MUSICAL CHAIRS - INT BASE STYLE - PART 2

[Tanstaafl]

​

Duh!​

I just had to do that.

I guess I walked straight into that one..........

D'oh!

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Hey y'all. Dis hir is a impotan' tread and you's cant be comin' hir messen' all it up. GIT!!!!! Afore I call dat Sherriff!!!

 

[Tanstaafl]

Hey y'all. Dis hir is a impotan' tread and you's cant be comin' hir messen' all it up. GIT!!!!! Afore I call dat Sherriff!!!

We need an antidote to the very, very serious thread............ maybe we need a silly thread? But then I guess nearly all of them get a little silly at some point.

 

[nexus100]

For the most part, I would say that auditing does not change the being. It makes them more right. Sometimes that can be a good thing, sometimes not.

Like for example, if someone came in who was homosexual (no offense intended) and someone wanted that handled on him (rarely the pc wants that handled), all the auditing would end up doing is make him more right for his decision to be homosexual.

I have never seen auditing turn someone around. Like in this case, make a straight person out of a homosexual.

They may SAY something in session, that makes it appear that he has changed. But who is following him/her around at night to check the results, eh?

Wow! What if the person considered that homosexuality was an unwanted condition? The difficulty would then be that the person is looking at things through that homosexual identity. So the auditing, no matter what the person said, would be invalidative of who the person thought they were. Besides the fact the IDEA that it is an unwanted condition could well be from another source, so yet another identity becomes involved. Your statement is a very interesting look into the gearbox of auditing, thank you!

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Wow! What if the person considered that homosexuality was an unwanted condition? The difficulty would then be that the person is looking at things through that homosexual identity. So the auditing, no matter what the person said, would be invalidative of who the person thought they were. Besides the fact the IDEA that it is an unwanted condition could well be from another source, so yet another identity becomes involved. Your statement is a very interesting look into the gearbox of auditing, thank you!

Yes, there is some unpinpointed quirk in auditing that, in my mind, makes it invalidative. I am not only speaking as a pc. I am speaking as an auditor, and a C/S. I dealt with it on all four flows.

 

[Vinaire]

Wow! What if the person considered that homosexuality was an unwanted condition? The difficulty would then be that the person is looking at things through that homosexual identity. So the auditing, no matter what the person said, would be invalidative of who the person thought they were. Besides the fact the IDEA that it is an unwanted condition could well be from another source, so yet another identity becomes involved. Your statement is a very interesting look into the gearbox of auditing, thank you!

This seems to be problem fit for IDENICS to grapple with.

.

 

[nexus100]

This seems to be problem fit for IDENICS to grapple with.

.

Yes, I wonder if that quirk is the identity issue.

 

[Zinjifar]

Wow! What if the person considered that homosexuality was an unwanted condition? The difficulty would then be that the person is looking at things through that homosexual identity. So the auditing, no matter what the person said, would be invalidative of who the person thought they were. Besides the fact the IDEA that it is an unwanted condition could well be from another source, so yet another identity becomes involved. Your statement is a very interesting look into the gearbox of auditing, thank you!

At the (only slight, I'm sure ) risk of triggering lots of automaticities.. That's exactly the reason I gave up on 'self-hypnosis' (autohypnosis, even 'affirmations' etc.) as being potentially dangerous. Well, not *completely* gave up, but, mostly.

Any such process, even one run by oneself on oneself operates on the principle of *bypassing* long-standing filters and restrictions that sometimes exist for *very good reasons*. The filters and restrictions can themselves be self-imposed, or 'learned' or even maliciously 'implanted', but, without examining them there's no way to tell the difference and just willy-nilly bypassing them runs the danger of bypassing valuable safeguards.

I think it's far safer (and saner) to find the filters/restrictions and identify them and learn which is which, and then modify behavior in that light and with constant 'quality control'

God knows that even the 'Every day in every way I'm getting better and better' affirmation can lead to horrible consequences. Especially the consequence of not *knowing* how much better you're really getting.

Zinj

 

[nexus100]

At the (only slight, I'm sure ) risk of triggering lots of automaticities.. That's exactly the reason I gave up on 'self-hypnosis' (autohypnosis, even 'affirmations' etc.) as being potentially dangerous. Well, not *completely* gave up, but, mostly.

