Bill Frank's story about brainwashing (thread merge)
- Thread starter gwells
- Start date
Jachs
Gold Meritorious Patron
You nailed it Chuck, you are a great words smith.
I have wondered .
Is there anything that the founder did actually originate apart from his ability to be resourceful , his ability to understand and convey was very genius, pity it had his spin of enemies everywhere in sight?
Military tactician of fear, duress, confusion internally/ externally.
"Scientology's Achilles Heal" are the founder and his witholds.
Representing the greater good that more often than not end is misery,such as the founders did.
He was a ruthless in resourcing that, he wanted his Kudos for it.
and did everything opposite to what he preached.
I strongly still entertain that the state of and stages to clear exist.
Clear the Planet he cried, but then he pushed OT. 1964 he should have taken a very long vacation.
when something has good results people reach, when it has bad results you have to sell it HARD.
"Scientology's Achilles Heal"s
bill franks
Patron
Thanks. The story isn't about me or anyone in particular. It is , I think, about how Scn has gotten ahold of people and in many cases kept them. As for me, I have taken some time to shake this off but I have never regretted a day being out and i regret my involvement in getting so many people in. It takes some thought to see the insidiousness of this kind of introversion that is caused by continual pounding, in a hypnotic environment, and how much of a hold it does get of one. Hopefully some will see the statement I made and begin to more successfully disentangle themselves.
As far as salvaging the tech personally I don't believe one could but maybe someone sees it differently. I don't. best, Bill Franks wogman
As far as salvaging the tech personally I don't believe one could but maybe someone sees it differently. I don't. best, Bill Franks wogman
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
I see it that way too, Bill. There are usable things that will undoubtedly continue to be used but as for the entire Body Of Tech, that would require some pretty radical surgery.
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
The problem with someone "trying to save the tech" is just this.
Imagine someone saying their purpose was to "save religion" and the task at hand was to go thru all books ever written of, by or about every single religion--and only pulling out the "truthful" stuff.
That is identical to Scientology's ocean of tech. Every piece of tech has multiple OTHER pieces of tech that alter, conflict, contradict, cancel or even condemn it as evil and suppressive squirreling.
I see pundits in the Indie Scn world who purport to know which is the right tech and which is the wrong tech. Frankly, while they may be well-intentioned, I think they are close to legally blind to make such holy pronouncements.
Sure, a person could stumble across a piece of "tech" that produces a good result. Why not? People have wins from Witchcraft, Bowling, sleeping, vitamins, playing the lottery and reading conspiracy theories that have already been debunked.
It is an absurd notion to take Scientology as a body of knowledge and to find what works.
Hubbard spent his entire lifetime trying to do that but failed more than miserably--and he was the most knowledgeable person on the earth in that subject.
So, the feeble notion that someone can figure out a scientific "tech" from Scientology, might as well just start over from scratch.
Why be burdened with Hubbard's lies and delusional "facts"?
Oooops, kinda ranted there. No justification offered.
Imagine someone saying their purpose was to "save religion" and the task at hand was to go thru all books ever written of, by or about every single religion--and only pulling out the "truthful" stuff.
That is identical to Scientology's ocean of tech. Every piece of tech has multiple OTHER pieces of tech that alter, conflict, contradict, cancel or even condemn it as evil and suppressive squirreling.
I see pundits in the Indie Scn world who purport to know which is the right tech and which is the wrong tech. Frankly, while they may be well-intentioned, I think they are close to legally blind to make such holy pronouncements.
Sure, a person could stumble across a piece of "tech" that produces a good result. Why not? People have wins from Witchcraft, Bowling, sleeping, vitamins, playing the lottery and reading conspiracy theories that have already been debunked.
It is an absurd notion to take Scientology as a body of knowledge and to find what works.
Hubbard spent his entire lifetime trying to do that but failed more than miserably--and he was the most knowledgeable person on the earth in that subject.
So, the feeble notion that someone can figure out a scientific "tech" from Scientology, might as well just start over from scratch.
Why be burdened with Hubbard's lies and delusional "facts"?
Oooops, kinda ranted there. No justification offered.
Ogsonofgroo
Crusader
Rock on Bill! Loves yer words and glad you came in and said something man!; And the Hoaxter above? Yerp, him being fine too!
to All!
to All!
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
None required!Oooops, kinda ranted there. No justification offered.
