Bill Frank's story about brainwashing (thread merge)

[Gottabrain]

To Chuck Beatty:
I didn't know Bill Franks as you did, it's clear you have a lot of admiration for the man. He was/is certainly intelligent. The militant style was what Hubbard preferred.

In defense of Kerry Gleeson (who I DID know and deal with personally in the SO), he was usually more bark than bite. It was a show - not how he really felt. For the most part, he didn't believe in abusive tactics and undermined nearly all the controls that the C of S and its execs had previously implemented. Kerry personally hatted me as Dir I&R AOLA and put me on that post. He emphasized inspections and letting the staff know what came up on inspections and finding the small things that were going wrong to avoid the big things. Kerry felt that Comm Evs and various punishments could be avoided altogether and that training and inspections could & should do that.
Because of his views, AOLA had a very benign ethics department and staff were comfortable and happy and doing well until other mgmt bodies interfered(as usual).

These are the things he personally believed. His emphasis was completely different to the prior military style and went directly against the heavy controls that mgmt believed and followed. He enjoyed giving individual staff credit and working with individuals. And everyone in management hated him for that - from CMO to WDC to INT. (as seen on his Comm Ev) Kerry did his own thing.

He personally reprieved the entire PAC RPF at that time - between 140-160 people. CMO was in an uproar! How dare he! heh heh That took a lot of guts and was one of the biggest nails in his Comm Ev. He wasn't perfect, he made mistakes too and personally caused some injustices (i.e., Lorita Hill, that was WRONG). But when one takes into account that he was standing up against the entire Int regimen by himself with his views that Int Mgmt interference was bad for orgs and Int should stay out of Orgs and let them prosper on their own and take care of their own, he was a pretty bright light. He was completely against upper mgmt raping orgs for money when staff were getting paid so lousy. I guess he was naive in his way, but personally, I thought Kerry Gleeson was awfully cool. Declared an SP for it. Have a read of the Comm Ev - it's the same one that nailed David Mayo:

http://www.tr-l.org/mott0096.htm
http://www.antisectes.net/religious-technology-center-conditions-order-1-3.pdf

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally 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.

Nice!

RogerB

TRANSLATION: Zinj is an SP. He held the stats down. Now that we have gotten his 1.1 enturbulation off our theta lines, we are flourishing and prospering! Hey, that quietly-dispose-of-without-sorrow tech really works! Now I know with total certainty that we CAN clear this mudball and achieve Ron's dreams.

Hey Roger, I have seen a number of your grave-dancing celebrations and cheap shots on Zinj. Why do you fear him so much?

 

[FoTi]

TRANSLATION: Zinj is an SP. He held the stats down. Now that we have gotten his 1.1 enturbulation off our theta lines, we are flourishing and prospering! Hey, that quiety-dispose-of-without-sorrow tech really works! Now I know with total certainty that we CAN clear this mudball and achieve Ron's dreams.

Hey Roger, I have seen a number of your grave-dancing celebrations and cheap shots on Zinj. Why do you fear him so much?

Well......things have become a lot more civil and peaceful around here since the recent clean up. It's pretty noticeable.

 

[Sindy]

Well......things have become a lot more civil and peaceful around here since the recent clean up. It's pretty noticeable.

Well, first of all, the polarizing comment (and it was known that it would be that before it was said) was not even necessary as things are going so well here.

Secondly, it's pretty noticeably more peaceful at times, and frankly at times, a lot more boring.

Thank god Bill Franks came here to post.

Can we just leave the other guys, who can't say anything, out of the picture? Was that comment even necessary?

 

[Mystic]

I come here to keep lurkers away from Hubbard's mind fuck, I'm not interested what active Scientologists think, not in the slightest, their opinion is of no value to me, and I have little respect for them since they are actively funding a well documented abusive cult. If they aren't interested in the truth, they can easily register a screen name on this board and place me on their ignore list.

