Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
People will be given an alternative way to exist, rather than as a gushing sycophant to those who are manipulating and lying to them for their own ends.
The Media Are Afraid to Report What Mike & Marty are Telling Them!
- Thread starter Alanzo
- Start date
People will be given an alternative way to exist, rather than as a gushing sycophant to those who are manipulating and lying to them for their own ends.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
What do you think is actually going to be achieved by ruthlessly criticizing without relent David Miscavige? Think about it a bit.
It is my opinion naive to blame Miscavige, Hubbard, or the Tech, for the human tragedy these guys actively intended and caused.
The actions they took and the harm they did to others stemmed from their character. And their character doesn't change because they took off their Sea Org uniforms.
My question is this: What do you think is actually going to be achieved by ignoring their character and building them up with support?
If the Church of Scientology won't fail unless critics have the help of these guys then maybe it isn't so bad. If it is as bad as we think, then it will collapse by its own Karma.
If we have to elevate these guys to a higher position to undo the Church, then I don't want anything to do with it.
One thing that disgusted me and made me ashamed of my country is when after World War II it highered former SS officers to help us against the Soviet Union.
Having anything to do with Rathbun and Rinder is analogoous to this.
Critics, please don't sell your souls again just to have another "win."
The Anabaptist Jacques
Whitedove
Patron Meritorious
I agree. As I said between Mike and Marty, I trust Mike more. But for NOW. I do not know enough to take side. Its a cautious trust and I will see. But I am not ready to throw out the baby with the bath water...yet.
Its true that to have a 'win' about all this do feels damn good. Guilty as charged. We shall see.
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
I can do that. Yet then I'd be under myself. Oh well... Fu*k it, let's have a decent brew and rack 'em up... shall we?
yeah - why not!! sounds like a good plan!
KnightVision
Gold Meritorious Patron
It would serve well to study the Levine Report thoroughly. While it is evident that people are inherently responsible for their actions, it has been proven in various studies that it is not all that difficult to manipulate even a fairly decent fellow into causing harm to others by perverting his critical thinking abilities to the extent that 'the ends justifies the means' without further consideration. Although there is a difference between individual member's susceptibility... The Scientology system of Ethics, when aligned with Hubbard's stated 'enemies of Scientology' and The Belief that 'the whole agonizing future of mankind depends on what we do now'.... includes Ruthlessly Criticizing, Attacking and Destroying anything, anyone and even the thoughts that a member may have that does not agree with it's (Official Scientology) intentions and forward thrust.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
If you believe this then why bother trying to do anything about Scientology?
I don't need to read the Levine report or any other report that justifies me not listening to my conscience.
I feel that what you are proposing is to continue the mindset of Scientology so you can use it against Scientology.
The Anabaptist Jacques
KnightVision
Gold Meritorious Patron
No, not at all. You are just continuing a rant to push your argument, to such an extent that you don't even read my posts thoroughly. You appear to only read the part that would serve as a target for your continued one sided views. In addition, your question 'If you believe this then why bother trying to do anything about Scientology?' makes no sense whatsoever. Your commentary is inherently 'black and white'.... just like Hubbard's BS... yet you haven't even the slightest foresight to recognize that your comment 'I feel that what you are proposing is to continue the mindset of Scientology so you can use it against Scientology' is EXACTLY what you are playing out.
Try to go back and look at my post that you responded to above.
The gist of it is that BOTH the actions of Scientology members AND the effect that Scn Tech has on them.... are parts of the problem. Yet regardless of whether a member or EX member or EX-Scn for that matter were more or less inherently evil (as goes their personal psychology) It's an Indisputable fact that Scientology Mind Control Techniques both can and will subvert and manipulate members actions towards it's insidious goals and practices.
There exists in every individual the potential to forward decent actions AND harmful actions. Hubbard's Scientology Package makes it clear that right and wrong concepts are defined as 'FOR' or 'AGAINST' it's agenda/s. If Rinder had never been in Scientology and been effected to the degree that it has had on him... there is no telling what actions would have unfolded in his life. Yet there is no doubt that if a person who has it within himself to harm others (especially so as to 'right some wrong' that is born of his own pathology) The COS mind control psycho machine will waste no effort to take full control of that person and accelerate his ability to harm others in the name of The Scn Worldwide Scam.
