Changing Perspectives; Changing Tactics; Changing Realities

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
There's been a lot said on this subject (yet to be explained) but, the times they *are* a changing, so, I'm going to try to open up what may be a useful discussion.

Back when I first got interested in Scientology (as an opponent) I was like most people getting into a new subject and very enthusiastic about sharing my (often unfounded) opinions.

Mostly I was curious and eager to learn, but, like most people, I had no idea of the depths the subject would lead to. So, like all 'new' people, I thought it should be possible to clarify some misconception by the adherents of an obviously insane belief system and 'free' them from their misconceptions. Heh.

Within a couple of years I learned to recognize that I was a dilettante and that my puny efforts were as naught against the 'Training' in dealing with us 'rational' and 'meatball' wogs. Scientology had *every* answer, and, worse, the mere act of asking questions would trigger a defensive wall more impermeable than 20 inches of bondo with james bondian auto-weapons.

So, I got used to *not* worrying about 'convincing' Scientologists and, instead, just listening to them, often if only to discern the often changing 'party line'.

The fact *is* that Scientologists are *not* convinced out of Scientology. They leave for their own reasons; not because someone found a 'chink' in their armor. The 'Critic' community has always had a bit of a dispute about this subject. For the most part, the saner and more experienced 'critics' recognized that Scientology Opposition was mostly about educating *non-Scientologists*; not Scientologists, who have what is, when it's functioning, a *perfect* defense against 'outside agitators'.

Naturally, there were always disputes. Newbies to the scene always think you can 'talk' and are sometimes embarassingly blind to the 'handling'. I know I was. And, some who should know better were *certain* that there had to be a 'magic word' or 'silver bullet' you could use to 'get people out'.

In my opinion, there is no such thing. The Scientology defense is *very very good*. And, I have spent years attempting to direct 'critical attention' to informing the public at large (including Scientologists) to the problems with Scientology, rather than concentrating on 'getting people out', which I considered a waste of time.

I'm starting this thread now because I think there is a paradigm shift. There is a sea change. There is a critical mass reached where the tactics *can* change.

And, the reason is that such a large percentage of *current* Scientologists *have* been informed, thanks to wog media and activism that they *have* been investigating Scientology on their own and *are* very close to 'out' themselves. And, ESMB itself is one of the very important elements of this, because, while a Scientologist *won't* listen to a wog or a renegade, there are now so many people *out* that there is a community of those people and the people only marginally 'in'.

Not saying that people should be 'trying' to 'get people out', because that instantly triggers the 'enemy' button, but, it's become a valid and effective tactic in halting the ongoing horror of Scientology.

Zinj
 

EP - Ethics Particle

Gold Meritorious Patron
Well OK!

Point(s) well made Zinj - I did, in fact, get out for my own reasons...however vague they are were, are and likely will always be.

That said, I have got several others "out" just by tellin them that I was "out", not coming back - and recommending the same to them.

They were ready.

In my opinion, there is little, if any, downside risk to simply stating where you are to friends still "in".

For what it's worth,

Mike/EP
 

Carmel

Crusader
Thanks for the post, Zinj - Yep, these are different times, and times when just about everything helps.

With the way things are now with the ever increasing pressure and insanities put on the public, staff and crew; the many 'known' dedicated scios leaving; the many exes speaking out; the critics; anonymous; the media; and the lawsuits etc; are now all having an effect which they didn't have before.

These days, many who are 'in', are questioning, whereas they didn't before. This leaves them open to impingement from the above, as well as open to direct contact.

If ya try to force your opinion on them, then you'd still hit that wall. But if and when ya listen to them, step in their shoes, and help them look in the right direction so they can then start getting some answers that they are wanting for themselves, then they will or can.

So many of the "dedicated" Scientologists who are left, have had enough and are going the adverse affect of what has been going down. They don't have an option though, to walk - or at least they feel they don't. They feel that would be a cop out to say the least. Speaking with people who have been in their shoes, and/or finding out that there are thousands who have been in their shoes, opens doors for them in regard to looking - "it's not just them".