Ya, Chuckie, me too. My gawhd, what if a scientologist had a "good" opinion of you? aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhh

And even the idea of a scientologist having an opinion is a bit far out. Their own opinion? Aw, c'mon. Has to have a mess of hubbard-thing think behind it.

 

[degraded being]

Well, first of all, the polarizing comment (and it was known that it would be that before it was said) was not even necessary as things are going so well here.

Secondly, it's pretty noticeably more peaceful at times, and frankly at times, a lot more boring.

Thank god Bill Franks came here to post.

Can we just leave the other guys, who can't say anything, out of the picture? Was that comment even necessary?

Yes.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Well......things have become a lot more civil and peaceful around here since the recent clean up. It's pretty noticeable.

Well, I can understand what you mean.

However, I did not come here for peace. I came here for fun and to savor the brilliance of creative, free-thinking people.

I think we lost two great ones in Zinj and Alanzo.

Roger's grave dancing is getting really old and annoying.

He should know better than to be afraid of being haunted by incorporeal entities. Must be a bad hangover from that bt thing...

 

[Gottabrain]

Can we all get back on topic, please?

Bill Franks. The history or details of that time period in Scn. Mgmt v tech. Blows are caused by upsets, not withholds...etc.

not to mention a big WELCOME to Bill Franks, who is a bonafide WOG now.

 

[Mystic]

I have become quite suspicious that "Bill Franks" is not the Bill Franks I knew.

 

[Sindy]

Can we all get back on topic, please?

Bill Franks. The history or details of that time period in Scn. Mgmt v tech. Blows are caused by upsets, not withholds...etc.

not to mention a big WELCOME to Bill Franks, who is a bonafide WOG now.

"Oh, all right."






(Just kidding! Of course we can )​

 

[Outethicsofficer]

I would prefer this to be associated with the subject of brainwashing as i believe that is the category it can be of most help to people. best, Bill Franks

Hi Bill and welcome,

Okay the first thing that comes to mind for me then is, with this knowledge at hand how does one go about undoing that brainwashing?

James

 

[Gottabrain]

I have become quite suspicious that "Bill Franks" is not the Bill Franks I knew.

I was suspicious as well, Mystic.

I asked Kerry Gleeson yesterday and he personally verified that the Bill Franks on FB is the real Bill Franks. The Bill Franks on FB is the same one that is on this Board right now and befriended me shortly after I asked him to from this forum.

Kerry's website and contact details are easily verified - he's been a successful writer these years past. But Kerry does not wish to talk about Scn or get involved with any of this. He is 100% WOG now and therefore only keeps friends on his FB that are ex's who DON'T discuss Scn with him or on his FB.

I believe that Bill Franks is new to forums, the board and the entire ex and Indy and Anonymous scene. It seems to me the first people that contacted Bill Franks were Independents from Marty's group, and these are people Bill knew personally so he trusts them and perhaps has been more mild in his comments or views of Scn because of this.

I think he really is entirely new to the whole ex scene as well as to forums, Mystic. You knew him. Why don't you ask him to get on his FB and give him a personal rundown and history of who is who and where they are?

Jesse Prince was in the same situation a year ago.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Hi Bill, if it's really you. You knew me as Gordon Bell. Welcome to ESMB.

Bill may have missed this post Dearest Myssy ... so I have quoted it now in the hope that he will see it when he next looks.

 

[chuckbeatty]

Peer reviewing would not get beyond the stage of finding out that there was no real "research", that procedures were based on "how would a cult leader do this?", that the "therapy" was not designed to be therapeutic but to trap people etc etc etc. No serious 'peer' would want to waste their time peer reviewing a cult. The fact that it is "a religion", itself means that it is generally outside the realm of mainstream psychology. The "therapy" is sold (sorry, donated for) as "spiritual counselling".

The only place it should be "peer reviewed" is in an enquiry leading to revoking all tax exemptions, revoking religious status, and prosecution for physical and psychological abuse, fraud, extortion, blackmail, and human trafficking.