Therefore my position is that while the individual actions of Hubbard, DM, Rinder, Rathburn or numerous others are criticized, it's impossible to do so in an intelligent, rational and conclusive way if it is overlooked that the philosophical system that they followed, that gave them 'license to kill' as well as taught them (literally in a classroom) how to be highly effective and destructive 'soldiers of the scientology faith' is at the core the very vehicle that drove them.
If that were not the case we would not be having this discourse. Every member, current or ex has to some degree blood on his hands. The guys at the top, from all that I've read, very much appear to have perpetuated the worst of the filth. The responsibility lies both on the individuals who committed the wrongs AND the very ideological system that gave them license to do so. This is why the German gov't (and others) continue to monitor the actions of Scientology regardless who is holding the the upper positions; they very well appear to understand that it was BOTH Hitler himself AND the Nazi system that brought about the indoctrination of the numerous individual who slaughtered anything that stood in their way...
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
If by "reading your post thoroughly" you mean agreeing with you, then no I don't read your post thoroughly.
And now that I have a completely different opinion than you I am "just like Hubbard BS." Of course you defend these guys.
My point is that it is a matter of character and conscience how a person responds to pressure and your point is that it is matter of the philosophy into which they are indoctrinated.
Yes indoctrination is a factor, but it doesn't negate freedom of choice.
They prefered to do what they did rather than accept the consequences if they hadn't.
Do you know that there were SS officers who refused to administer the poison gas?
They said it was murder and they were not murderers. You think the SS officers were not indoctrinated too?
If it was just the philosophical and social pressures that determine a person's just or injust actions then all of us would have done exactly what they did.
What they did is what they did, and what others did is what others did.
Like it or not, regardless of how many reports there are, a person's actions for justice or injustice doesn't come down to their circumstances, it comes down to their character and conscience.
Your bottom line argument is that we should accept Rathbun and Rinder now because they did not have a free will before.
My bottom line argument is that they have always had a free will and the unjust actions and harm they did was a matter of their character and lack of conscience.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
KV wrote|
Nature and nurture.
More and more I have come to realize that I left when it became undeniable to me that Scientology was not the group I thought I had joined.
Some people never had that realization. They saw people being beaten, and they started beating others - never once realizing that they never signed up for something like this.
Or maybe they did sign up for something like that - because the recruitment process in Scientology is whatever you want it to be. If you were looking for a Stormship Troopers like environment where seniors beat the shit out of juniors, then when that started happening, you fell right in!
That's not what I signed up for. I was told Scientology was kind of a Bohemian free-exchange of ideas philosophy that sought the betterment of Mankind.
So when it became undeniably clear to me that that is not what Scientology was - I left.
And I immediately hit the Internet to warn others that Scientology is NOT what it said it was.
Did I make a mistake?
Should I have just kept walking and kept my mouth shut because Scientology really always was a Fascist Marine type totalitarian fight club? ?
Very nice.
Nature and nurture.
More and more I have come to realize that I left when it became undeniable to me that Scientology was not the group I thought I had joined.
Some people never had that realization. They saw people being beaten, and they started beating others - never once realizing that they never signed up for something like this.
Or maybe they did sign up for something like that - because the recruitment process in Scientology is whatever you want it to be. If you were looking for a Stormship Troopers like environment where seniors beat the shit out of juniors, then when that started happening, you fell right in!
That's not what I signed up for. I was told Scientology was kind of a Bohemian free-exchange of ideas philosophy that sought the betterment of Mankind.
So when it became undeniably clear to me that that is not what Scientology was - I left.
And I immediately hit the Internet to warn others that Scientology is NOT what it said it was.
Did I make a mistake?
Should I have just kept walking and kept my mouth shut because Scientology really always was a Fascist Marine type totalitarian fight club? ?
Last edited:
TG1
Angelic Poster
This is an interesting discussion.
The following excerpt is from one of my favorite sources about analysis (Dick Heuer, The Psychology of Analysis available online at https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...sychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art14.html).
