"Paulette Cooper Fair Gamed L. Ron Hubbard."

Veda

Sponsor
AmericanHero.jpg



From the poster, Balthasar:

Paulette Cooper started the attacks...

Paulette Cooper Fair Gamed Scientology. That would make Hubbard the victim and Paulette the aggressor.

Paulette Cooper attacked and Fair Gamed Hubbard in the first place.




lronhubbard_globe.jpg



The purpose of this thread is not to engage Balthasar in debate.

Is he a troll? Well, I think, from what I can see, that he is sincere.

If that is so, then his remarks are noteworthy.

This is not so much an examination of the many years long program of harassment and covert attempts to destroy Paulette Cooper, as it is an examination of the effect of Scientology on Scientologists, and Scientology apologists, and "fans of Ron."


RonPR1-e1362497897431.jpg



This may be a one post thread, or I may add a few other items, but it is not a debate thread re. Cooper and Scientology. It is an examination of the mental state of someone such as Balthasar, and how that mental state comes into being.
 

Captain Koolaid

Patron Meritorious
As someone who was never in I often ask myself how I would cope with facing the truth about the cult. All the money, time, effort, goodwill, hope...all for nothing. Some are so entrenched into it that the truth is too gruesome, so they simply deny everything. They identify the 'stable datum' (Hubbard = good) and this allows them to twist everything until it fits into their view. Isn't that how 'confusion' is dealt with in Scientology?

The 'In defence of Hubbard thread' is just a rather desperate attempt keep the bubble intact, a reverse Truman show. Amazing how much emotions it stirred up, but not that surprising.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
This may be a one post thread, or I may add a few other items, but it is not a debate thread re. Cooper and Scientology. It is an examination of the mental state of someone such as Balthasar, and how that mental state comes into being.

The effect of milieu control maybe? I know when I was in the SO I parroted the party line because I mostly did not know any better. When still in I read the 1991 Time article (The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power) and dismissed it in its entirety by the usual mental legerdemain that one does to avoid unpleasant thoughts (and the Ethics Officer).

Life must be much harder for a public cultie with Internet access, though.

Paul
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
As someone who was never in I often ask myself how I would cope with facing the truth about the cult. All the money, time, effort, goodwill, hope...all for nothing. Some are so entrenched into it that the truth is too gruesome, so they simply deny everything.
<snip>

As for someone who WAS in I would have to say you pretty much nailed how it was for ME.

And I wasn't consciously trying to deny anything.

Rather, after putting in 10 years, the great majority of it on staff, working to 'clear the planet' for 33 cents/hour, when the possibility first arose in my mind of it all being a scam, I really didn't have the ability at that time to confront the truth, as it very much was as you said, 'true gruesome'.
 

Telepathetic

Gold Meritorious Patron
The effect of milieu control maybe? I know when I was in the SO I parroted the party line because I mostly did not know any better. When still in I read the 1991 Time article (The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power) and dismissed it in its entirety by the usual mental legerdemain that one does to avoid unpleasant thoughts (and the Ethics Officer).

Life must be much harder for a public cultie with Internet access, though.

Paul

I also read the article in Times Magazine and dismissed it as well. Later on, in the early 90s, due to my position in the cult, I had access to lots of "entheta" books which had been turned in or confiscated during the early 80s. One of these was, Mad Man or Messiah. I read it all though I must admit that,still being a true believer at the time, I skipped the OT III section;I wish I had read it! :melodramatic: :biggrin:

Conclusion: Scientology will beat Teflon any day of the week!


TP
 

Nicole

Silver Meritorious Patron
AmericanHero.jpg






The purpose of this thread is not to engage Balthasar in debate.

With fanatic people you can't debate. I hope Balthasar will read this thread. Better I am sure Balthasar is reading here. In educating kids I am using sometimes the "technic" that I am talking with another person about this kid, so that the kid can here it. I believe it is a good way to "break" some blockades in the mind. :)

Thank you for starting this thread Veda.
 

Captain Koolaid

Patron Meritorious
As for someone who WAS in I would have to say you pretty much nailed how it was for ME.

And I wasn't consciously trying to deny anything.

Rather, after putting in 10 years, the great majority of it on staff, working to 'clear the planet' for 33 cents/hour, when the possibility first arose in my mind of it all being a scam, I really didn't have the ability at that time to confront the truth, as it very much was as you said, 'true gruesome'.

But you took the leap, and the net appeared (as Tory likes to put it). Kudos.
 

Xenu's Boyfriend

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think it's always wonderful to have a thread that acknowledged Paulette Cooper as a hero. When I think about what they did to that woman, my blood boils. Short of being killed, she paid the ultimate price a journalist can pay.