EDIT: Perhaps you meant that anyway? Peer reviewing scientology as a CULT and not as a therapy?
(I just read your post about Prof Kent).

I hadnlt honestly thought it out, since it's above my pay grade, because in America, I think the pressure was on LRH in the early 50s from the medical and psychiatric community that the Dianetics people were NOT qualified to be taking on citizens with real mental illnesses, and THAT is what I really wish would still be done.

Hubbard's policies on acceptance of patients (preclears/parishioners) is so legally cleverly worded as to cover his ass, but in countries that don't recognize Scientology as a religion, well those countries with stronger qualified psych practitioner laws OUGHT to go after Scientology's therapy that is NOT peer reviewed.

Agreed, of course the research is not there.

In the US, with all sorts of quack treatments and mental practices going on left right and center, getting their coincidental placebo benefits by their well intentioned (and some who are absolutely just smooth quacks as well) practitioners, Scientology as a religious practice, because it gets into exorcism at the "upper levels" (OT 3-7 levels are high volume exorcism, which is a spiritual practice, the dead alien spirits that Xenu mass murdered and had implanted with the 36 and 1/2 days of mental crazy science fiction implants) Scientology at the upper levels is exorcism, a spiritual practice.

So really it's a more complicated mess.

We don't even have anyone in the media or scholars talking simply about Scientology.

Scientology's not even simply defined.

It's talk therapy at the lower levels, and it's exorcism at the upper levels.

It really needs a couple of focused books, that really settle simply, some focused simple explanations of what it is, in simple neutral language, and then it can be dissected for what it is.

To me, the biggest "con" LRH has pulled, is the word game he's got Scientology locked into perpetuating, of what Scientology is.

They don't call themselves exorcists, but they do a hell of a lot of exorcism on OT levels 3-7!!

Peer review I meant, of their lower level talk therapy levels, like all the talk therapy that make up the bottom half of the Bridge to Clear.

I'm thinking squirrely type of peer review, like some psychotherapists borrowing and changing any of the lower bridge up to Clear, sort of like how Serge Gerbode did with his Traumatic Incident Reduction therapy he delivers.

That to me is what I meant about "peer review" and I meant MORE like what Serge did, but for the Grades 0-4, the before Clear talk therapy stuff.

The upper levels OT 3-7 exorcism of the dead space aliens that supposedly infest all of us, no one in the licensed psychotherapy field is gonna touch or try to peer review the commands and practices for contacting body thetans and running Incident 1 and 2 on body thetans and on body thetan clusters, that's NOT needed to be peer reviewed. That's obviously a spiritual practice, as ludicrous as that practice is to the average man on the street.

So to clarify, I meant peer review sort of like how Serge Gerbode did with engram running, which I believe he's adopted in some form, in his Traumatic Incident Reduction psychotherapy practice.

I'm for squirreling any "good" out of Hubbard's lower level talk therapy, that's the best I can see in Hubbard's works.

I don't buy Hubbard's bridge as sacrosanct, and the only way out for mankind, etc, etc.

body thetan removal, the OT 3-7 high volume exorcism of the dead space alien souls, that's religious stuff, so let the Scientologists sort out how to deliver that to themselves, if they want to do it.

 

[lkwdblds]

Good Points

Even at 8% of normal wages, how much of that labor goes to keeping up the illusion, how much of it goes to satisfying the paranoia of upper management, and how much of it actually goes to generating income?

I don't foresee Scientology suddenly dying off they have too many assets for that, but it will slowly wither away.

The damage has been done, now that Scientology has been fully exposed nobody in the media is willing to look the other way anymore or make excuses for it to satisfy it's handful of past-their-prime celebrities.

You make good points. I agree with all you say above.
Lakey

 

[Vertley]

Amen

AnonyMary and Ladybird, I so appreciate and like your posts here. Thank you.

