Karen de la Carriere Jentsch - a pillar of sanity amidst the insanity

1) Intentional or not, the OP is essentially an advertisement for Karen's auditing/cs'ing services, including a "testimonial" (aka "success story," "win") from an unknown source, posted by someone other than the actual originator of the testimonial. ...

Not a 'success' story, a 'rescue from the insanities of the church' story. It might easily be viewed as an anecdote attesting to Karen's integrity, but it doesn't serve to address the question of the 'success of her tech'. That is a different matter.

Emma's comment is most apt.


Mark A. Baker
 

Terril park

Sponsor
What happened to Chesed?

I'm not so familiar with Jewish religious literature. However I'm
part Jewish by blood and through my mothers line. I went to
a UK Grammer school where half the students were Jewish, in London's east end. Very smart people, and many personal friends were and are Jewish.

My main and somewhat scanty knowledge of Judaism sterms from Crowleys commentary from the Kaballah which I see as a root of Scn.

As Mark comments the sayings of Jesus were based on earlier
philosophical statements.

Thanks for connecting some dots for me. :)
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I'm not so familiar with Jewish religious literature. However I'm
part Jewish by blood and through my mothers line. I went to
a UK Grammer school where half the students were Jewish, in London's east end. Very smart people, and many personal friends were and are Jewish.

My main and somewhat scanty knowledge of Judaism sterms from Crowleys commentary from the Kaballah which I see as a root of Scn.

As Mark comments the sayings of Jesus were based on earlier
philosophical statements.

Thanks for connecting some dots for me. :)

You're welcome Terril. You might find the Zohar of interest. Was your mother's mother Jewish? The male side doesn't matter very much.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
What happened to "turn the other cheek"?

I've on several occasions requested phone conversation which costs me nothing and you always declined. This is despite your
continual black PR comments about me.

On one other occasion I literally turned my other cheek and got knocked to the ground for doing so. I got up and tried to assist the other.

Failed.

As I have with you. But I did turn the other cheek.

"And what have you got against the sayings of Jesus?" (Said in response to someone noting that Jesus is being used, insincerely, for PR purposes.)

That's even better than, "You against Human Rights?" (Said in response to someone noting that the 'Creed of the Church' was created as companion PR cover for the religion angle.)

This is black PR against me personally.

That I use the sayings of Jesus insincerely.

My father was an episcopalian priest. He was also a healer, and
very unusually for a protestant priest an exorcist. As is my Catholic wife.

My father was also a member of the Jesus Seminary, perhaps better known as the Westar Institute. They published a book " The Five Gospels", a retranslation of the new testament and an anylytical view of what Jesus actually said, for one parameter using the fact that Jesus was not a Christian. He was one of 240 or so biblical scholars of all monotheistic persuasions who voted on every instance of a saying by Jesus and came up with only 91 as probably by Jesus.

He was reputed to have the largest biblical library west of the
Missisipi. I was in it and it was enormous.

I feel quite free and entitled to quote the sayings of Jesus.

You attempting to smear my doing so is ad hominem black PR.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
You're welcome Terril. You might find the Zohar of interest. Was your mother's mother Jewish? The male side doesn't matter very much.

She was, and a "White Russian" I believe, at least that was where
her origins lie. She had auburn hair and went dancing and getting new boyfriends into her 80's. Extremely youthfull.

She was not conventionally religious by any normal Jewish or Chistian standards.

She did tell fortunes with tea leaves, and playing cards. dunno
why she didn't use tarot, but was reasonably accurate. Also she knew when I was born despite being the other side of the atlantic.

A wonderful lady who was very good at granting beingness. I'll
try and post her picture. :)
 

Motti

Patron
Actually, I think the OP was a nice story about someone standing up to the abusive system in Scientology and a "30 years on" reconnection.

I'm not sure why we get so much hysteria when someone says ANYTHING positive about ANY aspect of a Scientologist or former Scientologist.

I swear, sometimes we appear less tolerant than the group we oppose. :grouch:

Thanks, Emma.

I suffered a mild shock reading the vicious attacks on this thread. This thread started as a simple “thank-you” note, and developed into world war 3. Certain people even went so far as to ascribe ulterior motives to the op (me). I will not argue with them. They're free to speculate to their heart's content.

Others fumed at the 'infiltration' of 'positive communication about Scientology or a Scientologist' into the ESMB forum. They asserted that this forum was the exclusive domain of those totally opposed to anything beginning with “Sci” or “Hub”, and people who thought differently should get the hell out of here and post elsewhere.

Still, many others received the original post at face value and acknowledged it for what it was.

When I posted it, I thought it might get 5, 6 replies at the most and be forgotten. I never imagined it would go to 144 replies in such short order and with such seething ferocity.