The gist is that we tend to understand that many of our own actions are dependent on the circumstances in which we find ourselves and the external pressures acting on us. But we tend to ascribe the source of others' actions and decisions as primarily due to their internal causes of behavior like personality, character, morals, ethical standards, etc.
Internal vs. External Causes of Behavior
Much research into how people assess the causes of behavior employs a basic dichotomy between internal determinants and external determinants of human actions. Internal causes of behavior include a person's attitudes, beliefs, and personality. External causes include incentives and constraints, role requirements, social pressures, or other forces over which the individual has little control. The research examines the circumstances under which people attribute behavior either to stable dispositions of the actor or to characteristics of the situation to which the actor responds.
Differences in judgments about what causes another person's or government's behavior affect how people respond to that behavior. How people respond to friendly or unfriendly actions by others may be quite different if they attribute the behavior to the nature of the person or government than if they see the behavior as resulting from situational constraints over which the person or government has little control.
A fundamental error made in judging the causes of behavior is to overestimate the role of internal factors and underestimate the role of external factors. When observing another's behavior, people are too inclined to infer that the behavior was caused by broad personal qualities or dispositions of the other person and to expect that these same inherent qualities will determine the actor's behavior under other circumstances. Not enough weight is assigned to external circumstances that may have influenced the other person's choice of behavior. This pervasive tendency has been demonstrated in many experiments under quite diverse circumstances (FN 117) and has often been observed in diplomatic and military interactions. (FN 118)
Susceptibility to this biased attribution of causality depends upon whether people are examining their own behavior or observing that of others. It is the behavior of others that people tend to attribute to the nature of the actor, whereas they see their own behavior as conditioned almost entirely by the situation in which they find themselves. This difference is explained largely by differences in information available to actors and observers. People know a lot more about themselves.
The actor has a detailed awareness of the history of his or her own actions under similar circumstances. In assessing the causes of our own behavior, we are likely to consider our previous behavior and focus on how it has been influenced by different situations. Thus situational variables become the basis for explaining our own behavior. This contrasts with the observer, who typically lacks this detailed knowledge of the other person's past behavior. The observer is inclined to focus on how the other person's behavior compares with the behavior of others under similar circumstances. (FN 119) This difference in the type and amount of information available to actors and observers applies to governments as well as people.
An actor's personal involvement with the actions being observed enhances the likelihood of bias. "Where the observer is also an actor, he is likely to exaggerate the uniqueness and emphasize the dispositional origins of the responses of others to his own actions." (FN 120) This is because the observer assumes his or her own actions are unprovocative, clearly understood by other actors, and well designed to elicit a desired response. Indeed, an observer interacting with another actor sees himself as determining the situation to which the other actor responds. When the actor does not respond as expected, the logical inference is that the response was caused by the nature of the actor rather than by the nature of the situation.
(and it goes on from there ....)
The following excerpt is from one of my favorite sources about analysis (Dick Heuer, The Psychology of Analysis available online at https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...sychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art14.html).
The gist is that we tend to understand that many of our own actions are dependent on the circumstances in which we find ourselves and the external pressures acting on us. But we tend to ascribe the source of others' actions and decisions as primarily due to their internal causes of behavior like personality, character, morals, ethical standards, etc.
Internal vs. External Causes of Behavior
Much research into how people assess the causes of behavior employs a basic dichotomy between internal determinants and external determinants of human actions. Internal causes of behavior include a person's attitudes, beliefs, and personality. External causes include incentives and constraints, role requirements, social pressures, or other forces over which the individual has little control. The research examines the circumstances under which people attribute behavior either to stable dispositions of the actor or to characteristics of the situation to which the actor responds.
Differences in judgments about what causes another person's or government's behavior affect how people respond to that behavior. How people respond to friendly or unfriendly actions by others may be quite different if they attribute the behavior to the nature of the person or government than if they see the behavior as resulting from situational constraints over which the person or government has little control.
