What if it doesn't die?

[Gizmo]

Well, if it doesn't die ? Well it'll be like LRH, immortal & all that.

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

One thing a scientologist is not taught (within the cult anyway) is how to debate ... they are taught to alternate between using attack mode or "ARC" and always "TR's" to reach (synthetic) agreement but none of that works with someone who isn't playing by the cult rules and who can and will employ tactics that impinge.

I recently saw that video again where Tommy Davis completely freaks out and screeches at John Sweeney. After weeks of using his "TR's" and "presence" to "handle" John Sweeney, Tommy Davis completely cracked. John Sweeney (stressed as he was by the weeks of harassment) failed to do as he was "supposed to do" and just back off ... and by then Davis had nothing left to throw at him and virtually had a nervous breakdown on camera.

That was an extreme example of what happens when a scientologist tries to defend the indefensible wearing little more than a shield of "TR's" and a determination to demonstrate his ability to [STRIKE]be "at cause"[/STRIKE] bully someone into submission.

A serious argument about the tek can't be "won" by a scientologist using the techniques they are trained in if the person they are arguing with is alert and willing to hang in but not many people can be bothered to do that, John Sweeney had the tenacity of a bulldog but the stress of talking to a brick wall even got to him eventually.

Tommy Davis apparently left the SO not long after his run in with John Sweeney where he was exposed and left with nowhere to go and nothing left to say but what it took to get to that point was extreme.

Not many scientolgists on ESMB will (publicly) change the viewpoint they have decided to hang on to ... which is fine because no-one expects them to and most exes would not be willing to do a John Sweeney when dealing with a freezoner, any discussion is probably for the sake of onlookers.

Did Tommy Davis leave as in no longer a follower or did he burn out from the pressure of giving and receiving SRAs (Severe Reality Adjustments) or became an embarrassment by being recorded implementing a Disconnection policy or fade away because DM cognited that it was no longer possible to defend the Church publicly with a PR Spokesperson? Could be a lot of things but I suspect he is either laying low or crawling out from under a bus rather than no longer a Scientologist.

Maybe there was a more civil time when Scientologists could attempt to carry on a rational debate but that would quickly get them into the weeds with "Verbal Data". Another cardinal sin. If someone can't be referred to Source with a book or course then what does that leave but what we typically see in all these "Wins"? They can't say what it is - only what it does. After 65 years of lifting each other's wins it gets harder and more fantastical to be original until they have become a parody of themselves.

Debate to a Scientologist therefore by default becomes trickery: deflective rhetoric, black Dianetics, overwhelm, robotic TRs and acknowledgements, etc.

Islam might be a very nice religion without all the cutting off of heads, raping, pillaging, jizya, Sharia Law, polygamy and slavery but then it wouldn't be Islam. Like moderate Muslims, Indies seem to insist that they can pick and choose the best bits, ignore the rest, and still call it Scientology.

 

[Terril park]

While I don't really understand it, I do find it very amusing that True Believers come to this forum where they know the opinion about Hubbard's "tech" is overwhelmingly negative ... and then "get upset" when someone says something negative about the "tech".

This was a surprise???

Not in the least upset.

Just indicated some weird viewpoints.

 

[Terril park]

I do understand how people can "leave" Scientology or stop being actively involved with the organization on a win and still retain respect for some of the principles. The problem with defending Scientology on this basis is a lack of knowledge or a disconnect from the degree of harm caused in relation to benefit.


TOBB

I'm very aware of the harm. Have spent 8 years protesting with Anons
on almost all protests.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Posted by TheOriginalBigBlue

Did Tommy Davis leave as in no longer a follower or did he burn out from the pressure of giving and receiving SRAs (Severe Reality Adjustments) or became an embarrassment by being recorded implementing a Disconnection policy or fade away because DM cognited that it was no longer possible to defend the Church publicly with a PR Spokesperson? Could be a lot of things but I suspect he is either laying low or crawling out from under a bus rather than no longer a Scientologist.

I have no idea but I would strongly suspect he is still ''in'' due at least in part to him being a generational scientologist (ie having a mad mother) and being married to a scientologist (assuming also that she is still in). It's so much harder to leave when you are ready to when you have family who are in and in his case much, much harder because his mother is a "celeb" and would probably dump him before she would dump the cult if pushed.

My point was that he had nowhere else to go with the "discussion" (with John Sweeney) ... he appeared to be in complete shock because everything he was relying on (tehkwise) to win had failed him and he had no ability to just calmly debate the subject based on its merits.