AnonyMary
Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Petey C
Silver Meritorious Patron
Wogman, you speak the truth. I think the doubt cast on one major theme of the "tech" (which I don't believe is technology but rather a system of interlocking and self-referential beliefs) has implications for everything else in Scn. That said, I still think that there are a few sensible observations that have applicability in everyday life (eg the ARC Triangle, the communication formula). But what you have raised, plus the hundreds of other truths that have emerged over time regarding Hubbard's integrity, cast the whole of Scientology into doubt, for me.
I have just finished rereading The Drowned and the Saved, Primo Levi's masterful analysis of his time at Auschwitz. It has some very revelatory things to say about what happens to people under coercion. While a stint in Scn is nothing like a stint at Auschwitz (which is infinitely worse for many reasons), there are some remarkable similarities in the effects on people of prolonged coercion, fear, deprivation, etc.
Petey
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Hmmmmm...
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!"
The problem with someone "trying to save the tech" is just this.
Imagine someone saying their purpose was to "save religion" and the task at hand was to go thru all books ever written of, by or about every single religion--and only pulling out the "truthful" stuff.
That is identical to Scientology's ocean of tech. Every piece of tech has multiple OTHER pieces of tech that alter, conflict, contradict, cancel or even condemn it as evil and suppressive squirreling.
I see pundits in the Indie Scn world who purport to know which is the right tech and which is the wrong tech. Frankly, while they may be well-intentioned, I think they are close to legally blind to make such holy pronouncements.
Sure, a person could stumble across a piece of "tech" that produces a good result. Why not? People have wins from Witchcraft, Bowling, sleeping, vitamins, playing the lottery and reading conspiracy theories that have already been debunked.
It is an absurd notion to take Scientology as a body of knowledge and to find what works.
Hubbard spent his entire lifetime trying to do that but failed more than miserably--and he was the most knowledgeable person on the earth in that subject.
So, the feeble notion that someone can figure out a scientific "tech" from Scientology, might as well just start over from scratch.
Why be burdened with Hubbard's lies and delusional "facts"?
Oooops, kinda ranted there. No justification offered.
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!"
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Very wise of you Petey! Sad but true...
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Well done, Bill!
Bill I'm very glad you are here... I think posting as you do is going to help many more people to think, to question, to wake up! The sooner the better!
May life be wonderful for you and your family!
Bill I'm very glad you are here... I think posting as you do is going to help many more people to think, to question, to wake up! The sooner the better!
May life be wonderful for you and your family!
Ulf K. Maier
Patron Meritorious
Thank you, Mr Franks. This is what I was hoping to hear from you. It is most appreciated, at least by me.
Others do see it differently. They feel the scales over their eyes are necessary, and kick and scream when someone tries to get them to peel them off. This, again, is part of the implant laid in by Scientology.
Is there any part of Scientology which is NOT "implanting"?
chuckbeatty
Patron with Honors
Bill Franks posting 2011
One important theme in Bill's posting, is his admitted regret he couldn't help change the atmosphere in the movement, during his tenure, and that is an important point.
Scientology will eventually have to evolve to the point where the leaders who ARE on duty at the movement's top ranks, they DO soften and lighten up the totalitarianism in the movement.
It's inevitable, as time goes on, that whoever becomes the next round of leaders of Scientology, they'll have to continue to deal with the Hubbard instilled downsides.
This is a very important posting.
I hope Bill gets interviewed, I'd like to interview him and survey him on what he thinks would best help change the totalitarian "brainwashing" atmosphere which has gotten worse, per all accounts of the top people leaving the top ranks the last decade or two, witness the St. Pete Times interviews and articles, and now the New Yorker magazine article regarding Paul Haggis, since that New Yorker article nicely summarizes the last decade of controversies surrounding Scientology.
It'd be nice to get more recollections out of Bill, and out of the memories of others who lived through the tumultuous late 1970s up through Hubbard's death, where the final setup of Scientology top leadership evolved, and the various top players jockeyed to do their roles. Roles which Hubbard wrote for them to assume. (The transition from the old "Commodore's Staff Aides" and "Flag Bureaux" and "LRH Personal Office" setups, to the Int Headquarters setup with RTC, CMO Int, Exec Strata, and with Author Services Inc taking on some of the old "LRH Pers Office" duties, and additionally how CST evolved and grew based on Hubbard's long term ideas about "preserving" his tech for the LONG future, etc.) The history of Hubbard's final years, spelled out more in detail, with the limitations of the persons who assumed the roles LRH wrote for them, and the braindrain of the late 1970s through the mid part of the 1980s, is important to compare to the following decades of Scientology leadership. As rough and tumble as the late 1970s and up to the mid 1980s was, I'd argue that the leaders displayed more of the "good" aspects of Scientology policy, the then top people displayed more "good" in management tech I'd say, until they each left top management by the early 1980s, one by one.
