Enthetan
Master of Disaster
I think I found the original place I encountered it, in a posting by Robert Vaughn Young on
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/mindcontrolmodel.htm
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/mindcontrolmodel.htm
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
lkwdblds
Crusader
Thanks for telling me - Rober Young
Thanks Enthetan. I have actually read most of the stuff about Robert Young. He was married to Stacy Brooks from the Lisa Mc Pherson Trust fame. I am a great admirer of both of them. Somehow I missed the abusive relationship term. I know he died of prostate cancer around 2002 or 2003. He was a real pro, brilliant and very well educated before he got involved in Scn.
Lakey
Thanks Enthetan. I have actually read most of the stuff about Robert Young. He was married to Stacy Brooks from the Lisa Mc Pherson Trust fame. I am a great admirer of both of them. Somehow I missed the abusive relationship term. I know he died of prostate cancer around 2002 or 2003. He was a real pro, brilliant and very well educated before he got involved in Scn.
Lakey
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
The essay that you are speaking of was by Robert Vaughn Young, aka Vaughn Young, aka RVY, a mainstay of the GO. He died of the big C in 2003 (I think).
Here is the link:
http://www.holysmoke.org/rvy/rvy3.htm
this is the text (but go to the url for more cogent comments
Toward a new model of "cult control"
by Robert Vaughn Young
From: [email protected] (Robert Vaughn Young)
Subject: Toward a new model of "cult control" by Robert Vaughn Young
Date: 23 Feb 2000 00:23:38 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Monday, February 21, 2000
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF "CULT CONTROL"
© By Robert Vaughn Young
(Preface: I am making this long post to ARS because I am stepping away from this work and I want to get it into the hands of people who study or are concerned with this issue. I do not know who has taken this view. It is merely my perspective and opinion and can certainly prompt debate, not to mention screams of horror from any cult. I just want it to be seriously considered by the professionals who deal with this. Others should be interviewed on it and the model developed and tested. Nor do I think it is the only model. I merely think it might help some who could not be helped before. I only ask that someone provide a copy of this to whoever might be interested in the issue of "cult control.")
After I left Scientology in 1989 with 21 years in the cult, the hardest question people posed to me was why I stayed in it so long if I knew it was such an abusive system. I didn't have an answer that satisfied me, let alone anyone else. I think I've come up with a reply and a model. It at least satisfies me today.
My own background and basic interests also demanded an answer to that question. I had a pursued and obtained a BA in philosophy (from what was then known as San Francisco State College) because of a strong interest in what we called philosophy of behavior/mind/psychology. (The choice often depended on the school, as well as the emphasis within the field.)
I was then accepted into the PhD program at the University of California at Davis. I picked them because they had a strong program in this new, growing field of study. (Twenty years later I discovered that the field of "cognitive science" had emerged with entire departments devoted to it and PhDs being granted at some universities. Cognitive Science is a blend of philosophy, psychology and some computer science, namely in the area of AI or artificial intelligence, which was exactly what I was looking for. AI was posing new philosophical problems but back in the late 1960s, departments had yet to integrate them as full subjects.)
It was this interest of mine that prompted me to read Hubbard. I was intrigued with elements of his philosophy, namely some of the epistemological and cosmological presentations. Scientology's Dept 20/RTC and their attorneys (especially in my last deposition in Tampa a couple of weeks ago) can't grasp this. When they ask why I got into Scientology, they make all sorts of assumptions, from "personal improvement" to my wanting to join a religion. No, I say, trying to explain, but it never sticks. For an "applied religious philosophy" they haven't a clue what "philosophy" even means, let alone "religious philosophy." (They think that a "religious philosophy" is a religion. Get a clue!) But then, Hubbard didn't understand it either, as I finally came to learn.
Which brings it back to the issue of why I stayed. There was one incident that happened in 1988 that I kept as my litmus test. I knew if I could understand it, I could understand it all.
I was on the Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF) at "Golden Era Studios" at Gilman Hot Springs CA. (For the sake of brevity, let's skip why I was there and the way it works and the like and just cut to the chase. Besides, it's irrelevant to the point I'm making and I think I've written about it before.) My situation had deteriorated to the point that I was afraid I was either going to go crazy on the RPF or die so I escaped one night. They found me at a motel in nearby Hemet and wanted to talk. I said okay and the next thing I knew, I agreed to return to the "program" and to finish the RPF. I did and was on it another 5-6 months (total 16 months) before "graduating."
Here is my litmus test. More than why did I stay in here, why did I return if I felt it was so abusive that I escaped? And here's the kicker: they TALKED me back in. They didn't lay a hand on me. By just talking with me, they convinced me to give up what I had planned for weeks and executed. They convinced me to go back to the very condition that I feared would kill me. Why did I do it?
And this must be remembered: I can look back (11 years after fleeing) and see that I was right to escape the RPF and wrong to return. So why did I return and then stay?
Here's where the "mind control" advocates might argue their point. After all, isn't this what "mind control" is all about where I was "controlled" to do something that was inherently against my will?
Or the "brainwashing" school might give their explanation from that perspective. After 21 years in the cult, they might say, I was "conditioned" and like some "Manchurian Candidate" or Pavlovian dog, someone merely rang some bell or pushed a button and I complied.
I never bought either model. As I tried to understand, I read some articles by "experts" on the subject of "cult control" but they just didn't fit. It was like putting on an expensive but oversized coat that hung off the fingertips and draped across me like a double-breasted. Yeah, it was a "coat" and the "label" was impressive but ---
I wondered if it was me. Maybe I resented the idea that I had been "brainwashed" or there was "mind control" and so that was why I didn't like the theories. I found myself in an amusing situation where I was agreeing with the cult that the models didn't work but there was still SOMEthing, some point of control. Why was I talked back into a situation that I detested and that I could look back on years later and agree, yes, something else was at work. There WAS some sort of "control" but "mind control"? It didn't work.
It wasn't until my first trip to Wellspring that I found the model that worked for me. It had nothing to do with them. It was some books that were on their shelves that I was reading in my spare time that let me realize the model that worked for me: the battered or abused woman. The idea didn't take hold fully then. It took further reading (including some on the Web) some months later to bring it together.
