Scilon cultural ATTACK THE ATTACKER vs SELF DEFENSE

Mike Laws

Patron Meritorious
Id like to revisit something, from new perspective, and appreciate thought/discussion on it.

Any of us that were Scilon staff or SO especially, as well as well indoctrinated public understand and may have made our own the concept of "the defense of anything is untenable, the only solution is to attack". To some degree this does work to quiet attacks, especially earlier ... though does not seem so effective in current society and times. When I was in, this was almost a conditioned instinct. There is a whole lot that could be said, even using outside research, why this can actually stop attacks. Unfortunately, it is used in a very destructive and harmful manner by the Scilon empire, to break, degrade and silence critics, valid or not ... and in itself helps preserve the culture of abuse and makes internal reform incredibly difficult, if not impossible. In this instance, I believe attacking the attacker is not a rational thought process, rather a conditioned defensive "reactive" mechanism.

I have been accused many times on this board of attacking the attacker in my response to certain people. This actually did a wonderful job of shutting me down and making me think about it, has happened many times over the past 5 years, so I have had lots of chances to look at things that happen in the real world, and I don't think it is so simple.

Someone is attacking you verbally or otherwise. It is fairly common cultural "knowledge", especially in the West, the best defense is a good offense. Part of the culture from sports to chess to business to inter-human relations.

Where does self defense, start and stop, for example vs Scilon programming attack the attacker?

How do we define proper defensive conduct vs self and other destructive conditioning?

What is the morality of all of this.

I'll give a specific example; Dexter Gelfand and I. Never met the guy, he lived in a totally different world to the one I wanted to be in (freezone/independent scientology), we lived almost 2,000 miles apart, we had no first hand information on each other. He came after me through the boards. At first I tried to ignore, he kept coming, then I tried to make fun of it, laugh it off, then I engaged. A person that was a friend of his contacted me and said that Dexter was really a great guy, just a little too enthusiastic to be Hitler Youth for Frank Pate. I can actually understand that, but don't think I had any way of resolving anything until certain things were brought to light publicly and officially. Yeah, then I gloated. Wasn't really very satisfying because of the consequences, a family will be broken ... children will be harmed because of the actions of their father, getting arrested, and probably to Jail for a long time. Financially they will be ruined, a woman will probably have to raise three children on her own. Yeah, the guy defrauded many people for millions of dollars, but the kids didn't know how their father was supporting them ... just not a good thing for other people, regardless of whether the Dad earned it or not.

And because of Deters position of authority in the freezone movement, and his use of that position to forward a hidden agenda, to some degree people were tarred with the same brush as he earned, and I am referring to good and decent people who are genuinely trying to make positive changes in their and other lives with Scientology ... right or wrong, I know there are good and honorable people involved.

In the real world, some people cower when attacked, go away, hide, ignore, run. Others respond with indignation, attacking back. Others, get really viscous and attack and try and destroy whoever attacked or wronged them. The last is very similar, IMHO to the Scilon culture.

Attorneys are part of the societal attack the attacker defense ... counter suits etc.

If there is an attacker attacking someone, and hurting others, is there a responsibility, a moral obligation from those that can to stop it or bring to justice? Also an attack? And what about the whole whistle blower thing against the abuses of the Scilon culture ... isn't that also a form of attack against the attacker of free speech? I personally think these things are justified.

IMHO the blanket "attack the attacker" as a verb doesn't work any more.
 

anonomog

Gold Meritorious Patron
If there is an attacker attacking someone, and hurting others, is there a responsibility, a moral obligation from those that can to stop it or bring to justice? Also an attack? And what about the whole whistle blower thing against the abuses of the Scilon culture ... isn't that also a form of attack against the attacker of free speech? I personally think these things are justified.IMHO the blanket "attack the attacker" as a verb doesn't work any more.

Moral obligation rests entirely on the person's morals. Or sense of ethical duty. Ethics andmorals as understood in the non-sci world. I wonder if two people would react the same ever?
I would report one woman smacking her child and not another. Why? My own judgement as to what I consider abuse.

There are too many shades of gray in everday life and interactions for the blanket attack the attackers to always to be useful.
One of the best way I took in countering a bully was to say and do nothing. Nothing prepared him for that. Rare moments when that would work. I took great pleasure in making him look a fool and I don't regret the fall out on his family. I did not initiate the action, he did. So the responsibility lies with him. I have enough guilt of my own to take on other people's too.