This got me thinking about the phenomenon I encountered.
People who leave Scientology fall into 3 main categories:

  1. Those who left and just forgot all about it and moved on;
  2. Those who left the organization but acknowledge the gains they got from the tech;
  3. Those who became totally antagonistic to the whole subject.
On ESMB we rarely find the first group; We usually find the other two.
One could speculate on which kind of people fall into which group.
It's probably a matter of the type of personality.

I cannot analyze the first group – it's too diverse. But they seem to have ended cycle on the subject.

The second group has many shades of gray – from complete groupies of the tech to those who found a few useful things there and discarded the rest. They may have an unfinished cycle with the Church, or they may not.

The third group has a raging unfinished cycle with the subject. With some of them it looks as if the pendulum went full swing – from fanatic devotion to fanatic rancor.

Somewhat like falling out of infatuation with a girl and ending up fervently and obsessively hating her for the rest of your days without being able to let go.

Again, it's a matter of the type of personality.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Thanks, Emma.

I suffered a mild shock reading the vicious attacks on this thread. This thread started as a simple “thank-you” note, and developed into world war 3. Certain people even went so far as to ascribe ulterior motives to the op (me). I will not argue with them. They're free to speculate to their heart's content.

Others fumed at the 'infiltration' of 'positive communication about Scientology or a Scientologist' into the ESMB forum. They asserted that this forum was the exclusive domain of those totally opposed to anything beginning with “Sci” or “Hub”, and people who thought differently should get the hell out of here and post elsewhere.

Still, many others received the original post at face value and acknowledged it for what it was.

When I posted it, I thought it might get 5, 6 replies at the most and be forgotten. I never imagined it would go to 144 replies in such short order and with such seething ferocity.

This got me thinking about the phenomenon I encountered.
People who leave Scientology fall into 3 main categories:

  1. Those who left and just forgot all about it and moved on;
  2. Those who left the organization but acknowledge the gains they got from the tech;
  3. Those who became totally antagonistic to the whole subject.
  4. None of the above.Smilla's comment.
On ESMB we rarely find the first group; We usually find the other two.
One could speculate on which kind of people fall into which group.
It's probably a matter of the type of personality.

I cannot analyze the first group – it's too diverse. But they seem to have ended cycle on the subject.

The second group has many shades of gray – from complete groupies of the tech to those who found a few useful things there and discarded the rest. They may have an unfinished cycle with the Church, or they may not.

The third group has a raging unfinished cycle with the subject. With some of them it looks as if the pendulum went full swing – from fanatic devotion to fanatic rancor.

Somewhat like falling out of infatuation with a girl and ending up fervently and obsessively hating her for the rest of your days without being able to let go.

Again, it's a matter of the type of personality.

It's not that simple.
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
I don't know about any "types" or categorisations of folks who post here. I think you may be overgeneralising although I see where you are coming from. All I know is that I oppose the abuses of Scientology, the disconnections, the RPF, the sleep & food deprivation, the loss of liberties, false imprisonment etc. I don't oppose people who don't participate in those activities but merely believe in different things than I do (i.e religious beliefs).

What people believe does not in any way make someone my friend or enemy. What they "do" decides that for me.
 

Veda

Sponsor
There's just so much that I can do to alert others to the PR tactics used by Scientologists who regard themselves as molders of public opinion in the battle to make Scientology acceptable and marketable.

The reason that the CofS PR persons (despite the foot bullets), and also the outside the CofS PR persons, use deception, half truths, and manipulation is because it works, not all the time, but part of the time, and enough of the time to be judged a useful tactic.

Scientology is not going to cease using deception and manipulation as their primary tactics. It fights a "war" of attrition. It is relentless. It is sneaky.

I feel sorry for those leaving the CofS, or contemplating leaving the CoS, and then, searching for answers, find themselves engaged in discussion with someone who is deceiving and tricking them further.

But there is just so much I can do.

-snip-

I feel quite free and entitled to quote the sayings of Jesus.

-snip-

No doubt about it.

-snip-

You describe the creed as " sordid insincerity", " Phony".

As PR cover for its "religion angle".

That its a bad thing leading others "up the Scientology Bridge."


So you don't subscribe to human rights?

The Creed expresses many points re human rights.

We could assume her that you and human rights are distant.

-snip-

Some background:

Around 1971, after surveying public opinion, Hubbard switched from mainly calling his enemies "communists" (and sex perverts) to mainly calling them "Nazis" (and sex perverts); these days, "haters" and "bigots" are amongst those "buttons" judged effective.

L. Ron Hubbard explains how to use propaganda (to push the "hate" and "love" "buttons" of "wogs") in 'Battle Tactics' of 16 February 1969:

"The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, that means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing... Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That's the enemy. What they love. That's you."

