War crimes: Are exes accountable for things they did when they were in?

[lkwdblds]

When the penny dropped for me ...... one of the first things I thought of was the "how to boil a frog" story. I first heard it from CO OSA EUS at a fundraiser for the IAS. It was told to explain how the population was becoming immoral by the gradual indoctrination of the evil psyches. Was funny seeing it from a Scientology critic's point of view.

Like most Exes I used Scientology to unravel myself from Scientology. I did the doubt formula, I used the Data Series, I word cleared and False data stripped and went earlier similar to whole track implants. I worked out how to apply "Personal Integrity" and the "Optimum Solution".

I think it speaks well of LRH tech that it can be used to untangle oneself from Scientology. It also speaks well of those who use it.

The funny thing is even using Scientology to evaluate Scientology it still doesn't amount to more than a cartoon philosophy wrapped in Lies and PR. It's smoke and mirrors. It would be funny if so many of us hadn't taken it so seriously. That's why Anonymous is so amazing to us. They call a spade a spade and a joke a joke. Scientology is lulzy as hell until people get hurt.

I don't fully agree with you on this one. I still think parts of the tech are valid and have value. Perhaps the Doubt Formula would be a good example.

I'm not working on some amends project for the damage I caused. I'm not trying to balance out some karma. I'm not looking for sympathy or forgiveness. I'm just working through how I ever believed what I was doing was valuable enough to justify the damage. Hearing other points of view helps. I believed because I chose to. I believed because I needed to.

Very good passage, great message very effectively stated!

I don't anymore. I'm sorry that I didn't say "goodbye" instead of "good riddance". I sometimes say a prayer or hold a good thought or send a positive vibe to the people I loved and betrayed. I do that because I can.

I do truly love myself still. It's amazing. By the way - you guys are the best.

GT

Great about sending the positive vibe. Would you ever consider trying to contact any of those people and let them know you are out of C of S now and explain how you feel about them?

Its great that you still feel so good about yourself!
Lkwdblds

 

[AnonyMary]

Should they be held accountable, or is it all water under the bridge (no pun intended)?

Would like to hear other people's viewpoints on this.

Natural consequences to such are ...... natural. When I saw Don Larson spilling the beans on that TV show, I felt less hostile toward him for what he did to me. Eventually, enough to actually forgive him for what he did. Why? Well, I saw that he knew he's done wrong. I think that's what we are looking for. An admission, or apology, or something that indicates that 'he person has see the light' and had changed their ways.

Scientologists do not look beyond what they are programmed to see. Any ex who is guilty of past harmful acts or serious omissions against others is either facing those demons or they aren't. Marty rathbun will only face those he's harmed if they still believe in the tech. Everyone else is an enemy to him and their communication is essentially treated as such. That's scilon think and Scilon action. That's irresponsibility. Listening to the upsets of those we've upset or harmed takes courage. It means listeding to one's heart. That requires one push aside the justifications and walk a mile in the other person's shoes.

Any scientologist who has contributed to the degrading of another human being will be held accountable because the laws of natural consequences dictates it. We may not see the evidence of natural consequences but we know in the end that there is no way to avoid it. The best we can do is hope for accountability and try to forgive they who have harmed us because 'they know not what they do' , yet.

 

[Lee_from_phx]

Marty Rathbun's blog, and the controversy surrounding his emergence, has made me think a lot lately about this subject.

There are people who consider that he did so much harm when he was in that no good can come from him now.

I can certainly see that viewpoint, considering who he was and what he was responsible for.

My question:

Where do you draw the line?

Why with some people is there an "all is forgiven" attitude and others there's a "they has a lot to be answerable for" attitude?

For instance, why is Marty "not OK" but Rinder is "OK"?

There are a lot of "now outs" who I feel have some explaining to do. Bitty Miscavige, for one. Mariette Lindsteen is another one. Maybe it's a personal thing, but they were both responsible for certain things in the SO that made my life miserable.

Should they be held accountable, or is it all water under the bridge (no pun intended)?

Would like to hear other people's viewpoints on this.

If these two have turned against the cult and are acting to destroy it then it really doesn't matter what they did in the past. The virtue of one's allies is of far less importance than their ability to inflict harm upon the enemy.

Seeking to punish them when they can be used to punish the enemy is just plain stupid. It also discourages others who might be thinking of defecting.

Imagine if the US had shot Viktor Belenko after he flew his Foxbat to Japan. What kind of a message would that send to other would-be soviet defectors?

Any course of action that does not advance the destruction of the enemy is a waste of time, and that especially includes divisive political games and finger pointing.