I contacted her after reading about her story and she was very gracious. Remember, Scientology didn't just "fight back" against her criticism, they tried to destroy her completely. They sent people to intimidate her with guns, they tried to frame her and send her to prison using her fingerprints against federal agencies and there is a strong possibility that they sent a man to date her who was planning to kill her and make it look like a suicide, but she got away in time.

There is that story about the two of them on the roof on her East Side apartment where there was a swimming pool. One night under the stars, he asks her to join him on the balcony. She starts to come over to him and suddenly gets a terrified feeling and steps away, going back downstairs. If I remember correctly - he disappeared completely soon after that. Later, it was discovered, through OSA files on her that this man was a spy, because there were things in the file she had only shared with him in confidence.

If this story is true, and all the countless others - is this really "fair game" against a journalist who writes a book that is unfavorable to the church - to have her killed?

There will always be people like Balthesar, I'm afraid. They are the family members who ask the rape victim or incest survivor, what did you do to provoke the abuse, what were you wearing and how did you lead him on?

I've shared before that I had a history teacher who basically suggested that American Slavery wasn't that bad in the end. At least it got Africans to the New World for free - without having to book a travel agent. Revisionists who would rather alter history than face an ugly reality. Hey, not many people know this, but some concentration camps actually had miniature golf and bingo nights! "The gas chamber" was really just Nazi code that the cook was making chili for lunch. Yeah, right.

Blaming the victim is a psychological process that people embrace as a way of coping with trauma. It is the deepest form of self-betrayal. Instead of saying, Daddy beats me and Mom because he's sick and an alcoholic, the mind says instead, "If I had only cleaned my room, If mom had only had dinner ready on time, Daddy wouldn't hurt us."

The fact is, Balthesar is someone to pity more than anything. And threads like this, and there have been a lot of them for some reason by the usual suspects, are really pathetic because the truth is they can't stop anything.

Scientology as an institution will be held accountable, as will LRH's legacy and David Miscavige's brutality. And no amount of foolishness, attention getting, provocative, devil's advocate posts, defending the bully over the victim, is going to any of stop that.

It's just that in the age, where so many issues related to bullying are being profiled in the media, it seems obscene to stand by a bully over a victim in a forum like this where so many people are trying to uncover the truth and heal. But the fact is, LRH was a bully and so is DM.

We all pick our sides in life. Balthesar has chosen his. I'm on Paulette Cooper's.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I'm including the sequence of posts, from the Defense of Hubbard thread, not to discuss Paulette Cooper, but to show the evolution of the vitriol towards Paulette Cooper.

Balthasar:

Sure I will get right into the real good stuff. I take Paulette Cooper first because it's on top of your wish list. Also you ever so often used Paulette Cooper to silence critics of the critics if any other means failed. Now lets look all together and see what we find here.





Her book "Scandal of Scientology" is an open attack. Nearly every sentence transpires contempt and is an offense to any Scientologist.





It looks like Paulette Cooper started the attacks and planned it from the beginning. Please tell me that I am mistaken here or that I would have overlooked something. Because if you can't, any Mini Hat OSA twat can shoot you down with this alone



__________​


Veda:

So Paulette Cooper should have known that L. Ron Hubbard would want her destroyed, and that Scientologists, seeing her as an SP, would share that sentiment, and she should have known better, and not written the little paperback book Scandal of Scientology in the first place.

So what was all your fuss about?

Essentially, you're saying that those harmed by Hubbard deserved what they got.

And that's Hubbard's "defense."

Oy vey! :dizzy:



__________​


Balthasar:

What was all my fuss about it? Please let me try to explain.

It seems so far Paulette Cooper initiated the attacks on Scientology and Hubbard. Paulette Cooper fair gamed Scientology. That would Hubbard make a victim and Paulette Cooper the aggressor.

As I am defending Hubbard I will not take this lightly much less to let you off the hook.

You have 48 hours to come up with evidence that Paulette Cooper was NOT the initial aggressor otherwise you are toast.




__________​


Balthasar:

....Now what regards Paulette Cooper. Paulette Cooper is not whistle blowing. That is not the same. This was a heinous attack towards a group of people minding their own business.

Paulette Cooper meticulously planned and carried out her odious attack in a very unfair manner to say the least. Her mind was made up in advance. She was going to find what she wanted to find. Maybe she thought, that is what is going to sell well. After all, who would care about this Scientology cult being one of many back that days?

While we don't know what was going through her mind, it stands to reason to suspect that her motivations were money driven...