They are the ones who need to look, in order to see, and then to walk - Guiding them as to where to where to look, helps. Many wouldn't look in anywhere near the 'right' direction, if they weren't helped to do so by a previously trusted associate or friend. Some do so, without that assistance, but at least now when they do, there is just so, so much to find (not like before).

When they look, the pennies starts dropping all over the place - The exodus of the early '80's comes to mind, so does the activity of Anonymous and the critics, the media etc, and not to mention the insanities within the Church itself that these days each and every one has had a taste of.

Feral and I have helped many look and see, and as a result, many have walked - these people have then helped others do the same. We were/are known in our area, so it helped in regard to some people thinking twice. There would have been no thinking twice though if things were plain sailing within the org, AND, it could or would have been calmer waters within the org, if the critics, Anonymous, the media, the lawsuits etc didn't come into play.

Everything has a part in it. Much has contributed to the internal pressure on the org's and their public, which is having an effect on the 'followers', AND, now that just about anyone who has been 'in' for any length of time has old friends who are out, and who are speaking out.......it's a very different scenario than what it was a few years ago. That exponential curve is certainly moving from its horizontal position to a vertical one, but its not doing it all by itself.
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
There's been a lot said on this subject (yet to be explained) but, the times they *are* a changing, so, I'm going to try to open up what may be a useful discussion.

Back when I first got interested in Scientology (as an opponent) I was like most people getting into a new subject and very enthusiastic about sharing my (often unfounded) opinions.

Mostly I was curious and eager to learn, but, like most people, I had no idea of the depths the subject would lead to. So, like all 'new' people, I thought it should be possible to clarify some misconception by the adherents of an obviously insane belief system and 'free' them from their misconceptions. Heh.

Within a couple of years I learned to recognize that I was a dilettante and that my puny efforts were as naught against the 'Training' in dealing with us 'rational' and 'meatball' wogs. Scientology had *every* answer, and, worse, the mere act of asking questions would trigger a defensive wall more impermeable than 20 inches of bondo with james bondian auto-weapons.


Training and peer pressure, this pair make for a formidable weapon of defense. Some people turn into robots, some into authoritarians. This is more armor.




So, I got used to *not* worrying about 'convincing' Scientologists and, instead, just listening to them, often if only to discern the often changing 'party line'.


Good move. Know your "enemy."





The fact *is* that Scientologists are *not* convinced out of Scientology. They leave for their own reasons; not because someone found a 'chink' in their armor.


Correct.

Mostly it is Scientology getting rid of it's best people. Give it enough time and it will self-destruct.



The 'Critic' community has always had a bit of a dispute about this subject. For the most part, the saner and more experienced 'critics' recognized that Scientology Opposition was mostly about educating *non-Scientologists*; not Scientologists, who have what is, when it's functioning, a *perfect* defense against 'outside agitators'.


Scientology cannot survive without new people coming in. After the decimation of the Mission network, it was WISE that saved their bacon. Both those avenues relied on personal contact. DM has eliminated most of the people who could effectively represent the subject to new people. The media presentations in Org Div. 6's is just another weird, unworkable solution. If you want to see the church vanish, send DM a commendation chit. He's getting the job done.



Naturally, there were always disputes. Newbies to the scene always think you can 'talk' and are sometimes embarassingly blind to the 'handling'. I know I was. And, some who should know better were *certain* that there had to be a 'magic word' or 'silver bullet' you could use to 'get people out'.

In my opinion, there is no such thing.


Correctomundo.


The Scientology defense is *very very good*. And, I have spent years attempting to direct 'critical attention' to informing the public at large (including Scientologists) to the problems with Scientology, rather than concentrating on 'getting people out', which I considered a waste of time.

I'm starting this thread now because I think there is a paradigm shift. There is a sea change. There is a critical mass reached where the tactics *can* change.