Maybe there was a more civil time when Scientologists could attempt to carry on a rational debate but that would quickly get them into the weeds with "Verbal Data". Another cardinal sin. If someone can't be referred to Source with a book or course then what does that leave but what we typically see in all these "Wins"? They can't say what it is - only what it does. After 65 years of lifting each other's wins it gets harder and more fantastical to be original until they have become a parody of themselves.

Debate to a Scientologist therefore by default becomes trickery: deflective rhetoric, black Dianetics, overwhelm, robotic TRs and acknowledgements, etc.

Islam might be a very nice religion without all the cutting off of heads, raping, pillaging, jizya, Sharia Law, polygamy and slavery but then it wouldn't be Islam. Like moderate Muslims, Indies seem to insist that they can pick and choose the best bits, ignore the rest, and still call it Scientology.

Very true.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Did Tommy Davis leave as in no longer a follower or did he burn out from the pressure of giving and receiving SRAs (Severe Reality Adjustments) or became an embarrassment by being recorded implementing a Disconnection policy or fade away because DM cognited that it was no longer possible to defend the Church publicly with a PR Spokesperson? Could be a lot of things but I suspect he is either laying low or crawling out from under a bus rather than no longer a Scientologist.

Maybe there was a more civil time when Scientologists could attempt to carry on a rational debate but that would quickly get them into the weeds with "Verbal Data". Another cardinal sin. If someone can't be referred to Source with a book or course then what does that leave but what we typically see in all these "Wins"? They can't say what it is - only what it does. After 65 years of lifting each other's wins it gets harder and more fantastical to be original until they have become a parody of themselves.

Debate to a Scientologist therefore by default becomes trickery: deflective rhetoric, black Dianetics, overwhelm, robotic TRs and acknowledgements, etc.

Islam might be a very nice religion without all the cutting off of heads, raping, pillaging, jizya, Sharia Law, polygamy and slavery but then it wouldn't be Islam. Like moderate Muslims, Indies seem to insist that they can pick and choose the best bits, ignore the rest, and still call it Scientology.

I thought it was his faux pas with Lawerence Wright that got him his walking papers:

As I reported in the article, I discussed Hubbard’s war record with Tommy Davis, the spokesman for the Church of Scientology. He said that if it was true that Hubbard had not been injured, then “the injuries that he handled by the use of Dianetics procedures were never handled, because they were injuries that never existed; therefore, Dianetics is based on a lie; therefore, Scientology is based on a lie.” He concluded, “The fact of the matter is that Mr. Hubbard was a war hero.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/primary-sources-l-ron-hubbard-leaves-the-navy

Mimsey

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

Not all, which is why my I had the bolded part:

But Scientologists are the most ethical people on the planet. Their ethics are the most closely aligned with Scientology ethics. In other words, Scientologists behave more like Scientologists than anyone else, which is not at all surprising.

You could say similar things about the ethics of the Westborough Baptists. They are the only ones moral enough to protest at soldier's funerals.

Although these are extreme examples, they illustrate that discussions of religious ethics involve an element of tautology. I agree that Christian ethics overlaps with secular ethics quite a lot, but it does lag behind on issues of euthanasia and abortion and this is because of the belief in a soul and an afterlife.

And, as others have noted, this-life Utopias are also subject to the consideration. In communism, for example, the prospect of creating an eternally-lasting "workers' paradise" on earth was used as justification for the murder of upwards of 100 million people in the last 100 years, by their own governments.

I agree. Not all forms of adoration require the supernatural and communism might not have had gods as such, but it did involve worship.

I do think afterlife based political cults are generally more dangerous than non-afterlife based political cults. There are many things done in the same of religion that are unthinkable in a political cult. Suicide terrorism is largely the domain of the religious.

Afterlife based political cults tend to endure much longer. Communism was all but dead in less than a century and fascism half that. Islam, on the other hand has endured for centuries and will likely endure further.

Maybe this is because people tend to be less willing to criticize an afterlife based political cult. I do not know why.

I also suspect that the conviction of afterlife based political cults is greater that non-afterlife based political cults. To give my favorite example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vasili Arkhipov refused a standing order to launch nuclear weapons in the event of a communications blackout. He was the only one of three officers require to authorize the launch of nuclear weapons who refused to do so when they lost communication. He is the reason we are all alive today.

This is not the only example. Stanislav Petrov refused to notify his superiors of a nuclear alert, because he feared an equipment failure (and he was right).