Paulette Coopers journalism doesn't even come close to anything we hear from Sweeney or Ortega. Paulette Cooper has heinously attacked Scientology and Hubbard in the first place. Paulette Cooper was not a "nice" person. Paulette Coopers motives were based on greed and hate. Paulette Cooper, while she later became a "victim", was the initial aggressor.

That Church staff completely mishandled the matter and subsequently were settling was certainly a mistake. What the church should have done is to employ any and all legal means to fight Paulette Coopers discriminating writings and this includes litigating until the last breath or complete surrender, whichever is earlier.


__________​


Incidentally, Paulette Cooper had 19 lawsuits filed against her by Scientology.

Here's Hubbard from the 'Manual on the Dissemination of Material' from March 1955:

The purpose of the suit is to discourage and harasss rather than to win.

The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway... will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.



_________​


Looking at this now, my guess is that Balthasar has held these views re. Paulette Cooper for many decades. He can't "unplug" from that.

I'm almost beginning to feel as though I'm picking on the mentally ill by starting this thread. Unfortunately, though, Scientology does seem to induce a kind of mental illness in some people.

In any event, it's that STATE OF MIND, not the topic of Paulette Cooper, that is primarily the topic of this thread. :)
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
I find the phrase "[n]early every sentence ... is an offense to any Scientologist" interesting.

It implies that Cooper's real crime was blasphemy.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
AmericanHero.jpg



From the poster, Balthasar:

Paulette Cooper started the attacks...

Paulette Cooper Fair Gamed Scientology. That would make Hubbard the victim and Paulette the aggressor.

Paulette Cooper attacked and Fair Gamed Hubbard in the first place.




lronhubbard_globe.jpg



The purpose of this thread is not to engage Balthasar in debate.

Is he a troll? Well, I think, from what I can see, that he is sincere.

If that is so, then his remarks are noteworthy.

This is not so much an examination of the many years long program of harassment and covert attempts to destroy Paulette Cooper, as it is an examination of the effect of Scientology on Scientologists, and Scientology apologists, and "fans of Ron."


RonPR1-e1362497897431.jpg



This may be a one post thread, or I may add a few other items, but it is not a debate thread re. Cooper and Scientology. It is an examination of the mental state of someone such as Balthasar, and how that mental state comes into being.

I don't know Balthasar's history, and I don't particularly follow his writings. I think that we can learn an awful lot about the mental state and behavior of outward-facing Scientologists through their training materials, indoctrination and orders. The Paulette Cooper example boils down to the SP doctrine and the fair game that necessarily flows from it.

It's really complying with orders or command intention. Some mental states are expected to be shelved, a la no "case on post." There are personality or mental types that would be more agreeable to tricking, lying to, robbing, suing and destroying their fellow human beings; sociopaths for example. But Scientologists also work very hard at installing such conditions in anyone, regardless of whether they were such personality types before Scientology.

Scientologists whose jobs are likely to expose them to the many conflicts that emerge as a consequence of executing Scientology's totalitarian strategies and objectives, operate on plans and programs that reflect Hubbard's diagnosis for their SP opponents. The Criminal Mind, for example, which is studied on the How to Confront and Shatter Suppression Course, provides the basis for this projection:

Hubbard said:


THE CRIMINAL ACCUSES OTHERS OF THINGS WHICH HE HIMSELF IS DOING.

[...]

THE CRIMINAL MIND RELENTLESSLY SEEKS TO DESTROY ANYONE IT IMAGINES MIGHT EXPOSE IT.

[...]

INDIVIDUALS WITH CRIMINAL MINDS TEND TO BAND TOGETHER SINCE THE PRESENCE OF OTHER CRIMINALS ABOUT THEM TENDS TO PROVE THEIR OWN DISTORTED IDEAS OF MAN IN GENERAL.

[...]

THE CRIMINAL ONLY SEES OTHERS AS HE HIMSELF IS.

[...]

THE CRIMINAL, NO MATTER WHAT HARM HE IS DOING TO OTHERS, IS ALSO SEEKING TO DESTROY HIMSELF. HE IS IN PROTEST AGAINST HIS OWN SURVIVAL.


Hubbard, L. R., (1989). The Criminal Mind. How To Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course. (2001 ed.). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.
_____
Document studied on Confidential DSA Investigations Officer Full Hat (Section F, #4).

Outward-facing Scientologists and their fellow travelers learn to "pre-empt" the bad behaviors they predict in their SP targets by becoming more facile at the same behaviors. That's how they "win."

