Trolling for Business on ESMB

[Bea Kiddo]

What was the question? And never give up...

Pshaw!!!!

I gave up. He is too suppressive for me. I was getting PTS and jsut had to disconnect. The question is noted several times on this thread: Whether he had read up on Knowledgism or not?

At this point, who gives a fuck?

('Scuse me... )

 

[sparrow]

Pshaw!!!!

I gave up. He is too suppressive for me. I was getting PTS and jsut had to disconnect. The question is noted several times on this thread: Whether he had read up on Knowledgism or not?

At this point, who gives a fuck?

('Scuse me... )

I don't subsribe to the whole SP/PTS theory but if you do then you should confront and shatter man...

The problem with Scientology from my pov is that it doesn't lend itself to rational debate. Hubbard discouraged it after a certain point in the 50's.

But do whatever you want. In my opinion, Alanzo can be the best thing that ever happened to you if you are truly interested in truth in general.

If not, well, insert Ratt's "Round and Round" video here....

 

[sparrow]

Must I do everything? Dam.. I thought you were OT's..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWD7VrHquU

 

[Alanzo]

Pshaw!!!!

I gave up. He is too suppressive for me. I was getting PTS and jsut had to disconnect. The question is noted several times on this thread: Whether he had read up on Knowledgism or not?

At this point, who gives a fuck?

('Scuse me... )

Alan sent me a pdf on hypnotism and identity insertion (for free) about a year and a half ago. I read it and it did not really talk about hypnosis, but instead listed out "causes and effects" of different identities.

I've also read his website and it appears to me to have very similiar goals to Scientology, just re-worded and more "here and now". As in, "Causatively Create The Life You Want" through auditing. He charges $995 per hour for his auditing, as do at least one other of his practitioners (DartsMohen). I was actually asking Alan to provide more information about Knowledgism by asking him: What safeguards has he developed to ensure that Knowledgistic practitioners do not exploit the vulnerabilities of people when they put them into more suggestive states? Yet he has continually refused to explain that, or even whether he believes they are more suggestible during his auditing. He's refused to say anything about it.

Instead he has talked about my marketing agency and what I charge my clients.

After the abuses of Scientology, I find that odd.

I apologize for being rude to you, but Alan still has not answered the question I posed to him, and at that time I was hot on it like a wolf after red meat. You stuck your hand in between that.

Now what was that question that I had asked you?

Oh yes, do you believe that Scn auditing creates more suggestive states in people and do you think that Scn has ever exploited that vulnerability?

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Oh yes, do you believe that Scn auditing creates more suggestive states in people and do you think that Scn has ever exploited that vulnerability?

Unquestionably. Oh yes.

It is common for a preclear who is on Introductory services such as auditing or training to have a big release or "cognition" as they call it. These get found out about by the Executive Director, or the Reges, and the person is definitely pounced upon for further services (pay up).

Also, bad things get exploited too. The loss of a family member or lover, or really anything.

-----

Reges in Scn are pretty grooved into turning anything good or bad into another Reg cycle (as they call it).

-----

Now, taking out the Reg (we are talking theoreticals about the beliefs themselves, I think) :

What if there were no monetary gains for the church. What if it were all free? Is a person exploited?

YES. Absolutley YES.

A person gets a gain on something and holds onto that gain, wanting more and more and looking for more and more. And the person in this state is again vulnerable. There are other ways to exploit it such as donating time, or getting others into the belief, or even just staying onto the next thing, ignoring one's realy life around them. I have seen that latter happen over and over again! People just dumping their lives to be on services and ignoring actual things in the real world that should be done. And everyone within the church going along with it. And any spouse or family member who tries to bring them back down to earth and get them to be normal or do normal duties is the "SP" stopping them from their gains.

It's a perfectly rigged system that is very hard to break out of.

Does this answer your question to me then?

 

[Alanzo]

Unquestionably. Oh yes.

It is common for a preclear who is on Introductory services such as auditing or training to have a big release or "cognition" as they call it. These get found out about by the Executive Director, or the Reges, and the person is definitely pounced upon for further services (pay up).

Also, bad things get exploited too. The loss of a family member or lover, or really anything.