And, the reason is that such a large percentage of *current* Scientologists *have* been informed, thanks to wog media and activism that they *have* been investigating Scientology on their own and *are* very close to 'out' themselves. And, ESMB itself is one of the very important elements of this, because, while a Scientologist *won't* listen to a wog or a renegade, there are now so many people *out* that there is a community of those people and the people only marginally 'in'.

Not saying that people should be 'trying' to 'get people out', because that instantly triggers the 'enemy' button, but, it's become a valid and effective tactic in halting the ongoing horror of Scientology.

Zinj


If someone is *in* it is because that person has a perceived payoff or hope of obtaining a payoff because of being *in* and involved.

It's that simple.

Well, maybe not that simple. Some people love a good fight just because its a fight. Resistance is great havingness. And even though the fight may be long and arduous, people do not necessarily quite a relationship because things are bad. War and battles and shared, stressful experience bind people together.

What's the perceived payoff? That's the question. If you can show that it is unattainable, game over.

The difficulty in finding the perceived payoff is that it can change over time and involvement. The perceived payoff (reward) can change to the point the person forgets the original reason they got involved in the first place. The org's purposes and needs override the individual's.

I bet you will find OT's whose ruins were never handled. Thousands of hours and dollars later, they are still hoping for the ruin to be handled -- maybe on their next level. (See OT-8 Michael Pattison's unsuccess story.)

Most of the individuals I met wanted to, in their own way, make more money and have better relationships (2D) -- not necessarily in that order. Most Life Repairs on beginning pc's were much about 2D in one shape or another, and other relationships. I doubt it has changed 30 years later.

As we know, most people are not making more money and having better 2Ds because of Scientology. The divorce rate is atrocious. No time off, no sex, never enough money, no bowling on Thursday nights,... It's a bust.
:omg:
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
There's been a lot said on this subject (yet to be explained) but, the times they *are* a changing, so, I'm going to try to open up what may be a useful discussion.

Back when I first got interested in Scientology (as an opponent) I was like most people getting into a new subject and very enthusiastic about sharing my (often unfounded) opinions.

Mostly I was curious and eager to learn, but, like most people, I had no idea of the depths the subject would lead to. So, like all 'new' people, I thought it should be possible to clarify some misconception by the adherents of an obviously insane belief system and 'free' them from their misconceptions. Heh.

Within a couple of years I learned to recognize that I was a dilettante and that my puny efforts were as naught against the 'Training' in dealing with us 'rational' and 'meatball' wogs. Scientology had *every* answer, and, worse, the mere act of asking questions would trigger a defensive wall more impermeable than 20 inches of bondo with james bondian auto-weapons.

So, I got used to *not* worrying about 'convincing' Scientologists and, instead, just listening to them, often if only to discern the often changing 'party line'.

The fact *is* that Scientologists are *not* convinced out of Scientology. They leave for their own reasons; not because someone found a 'chink' in their armor. The 'Critic' community has always had a bit of a dispute about this subject. For the most part, the saner and more experienced 'critics' recognized that Scientology Opposition was mostly about educating *non-Scientologists*; not Scientologists, who have what is, when it's functioning, a *perfect* defense against 'outside agitators'.

Naturally, there were always disputes. Newbies to the scene always think you can 'talk' and are sometimes embarassingly blind to the 'handling'. I know I was. And, some who should know better were *certain* that there had to be a 'magic word' or 'silver bullet' you could use to 'get people out'.

In my opinion, there is no such thing. The Scientology defense is *very very good*. And, I have spent years attempting to direct 'critical attention' to informing the public at large (including Scientologists) to the problems with Scientology, rather than concentrating on 'getting people out', which I considered a waste of time.

I'm starting this thread now because I think there is a paradigm shift. There is a sea change. There is a critical mass reached where the tactics *can* change.

And, the reason is that such a large percentage of *current* Scientologists *have* been informed, thanks to wog media and activism that they *have* been investigating Scientology on their own and *are* very close to 'out' themselves. And, ESMB itself is one of the very important elements of this, because, while a Scientologist *won't* listen to a wog or a renegade, there are now so many people *out* that there is a community of those people and the people only marginally 'in'.

