Going Clear - A call from the org

[Intentionally Blank]

I'm sitting here reading EMSB (in google incognito) while my scn mate is fiddling around the kitchen. The phone rings and it's the org. We need people to respond to the NYT review of a book. They did a terrible review - just rehashing all the old lies without citing sources yada yada yada.

S/he tells me they need help. Oh dear, I say, that's terrible. Let me look up the article, is it a new book?

Well, shit, I say, it's not those things at all. It's an interview with the author. It's about his process. Other things he's written. Names some sources for this book. Talks about what he's up to next.

S/he called the org back. It's not a review, s/he says. I'm sitting here with Blanky who looked it up. NO! I didn't read it. NO! I didn't look at it. Oh, you want me to send the response where? Let me write that down.

My spouse is NOT supposed to read the article. Nor even go to the NYT site to post a response. S/he is to write the "usual" atheist, bigoted, poorly researched and send it to [email protected]. (I think, it was a fairly quick convo) I had a small hissy and insisted s/he needs to at least read what the article said before writing a response. It's completely bogus to write a response to something you haven't read and that is not what you've been told. <sigh> I even offered to read it to her. S/he nearly ran from the room.

I'm a little... no, a lot, sickened. S/he's writing a lying, bogus response right now.

Blanky

 

[Moosejewels]

I'm sitting here reading EMSB (in google incognito) while my scn mate is fiddling around the kitchen. The phone rings and it's the org. We need people to respond to the NYT review of a book. They did a terrible review - just rehashing all the old lies without citing sources yada yada yada.

S/he tells me they need help. Oh dear, I say, that's terrible. Let me look up the article, is it a new book?

Well, shit, I say, it's not those things at all. It's an interview with the author. It's about his process. Other things he's written. Names some sources for this book. Talks about what he's up to next.

S/he called the org back. It's not a review, s/he says. I'm sitting here with Blanky who looked it up. NO! I didn't read it. NO! I didn't look at it. Oh, you want me to send the response where? Let me write that down.

My spouse is NOT supposed to read the article. Nor even go to the NYT site to post a response. S/he is to write the "usual" atheist, bigoted, poorly researched and send it to [email protected]. (I think, it was a fairly quick convo) I had a small hissy and insisted s/he needs to at least read what the article said before writing a response. It's completely bogus to write a response to something you haven't read and that is not what you've been told. <sigh> I even offered to read it to her. S/he nearly ran from the room.

I'm a little... no, a lot, sickened. S/he's writing a lying, bogus response right now.

Blanky

It just makes me want to puke when I think of the fact that I'd have

probably done the same as your spouse back in my kool-aid days.

 

[Purple Rain]

I'm sitting here reading EMSB (in google incognito) while my scn mate is fiddling around the kitchen. The phone rings and it's the org. We need people to respond to the NYT review of a book. They did a terrible review - just rehashing all the old lies without citing sources yada yada yada.

S/he tells me they need help. Oh dear, I say, that's terrible. Let me look up the article, is it a new book?

Well, shit, I say, it's not those things at all. It's an interview with the author. It's about his process. Other things he's written. Names some sources for this book. Talks about what he's up to next.

S/he called the org back. It's not a review, s/he says. I'm sitting here with Blanky who looked it up. NO! I didn't read it. NO! I didn't look at it. Oh, you want me to send the response where? Let me write that down.

My spouse is NOT supposed to read the article. Nor even go to the NYT site to post a response. S/he is to write the "usual" atheist, bigoted, poorly researched and send it to [email protected]. (I think, it was a fairly quick convo) I had a small hissy and insisted s/he needs to at least read what the article said before writing a response. It's completely bogus to write a response to something you haven't read and that is not what you've been told. <sigh> I even offered to read it to her. S/he nearly ran from the room.

I'm a little... no, a lot, sickened. S/he's writing a lying, bogus response right now.

Blanky

Oh, that is so sad. Such an abuse of a person's trust. It is really awful that they can control people that way.

It's like signing a contract without reading it.

I guess it will never occur to him or her, "What if this man is innocent? What if I am helping to lynch somebody? I wouldn't listen to the testimony but I will still make the finding of guilt."

Sigh...

 

[Intentionally Blank]

It just makes me want to puke when I think of the fact that I'd have

probably done the same as your spouse back in my kool-aid days.

I want to puke right now. Or hit someone. Possibly both.

 

[Moosejewels]

I want to puke right now. Or hit someone. Possibly both.

Just puke. We've already got too much violence in the world

But I do understand.

 

[Intentionally Blank]

Oh, that is so sad. Such an abuse of a person's trust. It is really awful that they can control people that way.

It's like signing a contract without reading it.

I guess it will never occur to him or her, "What if this man is innocent? What if I am helping to lynch somebody? I wouldn't listen to the testimony but I will still make the finding of guilt."

Sigh...

"What if I'm doing exactly what I'm accusing someone else of doing - only he's innocent and I'm not?"