Hubbard really loved having enemies. He fed on the drama, gave him purpose. i think this is scientology's slow release suicide pill.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Id like to revisit something, from new perspective, and appreciate thought/discussion on it.

. . . snipped . . .

If there is an attacker attacking someone, and hurting others, is there a responsibility, a moral obligation from those that can to stop it or bring to justice? Also an attack? And what about the whole whistle blower thing against the abuses of the Scilon culture ... isn't that also a form of attack against the attacker of free speech? I personally think these things are justified.

IMHO the blanket "attack the attacker" as a verb doesn't work any more.

Mike, this is a good subject to raise and one that should be thoroughly aired.

Ethically and morally it is never wrong to use truth to expose wrongness and destructiveness.

The real issue is the intent behind one's use of truth.

Truth can be used to help correct an individual or it can be used to deliberately harm and destroy them

Ethically, and for one's own sanity, one should stop destruction and evil by others when one can . . . that there may well be "collateral" damage can be a consideration . . . but the bottom line is: that collateral damage, as in the case you cite with Pate, is the result of his cause; not the cause of the person acting to prevent him from further damaging others. The perpetrator of the crime is responsible for ALL damage that comes about as a consequence of his direct action and as a result of the action of justice by others required to handle the criminal.

Using truth to handle any nonsensical or criminal situation really should not be seen as nor placed in the realm of being an "attack on the attacker" . . . it is the action of exposing destructive actions and seeking correction.

And this too, should be the response of folks who are attacked by being targeted by unscrupulous organizations or outfits like the cult of Scientology and its attorneys . . . the cult's philosophy of attacking with the evil intent to destroy "opposition" with the use of lies is evil, is wrong and is best remedied by use of truth to expose them for their evil intent and fraud. And it should be labeled and exposed as such: evil and fraud.

In the case you describe with Pate and Dexter . . . truth, mate, truth without any hatred . . . just leave them exposed and they will be abandoned by all who would in any way give or support them or believe in them.

Personally, I and others have not acted in the direction of the individuals you have named . . . most I am in touch with simply stopped dealing with the area (and it wonders why!! :duh:)

These types are too deluded to understand that folks do not like being bullshitted to . . . they are so into their own little boxes that they do not perceive what they produce or how folks are truly reacting to them. They eventually cease to exist because they run out of people to suck off while those that hold with them the longest are part of their delusion that contributes to their demise.

And that is why truth is the greatest remedy of all.

But use it against the actions of the Being . . . not the Being itself. One can destroy what they do . . . but if one acts to destroy them as Beings or as people, then one is risking future karma blow-back. One can quite safely "hate" what a person is doing and attack the action without bad karma collection: but to respond to the person with hatred and any attempt to attack the person himself is where one is indeed doing oneself a disservice and damage.

And, as a note here regarding ESMB . . . this is the reason it is a good rule that one should not attack individuals, the person himself, here: perfectly fine to hate his writing and to call it for what it is . . . but target the writing and the thoughts expressed, not the person.

Rog
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think a large part of his mindset is also the inability to admit any wrong or that their attacking isn't totally justified.

You mentioned your dealings with Dexter/Pate as an example of the attacking strategy. I'd be curious that if now that Pate has been indicted and there's an even bigger pile of evidence about his wrong doing if Dexter has admitted his error? Or does he now think it's all a grand conspiracy against Pate and he must now fight to clear his name? (Because Dexter could never admit he was so very wrong about Pate he will keep defending even in the face of all evidence.)
 
Id like to revisit something, from new perspective, and appreciate thought/discussion on it.

Any of us that were Scilon staff or SO especially, as well as well indoctrinated public understand and may have made our own the concept of "the defense of anything is untenable, the only solution is to attack". To some degree this does work to quiet attacks, especially earlier ... though does not seem so effective in current society and times. When I was in, this was almost a conditioned instinct. There is a whole lot that could be said, even using outside research, why this can actually stop attacks. Unfortunately, it is used in a very destructive and harmful manner by the Scilon empire, to break, degrade and silence critics, valid or not ... and in itself helps preserve the culture of abuse and makes internal reform incredibly difficult, if not impossible. In this instance, I believe attacking the attacker is not a rational thought process, rather a conditioned defensive "reactive" mechanism.