Hubbard said:
The errors we have made have been

1. Defending only.

2. Defending on Scn ground.

3. Being reasonable and assigning mild motives to the enemy.

4. Failing to attack early and hard.

5. Undervaluing the broad social value of Scn.

6. Individuating from other similar organizations.

7. Not learning enemy tactics and using and bettering them.

8. Failing to heavily contest for public opinion and public media.

9. Failing to identify the enemy early and hit him hard.

Hubbard, L. R., (1969, 16 February). (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter.) Targets, Defense.

_____
Document studied on Confidential GO Intelligence Course (Section 4 Part D, #12).
Document studied on Confidential DSA Investigations Officer Full Hat (Section K, #15).
 

OhMG

Patron Meritorious
I don't know Balthasar's history, and I don't particularly follow his writings.

You don't have to. If you are familiar with the general state of mind of the criminally insane you know all you need to...

If not, simply peruse the transcripts from the Nuremberg trials where various Nazi's tried to blame the Jews for being the aggressors...
 

Deeana

Patron with Honors
I had my interest in learning more about the cult piqued by reading Andrew Morton's unauthorized biography of Tom Cruise. As it happened, Paulette Cooper's story was the first in-depth account of the true evil of the Cof$ I read. What a strong woman! And certainly a heroine.

As for the mindset of the posters here at ESMB, as a never-in I'm sure I perceive the various posts much differently than those who have been in. One thing that has struck me is how different people had vastly different experiences during their time withiin the cult. So while all were in Cof$, if someone was in the Sea Org their experience was far different than someone serving on staff in a mission, for example. Someone in L.A. likely had a different experience than someone in Boston.

I also think the people who frequent this board come here for a reason. The so-called "trolls" are here because they want to be here. They are getting something out of it. They're hooked. On the humor, on the rational thought, on the basic humanity. Whatever.

I too feel sorry for them. As much as I would feel sorry for anyone who is in a cult of any kind. I also think the ones who come here have lucked out. No matter how brainwashed, don't tell me they don't get some laughs once in a while. And from what everyone has said, laughs don't come too easily when in the Cof$.
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
AmericanHero.jpg



From the poster, Balthasar:

Paulette Cooper started the attacks...

Paulette Cooper Fair Gamed Scientology. That would make Hubbard the victim and Paulette the aggressor.

Paulette Cooper attacked and Fair Gamed Hubbard in the first place.


...

The purpose of this thread is not to engage Balthasar in debate.

Is he a troll? Well, I think, from what I can see, that he is sincere.

If that is so, then his remarks are noteworthy.

This is not so much an examination of the many years long program of harassment and covert attempts to destroy Paulette Cooper, as it is an examination of the effect of Scientology on Scientologists, and Scientology apologists, and "fans of Ron."
...

This may be a one post thread, or I may add a few other items, but it is not a debate thread re. Cooper and Scientology. It is an examination of the mental state of someone such as Balthasar, and how that mental state comes into being.

You may be correct and Balthasar may be sincere...but so was Hitler.

He fails to note that Paulette Cooper was an American citizen writing and publishing a book in the United States of America, a country whose Constitution guarantees Freedom of the Press - specifically the printing press, the manner in which books are produced.

The deranged Mr. Hubbard and his mind numbed borg-like followers never challenged the veracity of her statements (which would have failed) but instead attempted to remove her from existence.

Were it not for the FBI raid on the Complex (and the incriminating docs found) they might have succeeded.

As it is, they were never punished for the campaign of terror they rained down upon her.

:angry::angry::angry:
 

FlunkYou

Patron with Honors
The only way Paulette could be viewed as the "aggressor" is if what she wrote about the "church" were lies. Because if what she wrote was the truth, then she can only be viewed as a whistle-blower, or someone who exposed the truth.

Either her lies or the church's lies are the only angels of debate on this subject.
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
The only way Paulette could be viewed as the "aggressor" is if what she wrote about the "church" were lies. Because if what she wrote was the truth, then she can only be viewed as a whistle-blower, or someone who exposed the truth.

Either her lies or the church's lies are the only angels of debate on this subject.

That is not true. The appropriateness of Hubbard's actions are entirely relevant.

If I publish a book of deliberate, malicious lies about a group or an individual they have a variety of legal ways in which they can respond to this. Trying to have me killed, framed or institutionalized would not be among them.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
You don't have to. If you are familiar with the general state of mind of the criminally insane you know all you need to...

If not, simply peruse the transcripts from the Nuremberg trials where various Nazi's tried to blame the Jews for being the aggressors...

Well, right, Scientologists don't have a monopoly on the bad behavior we're talking about.

Gerry Armstrong said:
[video=youtube;9RPPjOSFKok]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RPPjOSFKok[/video]

A very useful, and poignant, comparison can be made between the Scientologists’ SP doctrine and the German Nazis’ Jewish doctrine. There is a striking parallel between the Scientologists’ organized black PRing of Suppressive Persons as antisocial personalities, etc., and the Nazis’ organized black PRing of Jews as vermin.