 

[Reasonable]

Great question,

I think if you change then you change. It is the Scn way to make you accountable for everything you ever did then SUFFER up through the condititons. This was something I hated about Scientology. All the punishment, shame and blame.

Also, as fucked up as the sea org is you who were in it did in some way agree. I who was not in but paid a lot of money instead of buying a house also agreed to giving away lots of money. That was my fault.

I am all for forgiving and getting on with things now, not dwelling in the past.

 

[Ladybird]

There is a difference between public scientologists and Mission, Class V Org and Sea Org Staff.

This might sound sh***y but IMO most public scientologists are pretty much in it for themselves, "It works for ME!" (ME! ME! ME!). They don't really care about the group or the SO or staff. They are the ones feeding the cult and allowing it to continue. The public scientologists are the ones selling their grandmas house and their childrens education funds and their own retirement accounts to chase their own wet dreams of personal OT powerz.

If and when those selfish people get out, it will be for their own selfish reasons such as "It didn't deliver what was promised". The ones who do speak out usually do so because they are personally pissed off that they got scammed and ripped off. Most never did and still don't care about the staff and the human rights abuses etc. These are the people we see joining the feezone, or still somehow trying to make a buck by trying to make scientology work.

I got kicked out and declared for standing up and speaking out about abuses of the children and staff, especially the abortions. I was ordered to "handle" my staff who were pregnant to get abortions and divorces. I refused, and I had already turned around an order to cancel family time into a program to handle the QI and got all my staff together to cover for family time for the staff that had kids. I have many of the "Things that shouldn't be" reports and KRs I wrote and commendations from my staff at that time. My Comm-ev even agreed with me, but they were sent to ethics for not declaring me and I was declared anyway by Bittie Miscavige and her sister Griffee Blythe, who went on LOA to take care of her own family and her sister Bittie Miscavige also blew (and is now hanging out with Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder and hasn't said a word about what she knows).

Most people don't join the Sea Org for money or selfish reasons. My Sea Org friends are some of the best people I have ever met. Somebody somewhere wrote a nasty saracastic post asking "how many Sea org leave and join the Peace Corp?"

In my experience, knowing many ex Sea Org, many of us have gone in to helping professions, such as psychology, social work, nursing, counseling, teaching, etc. If you look at ex Sea Org stories, you will notice that many of us joined as young college students. I know many who have gone back to finish our college degrees that were interupted by scientology.

I know sometimes I come across as harsh and unforgiving, but I really do think some of the "pool pigs" (Public scientologists that lounge around the Fort Harrison pool waiting to be seviced by auditors who make 50 bucks a week) need to get over themselves and either step up to the plate against the abuses of the cult of scientology or GTFO and go post on a celebrity chat site called alt.memyselfandI. Marty Rathbun is waiting to service you with his arms wide open too! If you are worthy, (aka wealthy and deluded enough) Marty Rathun will be your friend for a fee!

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Natural consequences to such are ...... natural. When I saw Don Larson spilling the beans on that TV show, I felt less hostile toward him for what he did to me. Eventually, enough to actually forgive him for what he did. Why? Well, I saw that he knew he's done wrong. I think that's what we are looking for. An admission, or apology, or something that indicates that 'he person has see the light' and had changed their ways.

Scientologists do not look beyond what they are programmed to see. Any ex who is guilty of past harmful acts or serious omissions against others is either facing those demons or they aren't. Marty rathbun will only face those he's harmed if they still believe in the tech. Everyone else is an enemy to him and their communication is essentially treated as such. That's scilon think and Scilon action. That's irresponsibility. Listening to the upsets of those we've upset or harmed takes courage. It means listeding to one's heart. That requires one push aside the justifications and walk a mile in the other person's shoes.

Any scientologist who has contributed to the degrading of another human being will be held accountable because the laws of natural consequences dictates it. We may not see the evidence of natural consequences but we know in the end that there is no way to avoid it. The best we can do is hope for accountability and try to forgive they who have harmed us because 'they know not what they do' , yet.

That is a valuable piece of advice--not only are you now a mile away from the problem, you also have new shoes!

Seriously, I don't think any of us should be beating ourselves up over what went on while we were on staff, but to ignore all responsibility for what contribution we did make to keep the monster alive is to keep your head in the sand.

I did point out before that many of us were acting on incorrect and or incoherent information, and depending on how subjugated one's will may have been provides a mitigating factor in one's favor.

 

[Lulu Belle]

There is a difference between public scientologists and Mission, Class V Org and Sea Org Staff.

This might sound sh***y but IMO most public scientologists are pretty much in it for themselves, "It works for ME!" (ME! ME! ME!). They don't really care about the group or the SO or staff. They are the ones feeding the cult and allowing it to continue.