I have been accused many times on this board of attacking the attacker in my response to certain people. This actually did a wonderful job of shutting me down and making me think about it, has happened many times over the past 5 years, so I have had lots of chances to look at things that happen in the real world, and I don't think it is so simple.

Someone is attacking you verbally or otherwise. It is fairly common cultural "knowledge", especially in the West, the best defense is a good offense. Part of the culture from sports to chess to business to inter-human relations.

Where does self defense, start and stop, for example vs Scilon programming attack the attacker?

How do we define proper defensive conduct vs self and other destructive conditioning?

What is the morality of all of this.

I'll give a specific example; Dexter Gelfand and I. Never met the guy, he lived in a totally different world to the one I wanted to be in (freezone/independent scientology), we lived almost 2,000 miles apart, we had no first hand information on each other. He came after me through the boards. At first I tried to ignore, he kept coming, then I tried to make fun of it, laugh it off, then I engaged. A person that was a friend of his contacted me and said that Dexter was really a great guy, just a little too enthusiastic to be Hitler Youth for Frank Pate. I can actually understand that, but don't think I had any way of resolving anything until certain things were brought to light publicly and officially. Yeah, then I gloated. Wasn't really very satisfying because of the consequences, a family will be broken ... children will be harmed because of the actions of their father, getting arrested, and probably to Jail for a long time. Financially they will be ruined, a woman will probably have to raise three children on her own. Yeah, the guy defrauded many people for millions of dollars, but the kids didn't know how their father was supporting them ... just not a good thing for other people, regardless of whether the Dad earned it or not.

And because of Deters position of authority in the freezone movement, and his use of that position to forward a hidden agenda, to some degree people were tarred with the same brush as he earned, and I am referring to good and decent people who are genuinely trying to make positive changes in their and other lives with Scientology ... right or wrong, I know there are good and honorable people involved.

In the real world, some people cower when attacked, go away, hide, ignore, run. Others respond with indignation, attacking back. Others, get really viscous and attack and try and destroy whoever attacked or wronged them. The last is very similar, IMHO to the Scilon culture.

Attorneys are part of the societal attack the attacker defense ... counter suits etc.

If there is an attacker attacking someone, and hurting others, is there a responsibility, a moral obligation from those that can to stop it or bring to justice? Also an attack? And what about the whole whistle blower thing against the abuses of the Scilon culture ... isn't that also a form of attack against the attacker of free speech? I personally think these things are justified.

IMHO the blanket "attack the attacker" as a verb doesn't work any more.

Attack the attacker is very sci-cult think. And a sort of fixation on strategy in dealing with people.

Unscientologised people think more in dealing with people; directly, indirectly, bluntly, diplomatically, carefully, sensitively, and sometimes assertively, or ruthlessly-after other approaches have failed-etc.
 

Elronius of Marcabia

Silver Meritorious Patron
Attack the attacker is very sci-cult think. And a sort of fixation on strategy in dealing with people.

Unscientologised people think more in dealing with people; directly, indirectly, bluntly, diplomatically, carefully, sensitively, and sometimes assertively, or ruthlessly-after other approaches have failed-etc.

Soap Bubbles at dawn attack attack !! or is that thought bubbles:duh: I always confuse the two:blush:


nevermind:biggrin:
 
I, for one, am usually guilty of attacking the attacker.

And how I feel afterwards when the adrenaline dies down is that I know I shouldn't have.

Not because of any consequences to myself, but because I feel it was wrong.

It is the old Kantian ethics--do the right thing regardless of the consequences, and treating others as a means to your own ends (whether it be status or anything else) is always the wrong thing to do.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Francois Tremblay

Patron with Honors
"target the writing and the thoughts expressed, not the person."

I'm afraid that makes no sense to me. What you write is a consequence of the kind of person you are and the beliefs that you hold. Criticism of someone's writing is, logically, a criticism of that person: being "nice" or "polite" just means to hide that fact. And we do hide that fact because we don't want people to feel ego-wounded every time we criticize them. That's just normal, polite behavior, conducive to civil discussion. But the hiding of the fact doesn't deny the fact.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
Religions, pseudo religions, cults, political parties and the like have one thing in common... a hatred of real debate. Part of the approach of real debate is the willingness to listen to the other side and the willingness to learn, even to change one's mind. Implanted points of view can't allow this, so we have the Isis way of handling a different point of view, and slightly milder the KSW way. Fundamentalism is growing all over the planet as the basics of debate are forgotten and certainly not taught, and perhaps the lack of willingness to discuss oppositional viewpoints just shows a lack of grasp of the subject from the attacker. I know personally whenever I have become a flaming angry hate filled customer on the line to a service provider it was because underneath I was in the wrong, just couldn't admit it to myself.
 