And another piece of Scientology tech, from Hubbard's 'Black Propaganda' of 12 January 1972:

"The objective is to be identified as attackers of popularly considered evils. This declassifies us from former labels. It reclassifies our attackers as evil people."

And from 'Ron's Journal 68':

"...And the general attack line is along the line of human rights; yes human rights...

"Now I'll give you a clue on how this is handled, somebody comes up to you he's hostile - he's hostile to Scientology and he says to you and he says <inaudible> and you say why are you against human rights and uh and if you know anything about human rights like the universal declaration of human rights, United Nations - that sort of thing you know if you know something about this subject you just follow it right straight up - in other words you don't defend Scientology, you just attack along this line of human rights, you see...

"Tell him or her ...uh ...the hostile person the hostile press line uh...for instance a newspaper writes an article on how bad Scientology is - any Scientologist reading this should run right to that newspaper and demand: Why are you against human rights?...

"Whereas an attack on Scientology is actually an attack on human rights - anyone making an attack on Scientology is an attack on human rights...

"Each time Scientology is attacked, we build into society, if you do this, we'll build into society an actual stimulus response mechanism whereas an attack on Scientology is an attack on human rights".



The patterns are there for all to see.
 

cakemaker

Patron Meritorious
Actually, I think the OP was a nice story about someone standing up to the abusive system in Scientology and a "30 years on" reconnection.

I'm not sure why we get so much hysteria when someone says ANYTHING positive about ANY aspect of a Scientologist or former Scientologist.

I swear, sometimes we appear less tolerant than the group we oppose. :grouch:


An example of that other Axiom, "No good deed goes unpunished".
 

Boojuum

Silver Meritorious Patron
An example of that other Axiom, "No good deed goes unpunished".

I think it's very important to anchor onto the times when we were in and we did the right thing regardless of the incredible stress to do otherwise. I'd even go so far to say that much of what we were doing was good stuff. That's what kept us (or at least me) in for so long.

I think ESMB gets a little testy if we focus on the "good" that we were doing while in. The price we paid for the illusion of being part of a good group is hard to ignore, even in the face of a kind and caring act of humanity. I think most of us bounce between the good of Scientology and the bad of Scientology. The interplay between both sides is what keeps many of us interested in this board.
 
I think it's very important to anchor onto the times when we were in and we did the right thing regardless of the incredible stress to do otherwise. I'd even go so far to say that much of what we were doing was good stuff. That's what kept us (or at least me) in for so long.

I think ESMB gets a little testy if we focus on the "good" that we were doing while in. The price we paid for the illusion of being part of a good group is hard to ignore, even in the face of a kind and caring act of humanity. I think most of us bounce between the good of Scientology and the bad of Scientology. The interplay between both sides is what keeps many of us interested in this board.

Often the indivdidual groups we actually were in were 'good' groups, yet the overall group we thought we were in ultimately was proved not to be so.


Mark A. Baker
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Thanks, Emma.

I suffered a mild shock reading the vicious attacks on this thread. This thread started as a simple “thank-you” note, and developed into world war 3. Certain people even went so far as to ascribe ulterior motives to the op (me). I will not argue with them. They're free to speculate to their heart's content.

Others fumed at the 'infiltration' of 'positive communication about Scientology or a Scientologist' into the ESMB forum. They asserted that this forum was the exclusive domain of those totally opposed to anything beginning with “Sci” or “Hub”, and people who thought differently should get the hell out of here and post elsewhere.

Still, many others received the original post at face value and acknowledged it for what it was.

When I posted it, I thought it might get 5, 6 replies at the most and be forgotten. I never imagined it would go to 144 replies in such short order and with such seething ferocity.

This got me thinking about the phenomenon I encountered.
People who leave Scientology fall into 3 main categories:

  1. Those who left and just forgot all about it and moved on;
  2. Those who left the organization but acknowledge the gains they got from the tech;
  3. Those who became totally antagonistic to the whole subject.
On ESMB we rarely find the first group; We usually find the other two.
One could speculate on which kind of people fall into which group.
It's probably a matter of the type of personality.

I cannot analyze the first group – it's too diverse. But they seem to have ended cycle on the subject.

The second group has many shades of gray – from complete groupies of the tech to those who found a few useful things there and discarded the rest. They may have an unfinished cycle with the Church, or they may not.

The third group has a raging unfinished cycle with the subject. With some of them it looks as if the pendulum went full swing – from fanatic devotion to fanatic rancor.

Somewhat like falling out of infatuation with a girl and ending up fervently and obsessively hating her for the rest of your days without being able to let go.

Again, it's a matter of the type of personality.

Oh, you "suffered a mild shock"? Really? Please, play it up more! Lay it on thick buddy.

The above involves GROSS oversimplification - and I will add that I tend NOT to trust ANY person who throws out such grand generalitities and LEAVES OUT key categories in the process of doing so.