-----

Reges in Scn are pretty grooved into turning anything good or bad into another Reg cycle (as they call it).

-----

Now, taking out the Reg (we are talking theoreticals about the beliefs themselves, I think) :

What if there were no monetary gains for the church. What if it were all free? Is a person exploited?

YES. Absolutley YES.

A person gets a gain on something and holds onto that gain, wanting more and more and looking for more and more. And the person in this state is again vulnerable. There are other ways to exploit it such as donating time, or getting others into the belief, or even just staying onto the next thing, ignoring one's realy life around them. I have seen that latter happen over and over again! People just dumping their lives to be on services and ignoring actual things in the real world that should be done. And everyone within the church going along with it. And any spouse or family member who tries to bring them back down to earth and get them to be normal or do normal duties is the "SP" stopping them from their gains.

It's a perfectly rigged system that is very hard to break out of.

Does this answer your question to me then?

Wow.

Uhhh, yes... I certainly guess so.

That was probably the best rundown of the exploitation of suggestible states that the Church of Scientology employs that I've ever seen.

Thanks.

(Why do I get the feeling that I am now in very big trouble...?)

 

[Dulloldfart]

For comparison, how about:

do you believe that shopping at WalMart creates more suggestive states in people and do you think that WalMart has ever exploited that vulnerability?

Oh yes! I've bought so much stuff there cheaper than anywhere else that I try there first for things as it is so cheap. Ignoring the human rights abuses that WalMart more or less demands of their suppliers if they want to keep the business, I've noticed that on some lines WalMart does NOT have the cheapest items around, far from it. In such cases, WalMart is exploiting that vulnerability.

Taking something less explosive than WalMart, let's try, say, Starbucks. If people are happy with their Starbucks experience, aren't they more likely to try untried offerings from them? If the offers are good value, then it's not exploitation, and if they aren't then it is. Same for any business venture, surely?

Paul

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Now Alanzo, a question then:

Can you give me an example of a safeguard against exploitation? An actual one that is in place for something? Not an idea, but one that actually exists in a belief system (any belief system).

 

[Alanzo]

For comparison, how about:



Oh yes! I've bought so much stuff there cheaper than anywhere else that I try there first for things as it is so cheap. Ignoring the human rights abuses that WalMart more or less demands of their suppliers if they want to keep the business, I've noticed that on some lines WalMart does NOT have the cheapest items around, far from it. In such cases, WalMart is exploiting that vulnerability.

Taking something less explosive than WalMart, let's try, say, Starbucks. If people are happy with their Starbucks experience, aren't they more likely to try untried offerings from them? If the offers are good value, then it's not exploitation, and if they aren't then it is. Same for any business venture, surely?

Paul

No Paul. Sorry.

Setting up an auditing session with TRs in and sending someone down their time track to find their most vulnerable emotional issues, and then exploiting that specific content on them - as Bea describes above so well - is not the same as offering people "low low prices every day".

 

[nozeno]

Maybe not.

No Paul. Sorry.

Setting up an auditing session with TRs in and sending someone down their time track to find their most vulnerable emotional issues, and then exploiting that specific content on them - as Bea describes above so well - is not the same as offering people "low low prices every day".

Just kidding, I'm wit Bea and A.

 

[Alanzo]

Now Alanzo, a question then:

Can you give me an example of a safeguard against exploitation? An actual one that is in place for something? Not an idea, but one that actually exists in a belief system (any belief system).

Yes.

Paul's Robot Auditor.

First, it's free.

Second, you run it yourself - no one else is suggesting how it is run, or what part of your mind it is running on you. You are in control of the session, completely, and any thing you look at is not reported to anyone else for their use in regging you for the next service.

Those are all safeguards against the exploitation of the vulnerabilities of the highly suggestive states brought about through hypnotherapeutic techniques.

 

[Zinjifar]

Those are not 'sufficient' safeguards, but at the same time, there *is* no security in hypnotherapy; only trust. Even in autohypnotic therapy.

And, there is no safeguard against 'Be Careful What You Wish For'

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

Those are not 'sufficient' safeguards, but at the same time, there *is* no security in hypnotherapy; only trust. Even in autohypnotic therapy.