Various "experts" can (and do) argue if "mind control" or "brainwashing" really exists or if we are just talking about various forms of "influence" that is found in everything from advertising to conversations. But they can't argue with the fact that there are battered/abused women who stay in abusive situations and there are women who flee and when found by the husband are talked BACK into the very relationship they tried to escape and then it repeats.
Until a very few years ago, our society didn't even ADMIT to these women, let alone try to help them or try to understand the phenomenon. Being the male-dominated society we are, it was even legal in many states for a husband to hit his wife, and may still be. If a woman went to the police, they simply called the husband. But now women are stepping forward and it isn't easy. It is like being a rape victim and speaking out. It takes courage and it took some women to force this issue on our (American) male-dominated society and MAKE it an issue. That is why it is a new issue. It is not that it hasn't existed. It has undoubtedly existed for as long as there have been men and women but - like civil rights and other issues - it took some "victims" FORCING the issue before anyone even admitted that it existed.
The first time I saw the parallel between my own experiences in the cult of Scientology and battered women was when I was reading "Captive Hearts, Captive Minds," which is an excellent book. It was in the Intro or maybe the first chapter that they cited and quoted the singer Tina Turner who had been in an abusive relationship for something like 10 or 15 years. She remarked how being with Ike Turner was like being in a small cult. The remark jumped off the page at me. Given the success of Tina Turner as an entertainer, one is not prone to say she is a stupid woman but there she was in a marriage where she was beaten constantly and yet she stayed. When she finally escaped, as she tells her story, it was after a beating that left her head so swollen that she couldn't put on a wig. She wrapped her head in a scarf and fled, taking no money or anything and finally got away from Ike Turner.
One wonders how often she has been asked since, "Tina, you're such a talented woman, so intelligent, how could you stay with a man for 10/15 years who was beating you?" Maybe she has an answer in her autobiography. I don't know. It is on my to-read list. But I know she was asked that question. Every woman who escapes a man who has been beating them must get that question and it is probably the hardest one in the world to answer. After all, it's not that you don't KNOW you're getting beaten. And it didn't happen just once. Nor twice. It happens week after week, month after month, year after year.
Nor are these women locked up. The husband goes off to work, for example, and she has a car. She gets in the car and she goes to the store, buys food, and brings it home, to the very place where she is being beaten and she makes dinner. She doesn't keep driving. SHE COMES BACK. To what? More abuse.
There are also plenty of cases where the women DID escape, where they finally got up their courage and maybe grabbing the kids, they fled and the man managed to find them. Then, with no physical abuse, he TALKED HER BACK. And then when the abuse started again, she stayed. Some leave, but some stay.
When I began to see the parallel between my own experience and these women, I went back and re-read Lifton's 10 or however many points that he makes for his model and I realized that it was based on studying prisoners of war! That was hardly a secret but when he and others were making their models of "mind control" or "brainwashing" or however you call it, battered women weren't even a subject which, for me, was a telling difference. After all, what repatriated prisoner of war says he wants to go back? What prisoner of war was let out of their cell and allowed to go into the city to relax and then went back to the prison where they were abused and tortured? THAT, for me, is where the model breaks down and where the model of the abused or battered woman takes over.
Even before I realized how the plight of the abused woman paralleled my situation, I used to wonder how people from East Germany were able to cross into Berlin to shop and then would return. If conditions in East Berlin were as bad as we were being told in the West, how could they step into the West, see the difference, buy the things they didn't have back home and then return? I don't cite this as an exact parallel, but there is a similarity. Why would a person go BACK to a condition that is worse? I don't think "mind control" or "brainwashing" fits that situation any more than it fits the abused woman or that it fit mine.
One day talking with someone about this new idea that I had, I mentioned the East German parallel and the person made an excellent point. "East Germany was their home," she said. "People don't easily leave their homes unless they have someplace better to go."
And that nearly tied the two together for me, as well as back into my situation. Where can the abused woman go? Can she just take off for nowhere? I don't know. I do know that when I escaped the RPF, I didn't have anywhere to GO, which was why I went to a motel. (There was another reason but it is somewhat immaterial for this point.) When Stacy and I successfully fled in 1989, we were in the same bind. We didn't have anyplace to GO. We knew that the cult had the names and addresses and phone numbers of every single family member and friend. If nothing else, our mail had been monitored and read for years and there is no doubt in my mind that the already-existing list was expanded from that monitoring. (Their excuse for opening and reading all mail that comes to staff at the org is to watch for billings to the org. It is a Hubbard policy. Staff are then pulled in and interrogated about mail considered suspicious.)
Knowing that they had such a list, we knew we could not go to any of those people so we just hit the road and drove. I had already been talked back in once. And there was one other time when I tried to escape and got as far as the gate and was talked back. So that was one thing I knew I had to avoid. I had to get enough space and time to get my own wits about me to fend off another attempt, if they could find us.
That is also why I believe cult members have to escape in secret: they are afraid they will be talked back in or convinced to stay. I know what that feels like.
After I began to apply the abused or battered woman model (for want of better words) to my own situation, I had an inadvertent and unintentional opportunity to test it and I will never forget the experience. I was back on Vashon Island, sometime in 1999, where I had been living. (For those who don't know, Vashon is an island in Puget Sound.) Vashon is an incredibly unique community. When you live there, you are an "islander" and it grants you a number of unstated privileges. It took me a long time to realize what it reminded me of. It is what the Old West (in the US) used to be like. A person was accepted for who they said they were until they proved otherwise. You answered to the locals, not outsiders. That was how Vashon islanders lived.
There were two bars on the island, across the street from each other. One of them was where the "kids" and off-islanders hung out. It had a pool table and a big screen TV for watching games. The other was quiet, sedate and for the "old timers" who knew each other and everything that was happening on the island. Even if you were new on the island, by the time you visited, they knew you and more than you imagined. It was the sort of place where you could sit down, have a beer and catch up on the local gossip. Any visitors to the island looking for a place to hang out would stick their heads in and then leave and choose the one across the street, leaving us to our own rhythm. It was also a place where you could just sit and if you wanted to be alone, you were left alone. It was that sort of place.
One night I went in, getting the usual hi's and nods and maybe a slap on the back or giving one in return. 'Hey, where ya been!" someone asked. "Oh, hanging around," I answered. Such a reply would be enough. If I wanted to say more, I would. No one would pry. I pulled up a bar stool, ordered a beer and sat watching ESPN. It was the only acceptable station because one could watch it with no sound, and it was kept at no sound so people could play the juke box if they wanted.