Any such process, even one run by oneself on oneself operates on the principle of *bypassing* long-standing filters and restrictions that sometimes exist for *very good reasons*. The filters and restrictions can themselves be self-imposed, or 'learned' or even maliciously 'implanted', but, without examining them there's no way to tell the difference and just willy-nilly bypassing them runs the danger of bypassing valuable safeguards.

I think it's far safer (and saner) to find the filters/restrictions and identify them and learn which is which, and then modify behavior in that light and with constant 'quality control'

God knows that even the 'Every day in every way I'm getting better and better' affirmation can lead to horrible consequences. Especially the consequence of not *knowing* how much better you're really getting.

Zinj

What made Scientology work was the "poof" factor. Instead of working around problems or adapting to them or implanting over them (Serenity, Now!) you could just vanish them. And you know what? They could and often did! I did it with Book One. BUT the promise of rising benefits to all, within a system, proved beyond the ability of Hubbard or the organization. Some people stayed on, remembering the "poof", getting wins satisfactory for them, or because they had no place else to go, while most gave up. Many departed still felt the drip of guilt that somehow it was their fault for not making it work. Because it had worked, right? And it seemed to be working for all these others, right? But the fact nearly everyone bogged bad PLUS it was utimately their fault for bogging, killed the joint. The hatred for the Church comes from their action of GPMing people to death and blaming them for it and getting them to blame themselves. Creepy stuff.

 

[Lulu Belle]

OMG! How degrading and how cruel DM is - no wonder he used to be called Little Hitler.

I've heard his own mother called him that.

 

[Free to shine]

Even though Hubbard made this distinction between ethics and morals, I don;t see at any time in history where he ever followed it.

What's the missing ideal scene here?

An ethics section that is wholly inward facing. A place where you go to sort yourself out. Never a place that goes out trolling for business "getting ethics in" on others.

That would be a "Morals Section", wouldn't it?

So why didn't Hubbard ever follow this ideal scene?

Because he couldn't trust other people. He was in a constant games condition with them, and hiding it from them. He was constantly placing definitions out to people that served as prestidigitations for what he was really doing to them.

One of the best things about Scientology for me was the idea of "ethics": A place for redemption where you could go and sort yourself out with the tools provided. Since believing is seeing, while I believed that, that's what I saw.

But what I saw and what was being done were almost always two different things. I don't know if human beings can resist the temptation to exploit others' hope of redemption. Hubbard certainly took every vulnerability he could find in people and exploited everything out of it he could.

In not being able to trust his fellow earthlings, Hubbard committed one of the largest breaches of trust that I have ever experienced. And getting over that breach of trust is a very hard thing for me to do.

I hope that one day, I can have what I consider a place of redemption again.

Right now, I'm very much on the lookout for more breaches of trust. And I'm probably not going to find any redemption anywhere as long as I am doing that.

Absolutely! Thanks for that.

 

[Leon]

Agreed. The major problem with Scientology Ethics (besides being called 'Ethics') is that it's *Scientology* Ethics. It exists to serve Scientology; the organization and the movement. Sure, the 'formulas' can be applied elsewhere, but, the system itself is not intended to serve the individual.

How it's actually *applied* is even worse.

Zinj

Correct. I mentioned on an earlier thread some while ago that attempting to get "ethics" in on a guy on the third dynamic is a complete waste of time until he has been straightened out on the first dynamic. And on the first dynamic he really does get to do it himself. He needs to be guided though - not in the details but just to keep his nose pointed in the right direction.

 

[Amadeus Einstein]

For the most part, I would say that auditing does not change the being. It makes them more right. Sometimes that can be a good thing, sometimes not.

Like for example, if someone came in who was homosexual (no offense intended) and someone wanted that handled on him (rarely the pc wants that handled), all the auditing would end up doing is make him more right for his decision to be homosexual.

I have never seen auditing turn someone around. Like in this case, make a straight person out of a homosexual.

They may SAY something in session, that makes it appear that he has changed. But who is following him/her around at night to check the results, eh?