And, there is no safeguard against 'Be Careful What You Wish For'

Zinj

Come on.

At least there is no blatant exploitation like in Scientology and other unethical hypnotherapuetic practices. To say there are no sufficient safeguards is not practical, nor is it entirely true.

There are safeguards, and any hypnotherapist who employs them is being as responsible as he can be, and is certainly not trying to exploit the vulnerabilities that are inherent in hypnotherapy, and which he is bringing about in his patients/clients/pcs.

That's why I asked Alan what, if anything, he has done to ensure that the highly vulnerable states of suggestibility that he brings about from his hypnotherapeutuc techniques are not exploited by practitioners of knowledgism.

And he has never answered, or even commented.

Why would that be, do you think?

 

[uniquemand]

Perhaps it's because he thinks the question is ridiculous? I do.

 

[Zinjifar]

Perhaps it's because he thinks the question is ridiculous? I do.

Actually, I think the question is facetious. Alanzo likes to play games.

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

Perhaps it's because he thinks the question is ridiculous? I do.

He probably does think it is ridiculous.

That's why, at $995 per hour, the capacity for exploitation in his hypnotherapy should be discussed on ESMB, and continued questions should be raised about it.

And until those questions are answered, I'm going to continue to ask them.

I'm not being facetious, I'm being serious.

I think Alan worked with Hubbard closely enough to know what Hubbard was doing, and after he left, he SEEMS to have simply slid right into the role that Hubbard played to people.

If Alan made no corrections to Hubbard's exploitation of the vulnerabilities of people, as very well outlined by Bea a few posts ago, and just inserted it all right into Knowledgism, then that needs to be exposed - no matter how good of a guy Alan is, or how popular he is among Exes in exposing his old mentor.

The telling thing here is that Alan will not even discuss this. If he had seen the exploitation that Hubbard used, and thought it was deplorable, you'd think he'd say something about that. You'd think he'd have a full battery of safeguards he developed to ensure Hubbard's abuses were not continued. But he doesn't.

So I'm very suspicious about Alan's hypnotherapy.

And I'm discussing those suspicions right here on ESMB - in the Independent Field section where Alan is, too.

Nothing covert. It's all out in the open.

Alan can join in any time he wants.

And so can Dart or even RogerB, or any other Knowledgist here.

 

[uniquemand]

I have no problem discussing this, but I can't speak for Alan. My own view is that the dangers you are speaking of are understood in common psychology as the Transference, and Metapsychology has specific methods of spotting it and handling it so that it doesn't affect the client.

 

[Alanzo]

I have no problem discussing this, but I can't speak for Alan. My own view is that the dangers you are speaking of are understood in common psychology as the Transference, and Metapsychology has specific methods of spotting it and handling it so that it doesn't affect the client.

OK, so you do recognize that dangers do exist, and that safeguards should be employed to handle those dangers and there are responsible practitioners who are doing something about it.

Thank you.

 

[uniquemand]

I wouldn't call it "dangers", but yes. Instead, I'd call it "side effects". If you have a conversation with a person who is knowledgeable about soccer, and you walk away thinking that they are very bright, because they could answer your question, then you run the "danger" of thinking they are bright, and you should ask them questions. That's the "danger" I see here. Aside from that, it's just a side-effect of communication.

I don't think people need to stop communicating, just because they aren't fully aware of it's side effects.

 

[Alanzo]

I wouldn't call it "dangers", but yes. Instead, I'd call it "side effects". If you have a conversation with a person who is knowledgeable about soccer, and you walk away thinking that they are very bright, because they could answer your question, then you run the "danger" of thinking they are bright, and you should ask them questions. That's the "danger" I see here. Aside from that, it's just a side-effect of communication.

I don't think people need to stop communicating, just because they aren't fully aware of it's side effects.

I love your off-planet analogies.

Prison is like having a tight schedule, with lots of deadlines.

Bankruptcy Court is like a party where people who have lent you money all come and have cake and ice cream.

Slavery is like going away to camp.

Jesus.

Who do you think you are fooling with this?