I was there relaxing for about 15 minutes when a woman sat down next to me. More out of reflex than anything else, I turned and looked and nodded and she nodded back. Then I went back to the TV to watch how the Mariners were doing. The barkeep said hi to her in a way that meant she was a local.
After a couple of minutes she spoke up. "You're the one they've been picketing, aren't you?"
I turned to her. She was sipping on her beer. She was maybe 45 and dressed as islanders dress. (Nine times out of ten, you can spot an off-islander by their attire.) She was clearly a local, although I didn't recognize her. That was easy enough on this island. "Yeah," I said.
"How's it going? They still doing it?"
No, I said, it's been quiet lately. She told me how she thought it was terrible, how they come onto the island like that. It's not how islanders behave, she said. Yeah, I replied with a shrug. They just don't get it.
"I saw you on the 'Dateline' show," she said. I nodded as she remarked some more about it. Finally she asked the question. "So how long were you in Scientology?"
"About 21 years," I said.
"Wow," she said actually surprised. "If it really is as bad as I hear, how could you stay in it that long?"
There it was, that same question. Well, this time I had a new answer.
"I guess that's like asking an abused women why she stayed in that relationship for so long when --- "
She suddenly turned to me and raised her hands in front of her, one of those "halt" motions and said, "Say no more! I just ended an abusive marriage of 12 years. I know exactly what you are talking about."
And right there, we became friends. We had something in common.
We exchanged a few more words on the subject of coming to one's senses and then the entire subject was dropped. Neither of us were interested in it. We each understood the other fully and spent the next hour talking about the island, the Mariners and other pleasantries of life until she finally paid her bill and got off the stool, shook my hand, wished me well and said she'd tell her friends about us.
After she left and in the year since, I've thought about that conversation many times, how there was an instant connection by her, an immediate recognition. She never said how long it had been since she ended the marriage but it had probably been long enough to be asked the same question that she found herself asking me. But it was by an incredibly stroke of luck that the first person I said that to happened to be a women who escaped from an abusive relationship. It could have been someone who would have let me finish my statement and said, "You know, I've never understood that either," but it wasn't. It was a woman who said, say no more, I know exactly what you're talking about. And she did. Our situations were entirely different but they were the same.
After that I realized that for the first time I had a model that I could use in the most difficult situations and the understanding would be based on that person's grasp of the situation of the abused woman. With this model/analogy, I could go on the "Oprah" show and with that response she would get it, as would millions of women watching the show. Nothing else would be needed. There wouldn't have to be arguments about "mind control" or "brainwashing" and if it really exists. Abused women exist and whatever keeps them there or brings them back, it happens. That fact cannot be denied.
Now that I've made my point, let me expand it. In my opinion, this model/analogy extends much further than the control of a cult. I think it can be found in jobs where the person feels trapped and wants to leave but can't. There might be a difference that the "boss" may not try to talk them back, but I think this model/analogy goes farther than merely cults and abused women. That would be up to others to pursue. My point is that I'm not targeting Scientology. The model worked for me in my situation and I think it would help others who have had difficulty understanding the "control" they felt. It helped me because it lifted out of the subjects of "mind control" and "brainwashing" and told me that it was not exclusive to the cult. In turn, I understood - or at least sympathized - with the plight of the abused woman. I no longer wondered why they stayed or returned. I didn't have an answer, but I was no longer puzzled.
At my last deposition in Tampa, there was a point where this came up. I don't recall what it was but I was asked something that prompted me to say that I thought the abused woman syndrome was a good model for what I had experienced. Of course, there were the guffaws and laughs of severe denial from their part. It is to be expected from the abusers, isn't it? No abusive husband admits to it and no abusive cult will either and for the same reasons.
Before closing, let me make a couple more points of parallel.
No abusive relationship starts that way. In fact, the chances are that if the guy had slapped her on the first date, there wouldn't be a second one. No, the abusive relationship starts with sweetness. When I was reading about abusive relationships, that came up constantly, how the guy was so nice and sweet. No, the abuse is gradual. It starts with some criticism and when the woman accepts it, then there is a little bit more. When she accepts that, the man does more as he introduces CONTROL. If she protests, he backs off until he can reestablish the control. It is called a GRADIENT. (Ironically, Scientologists will be familiar with that word.) The woman comes to accept more and more and becomes convinced that it is something SHE is doing wrong. As it is increased, the sweetness tapers off until it is finally dangled in front of her like a carrot. Somewhere along the line, the physical abuse starts. If she breaks too hard, he is sweet and comforting and maybe even apologetic, bringing her back under control. That is the key. CONTROL. (Another word Scientologists know well. Hubbard even had his own definition for it and processing addressing control.) Then one day the beatings are regular and she loses her self-respect and dignity.
Let me draw another parallel to my own situation. I mentioned in one of my other posts to ARS that I am making with this one about the woman who asked me if there was anything anyone could have said to me to change my mind while I was in Scientology. No one had asked me that and I realized - and told her - that no, there was nothing anyone could have said.
That happens with the abused woman too. I read how they would later recount the advice of friends who kept telling them that their husband/lover was abusing them and that they should leave. I don't recall any who said, you know, you're right! I'm going to leave him! No, they explained the abuse! They would say - actually believing it, until they finally escaped - that he was really a nice guy, that he was misunderstood, that he was trying, that they would work things out, etc., etc., etc.
You know who usually changes the woman's mind? The abuser. Those who flee - like Tina Turner - simply say one day, I've had enough, and escape. Some do it sooner. Some later. Until that moment, they rationalize their situation. Friends or family might be able to intervene but not in the hard core cases. In those instances, the abuser is the only one who can change the person's mind.
Until then money and resources are also a factor. People stay in abusive situations because they have no money or anywhere else to go. Maybe if the abused woman had $100,000 in the bank she would have given him the finger and taken off long before. But what abuser would allow the woman to keep that money for herself? (I have yet to learn of a Sea Organization member who escaped with ample personal resources. The amount of money one has on joining - if any - is quickly discovered and one is convinced to spend it on the cult, thus effectively wiping out any resources.) These are the points that have to be researched to understand this phenomenon and to offer help.