Lavalyte

Patron with Honors
I think a large part of his mindset is also the inability to admit any wrong or that their attacking isn't totally justified.

You mentioned your dealings with Dexter/Pate as an example of the attacking strategy. I'd be curious that if now that Pate has been indicted and there's an even bigger pile of evidence about his wrong doing if Dexter has admitted his error? Or does he now think it's all a grand conspiracy against Pate and he must now fight to clear his name? (Because Dexter could never admit he was so very wrong about Pate he will keep defending even in the face of all evidence.)

Defending your position might require you to consider if your position is actually defensible.
 

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
Scientologists are taught to view any criticism of Scientology as an attack and then they apply the "attack the attacker" rule.

This happens elsewhere also. Often you see on a blog or somewhere similar that a person who disagrees with something is called "a hater".

So it seems to me that there is another problem here, apart from the "attack the attacker" idea and that is the fixed mindset of being totally right about a subject and being unwilling to entertain other people's opinions.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Defending your position might require you to consider if your position is actually defensible.

I think this might be the big point here.

I only ever did peacetime military training, but as part of that I was once upon a time taught how to defend a piece of ground from attack. In a sense I suppose that the military idea still was mainly to defend by attacking, inasmuch as you mainly think about shooting attackers, and you counter-attack aggressively, before the enemy has time to consolidate any gains. But you do dig foxholes, because a yard or two of dirt will stop a bullet or a shell fragment. It's a complex problem whose tactics have been worked out through a lot of hard experience.

Among the military principles of defense that I learned, there is one that I've always remembered, because it has always seemed relevant to defense in general: 'defense in depth'. What it means is that you don't just have one thin line that has to be held at all costs because there's nothing behind it. You have forward positions, and depth positions behind them. If your whole platoon is overrun, your company has a depth platoon behind it. Behind that, the battalion has a depth company; and so on. Fighting through your whole force is going to be a long, hard slog for the enemy. An infantry defense is a jawbreaker, not a soap bubble.

In analogy what I think that means is that holding any viewpoint intelligently requires having a sense of priorities. Not every point in your belief system can be equally important. It can't be an all-or-nothing package deal. There have to be core beliefs, and nice-to-have corollaries. When some point on your outer perimeter comes under fire, you respond; but it's not a mad panic. You can pull back a bit and watch how things develop. Maybe that particular point was an indefensible salient; you can afford to abandon it. Or maybe it lies right in the crossfire of your heaviest batteries, and it's the enemy's attack that was futile.

Actually I'm not at all sure that such a relaxed approach would be sound, militarily. Pulling back is not as easy as it sounds, when it means climbing out of your foxhole and scrambling across open ground under fire. Okay; I wound up as a professor, not a battalion commander. But higher commanders really are supposed to stay calm and avoid panicked over-reactions. However it's really supposed to be realized in military practice, the principle of conducting a calm and careful defense from a strong position is one that I've always thought translates well into intellectual terms. Strong defense is defense-in-depth.

Rightly or wrongly, I associate aggressive counter-argument with insecurity, and I associate serious and substantial ideas with calm acceptance that the opponent may well have some valid points. A person with a really solid case isn't worried about all the details. A person who will not yield an inch, no matter what, is a person who knows that their entire position depends upon that first inch. They don't have a real defense at all — just a thin line of frightened individuals in isolated forward foxholes, with nothing behind them and nowhere to go.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
I think this might be the big point here.

I only ever did peacetime military training, but as part of that I was once upon a time taught how to defend a piece of ground from attack. In a sense I suppose that the military idea still was mainly to defend by attacking, inasmuch as you mainly think about shooting attackers, and you counter-attack aggressively, before the enemy has time to consolidate any gains. But you do dig foxholes, because a yard or two of dirt will stop a bullet or a shell fragment. It's a complex problem whose tactics have been worked out through a lot of hard experience.

