Hurting Each Other

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I've been reading Pook's posts with great interest, I know she makes some valid points, as she always does. I also had been signed up for Trainspotting and for the Ex Scientologist Message Bored- before I quit them. So I saw some of the stuff.

I know that OSA tries to disrupt critical venues. They hate every ex member, they hate critics of any sort, and that's mainly because they perceive enemies everywhere except in the mirror. Truth to tell, though, they don't like their own people. They don't even like the church members who are toeing the line. There's no love in COfS anywhere and that's why it's so easy for them to be so hateful.

Plus,nothing gets a supposedly righteous man or woman (which I mean in the ironic sense as in "We all know Brutus was an honorable man") going like a scapegoat or witch hunt.

But consider this-- much of the heartache and angst caused by human beings is not the result of OSA staff/operatives, or their counterparts (if it's a non Scn venue). No, we do a lot of this to each other.

Most of us including myself have made many friends here (and in some cases, again, like mine, on other forums). There also have been some enmities formed. Not every flame war indicates enmity, but there have been enmities formed in some cases. Some were only short term, some long term.

It wasn't OSA. It's people's infinite capacity to hurt others. I'd feel bad about it except that I honestly feel that our capacity to hurt others (and ourselves) stems from the same wellspring of our capacity to help and make others feel good. It's all free will and it's all our own intentions. Those things that make us act like shitheads are the same phenomena that cause us to be noble and good. So there's a yin yang balance. And that's why I'm OK with it. This is not a post about woe is me, or gee, you're picking on my friend.

Situations can be salvaged plus we can control how we ourselves feel about things. Also, more importantly, there's a lot more constructive, informative, fun, interesting, bantering, loving and charming communication here than the destructive sort.

But on those occasions where it hasn't been constructive, IMO, it generally wasn't OSA. We're more than capable of doing it ourselves and that's where just about every enmity on this board or any other critical venue has originated.

Ourselves.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
My main point is that while OSA surely does try to fuck things up, individuals who aren't OSA can do a pretty good job of it.

Fortunately, that's not all that individual people do. Most of what goes on in the critic's scene is decent and helpful.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Great post Fluffy.

Of course we do it ourselves, I dislike seeing OSA mentioned every time something hits the fan (even if they were involved, so what ... no-one forces us to bother to respond).

The cofs has ZERO social etiquette ... the real world has much but it takes time to work out which parts really matter and which are negotiable in each situation (I'm writing this in a hurry so don't be expecting too much clarity!).

:nervous:

ESMB is like a halfway house or a safe house, where we can be our true (often awful) selves but as you rightly say, we can also be our gentle and caring selves at the touch of a mouse, literally.

I've seen people (you often do it) go from thread to thread ... from stroppy to loving all in a matter of moments (lol).

Recalcitrant one moment and inspirational the next.

Ourselves.

:giggle:

 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I like the halfway house analogy.

Yes, and CofS is totally lacking in social graces. It's funny- well, I've said it before, so have many others, but for a place that carps about communication, they surely suck at it. Not just the occasional short fall- no, they suck so bad, it's like they're trying to screw it up.

They preach confront.
Then they run like scared bunnies when a declared person shows up.

They preach pan determinism (basically, empathy/walk a mile in the person's shoes type thing)
They have no empathy for anyone who's left, who's speaking out, who's chosen another path. They even lack empathy for other CofS members. (Well, some of them lack it. You see that on staff a lot, IMO)

They preach, as I say, good communication
Yet people don't get copies of their KRs or goldenrods. Other people won't talk to them if they are expelled. And if they run across the person in a supermarket (someone I know has had that happen numerous times because of where he lives- he's expelled) they get all weird and red in the face and won't talk to the person.

They say not to use duress or other determining...
yet DM beats his staff. Yet there's RPF. Etc.

I'm sure there's more. It's not just that, ok, the claims are grandiose and the church misses the mark. That they set the bar too high. It's more that they do the opposite of all the cool things they promise. It's like they're trying to be douches.
 