Meanwhile you might ask, how can a person rationalize a beating? Good question indeed. If the plight of the abused women had been known longer than it has, maybe we would have a better understanding. Each woman will have her own answer but until we get a grasp of it the fact remains that it exists and there are some disturbing parallels between them and cult members. I wasn't "abused" when I joined. It was like the "love bombing" found in another cult. Everything is wonderful and the future is bright and this is the place to be. Then one day, there is a little "correction." If one balks, one is talked through it gently until it is grasped and one is willing to accept it. The next one is attached to that one. ("Remember how well we did last time when you were able to understand it and you had a win?") And the next until one day you find yourself working 12 hours a day at hard labor, under guard, seven days a week, unable to talk to friends and family, your body racked in pain and undergoing constant interrogation to give up your "crimes" and you accept it as necessary for your own "rehabilitation." And if you try to escape and they catch you, you can be talked back to the very same situation and you convince yourself that this is right as you haul the next load of rocks out in 110 degree heat and a blazing sun for $5 a week. It is all part of your "rehabilitation."
No, when people asked me how I could stay for so long when I knew it was abusive, that's a loaded question. I didn't know it any more than the abused woman knew it. I kept telling myself that they really are okay, that it must be my fault, that it is being done to help me and things really will get better. I carried that attitude right into the RPF until one day I broke and decided to escape. Then they talked me back and I was convinced that it would get better. All they did was back up the gradient to where I would accept the control.
That is another place where I find that the "mind control/brainwashing" models break down. It is crucial in cult control that the person feel in control and in fact IS "in control." One is always making the decision to stay. To that degree, it is "consensual." But how "consensual" is the abused woman? Just because she has the freedom to drive to the store and back and no one is keeping her in chains, does that mean she is "consenting" to her situation? Can the husband argue that he isn't "controlling" her because she has that freedom? Then what IS "consent"? That may be a legal quandary as much as a psychological one but I don't think we are ready to walk away from the woman being beaten, saying she is "consenting to it," are we?
Thanks to video cameras, we can watch shows like "Cops" where the police are called out to a real life "domestic disturbance." If you have watched that show enough, you finally saw the all-to-familiar scene of the woman with a bloody nose who has clearly been beaten (the cops were called by neighbors hearing the fight) and is standing there explaining it all away, insisting that the police take no action. No, she's fine, she says. No, it's nothing. To the questions from the police about the bloody nose or the swelling around the eyes, she'll say anything but the facts, that he was beating her. Do we need more evidence? There are the very people - the police - who can take him off to jail and end the abuse if she will simply speak up and she refuses while wiping the blood from her nose or pulling the torn clothing up around her shoulder and telling them that everything is okay. Of course, the police cannot legally intervene unless she complains and she will not.
Now let me make a harrowing admission. If the police had shown up that day when I was at the motel trying to escape, when the security guards were parked outside to make sure I didn't disappear on them, and if the police had asked me if everything was okay or if I needed any help, do you know what I would have said and done? The same thing as that woman. No, it's fine, I would have said. I'll handle it. It stuns me to think it, let alone say it right now, but that is the truth. That is exactly what I would have done. And do you know why? Because I didn't want to be in trouble with the cult. If you can figure that one out, give it to the experts.
That is why people who flee the cult - even into the arms of the authorities - can be talked back. They can no more say "help me" than the woman standing there with a bloody nose can tell the police. Give them a few days rest and time to get their wits about them and maybe they can. That is why those first few hours or days are crucial. The more time the person gets away from the person suppressing them, the more they recover their own sense of self. That, of course, infuriates the abuser, until he/they finally give up and look for their next victim. Meanwhile, some degree of control remains until the person finally sheds it.
And don't think that all abused women are abused physically. The abuse might be merely verbal, with other controls like control of money, sleep, clothing, friends, beliefs, free time etc. (Gee, sound familiar?)
Now if one were interested in studying the "abused woman" syndrome, who would one study? This may sound like a ridiculous question but it goes to a point the cult is making.
First of all, one has to decide if such women exist. (This may sound like I'm contradicting myself but hang on.) How does one decide? The obvious answer would seem to be the stories of women themselves. But can we believe them? Maybe they are making it up. So let's ignore them for the moment and go to marriages/relationships and ask the women, are you abused? Let's ask the men, are you abusing this woman? What sort of answer will we get? Done in this way, we can conclusively "prove" that there are no abused women because all of the women - including the ones with the bloody noses - will deny it as will the men. Case closed. No woman is abused.
That is exactly what the cult is doing. They are saying that those who have left and claim abuse are "apostates" (one who has abandoned one's belief or cause) and can't be believed. (They even paid some "experts" to "conclude" this.) Meanwhile, they will suggest, all you have to do is ask Scientologists if they feel abused. In fact, you can even go into the RPF and ask and chances are (unless there is one rocky one who will be quickly stashed somewhere else) they will respond to the man and woman that they are not being abused. Case closed. No one is abused.
In other words, as long as we listen to someone who has abandoned a belief or a cause (from a marriage to a "religion") cannot be believed.
And that is one of the reasons why abused women were not believed until just a few years ago. Think on that. Women have been abused for thousands of years and it wasn't until a few years ago that it was even admitted that it happened and that something should be done about it. How many women went to the police and were turned away or were killed or destroyed before someone believed them? How many have simply fled and disappeared and are still too ashamed to talk, preferring to just live quiet lives where they can choose their own friends, have their own bank accounts, pick their own meals, select their own clothes, keep private diaries and not have to answer or explain themselves again? Can anyone imagine what a joy that is to a person whose life was controlled down to the point of what it was they could say or believe, where their very thoughts and opinions were monitored, that they can now forget it? How many women are out there? Compare that to how many go to the authorities or champion the cause of abused women and take it to the media and the courts. How many of THOSE are there? Three? Five? Ten? Should these "apostates" be believed?
How many ex-cult members are there? How many have of them have spoken out? Three? Five? Ten? Should these "apostates" be believed?
I think there are many, many reasons to draw a parallel between the two groups not only in their situation but in those who speak out and I hope that this might spark some interest within some professional circle. I'm no more an "expert" on sociological parallels than that woman with the bloody nose is an expert but we do have a level of understanding.