A fundamental error made in judging the causes of behavior is to overestimate the role of internal factors and underestimate the role of external factors. When observing another's behavior, people are too inclined to infer that the behavior was caused by broad personal qualities or dispositions of the other person and to expect that these same inherent qualities will determine the actor's behavior under other circumstances. Not enough weight is assigned to external circumstances that may have influenced the other person's choice of behavior. This pervasive tendency has been demonstrated in many experiments under quite diverse circumstances (FN 117) and has often been observed in diplomatic and military interactions. (FN 118)
Susceptibility to this biased attribution of causality depends upon whether people are examining their own behavior or observing that of others. It is the behavior of others that people tend to attribute to the nature of the actor, whereas they see their own behavior as conditioned almost entirely by the situation in which they find themselves. This difference is explained largely by differences in information available to actors and observers. People know a lot more about themselves.
The actor has a detailed awareness of the history of his or her own actions under similar circumstances. In assessing the causes of our own behavior, we are likely to consider our previous behavior and focus on how it has been influenced by different situations. Thus situational variables become the basis for explaining our own behavior. This contrasts with the observer, who typically lacks this detailed knowledge of the other person's past behavior. The observer is inclined to focus on how the other person's behavior compares with the behavior of others under similar circumstances. (FN 119) This difference in the type and amount of information available to actors and observers applies to governments as well as people.
An actor's personal involvement with the actions being observed enhances the likelihood of bias. "Where the observer is also an actor, he is likely to exaggerate the uniqueness and emphasize the dispositional origins of the responses of others to his own actions." (FN 120) This is because the observer assumes his or her own actions are unprovocative, clearly understood by other actors, and well designed to elicit a desired response. Indeed, an observer interacting with another actor sees himself as determining the situation to which the other actor responds. When the actor does not respond as expected, the logical inference is that the response was caused by the nature of the actor rather than by the nature of the situation.
(and it goes on from there ....)
The Great Zorg
Gold Meritorious Patron
...and they call me wierd!
Carmel
Crusader
Agreed.
In addition to what's been said, I don't believe that the problem or the reason for the destructive actions carried out by these SO Execs (or SS) was because of "indoctrination", but more a result of lack of *courage*, and not enough conscience to muster the courage to do the right thing.
From my experience, most did what they did out of *fear*, not because of indoctrination. Most who did wrong *knew* that they were doing so, but didn't have the guts required to stand up and say "no".
As the years went by (with things getting tougher) and the higher in the Scn echelons ya got, the tougher it became.......It took more and more guts to say "no" because the consequences for doing so became worse and worse.
From my experience, very few have enough courage to follow their conscience when faced with dire consequences for doing so, and that's the issue more than anything else......*fear*.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Fair enough. It certainly gets right to the point.
However, I will take issue with the fact that the author describes those who feel the causes are internal are "biased."
He uses that several times. But that the other view, that the factors are internal, is somehow not a biased opinion.
Also, this is only a discussion about what people say and think about their own and other actions after the fact--not about what they actually do.
I guess the bottom line is this: Do people have a free will?
Do their conscience and character affect their decision or do outside forces? Or both?
If it is just outside factors, then everyone with the same indoctrination would do the same thing.
If everyone doesn't do the same thing, then there is another reason for it than that outside force.
Then why do people leave Scientology?
Were they pressured by outside forces to leave?
Or did their conscience bother them and then they made the conscience decision to leave?
Per the conclusion of this study, most people would leave Scientology because they were pressured to leave by outside forces, not conscience.
Some people were certainly kicked out and didn't want to leave.
If character, conscience, and free will are not the determining factors, then why are we concerned about getting people out of Scientology?
If character, conscience, and free will are not the determining factors, then a just action would simply mean whatever the prevailling outside pressure is at the moment.
If character, conscience, and free will are not the determining factors, then what people do, just or injust, right or wrong, good or bad, has no more significance that a natural event like a storm or an earthquake.
No, I don't buy it.
Character, conscience, and free will are the determining factors. It is what distinguishes human civilization from an ant farm.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Last edited:
freethinker
Sponsor
I would realy like to know what is going on in Mikes head right now but we will have to wait.
I think Marty did his Truth Rundown thing to protect himself from DM.
Mike didn't participate in that to any extent.
I think Mike is sitting on the fence with the Scientology blues as you say.