... CofS is totally lacking in social graces. It's funny- well, I've said it before, so have many others, but for a place that carps about communication, they surely suck at it. Not just the occasional short fall- no, they suck so bad, it's like they're trying to screw it up.

They preach confront.
Then they run like scared bunnies when a declared person shows up.

They preach pan determinism (basically, empathy/walk a mile in the person's shoes type thing)
They have no empathy for anyone who's left, who's speaking out, who's chosen another path. They even lack empathy for other CofS members. (Well, some of them lack it. You see that on staff a lot, IMO)

They preach, as I say, good communication
Yet people don't get copies of their KRs or goldenrods. Other people won't talk to them if they are expelled. And if they run across the person in a supermarket (someone I know has had that happen numerous times because of where he lives- he's expelled) they get all weird and red in the face and won't talk to the person.

They say not to use duress or other determining...
yet DM beats his staff. Yet there's RPF. Etc.

I'm sure there's more. It's not just that, ok, the claims are grandiose and the church misses the mark. That they set the bar too high. It's more that they do the opposite of all the cool things they promise. It's like they're trying to be douches.

I've always have said this about the church. It's the obvious outpoint which is routinely overlooked by active scientologists, the 'elephant in the room' as it were. The fundamentals of scientology are completely 'out' within the church and have been since at least '79', back when I got in. Policy trumps tech within the church, particularly those policies which enforce obedience to hierarchy.

When I was first involved I had the attitude that the active effort of the scientology community of the time was aimed at putting the fundamentals of communications & auditing tech 'in'. As more scientologists 'went up the bridge' and started to apply basic concepts of scientology routinely in their daily interactions then the situation within the church should improve, at least in theory.

Over the next two years, as I went up the bridge, what I noticed was that conditions, far from 'ideal' at first, far from improving continued to decline. That continuing decline (aka 'continuous downstat') I consider is what led to the Great Schism of the early '80s. Those most attuned to the problems within the church were those who sought to change things and were forced out.

Clearly, things have not improved within the church since those days. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

When I was first involved I had the attitude that the active effort of the scientology community of the time was aimed at putting the fundamentals of communications & auditing tech 'in'.

-snip-

What year was that? 1979?

It was quite culty and nuts in 1970, but with specks of sanity. I told myself that the specks of sanity were the real Scientology. I was wrong.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Wehavemet01.jpg
 
What year was that? 1979?

It was quite culty and nuts in 1970, but with specks of sanity. I told myself that the specks of sanity were the real Scientology. I was wrong.

Yes, '79, as I said. Others such as Carmelo Orchard, Alan Walter, and Purple Haze have commented on how they observed the continuous decline in the scientology community from even earlier days than myself. In the instances of CO & PH thus prompting their own earlier departures from scientology organizations.

Personally, I attribute this continual decline as resulting from the increased role which the Sea Org began to play in controlling church organization. From its inception as a small band of early adopters with experience with the auditing tech of scientology through its expansion into an organization with minimal standards for recruitment and an emphasis on recruitment numbers over preparation or prerequisites it increasingly emphasized its function as the shock troops for the implementation of hubbard's various follys.

However, I can only comment upon what I have observed for myself since circa the late 70s and also remark upon what I've heard heard from other reputable old timer sources.

It was noticeably 'culty', as you put it, even then; though from a public/mission perspective not especially dangerous or restrictive. I observed little which served as a genuine obstacle to interaction with outside influences among scientologists of the time although a trend that way was increasing. Many maintained 'outside' relationships despite participation in the church, myself included. For the most part, the Sea Orgies seemed a bit weird even then, but were mostly harmless. That changed by the '80s as the online reports of the times clearly indicate.


Mark A. Baker
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, '79, as I said. Others such as Carmelo Orchard, Alan Walter, and Purple Haze have commented on how they observed the continuous decline in the scientology community from even earlier days than myself. In the instances of CO & PH thus prompting their own earlier departures from scientology organizations.