Bill "mellowed" and bore his responsibilities as ED Int seriously and pretty judiciously, was my impression, when I remember his final time in the Sea Org.
Anyways, this is an important thread, and I hope somehow Bill's views can be made public on related points about his final years in the movement.
Bill ought to also be interviewed by Lawrence Wright, for Lawrence's upcoming book on Scientology.
I'm so glad Bill's had his thoughts posted.
One important theme in Bill's posting, is his admitted regret he couldn't help change the atmosphere in the movement, during his tenure, and that is an important point.
Scientology will eventually have to evolve to the point where the leaders who ARE on duty at the movement's top ranks, they DO soften and lighten up the totalitarianism in the movement.
It's inevitable, as time goes on, that whoever becomes the next round of leaders of Scientology, they'll have to continue to deal with the Hubbard instilled downsides.
This is a very important posting.
I hope Bill gets interviewed, I'd like to interview him and survey him on what he thinks would best help change the totalitarian "brainwashing" atmosphere which has gotten worse, per all accounts of the top people leaving the top ranks the last decade or two, witness the St. Pete Times interviews and articles, and now the New Yorker magazine article regarding Paul Haggis, since that New Yorker article nicely summarizes the last decade of controversies surrounding Scientology.
It'd be nice to get more recollections out of Bill, and out of the memories of others who lived through the tumultuous late 1970s up through Hubbard's death, where the final setup of Scientology top leadership evolved, and the various top players jockeyed to do their roles. Roles which Hubbard wrote for them to assume. (The transition from the old "Commodore's Staff Aides" and "Flag Bureaux" and "LRH Personal Office" setups, to the Int Headquarters setup with RTC, CMO Int, Exec Strata, and with Author Services Inc taking on some of the old "LRH Pers Office" duties, and additionally how CST evolved and grew based on Hubbard's long term ideas about "preserving" his tech for the LONG future, etc.) The history of Hubbard's final years, spelled out more in detail, with the limitations of the persons who assumed the roles LRH wrote for them, and the braindrain of the late 1970s through the mid part of the 1980s, is important to compare to the following decades of Scientology leadership. As rough and tumble as the late 1970s and up to the mid 1980s was, I'd argue that the leaders displayed more of the "good" aspects of Scientology policy, the then top people displayed more "good" in management tech I'd say, until they each left top management by the early 1980s, one by one.
Bill "mellowed" and bore his responsibilities as ED Int seriously and pretty judiciously, was my impression, when I remember his final time in the Sea Org.
Anyways, this is an important thread, and I hope somehow Bill's views can be made public on related points about his final years in the movement.
Bill ought to also be interviewed by Lawrence Wright, for Lawrence's upcoming book on Scientology.
I'm so glad Bill's had his thoughts posted.
G
Gottabrain
Guest
:BUMP:
Nothing shocks me any more !
Okay gwells. I should be in bed and I'm headin' there after this post.
I guess your "Bill Franks" forgot that he wasn't on the Apollo in '74.:confused2:
But, as you are "obviously" his trusted confidant, I’m sure you can tell me just exactly where he was and what his post during ’74. There are many more “holes” in your post but, for now, I’m “keeping my powder dry”.
Please confer with “Bill” and respond to my statement and inquiry re: ’74.
Face
Also, I was on the Apollo in 1974 and we didn't go to Morocco that year unless it was post October?
La La Lou Lou
Crusader
Hubbard liked the O/W sec check idea because it made the guy wrong for wanting to leave, and took the attention off what Hubbard or the Org had done. Brilliant. It certainly sounds like the Hubbard we all got to know so much better since being out.
If I wasn't so polite I would use the 'C' word for Hubbard, but 'covert' just isn't strong enough.
If I wasn't so polite I would use the 'C' word for Hubbard, but 'covert' just isn't strong enough.