Among the military principles of defense that I learned, there is one that I've always remembered, because it has always seemed relevant to defense in general: 'defense in depth'. What it means is that you don't just have one thin line that has to be held at all costs because there's nothing behind it. You have forward positions, and depth positions behind them. If your whole platoon is overrun, your company has a depth platoon behind it. Behind that, the battalion has a depth company; and so on. Fighting through your whole force is going to be a long, hard slog for the enemy. An infantry defense is a jawbreaker, not a soap bubble.

In analogy what I think that means is that holding any viewpoint intelligently requires having a sense of priorities. Not every point in your belief system can be equally important. It can't be an all-or-nothing package deal. There have to be core beliefs, and nice-to-have corollaries. When some point on your outer perimeter comes under fire, you respond; but it's not a mad panic. You can pull back a bit and watch how things develop. Maybe that particular point was an indefensible salient; you can afford to abandon it. Or maybe it lies right in the crossfire of your heaviest batteries, and it's the enemy's attack that was futile.

Actually I'm not at all sure that such a relaxed approach would be sound, militarily. Pulling back is not as easy as it sounds, when it means climbing out of your foxhole and scrambling across open ground under fire. Okay; I wound up as a professor, not a battalion commander. But higher commanders really are supposed to stay calm and avoid panicked over-reactions. However it's really supposed to be realized in military practice, the principle of conducting a calm and careful defense from a strong position is one that I've always thought translates well into intellectual terms. Strong defense is defense-in-depth.

Rightly or wrongly, I associate aggressive counter-argument with insecurity, and I associate serious and substantial ideas with calm acceptance that the opponent may well have some valid points. A person with a really solid case isn't worried about all the details. A person who will not yield an inch, no matter what, is a person who knows that their entire position depends upon that first inch. They don't have a real defense at all — just a thin line of frightened individuals in isolated forward foxholes, with nothing behind them and nowhere to go.

I think you are very right. Fanaticism is pretty much a proof that the person hasn't understood the subject, most Muslims don't understand the archaic language of their holy book, the suicide bombers and slayers of minorities are asserting their shaky faith by committing these atrocities, just as those pointing out witches once were.

The military are only involved when politics has failed. Politics only fails because at least one side is unable to look at the other's viewpoint. We could save a lot of lives and money by training people, including foreign students, to listen. Many of the world's dictators once did training at in Europe or America, surely we could spend a little time teaching debate, not just how to kill or how to dictate in the English language.
 

Elronius of Marcabia

Silver Meritorious Patron
Attack the attacker is very sci-cult think. And a sort of fixation on strategy in dealing with people.

Unscientologised people think more in dealing with people; directly, indirectly, bluntly, diplomatically, carefully, sensitively, and sometimes assertively, or ruthlessly-after other approaches have failed-etc.

When you say cult think you may as well say Hubbard think, and the think that we're talking about is "Fair Game" and its presented as
an ethical way to deal with people who criticise or challenge Hubbards authority.

Hubbard thought himself above the law and so "Denied the rights of others" (his defintion of a suppressive btw)

It was and is not only unethical it was and is against the law, which is to say the mores of the American people.
Lie cheat and steal etc from another person because you've tried and convicted them of crimes that you (Hubbard) wrote up.

The height of arrogance to say the least.

I very much agree db that an unscientologised person which is to say an ethical person would "think" reason based on all
possibility of ways to handle criticism, "to always attack never defend" is a robotic unthinking moralistic way of dealing
with critics and or criticism.

Hubbard was a dickhead and those that follow his teachings have the mindset of a dickhead, not a personal attack on Scientologists
just on what Hubbard wrote, it was and is castles made of sand and so its defense is a very hard thing to do, so attack rather
than let the waves of natural criticism wash away your castles made of sand, obfuscate confuse and change the subject as effort
to turn attention away from the actual crimes of scientology, scientologists and L Ron Hubbard starting with fraudulent claims
of science of the mind.
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
Id like to revisit something, from new perspective, and appreciate thought/discussion on it.

Any of us that were Scilon staff or SO especially, as well as well indoctrinated public understand and may have made our own the concept of "the defense of anything is untenable, the only solution is to attack". To some degree this does work to quiet attacks, especially earlier ... though does not seem so effective in current society and times. When I was in, this was almost a conditioned instinct. There is a whole lot that could be said, even using outside research, why this can actually stop attacks. Unfortunately, it is used in a very destructive and harmful manner by the Scilon empire, to break, degrade and silence critics, valid or not ... and in itself helps preserve the culture of abuse and makes internal reform incredibly difficult, if not impossible. In this instance, I believe attacking the attacker is not a rational thought process, rather a conditioned defensive "reactive" mechanism.