Personally, I attribute this continual decline as resulting from the increased role which the Sea Org began to play in controlling church organization. From its inception as a small band of early adopters with experience with the auditing tech of scientology through its expansion into an organization with minimal standards for recruitment and an emphasis on recruitment numbers over preparation or prerequisites it increasingly emphasized its function as the shock troops for the implementation of hubbard's various follys.

However, I can only comment upon what I have observed for myself since circa the late 70s and also remark upon what I've heard heard from other reputable old timer sources.

It was noticeably 'culty', as you put it, even then; though from a public/mission perspective not especially dangerous or restrictive. I observed little which served as a genuine obstacle to interaction with outside influences among scientologists of the time although a trend that way was increasing. Many maintained 'outside' relationships despite participation in the church, myself included. For the most part, the Sea Orgies seemed a bit weird even then, but were mostly harmless. That changed by the '80s as the online reports of the times clearly indicate.


Mark A. Baker

Speaking from firsthand knowledge and experience the whole timbre, culture and organizational mindset of the SO was constructed, fostered and reinforced directly and continuously by El Ron.:yes:

And, yes there was definitely a pronounced shift in the Service Orgs atmosphere with the Advent of the SO. I was there, too in '67 and saw and experienced that firsthand.:coolwink:


Face :)
 

Veda

Sponsor
Here's an old re-post. It provides a little history and perhaps some perspective:


People have been leaving the CofS since 1954 when Scientology was incorporated as a Church. Before that, people left Dianetics, some of the better remembered are J.A. Winter (who wrote the Introduction for 'DMSMH'), and John Campbell (who published the first article on Dianetics in his 'Astounding Science Fiction' magazine). They left in 1950 and 1951.

Then came the transition to Scientology, after Hubbard lost the rights to the name 'Dianetics', and decided to drive former business partner, supporter and benefactor, Don Purcell, bonkers by concocting - pretty much overnight - "Whole Track Maps," and then the book 'History of Man' ("This is a cold blooded and factual account of your last 60 trillion years.") And more left.

Richard DeMille, who wrote some pieces now attributed to Hubbard, left around 1953. There were many others.

Around 1954, Hubbard, applying his "religion angle," wrote a for-display-to-Raw-Meat&Homo-Saps&Wogs 'Creed', and made Scientology a "Church," and more left.

1955 saw the publication of the vitriolic and devious 'Manual on Dissemination of Material' and the fraud-upon-Scientologists fake 'Russian textbook', and more decided Scientology was not for them, and left.

In 1959, L. Ron Hubbard Jr. left.

Lots of people left in the early 1960s with the era of 'Security Checking', deciding that any group that insists that its members undergo metered interrogation, with such questions as "Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard?" was not for them.

By 1965, Hubbard wrote 'Keeping Scientology Working', invented the SP Doctrine and SP Declares, Disconnection, the Fair Game Law, and the very confidential, "deadly serious," and vital to your survival, history of the universe&your mind, and starting calling himself 'Source', and many more people left. Amongst them was the first person to have been a 'Doctor of Scientology' (the Class 12 of that day), Jack Horner.

In 1967 came the Sea Org and Xenu, and more left.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Commodore and his ashtray-carrying 13 year old girl servants were a law unto themselves on the 'Flagship', the "safest and sanest place in the universe," and more left.

John McMaster, 'The World's First Real Clear' and the 'Pope' of Scientology, left.

Writer William Burroughs came along, was involved briefly, did the Clearing Course then, upon completion, when asked if he wished to sign up for OT2, said, "No thanks," and left.

Many others left.

Then came the RPF and the RPF's RPF, and more left.

By early 1977, Hubbard had written his "LSD, Years after they had Come of off' HCOB, in which he described people who had ever taken LSD as "zombies," and soon after told them that they were required to wear rubber suits and run around for hours, and more left.

Then, in July 1977 came the FBI raids, and two years later came the court-ordered release of thousands of pages of secret Scientology documents, revealing much of Hubbard's secret spying and covert attack tech, and even more left.