You're bringing back memories of the fight I had over a change of posting that I vehemently disagreed with. Naturally, the Org execs wanted me to have ethics, repairs, Qual handlings, anything that could be done to "handle" me and get me to see how "off purpose" I was being by disagreeing with being musical-chaired off my post. But all those handlings ever did, especially the review sessions that I got (after various handlings red-tagged), was to make me more certain that I was right to stick to my guns. This went on for a couple of years and the Qual Sec ended up having a fight with the C/S because she hadn't "handled" me.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

I was thinking about this thread and DM's actions and I remembered something interesting.

In the tech of handling PTSes, a key part of it, auditing-wise on the PTS RD and on the Suppressed Person RD is handling the Can't Have's run on them. As weel as forcing things on them that they didn't want. (also addresses problems, mostly on SP RD).

Who is doing that here? Now? Hmmmm......

-----

Also, I remembered reading the book "The Stand". Didnt the bad guys end up blowing themselves up in the end? By accident?

Ultimately, that appears to be the path this meglomaniac is taking.


-----

We can only make his path realised more quickly by continuing to expose the truth.


So thank you to all who do that.

 

[Gottabrain]

:bump:

 

[Panda Termint]

:bump:

I really like the threads you're bumping, Gotta, someone (a Lurker) told me today that they'd missed some of these awesome threads.

 

[Gottabrain]

I really like the threads you're bumping, Gotta, someone (a Lurker) told me today that they'd missed some of these awesome threads.

Thanks, Panda. Musical Chairs is a classic, one of the best stories I ever read on ESMB. Some of the other personal stories and threads are wonderful, too, if only for the well-thought comments by ESMB members.

I thought that with all the media attention Debbie Cook is getting, it would be good to bring some of ESMB's best threads forward for lurkers and newbies and to show the reams of evidence we have about the crimes and human rights abuses of COS. I'm glad to hear that at least one lurker was glad to read them.

 

[Kookaburra]

I really like the threads you're bumping, Gotta, someone (a Lurker) told me today that they'd missed some of these awesome threads.

Does that mean that someone else is quietly and surreptitiously backing away from the CoS? Soon to tell them where to shove it and join the free people out here?

Welcome lurker(s).

 

[Idle Morgue]

I am crying right now after I read this. To think I got into Scientology around that time and had no idea what type of group I was joining and that behind the curtain, is a dictator. My heart goes out to all of you that had to endure any type of abuse. Thank you for your service. I am sorry that you had to suffer on behalf of all of those that "don't know" and everyone on the outside does not know. They really think they are "clearing the planet" when in fact, they are doing the exact opposite. May you all be blessed with love and peace.

I think you all need to collectively write a book called "The Help, Sea Org Style".

If you watch the movie "The Help", there is a scene at the end where the black maid (Sea Org member) stands up to the nasty SP white woman (DM).

That could be a Sea Org member saying "Don't you ever get tired Miss Davey, don't you ever get tired?"

Watch the movie "The Help" and replace the black slaves with Sea Org members and the white women with DM and his elite crew.

 

[Gottabrain]

I am crying right now after I read this. To think I got into Scientology around that time and had no idea what type of group I was joining and that behind the curtain, is a dictator. My heart goes out to all of you that had to endure any type of abuse. Thank you for your service. I am sorry that you had to suffer on behalf of all of those that "don't know" and everyone on the outside does not know. They really think they are "clearing the planet" when in fact, they are doing the exact opposite. May you all be blessed with love and peace.

I think you all need to collectively write a book called "The Help, Sea Org Style".

If you watch the movie "The Help", there is a scene at the end where the black maid (Sea Org member) stands up to the nasty SP white woman (DM).

That could be a Sea Org member saying "Don't you ever get tired Miss Davey, don't you ever get tired?"

Id

Watch the movie "The Help" and replace the black slaves with Sea Org members and the white women with DM and his elite crew.

Idle Morgue! So nice to hear from you again! How ARE you?

Do you know anyone personally who is still in the SO?

I'll have to watch the movie, have never seen it.

The Musical Chairs thread is very upsetting, but the story has been confirmed by many. It really happened - as so many other abuses to staff, as well as public. The abuse didn't start with DM, but he certainly took it to a whole new level. Everyone who ever heard about Scn should read this story so they know what actually goes on and how the SO are beaten down to submission.

The former execs of the former Int structure are still on DM's RPF and have been there for years - i.e., Heber Jentsch, Guillaume Lesevre. And where is Shelly Miscaviage?