Not saying that people should be 'trying' to 'get people out', because that instantly triggers the 'enemy' button, but, it's become a valid and effective tactic in halting the ongoing horror of Scientology.

Zinj

I have often wonder about myself, and how deeply ingrained scientology is in me. I was going to start a thread likening it to a rootkit. There is no convincing possible with a scientologist, at least one with an understanding of it. And the more knowledge and experience, the deeper it goes.

The paradigm change is that the church has moved off the point of being scientology to such an extent that it is too hard to ignore.

I would suggest as "tactics" to welcome and tolerate the person no matter the belief and don't to tolerate behavior that is out of bounds. What out of bounds consists of, requires wisdom (and a bit more tolerance).
 
Getting people out, may be a noble goal, but probably an unrealistic goal, I feel it's more important to neutralize the cult's false claims and disinformation by spreading the truth. It's far more effective to educate potential targets the cult preys on than it is to convinced brainwashed members to leave. They will leave on their own once they hit a certain threshold of abuse and reality bitch slaps them upside the head. Even though Hubbard intended his cult to indoctrinate people for life, he created a meat grinder instead.
 

Tim Skog

Silver Meritorious Patron
:goodposting:

Thanks for your post Zinj. I think you make a good point about how to go about assisting someone who is "in" to want to leave. I believe you are right about there being a sea change.

There have been a number of members on this board who have talked about still having connections to people who are in and this has to have an effect on the person who is trying to be a true believer.

Scientology is not growing and appears to be shrinking right before the very eyes of members. That alone would get me wondering what was going on if I were still a true believer.
 

Carmel

Crusader
Getting people out, may be a noble goal, but probably an unrealistic goal <snip>

In ANZO we have demonstrated that it is not an unrealistic goal.

Nine months ago, Feral and I were very recently "out". I knew 'Mate' who had posted his story on ESMB, but we didn't know anyone else on the board. We were pretty well on our 'own', here in the Sydney area, and then very shortly after, Panda arrived. At that time, we didn't know anyone else who was "out", let alone anyone else who was posting on the board.

Feral and I got on the phone to all our mates, letting them know what we had found, and giving them links to stuff we thought would communicate. We also sent out bulk emails/letters to the entire Sydney field. We directed any and all to ESMB.

There weren't any "stories" from Sydney on the board or on the net. It was a bit of a bitch. We wanted local stories available to the people in our area, from people who were known, so that if and when people looked, they couldn't or wouldn't as easily be able to just write them off as BS.

For that reason (at that time), we posted our own stories. Doing so, we "outed" ourselves, which had its plus and negative aspects. On the one hand, OSA tried to get any and all to disconnect from us, so a lot of our lines were cut. On the other hand though, after the word had been spread around by OSA that we were posting on the net, many looked at the net to find what we had posted - It didn't gel with many that we were the bad asses that OSA were making us out to be, so some checked it out for themselves, or rang us when they couldn't find it or wanted some answers.

Many read our stories, and then forwarded them to others. We sent out links of our stories to any and all, and we did so despite the fact that they may have been disconnected from us. We got a lot of response - good and bad.

Then in no time, there were a few others from Sydney on the board - Supra, Jakadak, Sir Facer, Stably Exterior, Scooter, Mary Magdeline and other friends who were popping up. Then Scoots started posting his story.

The word was getting around the field. OSA kept stuffing up, by promoting that these different people were out. It made many think twice, as to why - and coupled with the fact that the insanities within the org were on the increase, many were already looking for answers.

We got to the point where we stopped contacting people - instead now, people were contacting us. And people were asking us for advice on how to approach all this with their friends. We obviously gave advice on this, and also helped out when and where we could.

Things were rolling along, and in a relatively short space of time, several hundred had ended up looking - Some because of what they had heard, some because they were directed to, some because of briefings from OSA, and some because they were at the end of their tether (and when they first looked they found data from people who they knew and trusted). This ended up in them waking up and then "walking", through reasons and realities of their own.