Yeah, they're a hot button for me too.

Worse are the ones who routed out of the SO to become public, with instant amnesia about what they saw go on there.

The COS is just fine and dandy now that it's not them making 40 bucks a week to work 100 hours a week, be up all night on "all hands" four nights a week and spending years on the RPF.

 

[RogerB]

Good Issue to Raise.

Marty Rathbun's blog, and the controversy surrounding his emergence, has made me think a lot lately about this subject.

There are people who consider that he did so much harm when he was in that no good can come from him now.

I can certainly see that viewpoint, considering who he was and what he was responsible for.

My question:

Where do you draw the line?

Why with some people is there an "all is forgiven" attitude and others there's a "they has a lot to be answerable for" attitude?

For instance, why is Marty "not OK" but Rinder is "OK"?

There are a lot of "now outs" who I feel have some explaining to do. Bitty Miscavige, for one. Mariette Lindsteen is another one. Maybe it's a personal thing, but they were both responsible for certain things in the SO that made my life miserable.

Should they be held accountable, or is it all water under the bridge (no pun intended)?

Would like to hear other people's viewpoints on this.

Lulu,

Good issue to raise. It will help folks to address it.

Of course we're going to get to get some wild controversy on this, and I've not had the chance to read all the thread . . . just the first page.

Bottom line, we are going to get broadly two responses: the one from the trained auditors, and the one from the admin and ethics enforcement types.

Auditors approach things from the perspective of forgiveness when they see a Being is honestly taking responsibility for past acts, recanting, and seeking to put things right.

That is a noble and correct thing to do.

Those that are into "punishment" and needing "severe adjustments to reality" be enforced are not very forgiving and get themselves and others hung up in the past and fail to benefit from the opportunities of "moving forward."

And this approach does not do anyone any good . . . . that is a continuation of the church's shit. It's the stuff of unhappiness, recriminations, and even destruction of opportunity for good.

I've seen a lot in my approaching 80 years of playing this game, and I have found that the ability to forgive . . . but that can truly only be done when one sees genuine change in the other from error or evil to real decency . . . is the way to happiness to all.

None of us are perfect. We act and operate based on available data and our operating belief systems . . . the acts lauded in one culture are condemned in another.

If there is to be peace on earth, and if we are to attain our highest ideals, we need to be gracious with each other, to understand, and where approriate, forgive. For to hang onto any animosity is only to damage you, the maintainer of that animosity.

Rog

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Yeah, they're a hot button for me too.

Worse are the ones who routed out of the SO to become public, with instant amnesia about what they saw go on there.

The COS is just fine and dandy now that it's not them making 40 bucks a week to work 100 hours a week, be up all night on "all hands" four nights a week and spending years on the RPF.

Well, ladies, John and I spent the last portion of our time in CofS as public because we'd BEEN staff. And it sucked.

 

[KnightVision]

You bet your ass they are. Their is no 'free exit' for those who fostered such insidious wrong upon others. NONE.

 

[lie2meiluvit]

delete

 

[Lulu Belle]

Interestingly, or strangely, I have found that no matter what I imagined or idealized about ANYTHING in life, it turned out out be quite different when I actually came to live it. Not always "bad", but almost always "different" than expected or anticipated. In other words, what I thought I was doing, was almost NEVER what I was actually doing (especially in retrospect)!

This phenomena is exaggerated in SCN because public are sytematically indoctrinated along a path of "all is good" and "there is NOTHING EVER BAD about us". While not necessarily spoken out loud, this viewpoint is gently, slowly, gradually and subtly enforced. The whole slant of INT PR is a constant barrage of "good news", "how great we are", "how bad the enemy is", and so forth. This "positive" information content is ruthless and constant. It comes down and through EVERY channel. What I came to realize is that often, much of the time, what you are told in briefings, at events and at staff musters by those doing the PRing, involves extremely spun data, manufactured "facts", and misrepresentations of reality. The Church "Scientologist" really exists in an "alternate universe", because the data he or she accepts and thinks with is so contrived and fabricated. Confronting the "truth" involves becoming willing to view the larger picture, to see what the Church has done without you knowing, and to confront what the Church does out in the open, but which you were failing to view correctly previously (declares, heavy ethics, control, etc). Some of the data (what the Church has done and continues to do) needs to be re-evaluated within a new and different CONTEXT. A context DIFFERENT from the usual "we are saving the universe", KSW-type Scientology fanaticism.