You can't create a worker's utopia if all the workers around the world are dead. If either of these people worked for ISIS and not the USSR, there would have been no hesitation. We would not be here today.

As disgusting as communism was and is, afterlife based political cults are able to do things unthinkable to anyone who rejects the concept of an afterlife.

The major difference between Islam and Christianity, is that Islam explicitly advocates violence for the purpose of spreading Islam, while Christianity explicitly EXCLUDES the idea that violence is a legitimate part of spreading Christianity. (This hasn't stopped violence in the name of Christianity, but it does serve to reduce it).

I largely agree. The focus of Islam is Mecca and the Haj, in other words a celebration of victory over the infidel. The Koran is riddled with direct references to holy war. The focus of Christianity is the Crucifixion, with all of it's connotations of redemption, forgiveness and suffering. The focus is entirely different.

That being said, the inquisitors, who worshiped a god who tortured unbelievers in whose image they believed themselves created, also tortured non believers.

If you understand their concept of an afterlife, you can understand why they did it. The heretic could lead the faithful into eternal suffering in the afterlife. The heretics will be tortured by God in the afterlife anyway. Why not save the souls of anyone who might be susceptible to their influence and torture and kill the heretics now?

Wherever people believe they are not ever going to die, their notions of consequences can be twisted by relativistic religious morality.

 

[Gib]

I have no idea but I would strongly suspect he is still ''in'' due at least in part to him being a generational scientologist (ie having a mad mother) and being married to a scientologist (assuming also that she is still in). It's so much harder to leave when you are ready to when you have family who are in and in his case much, much harder because his mother is a "celeb" and would probably dump him before she would dump the cult if pushed.

My point was that he had nowhere else to go with the "discussion" (with John Sweeney) ... he appeared to be in complete shock because everything he was relying on (tehkwise) to win had failed him and he had no ability to just calmly debate the subject based on its merits.





Very true.

IMHO, Hubbard never taught debate, Socratic Method, rules of Rhetoric, etc simply because he knew he would be found out. And Hubbard cleverly poo poo's other Philosophers in his lectures and books, and cleverly says scientology is based on 50,000 years of man's thinking, implying he studied it all and found the answer and presents it to us in a simpler form.

This deflection worked on me for 27 years in scientology as my upbringing never involved studying history, debate, philosophy. Now that I have looked into the ancients, what a load of bullocks scientology is.

How Hubbard got around the Socratic Method and critical thinking was to utilize rhetoric in a bad way, and the way was to say if you discuss or do a Q&A (debate) about the tech or case gain why you would re-stimulate one's case, seems logical when one believes in "case" as defined by Hubbard and I fell for it. And of course we have specific PTS/SP HCOPL and HCOB on it to help reinforce the false technology.

If only John Sweeny knew this, he could calmly ask Tommy Davis prove you are a "clear" or "OT" instead of debating the religion or belief angle. This goes for Tony O as well. If only the media will ask questions on what scientology/dianetics is supposed to do to people as defined by Hubbard. The EP of OT8 is "whole track" recall. Somebody in the media ask this question- do you have Whole Track recall, tell us about it?

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

All the Communist systems had a "cult of personality" for the Leader, very similar to Scientology's worship of Hubbard.

For example, nobody wanted to be the one who was first to stop clapping for Stalin. The secret police would be watching.

This gives a me a chill even now. Stalin's era was frightening. The only reason we are able to call the holocaust 'the' holocaust is that he became unwell before he was able to kill even more Jews than Hitler.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

And earlier you posted :-

"Has it occurred to you that auditing may have harmed in in ways which you are unable to see at the time and are unable to see now?"

To quote the sage of Nazerath:-

" Why do you notice the sliver in your friends eye, but overlook the timber in your own? How can you say to your friend, "Let me get the
sliver out of your eye", when there is that timber in your own? You phony,
first take the timber out of your own eye and then you'll see well
enough to remove the sliver from your friends eye."

You give me ad hom, make wrong, wrong item, wrong indication
and a determined effort to introvert.

You'll notice when people do correct me, I stand corrected. I do look into my own eye.

I am not in the position where a large number of people consistently tell me I am wrong, provide reasonable evidence which I ignore, poke holes in my logic which I ignore or tell me that my insensitivity to their life suffering is intolerable. If I did, it would be me that your comment should apply to.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

I'm very aware of the harm. Have spent 8 years protesting with Anons
on almost all protests.

Your record on protesting is not in question. Bravo.