There is all the reason in the world for those 'in' to see that things aren't right and get out, but for other reasons they don't. Direct contact with or from a mate, and/or accounts of events within the org from someone who one trusts or has trusted, certainly can and has given many the nudge they needed to open their eyes and face some facts.

See some data I gave on this thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11761

I know that for many here in Sydney, the scales have been doing a balancing act for a long time. Those scales got bloody wobbly for many, after the basic books evolution and all that it entailed, and after Anon started having a serious effect on the org and the inflow of new public.

I can say with certainty, that direct contact, the stories from ANZO now, and the number who are out now from our area, has been a key factor in having those scales finally tip for many in our area.

Feral and I had a goal and we went for it (we still are going for it). If we didn't, there would be many who are now "out", who would still be "in". We wouldn't have had the effect we have had; if the critics hadn't done what they did years ago; if GAT didn't happen; if the basics evolution didn't happen; if Anon weren't doing what they do; if ESMB didn't exist; and if the orgs weren't cannibalising on their own public and crew as they are today - Given all these things though, stepping in and giving things a nudge was possible, and it did speed things up.

Initially it was like pushing shit up hill, but then the more who got out (including the few who "came out"), the more willing those people still "in" became, to look and then to see. And of course, the more people getting out led to an ever increasing number of people who were contacting others in an effort to get them to look. It ended up snowballing.

It's not just by 'chance' that the speed at which many who have gotten out of Scn in Sydney and ANZO, is fast or faster compared to other areas. Some of us wanted to give it a shove along - We did and it's had/having an effect.
 

byte301

Crusader
I agree with you, Zinj. If it was me at the org 30 years ago, I would just dig in my heels and battle it out with protesters.

So when I protest I aim my attention at the wog public. I mostly ignore the org and concentrate on passer bys.

We do have a couple of signs that we haul out on the rare occasion a scilon appears. One is about Rinder blowing and the other is about PsycoticChaotic since her mom is the ED of the org.

I'm thinking it's time to make one up about pc folders not being kept confidential.

I'd love to get some of those poor people out...


Carmel, see, people do listen to opinion leaders!! You and Feral need to take a bow. And THAT'S one success story I wouldn't mind hip hip hooraying to. :D
 

Iknowtoomuch

Gold Meritorious Patron
Very cool thread. And I see what you mean.

One other interesting point is that most (from what I can see) people that have left had been in the Sea Org or on staff and actually experienced the biggest problems with Scientology for themselves.

The cool thing is that being in the Sea Org or on staff you can directly point out why things are so bad inside and counter the lies Scientologists hand out.:thumbsup:
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Very cool thread. And I see what you mean.

One other interesting point is that most (from what I can see) people that have left had been in the Sea Org or on staff and actually experienced the biggest problems with Scientology for themselves.

The cool thing is that being in the Sea Org or on staff you can directly point out why things are so bad inside and counter the lies Scientologists hand out.:thumbsup:

Actually, to judge by ESMB de-lurkers, it's pretty evenly balanced, although, since the SO is only about 10% of the total membership, that itself is unbalanced.

I think the thing is, it's *easier* for public/staff to just 'fade away', while SO requires a very specific 'blow'. So, what we're seeing is a lot of the 'faders' beginning to show up along with the people who 'left' the SO (or staff position) more directly.

I think it's because the 'faders' are realizing that they are not alone.

Zinj
 
I agree. I agree that there is probably a 'critical mass' now, who will have aleady seen that the "outpoint's" they have noticed are being talked about quite broadly amongst "wogs" and Exes. I think there is sure to be dicussion going on now in peoples (Exes) homes that never happened before.


On the aspect of who scientologists will listen to:
When I was still "sort of in" I read MA theses at the public library by philosophy students. They were not really attacks, but they were critical about some aspects. They pissed me off not because they were a bit critical but they had a stereotpical person-criticizing- a bellief-system. They just seemed very limited.