Chuck Norris, I have to wonder why you spend time here if you believe that the only people interested in Scn. are looking for a freak show? You seem to be a regular poster here. Reminiscing about any good times we had in the "church" back in the day is at least slightly more theta inducing than bashing people who don't yet have your level of "knowledge" about the "truth". That is the kind of rant that would keep myself, and I'm sure others, away from this blog. You have a perfect right to say whatever you want but I still have to wonder, in light of your comments, why you come here and post.
Please feel free to enlighten me. I don't get it.
Marcy Pearlman Sorensen

Thank You Marcy!
I recently discovered the "ignore list" feature this sites' software has, so that one can block out certain posters if you tire of their rantings and vitriol. It has been a blessing and made the thread very much more enjoyable.

I have a very good understanding why certain individuals lace every single post with demeaning comments about either Hubbard or the Tech. Really, I get why you do that.

But that doesn't make it any less annoying when I come here intent on learning or hearing the viewpoints of those who were/are involved in the subject. I come here occasionally for entertainment, education and community. Not for the constant battering about Hubbard and the "tech" put forth by some.

When I caught wind of Bill Franks posting, I wanted very much to hear what he had to say. Like most others, I want the whole story to come out.

Unfortunately the haters will not be deterred by your query Marcy. I strongly recommend the "ignore list". PM me if you need help finding it.

 

[Gottabrain]

...Agreed, of course the research is not there.

...So really it's a more complicated mess.

It's talk therapy at the lower levels, and it's exorcism at the upper levels....

I like the exorcism concept Very true.

Chuck, I see your point. But dissecting Scn as itself for any therapeutic value is a painfully arduous task. I don't think it's worth it. I think it's better to let the various spinoffs achieve their own momentum, because besides all the control aspects of it and the fact it is untested, the stated Bridge results aren't achieved. Scn doesn't target specific mental illnesses or other problems with specific procedures. It's all a general "feel better" sort of thing, so doesn't lend itself to scientific review. Those of us who have studied other therapy methods have found some of the concepts or procedures helpful here and there, but most are not.

If this is really something you want, then I suggest you take a methodical approach to it from the other direction. Rather than going through all the materials as such, why not start with a specific benefit that you feel is attainable in whole or in part by some part of Scn tech and work it against similar proven therapies and find if it increases benefit or results in that area?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Unfortunately the haters will not be deterred by your query Marcy.

What exactly defines a "hater"?

Would you consider Paulette Cooper a hater?

How about the relatives of Lisa McPherson?

What about "disconnected" family members who cannot talk to their children?

I have yet to see someone actually define that term so it has any useful meaning.

What do you say?

 

[Mystic]

Thank You Marcy!
I recently discovered the "ignore list" feature this sites' software has, so that one can block out certain posters if you tire of their rantings and vitriol. It has been a blessing and made the thread very much more enjoyable.

I have a very good understanding why certain individuals lace every single post with demeaning comments about either Hubbard or the Tech. Really, I get why you do that.

But that doesn't make it any less annoying when I come here intent on learning or hearing the viewpoints of those who were/are involved in the subject. I come here occasionally for entertainment, education and community. Not for the constant battering about Hubbard and the "tech" put forth by some.

When I caught wind of Bill Franks posting, I wanted very much to hear what he had to say. Like most others, I want the whole story to come out.

Unfortunately the haters will not be deterred by your query Marcy. I strongly recommend the "ignore list". PM me if you need help finding it.

I certainly hope I am on your "Ignore list". Yes, take every opportunity to expose the hubbard thing and his "tech" for what it is. To do otherwise would be lacking indeed.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

What exactly defines a "hater"?

Would you consider Paulette Cooper a hater?

How about the relatives of Lisa McPherson?

What about "disconnected" family members who cannot talk to their children?

I have yet to see someone actually define that term so it has any useful meaning.

What do you say?

A hater is anyone who isn't here to hold hands and singing Kumbaya while they participate in the 12 Step Cult Members Anonymous meeting