There is some good in SCN. That is what makes it so hard for people - on both sides. Those in the Church focus extensively, and to too large a degree on the "good", neglecting and failing to acknowledge the "bad". Those on the "other side", at times tend to focus extensively, and to too large a degree on the "bad", neglecting and failing to acknowledge the "good". It makes it tough for anybody to agree. Add in ego attachment to each viewpoint, and it becomes quite hopeless. Also though, the Church viewpoint is strictly monitored, controlled and corrected to exist a certain way by the very structure of Scn management. It is hard to come to any understanding with or obtain compromise from unmoving, "unreasonable" strict Scientology fanatics who act out EVERY role from the LRH playbook. In my experience, Church staff NEVER aim to communicate with understanding. Their ONLY aim is to PRETEND to communicate and understand, with the REAL aim to HANDLE you according to some policy or plan (get your money, get you to join staff, get you to stop attacking, get you to stop reading Internet sites, etc), in alignment with some dumbass INT admin scale, which views the survival and expansion of Scientology as THE TOP MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITY. All else is secondary (to them).

It is this "good" aspect of Scientology though that becomes the entire focus of attention when any member gets first involved, and the "wins" and "successes" are constantly mentioned and pointed out, with "success stories" and "giving wins" heavily pushed. People need to realize what it does to a person to get him or her to stand up and tell everybody else just how amazing and wonderful everything is or was - it LOCKS the "positive" in place, and acts to make it more difficult to notice and confront any "bad" in the future.

Hubbard was a sneaky bastard, getting public to write successes (attesting, promising, asserting, claiming as a fact) and especially to stand up and communicate wins to OTHERS. It feeds the other public an endless stream of "wonderful wins", and it solidifies the viewpoint of "all is good" with the person giving the win. I see that psychologically, this non-stop soliticing of success stories and wins is an ingredient that hardens the "fanatical epoxy". I suspect Hubbard knew exactly what he was doing and planned it THAT way. The entire "success sharing" aspect of Scientology acts to psychologically set the hook deeper and faster.

Just an observation - sort of thinking out loud here. :confused2:

I don't know how I missed this post before, but I just read it.

And it is fucking brilliant.

 

[AnonyMary]

I don't know how I missed this post before, but I just read it.

And it is fucking brilliant.

ditto

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Most public Scientologists have been staff in the past. Many are volunteers, on OT committees, and so on. And they pay through the nose.

I therefore disagree with the characterization of public CofS members posted earlier on this thread.

 

[programmer_guy]

Most of the public Scientologists that I knew had never been on staff and never joined staff at any time.

For example, the majority of the public that did the Comm Course (when I supervised the Comm Course) never ever joined staff.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I sure can't say the same. The majority of people I knew who'd been in CofS a long time had been staff at one time (including John and me) or another. Newbies had not, of course. Every single person in CofS gets recruited for staff at one time or another- usually many times during the life of their stint in CofS-and a significant percentage of those people do join staff.

I'd say at least half if not more of the people I knew who'd been into it a long time had been staff at one point or another. Thing is, you have to know something of what's going on around you and the people with whom you associate. Just about every OT I knew, every classed auditor I knew (who was public)- had been staff. Only the newbies and a few others had NOT been.

Plus, as I said, most public also do other volunteer things and they also pay through the nose for their services. They also have their children targetted and preyed upon by SO recruiters. I love Lulu to death but this characterization of public Scn'ists is definitely off kilter and I'm not letting this one pass without my saying something.

 

[Lulu Belle]

I sure can't say the same. The majority of people I knew who'd been in CofS a long time had been staff at one time (including John and me) or another. Newbies had not, of course. Every single person in CofS gets recruited for staff at one time or another- usually many times during the life of their stint in CofS-and a significant percentage of those people do join staff.

I'd say at least half if not more of the people I knew who'd been into it a long time had been staff at one point or another. Thing is, you have to know something of what's going on around you and the people with whom you associate. Just about every OT I knew, every classed auditor I knew (who was public)- had been staff. Only the newbies and a few others had NOT been.

Plus, as I said, most public also do other volunteer things and they also pay through the nose for their services. They also have their children targetted and preyed upon by SO recruiters. I love Lulu to death but this characterization of public Scn'ists is definitely off kilter and I'm not letting this one pass without my saying something.

I understand what you're saying.

And, you're right. It's not all public.

You have to understand that I was staff in PAC. There was a particular syndrome in that area where people would route out of the SO and become public in the service orgs there. There were a number of these people who were miserable on staff and hated the condtions, hated the pressure and the workload.

When they got out, and became public, they would do things like go into the HGC and bitch about the service.

You have to understand how the staff felt about people like that.

These are the kind of public that I was referring to.