Robert Vaughn Young
2/22/00
copyright (©) Robert Vaughn Young
all rights reserved
lkwdblds
Crusader
Back on Topic - Nancy Many's Book
NANCY MANY'S BOOK - MY BILLION YEAR CONTRACT - I just PMed with Nancy Many. Most of you probably know that she has recently published a new book called "My Billion Year Contract". She was deeply involved with CCLA from 1976 through 1982 in Int Management and later on through the 80's in other capacities. I have not read her book yet but plan to do so soon.
I asked her if there was any way I could help her and she sail to have a link to her website on my thread. Here it is.
http://[email protected]
I hope that link works, if not just Google Nancy Many Scientology and connect to her that way.
Lakey
NANCY MANY'S BOOK - MY BILLION YEAR CONTRACT - I just PMed with Nancy Many. Most of you probably know that she has recently published a new book called "My Billion Year Contract". She was deeply involved with CCLA from 1976 through 1982 in Int Management and later on through the 80's in other capacities. I have not read her book yet but plan to do so soon.
I asked her if there was any way I could help her and she sail to have a link to her website on my thread. Here it is.
http://[email protected]
I hope that link works, if not just Google Nancy Many Scientology and connect to her that way.
Lakey
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
I'm with you against socialism. There is corporate socialism too. As Dylan said, "some people rob you with a fountain pen" - a political thread can go elsewhere. I think the Halliburton Chaeney crowd (let's really name the source) fit this to a T. They were not Goldwater , Reagan, Buckley, or Karl Hess (Goldwater's writer). They are lower than pond scum.
I loved Kafka. Here's a piece of trivia you won't get on Jeopardy: Kafka was the dude who invented the construction workers' hardhat. You can google this.
As for Summerhill by A.S. Neil, it was the light at the end of the education tunnel for me. His voice on the subject of love was so antithetical to the schooling I had experienced. Summerhill is another must read book for citizens across the world.
I left out "Cat's Cradle" by Vonnegut, and then all of his other books. I love Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
I highly recommend googling Robert Vaughn Young. He was brilliant. His career would make a good screenplay. I know people, who were in the GO, and tales of Vaughn are legendary.
Well, white powder calls me. No, I don't mean coke. Later gaters.
Enthetan
Master of Disaster
I don't discount the possibility that I may be full of shit on a lot of what follows, but here's what I got and I'm going to run with it.
One characteristic of an abusive relationship is that the abuser alternates between good and bad. If the relationship was all bad, at least in the beginning stages, then nobody would start into it. In the seduction stage, the abuser is very fun, very charming, very loving. The victim is the sort of person who has a deep need, close to an addictive desire, for the good part (whatever the "good part" happens to be). It's this desire for the good part that keeps the victim attached to the abuser, at least in the early stages.
Once the victim is hooked, the abuser embarks on a program to isolate the victim from anybody who might encourage the victim to stand up to the abuser (notice parallels with Scn policy on PTS and disconnection). Separate the victim from independent friends, family, etc. Once this is done, then abuse gets progressively more severe, in proportion to the degree that the abuser thinks he can get away with it, due to the victim no longer having anyone to turn to.
What turns on the abuser is the sense of power over the victim, of having the victim unable to resist. I think a similar dynamic exists with rapists and serial killers, the turn-on of having somebody completely in your power, with their fate being completely under your control.
In looking for a victim, the abuser looks for somebody who would be vulnerable, somebody who has a deep unhappiness that the abuser can satisfy. Not everybody is vulnerable to being hooked, so the abuser needs to be able to identify who would be a good target. (Notice the Dissem Drill, which has the objective to find people with "ruins" that would act as a way to hook them on Scientology)
I think there may also be also be a similar dynamic here as with drug addiction, with the euphoria of Scientology "key outs" acting similarly to the "high" of certain drugs. In both cases, some people are vulnerable to addiction, and will go to enormous lengths, and suffer extreme levels of degradation, in order to get their next "fix".
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Thank you Carmelo, for posting that..I put it on my "Golden Quotes" thread. I adore and esteem RVY. I wish he and Stacey had elevated the gene pool by having a dozen children. I really wish he were still here to see what's happening with the critic scene now.
You're skiing on the North Shore? White powder=big waves ???
Lakey, thanks for posting a link to Nancy's website.
I have lost so many posts I am dizzy, but at some point will try and get caught up.
Keep talkin! Enthetan, welcome!
You're skiing on the North Shore? White powder=big waves ???
Lakey, thanks for posting a link to Nancy's website.
I have lost so many posts I am dizzy, but at some point will try and get caught up.
Keep talkin! Enthetan, welcome!
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
I would say you are mostly right on with this, but I would add that the main thing to remember is that it's all about control. The abuser in the relationship has a deep need for power and control over another, which fuels the behavior, which does cycle. So it's not just the victim that has deep needs that are satisfied by the woo/win/control honeymoon phase of the cycle, so does the abuser. That is the greatest parallel that I can see with Corporate Scientology, it's all about control over others.
Enthetan
Master of Disaster
I think I mentioned that what motivates the abuser is a desire to have power over others, to feel powerful by demonstrating the ability to abuse, humiliate, and hurt his victims, and that this may be similar to what drives rapists and serial killers.
Others have identified the 60's as the point where LRH started becoming more and more abusive towards Scn staff. One theory was that LRH had messed himself up in GPM processing and R6EW. My personal theory is that the introduction of "Confidential Materials" allowed him to advance to the next stage of his power game.
Since the 60's, the real power of LRH and the Church came from the ability to deny access to the "confidential materials" (Power Processing, Clearing course and OT levels). Prior to that point, anybody could give LRH the finger, walk off, and still get audited as long as he found somebody somewhere willing to audit him. All the materials were freely available to whoever wanted to study them.
"Confidential materials" changed that. Now LRH had something he could deny to any who pissed him off. He no longer needed to operate exclusively on charm.
The reason I think he didn't so much "change" in the 60's as simply took the mask off was from reading accounts of how his first and second wives, Margaret "Polly" Grubb and Sara Northrup, were treated by him. From those accounts, I get the impression that LRH was charming to those he needed to charm, and could behave in an ugly manner towards those he could treat badly.
thetanic
Gold Meritorious Patron
Actually, I think it started earlier than that.
My take on it is that editors kept him in check when he was still writing fiction for a living, plus he interacted with people who didn't necessarily like him in a variety of contexts.
As things with Scn started to take off and he started to be followed by people with whom he had a fundamentally different power relationship, that allowed his Narcissistic Personality Disorder to take ever-increasing hold over his personality.