I would agree, Hubbard basically used Ad Hom attack for his PTS/SP stuff.

a conditioned defensive "reactive" mechanism = ad hom attack


Alanzo says it better than me: http://www.alanzosblog.com/how-l-ron-hubbard-tricked-you-scientology-logic-vs-logic/

"For instance, the outpoint called “wrong target” in the data series is NOT the same thing as “ad hominem attack” in classical logic. By only knowing the outpoint of “Wrong target”, you will never be able to spot the logical fallacy inherent in “ad hominem attack” because you have not studied classical logic.

And that was good for Hubbard. Because, as a Scientologist, if you were never able to spot an ad hominem attack,
you would also never figure out that his whole PTS/SP technology is based upon the (classical) logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack.

It was a trick.

Why would he do that? Why would he distract you from the skills you need to inspect reasoning, evaluate arguments and claims, and preserve the truth throughout the reasoning process?
So all his other tricks would work on you, of course."

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/ad-hominem-examples.html
 

Elronius of Marcabia

Silver Meritorious Patron
"the defense of anything is untenable, the only solution is to attack".

it should have read "the defense of "Dianetics" is untenable. the only solution is to attack"
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
I really like this thread. Mike's comment raises important questions which raises important viewpoints to be considered, as demonstrated by many of the the responses.

Where does self defense, start and stop, for example vs Scilon programming attack the attacker?

How do we define proper defensive conduct vs self and other destructive conditioning?

What is the morality of all of this.

The whole thread, so far anyway, contains very good ideas and thoughts showing the complexity of understanding human responses to a human issue.


I have learned by process of elimination and by default over the 8 years I have been on the internet as an ex, that I need to understand some of who I am dealing with before I decide whether to act or not act or defend myself or others or attack.

I think that many exes who have come to the internet start rethinking or evaluating what they read, based upon what they know, good, bad or both, about Scientoilogy. They begin to entertain other ideas from the ones they have thought before, some more or less than others. They get this not just from reading media reports or blogs, but from interaction with other exes (and information provided on the internet by them) of a like kind thinking. Most avoid reading things at first by other non-scientologists who are knowledgeable on the subject or who provide other ideas on help or mental health or how to live life. Or that scientology is a cult.

Scientologists are so embedded with Scientology that it's a struggle for anyone at first, whether they finally got fed up, or have no choice because because the church can't be fixed or were thrust out as an SP. Grocking that one can learn to exercise freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom from Scientology without the usual consequences is, on it's own, a transforming experience at the start but even more so as one goes along.

The 'attack don't defend' mentality is only part of it. For example, one learns quickly that in most circles they can now make a joke about something previously forbidden in the cult, and that people laugh instead of writing a KR on them. Then there is the embedded idea that one is degraded to a degree if they joke and degrade Scientology in any way. The suppression of one's sense of humor, and the fear to not be thought of as a degraded being to any degree, sits on the surface of an ex until they experience the relief and fun reactions to this new found freedom.

The freedoms are endless. And these freedoms include enjoining society, in being allowed to be right and express a viewpoint, to like or not like something, to associate or not with individuals or sections of the ex community. The freedom to be human in the wog world. To not have to believe things one was instructed to believe, to be able to evaluate things one was not supposed to question. And so many more freedoms.

The responses to this freedom vary. Holding on to old beliefs, the 'good of scientology' is a natural thing because if there had been no good in it, none of us would have remained in it for as long as we did. There are some who can be likened to a freed war hostage who is so conditioned that what is offered anew may be too much for them to consider or or want to deal with differently.An exes' ideas on what is right and wrong, on what is one's obligation or responsibility, on what ones moral views, are a combination of experiences, knowledge, and education ( literally and in the broadest sense of the word) and beliefs.

Leaving Scientology means different things to different people. The desire for like minded friends, for a a '3rd dynamic' connection to other exes, one that brings happiness like 'it used to feel in Scientology' is in large part what draws people to either critics or indies when they first get out, and as they progress in recovery This is where the cultural influences happen. Each has group subsets of varying degrees founded on the like or dislike of Scientology. As time goes on, many seem to change viewpoints on what's right or what's wrong, or what is the best way to deal with matters or information and as a result, they interact differently, less defiant of the 'opposition' less forceful in dealing with other exes.