He did some horrible things as the head of OSA. If that is on his conscience and he wants to do something about it I would think he would want to make his best shot.
If he has justified what he did as it was his job or he had to protect Scien tology then he has a long way to go or is just plain as bad as he ever was.
That's why I have to see what he does next.
QUOTE=SchwimmelPuckel;451160]That sounds plausible.. And very desireable!
Hmm.. I think Mike Rinder is still having the scientology blues.. A believer, but doubting.. I can't be sure of course. I know only what he said in interviews and posts.. But I want to see what he does next.. Now that he's started to say something.
But yes.. Rinder has a lot to explain.. To put it very mildly.
I'm not 'applying' Hubbards condition formulas.. (They're crap!) - But I recall how we had to make amends and have the 'group' accept our petitions to get back in good standing.. For things like being 5 minutes late!
So, yes.. I think Mike Rinder needs to do something about it.
[/QUOTE]
I think Marty did his Truth Rundown thing to protect himself from DM.
Mike didn't participate in that to any extent.
I think Mike is sitting on the fence with the Scientology blues as you say.
He did some horrible things as the head of OSA. If that is on his conscience and he wants to do something about it I would think he would want to make his best shot.
If he has justified what he did as it was his job or he had to protect Scien tology then he has a long way to go or is just plain as bad as he ever was.
That's why I have to see what he does next.
QUOTE=SchwimmelPuckel;451160]That sounds plausible.. And very desireable!
Hmm.. I think Mike Rinder is still having the scientology blues.. A believer, but doubting.. I can't be sure of course. I know only what he said in interviews and posts.. But I want to see what he does next.. Now that he's started to say something.
But yes.. Rinder has a lot to explain.. To put it very mildly.
I'm not 'applying' Hubbards condition formulas.. (They're crap!) - But I recall how we had to make amends and have the 'group' accept our petitions to get back in good standing.. For things like being 5 minutes late!
So, yes.. I think Mike Rinder needs to do something about it.
[/QUOTE]
KnightVision
Gold Meritorious Patron
Now if these guys had (displayed) their tendency and violent history of harming others before they immersed themselves into the highest ranks of the cult... then I'd eat my words.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
You really are ridiculous. So my opinions are all black and white and I'm asserting my opinion and what I write is "just Hubbard BS" and of course you are the higher intellect and therefore your opinion is actually fact and completely reasoned and nuanced and not balck and white and all the professional people in the world agree with you.
Yada, Yada, Yada....
You are making the claim that it can't be any other way than the way you see it.
That is what thinking in black and white is.
The Anabaptist Jacques
KnightVision
Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't think so. Yet how many people have said 'when I found out it wasn't what I thought it was'?? Pretty much one for one. Just how is it that so may people had no clue for so long that they were participating in a rancid deplorable cult whose history was anything but stellar?
To me it's clear. Totalitarian Scientology reduces consciousness, critical thinking, free speech and free will; however it can't supress any of these indefinitely and the inevitable thrust of a person's decency most often will erupt. And they leave.
KnightVision
Gold Meritorious Patron
Thank you for finally describing your commnent accurately.
Key words here AJ.... time to wake dude....
'my opinions are all'
Go back and look now, don't be afraid... it's a simple mistake to make...
but you will find that I stated particular opinions of your are in fact black and white and explained precisely why...
however AJ, nowhere did I say... 'all' your opinions. This type of attempt to reduce a poster's specific opinions as a generality of 'all' your opinions... reminds me of the ever so slick Mike Rinder / Tommy Davis footbullets...
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Character--that is what counts. And when I disagree with your opinion you say things like "just Hubbard BS" or "reminds me of the ever so slick Mike Rinder / Tommy Davis footbullets" Not a sign of strong character.
Until you made it personal, I addressed your content. But you took aim at me.
And it appears that a statement must agree with your opinion or you label it Scientology. More black and white thinking.
The difference between you and me is that I state my opinions as opinions and you state you opinions as facts.
The Anabaptist Jacques
KnightVision
Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm speechless. Utter lunacy.
Dodge as your commentary may attempt to... it's not lost on the many.
Dodge as your commentary may attempt to... it's not lost on the many.
Last edited:
Similar threads