I'd say that it was fully in effect in 1965 when KSW was written.
lkwdblds
Crusader
And thus there was .....(you fill in the box)
Enthetan, thanks for following up your great contribution to our discussion with your interesting and informative remarks clarifying what is behind an abusive relationship.
Lakey
Enthetan, thanks for following up your great contribution to our discussion with your interesting and informative remarks clarifying what is behind an abusive relationship.
Lakey
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Nice to see you back.
S and L ly. Nice to see you back posting here. We have shifted gears to some new material and you inciteful comments are needed and wanted. Enthetan has made some major contributions, no doubt of that and Thetanic is participating as well. Yes, Robert Vaughan Young and Stacy did not have any offspring, that is a shame. What incredible kids they might have had if they had created a family. I think he was much older than her when they married but she was still young enough to have kids if they wanted them. Its pretty hard to start a family with OSA picketing your neighborhood all the time.
Lakey
S and L ly. Nice to see you back posting here. We have shifted gears to some new material and you inciteful comments are needed and wanted. Enthetan has made some major contributions, no doubt of that and Thetanic is participating as well. Yes, Robert Vaughan Young and Stacy did not have any offspring, that is a shame. What incredible kids they might have had if they had created a family. I think he was much older than her when they married but she was still young enough to have kids if they wanted them. Its pretty hard to start a family with OSA picketing your neighborhood all the time.
Lakey
Last edited:
Blue Spirit
Silver Meritorious Patron
Nancy's Book
It is a more important book than "Blown For Good" as it covers more time, more space, more insider views over many
locations, and working with LRH where his Sadistic side pops up again,
and puts Nancy at 4-5 months pregnant into the RPF under very bad conditions.
LRH's personal Ethics were so bad that of course they affected the
second dynamic severely in about every conceivable way.
It is a more important book than "Blown For Good" as it covers more time, more space, more insider views over many
locations, and working with LRH where his Sadistic side pops up again,
and puts Nancy at 4-5 months pregnant into the RPF under very bad conditions.
LRH's personal Ethics were so bad that of course they affected the
second dynamic severely in about every conceivable way.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
one of the qualities that sold me on Scientology in the 60s was that there was no age discrimination. A man of 60 could be passed or flunked by a teenager. There could be professional auditors aged 14, and new PCs in their 70s. And vice versa. I liked the mix.
Last edited:
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
I think you're right on the money.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
You're skiing on the North Shore? White powder=big waves ???
left the warmth of sun and balmy breezes Wednesday. Today, we have the whole damn fambly in the Sierras watching the wind blow the trees and snow. It is a vacation that we had planned for sometime. The moment school finished for some. Not many things in life are as fun as riding boards on frozen water or not frozen water.
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Riding on Water is Lovely! Frozen or not!
AMEN to that, Sister! Hope you all have a ton of fun on your winter holiday family vacation! 
AMEN to that, Sister!
Hope you all have a ton of fun on your winter holiday family vacation!
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
A little additional amplification on motives
Enthetan said: "I think I mentioned that what motivates the abuser is a desire to have power over others, to feel powerful by demonstrating the ability to abuse, humiliate, and hurt his victims, and that this may be similar to what drives rapists and serial killers."
Most of your post makes very good points, Enthetan. Thank you for raising this issue, as I think it needs to be discussed more fully and freely, the problem is so widespread and there is still a stigma attached, and both victims and perpetrators need outside intervention to handle these problems successfully. This is a societal issue that we all need to educate ourselves about.
I just want to insert this additional amplification about the motivators for the abusers, for the general good. Not all abusers do so because they have the above stated motivations, although some do, some are rapists and serial killers, etc. However, some rapists and serial killers lead very happy and seeingly normal home and family lives, and it is very shocking to the family, friends and neighbors when their crimes are discovered.
Many abusers are alcoholics and or drug users, and the abuse takes place while in blackouts or while in an seriously altered state. The remorse is often quite genuine and heartfelt, but more often the actual abuse is not remembered or is discounted and underplayed by the abuser, as not having been real, or not having been as bad as it was.
Some have traumatic brain injuries or other organic brain disfunction that makes them easily lose control and react with violence. Some genuinely want a close loving relationship with their families, but are just repeating behavior that was modelled to them in their own family of origen growing up, they don't have good enough communication or conflict resolution skills to handle normal life upsets without violence.
Sometimes the overwhelming need for control comes from an obsessive, fearful, insecure attachment to the partner, basic insecurity and instability and a deep panic at fear of loss of the loved one. These are the types of abusers who see themselves as the victims in the equation, crazy as that seems to the rest of us.
So there are multiple motivators and types and kinds of abusers. There are also some victims (a minority) who in a passive-agressive way provoke their abusers into violence as it makes them feel more powerful, and triggers the honeymoon phase of the cycle, which attention they crave.
I also want to mention that both men and women can be abusers or victims in the disfunctional relationship dance, and that these exact same kinds of dynamics play out in gay and lesbian relationships as well as heterosexual relationships. Also that these kinds of disfunctions play out pretty evenly across socio-economic, racial, ethnic, religious and political backgrounds.
Choosing to use force, coertion or violence with others is part of the human condition, and no-one is immune from that. Anyone can find themselves in an abusive relationship or situation (such as the current scene in the Sea Org) none are immune from it, and it's good not to be naive about it. It all has to do with power, power over others in various contexts. That's power with a little "p", physical force or the threat of it (intimidation), not real spiritual Power with people.
Thanks Entheta, I think that Robert's analogy to explain why he stayed for so long holds up. Thank you for exploring the issue, I'm sure it will help others to a greater understanding.
[Quote Enthetan]
Others have identified the 60's as the point where LRH started becoming more and more abusive towards Scn staff. One theory was that LRH had messed himself up in GPM processing and R6EW. My personal theory is that the introduction of "Confidential Materials" allowed him to advance to the next stage of his power game.
Since the 60's, the real power of LRH and the Church came from the ability to deny access to the "confidential materials" (Power Processing, Clearing course and OT levels). Prior to that point, anybody could give LRH the finger, walk off, and still get audited as long as he found somebody somewhere willing to audit him. All the materials were freely available to whoever wanted to study them.
"Confidential materials" changed that. Now LRH had something he could deny to any who pissed him off. He no longer needed to operate exclusively on charm.