I'm pretty even keeled. I don't offend easily and it takes a lot for me to lose my cool. But lying? I don't handle lying very well.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I'm sitting here reading EMSB (in google incognito) while my scn mate is fiddling around the kitchen. The phone rings and it's the org. We need people to respond to the NYT review of a book. They did a terrible review - just rehashing all the old lies without citing sources yada yada yada.

S/he tells me they need help. Oh dear, I say, that's terrible. Let me look up the article, is it a new book?

Well, shit, I say, it's not those things at all. It's an interview with the author. It's about his process. Other things he's written. Names some sources for this book. Talks about what he's up to next.

S/he called the org back. It's not a review, s/he says. I'm sitting here with Blanky who looked it up. NO! I didn't read it. NO! I didn't look at it. Oh, you want me to send the response where? Let me write that down.

My spouse is NOT supposed to read the article. Nor even go to the NYT site to post a response. S/he is to write the "usual" atheist, bigoted, poorly researched and send it to [email protected]. (I think, it was a fairly quick convo) I had a small hissy and insisted s/he needs to at least read what the article said before writing a response. It's completely bogus to write a response to something you haven't read and that is not what you've been told. <sigh> I even offered to read it to her. S/he nearly ran from the room.

I'm a little... no, a lot, sickened. S/he's writing a lying, bogus response right now.

Blanky

Mind-numbing!

Okay, let's review then how Scientology tech works exactly for this little microcosm phone call and for the rest of the Bridge macrocosm:

1) Scientologist is contacted and briefed.
2) Thereafter, Scientologist must pretend to know something with certainty that they know nothing about.
3) Scientologist is then ordered to write a testimonial (e.g. opinion, success story, et al) which is also provided to them.
4) Scientologist is warned not to look at or learn anything further about the subject which they were ordered to have an "acceptable opinion" about.
5. Scientologist who falsely affixed their signature to someone else's opinion is threatened that this entire event is ultra-secret, vital to the planet's survival and any disclosure of it will be met with severe punishment.
6. If Scientologist unquestioningly follows insane orders and perpetrates a fraud, they are given an "ethics commendation".​

It doesn't have to make sense; it's Scientology!

 

[Intentionally Blank]

Mind-numbing!

Okay, let's review then how Scientology tech works exactly for this little microcosm phone call and for the rest of the Bridge macrocosm:

1) Scientologist is contacted and briefed.
2) Thereafter, Scientologist must pretend to know something with certainty that they know nothing about.
3) Scientologist is then ordered to write a testimonial (e.g. opinion, success story, et al) which is also provided to them.
4) Scientologist is warned not to look at or learn anything further about the subject which they were ordered to have an "acceptable opinion" about.
5. Scientologist who falsely affixed their signature to someone else's opinion is threatened that this entire event is ultra-secret, vital to the planet's survival and any disclosure of it will be met with severe punishment.
6. If Scientologist unquestioningly follows insane orders and perpetrates a fraud, they are given an "ethics commendation".​

It doesn't have to make sense; it's Scientology!

7. If your spouse puts up any kind of fuss s/he's an SP and you should consider leaving.

The call was from the same staffer who worked very hard at ending our marriage years ago when I made a couple of careless comments.

 

[Moosejewels]

Mind-numbing!


. . . . . . It doesn't have to make sense; it's Scientology!

. . . . . .

 

[Free to shine]

Blanky I totally understand too. You really are in a difficult situation and if you want your life to continue without major eruptions, I guess all you can do is express your disapproval and then not dicuss it. Oh my, it makes me shake my head and just wish to hell all the blind and devoted could open their eyes. In fact that's why I am still here ... waiting.

 

[Intentionally Blank]

Blanky I totally understand too. You really are in a difficult situation and if you want your life to continue without major eruptions, I guess all you can do is express your disapproval and then not dicuss it. Oh my, it makes me shake my head and just wish to hell all the blind and devoted could open their eyes. In fact that's why I am still here ... waiting.

Thanks.

 

[clamicide]

Well Blank... I wish I had something to give ya other than a cyber-hug...
This is one reason Scios married to or dating those who aren't usually don't go very far (I say usually, because there are exceptions, and it puts the spouse into the same place you are).

This is "normal" in the cult. Keep reading... keep decompressing. Culties are taught to protect the cult at all cost. It sounds insane, but those who are attacking are people that are out to deny all of humanity of their future freedom. So, they person in the cult is willing to do something that might seem insane or have not real basis, because they are operating off of the 'truth' that the ATTACKER is doing something insane... the ATTACKER in attacking Scientology is putting not only the person's own spiritual eternity and freedom at risk, but that of all mankind...

Keep reading... grab everything you can on cults... read Hassan, Lifton, Sanger... it makes no sense to you, because it doesn't logically make sense, but if you get to know and understand cults, you'll get it.

And I'm sorry.

 

[Purple Rain]

"What if I'm doing exactly what I'm accusing someone else of doing - only he's innocent and I'm not?"

I'm pretty even keeled. I don't offend easily and it takes a lot for me to lose my cool. But lying? I don't handle lying very well.