Scientology 'think' includes many MUSTS: must do, must not do, must not say, must say. These get incorporated into how we act towards and think about others, and what we expect of others and ourselves. Scientologists are very forceful on the musts, the expectations of others. One can see the mindset easily on this forum, especially with those newly out. An ex telling other exes what to do, what is right, what is not right, what is best, what to think. Been there, done that - and who hasn't?

Then on the other hand, you have the presence and influences of the cultural norms and ways ways of 'Wogdom', some of which are defensive or just down right uncaring, where contagion of the usual 'wog' behaviors are embraced. Like vicious gossip for instance. Or defense of friends without being altogether rational on the issue. I believe it's a bad combination when the old mentality of 'attack don't defend' becomes 'attach and defend' for reasons that don't bring about a resolution, but often stir things up more and intentionally so. In a group, these behaviors quickly get out of hand when there isn't someone to check it going on.

If there is an attacker attacking someone, and hurting others, is there a responsibility, a moral obligation from those that can to stop it or bring to justice? Also an attack? And what about the whole whistle blower thing against the abuses of the Scilon culture ... isn't that also a form of attack against the attacker of free speech? I personally think these things are justified.

IMHO the blanket "attack the attacker" as a verb doesn't work any more.

What seems to work often best for me includes providing other points of view, attempting to reason logically, ignoring and allowing natural consequences to happen if reason and communication are just not possible or working.

Respecting the rules, say, of a forum, is a good example. People follow them or they don't. They get warned or banned as a natural consequence if they keep testing or violating the rules.

Without guidelines, groups of all shapes and sizes become and act based upon what they agree to. This is why there are rules of conduct set by people in charge of homes, forums, workplaces and laws in society.

To me, the issue of conflict between exes, of the baloney that can go on publicly or back channel in attacks against someone who is not doing what is expected of the ex is compounded by the presence or degree of presence of the scientology mindset. A shared mindset of ideas that remain in a person to any degree, and are embraced by like minded exes or 'friends' can cause havoc for another person, especially someone wanting to fight injustice. However, the degree of fervency in what one is doing and aiming at and the fervency of those responding or feeling compelled to respond are big factors in how one considers the feeling of others.

Not caring about an a person targeted as an enemy, wanting to attack to destroy what they are doing or believe in, is not only a human response but it is also inherent in Scientology and indoctrinated into scientologists. Exes evolve out of this to some degree but the cultural norms make it easy for an ex to retain some of it. An 'us vs them', a 'right vs wrong', a 'bad vs good' mentality to justify what they say and do. Going on about ones business, doing what one intended to do and feels is best, ignoring attacks, not getting into flame wars or us vs them entanglements while doing it is not the path of least resistance. As long as the desire to do or act is not compelled, or dictated by the Scientology in us, the effect of the attacks are easy to handle. We don't need to be seen as "right" in the eyes of others to be at peace about what we do and how we see things.

Sorry so long but this thread really got me thinking about what I have observed, what I have learned, what I need to remind myself of when challenged.
 

arcxcauseblows

Patron Meritorious
Simple

Let them attack you just get it on video, put it on YouTube and let the world decide, they always lose.

Another way they always lose is they have to stay in the dark online so they have no clue how exposed they are and can't approach anything like a logical debate.

They attack the players not the ball so they never even score.

The only pitch they throw is the beanball

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beanball

We don't have to do anything but rack up bases

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_by_pitch
 
Last edited:

Mike Laws

Patron Meritorious
When you say cult think you may as well say Hubbard think, and the think that we're talking about is "Fair Game" and its presented as
an ethical way to deal with people who criticise or challenge Hubbards authority.

Hubbard thought himself above the law and so "Denied the rights of others" (his defintion of a suppressive btw)

...

I am not sure I completely agree with you here, this as an absolute concept. Yeah, he built an organization with his ego as a key components of the culture, since his death the culture has changed and evolved. I feel like during his life, the ruthlessness was more in protection of him and the organization, it has morphed to a point that many people seem to have a high level of visciousness for thier own benefit as well. I honestly don't remember this from the 70's and 80's, though I was pretty young then. The culture is changing, earlier imperfections were almost celebrated ... the pirates and bums thing as a badge of honor. Now, it is all chrome hard steel shit.
 
Top