Then Hubbard decided that almost everyone was "Clear" and needed to exit Missions (which he was in the early stage of looting), and go "up lines" and spend their money there; and, while in hiding from (real or imagined) subpoena servers, Hubbard even wrote a "Common Sense Moral Code" - making him an authority on "morality" - that advised, amongst other things, against being sexually promiscuous so as to avoid having "ground glass in the soup," and more people left.

This was followed, a few years later, by Hubbard responding to the Mission Holders Meeting of late 1981 by sending his #1 henchman, David Miscavige, to "handle" the next Mission Holders meeting of late 1982, and more left.

Then, roughly around that time, came the partial unearthing of Hubbard's past by way of the "Shannon documents," obtained through the Freedom of Information act (by a curious non-Scientologist), and more left.

By July 1984, there was Gerry Armstrong vs. Church of Scientology, and the further unearthing of Hubbard's past, and even more left.

Then came books like 'Messiah or Madman?' and 'Barefaced Messiah', and many more left.

Then came the Internet.

And then came ESMB.

 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation


Lol!

I love that.

I think scientology is and was whatever we wanted it be at the time ... the first few years 'in' were likely to have been viewed through rose coloured glasses (in whichever era that happened to be) and once the glasses were removed the trap door had already slammed closed (for most) and it felt impossible to walk away ... right up until we decided to do so anyway and fly up and out, to freedom.


:fly2::fly2::fly2:
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Anyone notice how much better things get after one leaves CofS? That seems to include, IMO, one's communication skills.
 
Anyone notice how much better things get after one leaves CofS? That seems to include, IMO, one's communication skills.

That is wholly dependent upon how much one allowed one's self to be constrained during one's involvement with the Co$. In other words, its not the fact of involvement, its the reality of self-constraint.


Mark A. Baker
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
True, but I will say this- one does constrain oneself, yes. But one also has enforcement...tantamount to an implant in CofS.
 

xguardian

Patron with Honors
I've been reading Pook's posts with great interest, I know she makes some valid points, as she always does. I also had been signed up for Trainspotting and for the Ex Scientologist Message Bored- before I quit them. So I saw some of the stuff.

I know that OSA tries to disrupt critical venues. They hate every ex member, they hate critics of any sort, and that's mainly because they perceive enemies everywhere except in the mirror. Truth to tell, though, they don't like their own people. They don't even like the church members who are toeing the line. There's no love in COfS anywhere and that's why it's so easy for them to be so hateful.

Plus,nothing gets a supposedly righteous man or woman (which I mean in the ironic sense as in "We all know Brutus was an honorable man") going like a scapegoat or witch hunt.

But consider this-- much of the heartache and angst caused by human beings is not the result of OSA staff/operatives, or their counterparts (if it's a non Scn venue). No, we do a lot of this to each other.

Most of us including myself have made many friends here (and in some cases, again, like mine, on other forums). There also have been some enmities formed. Not every flame war indicates enmity, but there have been enmities formed in some cases. Some were only short term, some long term.

It wasn't OSA. It's people's infinite capacity to hurt others. I'd feel bad about it except that I honestly feel that our capacity to hurt others (and ourselves) stems from the same wellspring of our capacity to help and make others feel good. It's all free will and it's all our own intentions. Those things that make us act like shitheads are the same phenomena that cause us to be noble and good. So there's a yin yang balance. And that's why I'm OK with it. This is not a post about woe is me, or gee, you're picking on my friend.

Situations can be salvaged plus we can control how we ourselves feel about things. Also, more importantly, there's a lot more constructive, informative, fun, interesting, bantering, loving and charming communication here than the destructive sort.

But on those occasions where it hasn't been constructive, IMO, it generally wasn't OSA. We're more than capable of doing it ourselves and that's where just about every enmity on this board or any other critical venue has originated.

Ourselves.

Your right. Hubbard was wrong with his claim "Man is basically good." We have teach our children to be good and do the right thing. No one has to be taught to be bad, nasty, and misbehave...it's our nature.
And he was way off about SP's being 2% making 10% PTS. It's now more like 20% MAKING 80% PTS...Thus greed, hate, war etc...:coolwink:
 
Top