Mr. Hubbard and Scientologists also dehumanize SPs as vermin, even in their scripture, calling us “parasites,” “rats,” “squirrels,” “lice.” Mr. Hubbard ordered such dehumanization as policy and practice, for example in his February 16, 1969 policy letter he titled “Battle Tactics:”

"The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, this means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing, complete with atrocity, war crimes trials, the lot. Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That’s the enemy. What they love. That’s you.

You preserve the image or increase it of your own troops and degrade the image of the enemy to beast level."​

Keep in mind that "double curve" tech is scripturally mandated by Hubbard:

Hubbard said:


This is correct procedure:

(1) Spot who is attacking us.

(2) Start Investigating them promptly for FELONIES or worse using our own professionals, not outside agencies.

(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.

(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

Don’t ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way.

[...]

HOW TO STOP ATTACKS

The way we will eventually stop all attacks from there on out is by processing the society as follows:

(1) Locate a source of attack on us.

(2) Investigate it.

(3) Expose it with wide lurid publicity.​

You see the same thing in a preclear. He has a rotten spot in his behaviour. He attacks the practitioner. The spot is located on a meter. It blows and the preclear relaxes.

Well this is just what is happening in the society. We are a practitioner to the society. It has rotten spots in it. Those show up in attacks on us. We investigate and expose – the attack ceases.

We use investigators instead of E-Meters. We use newspapers instead of auditor reports. But it’s the same problem exactly.

So long as we neglect our role as auditor-to-the-society we will be attacked.

[...]

We must practice on the whole group called society. If we do not it will attack us just as a preclear will attack a Scientologist that won’t audit him.

To get wholly over to cause we must select targets, investigate and expose before they attack us.


Hubbard, L. (1966, 25 February) Attacks on Scientology (Additional Pol. Ltr).

_____

Document studied on Confidential Intelligence Course (Section 3 Part A, #8). PDF format.
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
As you have left out parts of my original post, I post it here again in its entirety. The post was initially a response to Claire Swazey.

originally posted by Balthasar

Finally somebody who can elaborate a perspective as opposed to knee-jerk reactions or hiding behind a wall of dense. I was already getting desperate. So thank you for that Claire.

Firstly I would like to point out that I don't condone unfair behaviour, be it from the church, Hubbard or anybody else. Fair means treating the people with tolerance and let them have a chance to survive and win in their live. Not chopping them down but granting them the same rights as I claim for myself. In short, treat people like I would be treated myself. That's not the same as "treating people lawfully". Fairness goes way beyond mere law. In fact law can be abused in a very, very unfair manner. I think we can at least agree on that.

Now what regards Paulette Cooper. Paulette Cooper is not whistle blowing. That is not the same. This was a heinous attack towards a group of people minding their own business.

Paulette Cooper meticulously planned and carried out her odious attack in a very unfair manner to say the least. Her mind was made up in advance. She was going to find what she wanted to find. Maybe she thought, that is what is going to sell well. After all, who would care about this Scientology cult being one of many back that days?

While we don't know what was going through her mind, it stands to reason to suspect that her motivations were money driven.

I have nothing against whistle blowing journalism like John Sweeney from BBC. It must be obvious even to the most hateful of Scientology and Hubbard that John Sweeney adheres to a significant different style. In no way you could call him under handed. Jon Sweeney is fair and what he is doing is fair journalism.

Tony Ortega from Huffington post comes also to mind. He is even better and must be regarded as a benchmark of objective and critical journalism.

Paulette Coopers journalism doesn't even come close to anything we hear from Sweeney or Ortega. Paulette Cooper has heinously attacked Scientology and Hubbard in the first place. Paulette Cooper was not a "nice" person. Paulette Coopers motives were based on greed and hate. Paulette Cooper, while she later became a "victim", was the initial aggressor.

That Church staff completely mishandled the matter and subsequently were settling was certainly a mistake. What the church should have done is to employ any and all legal means to fight Paulette Coopers discriminating writings and this includes litigating until the last breath or complete surrender, whichever is earlier.
 

Veda

Sponsor
As you have left out parts of my original post, I post it here again in its entirety. The post was initially a response to Claire Swazey.

The thread of its origin was referenced so anyone could take a look for themselves, and the post was clearly an excerpt as it was prefaced with "..."


Since you're here, tell us, when did you form your opinion of Paulette Cooper? What year?

Your admiration of Hubbard and your disdain of Cooper seem to be united in one sick coiled union.
 
Top