I really am so sorry, Blanky. I don't know what to say.

 

[Intentionally Blank]

Yanno, I grew up in a cult. A delusional, fundie, christian cult. We were all quite self-righteous and certain we had the One True Way to save the souls of humankind. I can't say I never saw anyone lie to protect someone or something who was causing harm to others. But it wasn't all that common. People were deluded and felt obligated to shove their delusions down the throats of anyone who came within earshot. But .... it wasn't like this.

I've also been in a relationship with an addict (don't I have a charmed life??). This reminds me of that.

And. Why didn't I see this sooner? Maybe I didn't want to look.

And. What am I if I stay silent?

And. My spouse is possibly the kindest, most generous person I know. Smart, funny, talented, and horribly outraged at deception.

This cognitive dissonance stuff is about as much fun as the flu.

Blanky

 

[Purple Rain]

Yanno, I grew up in a cult. A delusional, fundie, christian cult. We were all quite self-righteous and certain we had the One True Way to save the souls of humankind. I can't say I never saw anyone lie to protect someone or something who was causing harm to others. But it wasn't all that common. People were deluded and felt obligated to shove their delusions down the throats of anyone who came within earshot. But .... it wasn't like this.

I've also been in a relationship with an addict (don't I have a charmed life??). This reminds me of that.

And. Why didn't I see this sooner? Maybe I didn't want to look.

And. What am I if I stay silent?

And. My spouse is possibly the kindest, most generous person I know. Smart, funny, talented, and horribly outraged at deception.

This cognitive dissonance stuff is about as much fun as the flu.

Blanky

I'm not sure if it will help but this was in a post on OCMB:

Freedom of Mind by Steven Hassan is a reworking of his book, Releasing the Bonds. In it he describes what he calls the 'strategic interactive approach.' His strategic interactive approach is a set of communication techniques he has developed for non cult members to use on their cult member family members. The intent behind it is reconnection and bringing family members back into the family.

It might be worth a try if you can get hold of the book.

 

[clamicide]

Yanno, I grew up in a cult. A delusional, fundie, christian cult. We were all quite self-righteous and certain we had the One True Way to save the souls of humankind. I can't say I never saw anyone lie to protect someone or something who was causing harm to others. But it wasn't all that common. People were deluded and felt obligated to shove their delusions down the throats of anyone who came within earshot. But .... it wasn't like this.

I've also been in a relationship with an addict (don't I have a charmed life??). This reminds me of that.

And. Why didn't I see this sooner? Maybe I didn't want to look.

And. What am I if I stay silent?

And. My spouse is possibly the kindest, most generous person I know. Smart, funny, talented, and horribly outraged at deception.

This cognitive dissonance stuff is about as much fun as the flu.

Blanky

ah, cognitive dissonance... I always say it's a bitch... Han out here, and again, read everything you can on cults. It will tell you not only about your SO, but yourself from what you say here. Not an indictment... read, learn, heal.

 

[NoName]

It might be worth a try if you can get hold of the book.

I highly recommend both books - I used releasing the bonds extensively with my cultie friend and have gotten him to the point of rather extreme disillusionment. He's still drinking the Kool Aid, but we've had some really good conversations as a result of things I took nearly verbatim from that book.

Also lulzy to ask them if they ever met a Clear and why there are no clinical trials proving the existence of a Clear. I asked both things, and it created a lot of tension, but ultimately I think that the questions playing over and over and over in my friend's head were too much.

And the best advice I ever got was to always leave yourself an exit. Ask sincere questions that encourage critical thinking, but never give a criticism that you can't back away from. Like, "Oh no, I didn't mean.... What I wanted to know was...." Be slippery.

 

[Intentionally Blank]

I'm not sure if it will help but this was in a post on OCMB:



It might be worth a try if you can get hold of the book.

Is Hassan a known name/enemy of scn? Remembering I have a family background with cults, is this something I could have in my personal library without raising suspicions? Or do I need to buy the kindle version?

 

[Purple Rain]

Is Hassan a known name/enemy of scn? Remembering I have a family background with cults, is this something I could have in my personal library without raising suspicions? Or do I need to buy the kindle version?

I would err on the side of caution.

Is there somebody safe you can confide in? An old college friend? Anyone?

I think you should not be alone nor do or say anything hasty. Remember what Katie Holmes went through to leave the cult? It involved a lot of strategising over a long time - but basically she WAS getting Suri out. Period. You need time to explore all the options and space to vent, I think.

 

[Intentionally Blank]

I would err on the side of caution.

Is there somebody safe you can confide in? An old college friend? Anyone?

I think you should not be alone nor do or say anything hasty. Remember what Katie Holmes went through to leave the cult? It involved a lot of strategising over a long time - but basically she WAS getting Suri out. Period. You need time to explore all the options and space to vent, I think.

Yes, thanks. I have one real life friend I share everything with. We've been to hell and back together. I don't trust anyone else not to out me - accidentally or in a moment of upset.