Then I read "Bare Faced Messiah", at the same library. It was so far beyond whatever else I had read. Shocking. But it was much more real. The author had talked to scios and exes from many different gruops. The ones who loved hubbard but hated the church, the ones who hated it all. The ones who thought the lower bridge was ok but not the upper levels etc. I respected his presentation of all these views and respected that he seemed to present just what he was told and not his version of what he thought a cult was like.
So the most shocking book won me over because it seemed real and an honest presentation of the views and reports of the people interviwed.
 

Iknowtoomuch

Gold Meritorious Patron
Actually, to judge by ESMB de-lurkers, it's pretty evenly balanced, although, since the SO is only about 10% of the total membership, that itself is unbalanced.

I think the thing is, it's *easier* for public/staff to just 'fade away', while SO requires a very specific 'blow'. So, what we're seeing is a lot of the 'faders' beginning to show up along with the people who 'left' the SO (or staff position) more directly.

I think it's because the 'faders' are realizing that they are not alone.

Zinj



That's another great point. I personally know more exstaff/SO than exScientologists. But probably because of who I know (mostly ex staff/SO).
I can't think of a single exScientologist in my city that wasn't on staff or in the SO. I'm sure there are but I don't know them. But I personally know several ex staff/SO.

I'd agree that more regular (public Scientologists) are figuring things out more and more.
 

CornPie

Patron Meritorious
My short stay in scientology, so many years ago, seems like a blur now, but I can clearly remember each person who laid 'entheta' on me.

What got me out of scientology, was experiencing 'entheta' from a number of people; nice, angry, reasonable, exasperated, sarcastic, eyes rolling. It was the whole collection that took its toll. Every one of them had an affect on me, it all added up.

I have heard many approaches on ESMB, and I think every one of them is right. Just because one approach seems stupid, and didn't work on you, doesn't mean it's not going to affect the next person. I get miffed when people criticize somebody else's approach. Some think everybody else is 'wasting their time' if they're not using their approach. Some think they're actually hurting the cause, when not abiding by their rules.

If you've got an approach that works, jolly good, keep it up. But I say, the more the merrier.
 
Last edited:

Operating Wog

Patron with Honors
nobody could have every gotten me out when i was in. part of it is that anyone trying is an SP and therefore instantly discredited. anything they say is lies. you KNOW that. the other part is that you are so invested in it. your life, family, friends, job, apartment, everything tends to revolve around scn. moreso if you are on staff or s.o. the very thought of leaving is like going into witness protection. everything you know - gone. and not everything in a scientology staff member's life sucks. most of the people i knew on staff were awesome people. great friends. had lots of good times, good laughs. and as far as friends and family outside of scientology, you've probably blown them off to a large degree. so if you leave, for many, you are leaving EVERYTHING and starting brand new. it's scary.
 

uncle sam

Silver Meritorious Patron
I am a "fader"...

Actually, to judge by ESMB de-lurkers, it's pretty evenly balanced, although, since the SO is only about 10% of the total membership, that itself is unbalanced.

I think the thing is, it's *easier* for public/staff to just 'fade away', while SO requires a very specific 'blow'. So, what we're seeing is a lot of the 'faders' beginning to show up along with the people who 'left' the SO (or staff position) more directly.

I think it's because the 'faders' are realizing that they are not alone.

Zinj

We 'faders" -love company so we can yak and yak about "how it was for us". I only know a few who are still -in- but they will only push what "they think they know" which is "what they've been told" or have read in "green/red and white". Our strength as faders is perseverance and more and more yak --over whelm them with our yak. Wasn't there an old song called "yackity yak"? We shall yak till we overcome!
thanks zinji
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
We 'faders" -love company so we can yak and yak about "how it was for us". I only know a few who are still -in- but they will only push what "they think they know" which is "what they've been told" or have read in "green/red and white". Our strength as faders is perseverance and more and more yak --over whelm them with our yak. Wasn't there an old song called "yackity yak"? We shall yak till we overcome!
thanks zinji

No prob. It's hard to yak when you're alone :)

Zinj
 
Top