your fellows when you were "in."

I was there at the FSO when you and Alan W did the address to the "FSMs" in '82? . . . you'll recall the meeting began with only a couple of folks in the audience. I was one of the two

I wrote what I wrote above for the benefit of the many here who were not exposed to the developments and changes in "tech" as presented by Hubbard over the years.

Colliding with the "tech" as practiced from 1968 onwards, and particularly by 1980, was to collide with so much crap and falsehood as to be quite unbelievable to an old-timer.

Hubbard's history demonstrates a practice of countering, reversing, altering and actually ridiculing his own "tech."

I have posted a couple egregious examples of this on ESMB already. Examples where his latest demands became the "standard" to practice.

It was in this context I wrote as I did above, to explain what might have been the shock or surprise you expressed in your post at Hubbard's "revelation."

But then, you didn't explain specifically what shocked you. It might have been his admonition that you and David were to hold this item of correct tech confidential for the purpose of maintaining his control of things, rather than the "newness" of the tech item.

I look forward to hearing more from you.

RogerB

 

[Lurker5]

Yes

Thanks Paradox for that repost of a RVY classic.

Yes, that RVY is a classic - and I mean the man, the human being - Quite a classic. Extraordinary !

This is why.