The reason I think he didn't so much "change" in the 60's as simply took the mask off was from reading accounts of how his first and second wives, Margaret "Polly" Grubb and Sara Northrup, were treated by him. From those accounts, I get the impression that LRH was charming to those he needed to charm, and could behave in an ugly manner towards those he could treat badly.[/QUOTE]
Enthetan said: "I think I mentioned that what motivates the abuser is a desire to have power over others, to feel powerful by demonstrating the ability to abuse, humiliate, and hurt his victims, and that this may be similar to what drives rapists and serial killers."
Most of your post makes very good points, Enthetan. Thank you for raising this issue, as I think it needs to be discussed more fully and freely, the problem is so widespread and there is still a stigma attached, and both victims and perpetrators need outside intervention to handle these problems successfully. This is a societal issue that we all need to educate ourselves about.
I just want to insert this additional amplification about the motivators for the abusers, for the general good. Not all abusers do so because they have the above stated motivations, although some do, some are rapists and serial killers, etc. However, some rapists and serial killers lead very happy and seeingly normal home and family lives, and it is very shocking to the family, friends and neighbors when their crimes are discovered.
Many abusers are alcoholics and or drug users, and the abuse takes place while in blackouts or while in an seriously altered state. The remorse is often quite genuine and heartfelt, but more often the actual abuse is not remembered or is discounted and underplayed by the abuser, as not having been real, or not having been as bad as it was.
Some have traumatic brain injuries or other organic brain disfunction that makes them easily lose control and react with violence. Some genuinely want a close loving relationship with their families, but are just repeating behavior that was modelled to them in their own family of origen growing up, they don't have good enough communication or conflict resolution skills to handle normal life upsets without violence.
Sometimes the overwhelming need for control comes from an obsessive, fearful, insecure attachment to the partner, basic insecurity and instability and a deep panic at fear of loss of the loved one. These are the types of abusers who see themselves as the victims in the equation, crazy as that seems to the rest of us.
So there are multiple motivators and types and kinds of abusers. There are also some victims (a minority) who in a passive-agressive way provoke their abusers into violence as it makes them feel more powerful, and triggers the honeymoon phase of the cycle, which attention they crave.
I also want to mention that both men and women can be abusers or victims in the disfunctional relationship dance, and that these exact same kinds of dynamics play out in gay and lesbian relationships as well as heterosexual relationships. Also that these kinds of disfunctions play out pretty evenly across socio-economic, racial, ethnic, religious and political backgrounds.
Choosing to use force, coertion or violence with others is part of the human condition, and no-one is immune from that. Anyone can find themselves in an abusive relationship or situation (such as the current scene in the Sea Org) none are immune from it, and it's good not to be naive about it. It all has to do with power, power over others in various contexts. That's power with a little "p", physical force or the threat of it (intimidation), not real spiritual Power with people.
Thanks Entheta, I think that Robert's analogy to explain why he stayed for so long holds up. Thank you for exploring the issue, I'm sure it will help others to a greater understanding.
[Quote Enthetan]
Others have identified the 60's as the point where LRH started becoming more and more abusive towards Scn staff. One theory was that LRH had messed himself up in GPM processing and R6EW. My personal theory is that the introduction of "Confidential Materials" allowed him to advance to the next stage of his power game.
Since the 60's, the real power of LRH and the Church came from the ability to deny access to the "confidential materials" (Power Processing, Clearing course and OT levels). Prior to that point, anybody could give LRH the finger, walk off, and still get audited as long as he found somebody somewhere willing to audit him. All the materials were freely available to whoever wanted to study them.
"Confidential materials" changed that. Now LRH had something he could deny to any who pissed him off. He no longer needed to operate exclusively on charm.
The reason I think he didn't so much "change" in the 60's as simply took the mask off was from reading accounts of how his first and second wives, Margaret "Polly" Grubb and Sara Northrup, were treated by him. From those accounts, I get the impression that LRH was charming to those he needed to charm, and could behave in an ugly manner towards those he could treat badly.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
How could Nancy be 5 months pregnant on the RPF?
Blue - Are you saying Nancy concealed her pregnancy for up to 5 months from the Sea Org. Its has to be that way, because if they found out earlier, they would have to eiher force her to abort, or put her into a lower condition and send her to a class V Org. Right? Well I am scheduled to receive my book by this next weekend. I can't wait to start reading it.
Nancy ought to write a sequel and call it. "Five Months Pregnant and Working in a Forced Labor Camp." This would make an excellent movie plot. For Carmelo, S and L and those of you who are movie buffs, there was a movie made around 1934 staring Lew Ayres called, I was a "Fugitive From a Chain Gang". It was nominated for Best Picture but did not win, still it was very successful, Nancy's topic could equal or outdo the Chain Gang movie.
Lakey
Blue - Are you saying Nancy concealed her pregnancy for up to 5 months from the Sea Org. Its has to be that way, because if they found out earlier, they would have to eiher force her to abort, or put her into a lower condition and send her to a class V Org. Right? Well I am scheduled to receive my book by this next weekend. I can't wait to start reading it.
Nancy ought to write a sequel and call it. "Five Months Pregnant and Working in a Forced Labor Camp." This would make an excellent movie plot. For Carmelo, S and L and those of you who are movie buffs, there was a movie made around 1934 staring Lew Ayres called, I was a "Fugitive From a Chain Gang". It was nominated for Best Picture but did not win, still it was very successful, Nancy's topic could equal or outdo the Chain Gang movie.
Lakey
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Excellent Point!
[/QUOTE]
The portion in the above quote which I made bold type strikes me as very important. Ron had to devise a way to obtain exclusivity. In doing so, he always made sure his solutions contributed not only exclusivity to Scn but also money by creating another product for them to market, A premium product, which is charged for at higher rates than regular services. Thus came about the L's, the Data Evaluators' Course, and endless years of NOTS costing $40,000 a year to take instead of its predecessor levels of "old" OT 5, OT6, and OT 7 which each costed $2,000 or $3,000 apiece and were over very quickly, in a month, you could be done with the entire trio.