What about THIS category?

The person who HAS "moved on" as far as any "personal charge", but who posts to BRING TO LIGHT THE MANNER IN WHICH HUBBARD CREATED A NASTY, DECEITFUL, MANIPULATIVE AND CONNIVING ORGANIZATION? An organization that HURTS people, as a direct result of exactly and carefully following LRH policy? That has done so all throughout its history and continues to do so today? Disconnection? Fair Game? Lying? Manipulation? Setting up innocent people in phony crimes they didn't commit? Hard sell? Recruitment by overwhelm? Endless declares? ALL designed and enforced by Hubbard himself. I know, we should "move on", forget about it, and allow it to keep happening . . . .

What about THIS category?

The person who did NOT get a great deal of gains, who went through all sorts of shit, possibly ending up declared, disconnected from friends and loved ones, and possibly even fair-gamed? Mmm? Where is THAT category you dumbass?

You conveniently LEFT OUT a few categories that include a GREAT MANY people.

You make it sound like the ONLY "sane" thing to do is "be big enough to move on". Well, some people feel a need to try to DO SOMETHING about the atrocities that routinely occur in Scientology - in that regard, they ARE BIGGER for "not moving on". They work to bring to light, address and get handled the nasty behavior that the Church of Scientology routinely, as standard operating procedure, does to people. It would be like saying to a rape victim, oh "get over it and move on", and make her wrong for wanting to to get pro-active in doing something about helping other victims and addressing the SOURCE of the problem. Sorry, "moving on" is NOT necessarily the most responsible choice.

Sorry, but your lame attempt at painting ESMB as some of place where "negative personality types" congregate is a bit too transparent to me. Shall we use the "chart of human evaluation" from Science of Survival to judge and grade these "personality types"? :duh:

As I see it, you PLAY GAMES just like people trained by the Church of Scientology, and that makes you a complete IDIOT in my book. Even if you aren't doing that, your above comment of three categories displays major dullness of intellect in leaving out so much that SHOULD have been included. So you are either a manipulative son-of-a-bitch who planned and intended to write exactly what you did (to "create an effect"), just like Scientology trains and manufactures, or you are not bright enough to notice that your simplistic categories were quite incomplete and inadequate.

Maybe I am being too severe - and maybe not. Oh, and Karen's recommendation means shit to me. Class XII? Who cares? I am sorry, but being "highly trained" within the framework of Hubbard's mindfuck is NOT a "big positive thing". THAT gains zero respect from me.

I am with Veda completely on this one. When I smell shit, I look around to locate the source. Veda called it correctly right from the start on this one. His "BS Detector" is operating just fine.

Enligthen us all about these "personality types". I am curious if "DBs" and "SPs" are part of that list.
 
Last edited:

RogerB

Crusader
I'm not so familiar with Jewish religious literature. However I'm
part Jewish by blood and through my mothers line. I went to
a UK Grammer school where half the students were Jewish, in London's east end. Very smart people, and many personal friends were and are Jewish.

My main and somewhat scanty knowledge of Judaism sterms from Crowleys commentary from the Kaballah which I see as a root of Scn.

As Mark comments the sayings of Jesus were based on earlier
philosophical statements.

Thanks for connecting some dots for me. :)

Hell, T, did you not know that in its beginning, Christianity was but a weird little cult minority thing of Judaism? :biggrin:

R
 

RogerB

Crusader
I don't know about any "types" or categorisations of folks who post here. I think you may be overgeneralising although I see where you are coming from. All I know is that I oppose the abuses of Scientology, the disconnections, the RPF, the sleep & food deprivation, the loss of liberties, false imprisonment etc. I don't oppose people who don't participate in those activities but merely believe in different things than I do (i.e religious beliefs).

What people believe does not in any way make someone my friend or enemy. What they "do" decides that for me.

And that above, my dear Emms, is the exemplar of a class act lady.

R
 

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Karen had courage to violate the rules and save someone from hubbard stand-in duplicating sociopath .

A wog stable datum, hubbard uses stable divert-tum
find the why,
Hubbard outlines a multi-choice list of whys,
hubbards never on the multi-choice list

1) situation gets better, someone chose right item on hubbards list, hubbard is brilliant.Your getting more aware, OT, sane, efficient.Std tech works. Wait till i tell the other guys.

2)situation gets worse, someone chose wrong item on hubbards list.That someone is wrong.misunderstood? SP? disaffected? PTS? out indicators? Out ethics? that person is suspected as a potential why. Squirreling?

3) i used compassion, :no:....its ARC its Std tech & on the list. Hubbard is right again.:happydance:

But the other Hubbard ethics guy is right per Hubbards eyes too though.:confused2: Differentiate.

Hubbards game of gambling.

Std tech is Infallible. You squirrels.
 
Top