SAINT HILL ORGS AND THE CREATION OF POWER AND POWER PLUS
I BELIEVE THE SAINT HILL ORGS WERE SET UP ORIGINALLY ONLY TO DELIVER THE SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE. Ron, being somewhat of a marketing genius must have felt that Saint Hill Orgs would be too weak to make any real income unless they had some premium level auditing to offer and THUS RON CREATED POWER AND POWER PLUS. These came out in the 60's at the time when astute obervers noticed a change in Ron, for the worse.
COPYRIGHTS AND RE COPYRIGHTS
"All the premium stuff was set up to provide exclusivity so that the concept of denying one his or her enternity could be established." COPYRIGHTING WAS ALWAYS USED IN THE FOUNDING DAYS SO IT MADE GOOD SENSE TO COPYRIGHT ALL THE NEW PREMIUM LEVELS. IT ALSO MADE GOOD BUSINESS SENSE TO COPYRIGHT ALL THE OLDER BASIC MATERIALS AS WELL.
A lot of us feel that there was a very real religious component in Scientology in its formative years. Now, more and more people are seeing it as a business. PERHAPS, WHEN THE EARLY MATERIALS WERE COPYRIGHTED ALONG WITH THE NEW PREMIUM STUFF THAT STARTED THE END OF THE RELIGIOUS COMPONENT AND STARTED SCN ON THE ROAD TO BEING ONLY A BUSINESS WITH RELIGION USED ONLY FOR CLOAKING PURPOSES!
WHAT TO DO AS COPYRIGHTS EXPIRED
After initial copyrights expired, they became public domain. Past a definite point, the original information could no longer be protected by copyright law. The only thing that could be done to maintain exclusivity was to CHANGE THE MATERIALS SIGNIFICANTLY, KEEP THE TITLE THE SAME AND COPYRIGHT THE NEW MATERIAL. HERE AGAIN, THIS GUARANTEED NOT JUST EXCLUSIVITY BUT EXTRA INCOME AS EVERYONE WAS EXPECTED TO BUY THE NEW VERSIONS AND DISCARD THE OLD VERSIONS. It is true the older versions were now public domain and C of S could no longer enforce their copyrights on them so the newer books were designed to look better,especially to have more interesting covers, and to have bolder type and better glossaries so that people would eventually discard all their old books. The older books were immediately replaced from Orgs and also public libraries.
DM's Contribution: DM followed LRH orders. There are no known policies covering this which public are privy to but there must be many Advises and memos meant only for the eyes of the inner management circle. DM has probably been very faithful in carrying out these orders of LRH's and always inserts a few of his own ideas when executing an LRH dictum and always makes sure that more money is charged than before and that everyone has to toss out their old materials and buy the new stuff. THE THING DM IS ENCOUNTERING IS THE PHENOMENA OF THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF. C OF S and also the IAS, has cried Wolf much too often and all but the most loyal of the loyal and the most blinded of the blind are starting to catch on that a scam is going on and more and more are refusing to play ball and to pay the piper.
Lakey
[/QUOTE]The portion in the above quote which I made bold type strikes me as very important. Ron had to devise a way to obtain exclusivity. In doing so, he always made sure his solutions contributed not only exclusivity to Scn but also money by creating another product for them to market, A premium product, which is charged for at higher rates than regular services. Thus came about the L's, the Data Evaluators' Course, and endless years of NOTS costing $40,000 a year to take instead of its predecessor levels of "old" OT 5, OT6, and OT 7 which each costed $2,000 or $3,000 apiece and were over very quickly, in a month, you could be done with the entire trio.
SAINT HILL ORGS AND THE CREATION OF POWER AND POWER PLUS
I BELIEVE THE SAINT HILL ORGS WERE SET UP ORIGINALLY ONLY TO DELIVER THE SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE. Ron, being somewhat of a marketing genius must have felt that Saint Hill Orgs would be too weak to make any real income unless they had some premium level auditing to offer and THUS RON CREATED POWER AND POWER PLUS. These came out in the 60's at the time when astute obervers noticed a change in Ron, for the worse.
COPYRIGHTS AND RE COPYRIGHTS
"All the premium stuff was set up to provide exclusivity so that the concept of denying one his or her enternity could be established." COPYRIGHTING WAS ALWAYS USED IN THE FOUNDING DAYS SO IT MADE GOOD SENSE TO COPYRIGHT ALL THE NEW PREMIUM LEVELS. IT ALSO MADE GOOD BUSINESS SENSE TO COPYRIGHT ALL THE OLDER BASIC MATERIALS AS WELL.
A lot of us feel that there was a very real religious component in Scientology in its formative years. Now, more and more people are seeing it as a business. PERHAPS, WHEN THE EARLY MATERIALS WERE COPYRIGHTED ALONG WITH THE NEW PREMIUM STUFF THAT STARTED THE END OF THE RELIGIOUS COMPONENT AND STARTED SCN ON THE ROAD TO BEING ONLY A BUSINESS WITH RELIGION USED ONLY FOR CLOAKING PURPOSES!
WHAT TO DO AS COPYRIGHTS EXPIRED
After initial copyrights expired, they became public domain. Past a definite point, the original information could no longer be protected by copyright law. The only thing that could be done to maintain exclusivity was to CHANGE THE MATERIALS SIGNIFICANTLY, KEEP THE TITLE THE SAME AND COPYRIGHT THE NEW MATERIAL. HERE AGAIN, THIS GUARANTEED NOT JUST EXCLUSIVITY BUT EXTRA INCOME AS EVERYONE WAS EXPECTED TO BUY THE NEW VERSIONS AND DISCARD THE OLD VERSIONS. It is true the older versions were now public domain and C of S could no longer enforce their copyrights on them so the newer books were designed to look better,especially to have more interesting covers, and to have bolder type and better glossaries so that people would eventually discard all their old books. The older books were immediately replaced from Orgs and also public libraries.
DM's Contribution: DM followed LRH orders. There are no known policies covering this which public are privy to but there must be many Advises and memos meant only for the eyes of the inner management circle. DM has probably been very faithful in carrying out these orders of LRH's and always inserts a few of his own ideas when executing an LRH dictum and always makes sure that more money is charged than before and that everyone has to toss out their old materials and buy the new stuff. THE THING DM IS ENCOUNTERING IS THE PHENOMENA OF THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF. C OF S and also the IAS, has cried Wolf much too often and all but the most loyal of the loyal and the most blinded of the blind are starting to catch on that a scam is going on and more and more are refusing to play ball and to pay the piper.
Lakey
- Status