 

[Jump]

The Bunker is all about the shrinkage today. Rinder's blog has stunning photos of the Basel Org. Looks like the Chernobyl Ideal Org.

I think the half-life is shortening.

Rinder had some good pics. That place is a ghost town.

I searched the web and came across this pic from earlier that year.

 

[Gib]

And earlier you posted :-

"Has it occurred to you that auditing may have harmed in in ways which you are unable to see at the time and are unable to see now?"

To quote the sage of Nazerath:-

" Why do you notice the sliver in your friends eye, but overlook the timber in your own? How can you say to your friend, "Let me get the
sliver out of your eye", when there is that timber in your own? You phony,
first take the timber out of your own eye and then you'll see well
enough to remove the sliver from your friends eye."

You give me ad hom, make wrong, wrong item, wrong indication
and a determined effort to introvert.

ad hom is a funny one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[SUP][1][/SUP]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[SUP][2][/SUP]Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[SUP][3][/SUP]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance."

Ad hom means attacking the character of the person, ie you are a cheat, a no good person, as opposed to what the person is presenting as a argument, or debate. or socratic method. Now you present yourself here on ESMB as a proponent of the idea that a "clear" or "OT" exist, and you give many success stories w/o proof. All the while you give yourself as a person who has joined against the official COS but still believe in the tech, thus the arguments, or mis labeled Ad Hom on your part.

While I myself and others say bullshit, none exist. Now you may think it is ad hom, but it is not. People like myself are saying simply no "clear" or "OT" exist, and thus Hubbard is a fraud.

http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/

 

[programmer_guy]

I'm very aware of the harm. Have spent 8 years protesting with Anons
on almost all protests.

Yes, I understand.
You are a protestant scientologist and not an ex-scientologist.
There is a big difference between the two.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

Your record on protesting is not in question. Bravo.

BTW there is no sarcasm in this post.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

ad hom is a funny one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hom means attacking the character of the person, ie you are a cheat, a no good person, as opposed to what the person is presenting as a argument, or debate. or socratic method. Now you present yourself here on ESMB as a proponent of the idea that a "clear" or "OT" exist, and you give many success stories w/o proof. All the while you give yourself as a person who has joined against the official COS but still believe in the tech, thus the arguments, or mis labeled Ad Hom on your part.

While I myself and others say bullshit, none exist. Now you may think it is ad hom, but it is not. People like myself are saying simply no "clear" or "OT" exist, and thus Hubbard is a fraud.

Exactly! I've had that discussion with Indie Scientologist here on ESMB several times, over the years. It goes something like this. . .

SCIENTOLOGIST
I am clear.

EX-SCIENTOLOGIST
No you're not.
There are no clears.

SCIENTOLOGIST
You're saying I am lying about clear.
Thus, you're saying I'm a liar.
That's ad hom.

EX-SCIENTOLOGIST
I'm just saying there is no clear.

SCIENTOLOGIST
Besides ad hom, now you are attacking me too.

EX-SCIENTOLGIST
How did I attack you?

SCIENTOLOGIST
First Ad hom! Then attacking me!
And now Q & A with non-standard
squirrel questions designed to spin me in.
What are your crimes, cocksucker?!​

Scientologists: They're the friendliest people in the world. Unless you disagree with them.

 

[Anonycat]

...



Exactly! I've had that discussion with Indie Scientologist here on ESMB several times, over the years. It goes something like this. . .

SCIENTOLOGIST
I am clear.

EX-SCIENTOLOGIST
No you're not.
There are no clears.

SCIENTOLOGIST
You're saying I am lying about clear.
Thus, you're saying I'm a liar.
That's ad hom.

EX-SCIENTOLOGIST
I'm just saying there is no clear.

SCIENTOLOGIST
Besides ad hom, now you are attacking me too.

EX-SCIENTOLGIST
How did I attack you?

SCIENTOLOGIST
First Ad hom! Then attacking me!
And now Q & A with non-standard
squirrel questions designed to spin me in.
What are your crimes, cocksucker?!​

Scientologists: They're the friendliest people in the world. Unless you disagree with them.

A little disappointed that you didn't fit this in.

You give me ad hom, make wrong, wrong item, wrong indication
and a determined effort to introvert.

The 100% cultie language is the kicker!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

A little disappointed that you didn't fit this in.

You give me ad hom, make wrong, wrong item,
wrong indication and a determined effort to introvert.

​

The 100% cultie language is the kicker!

Whoa, you're right--that fits in perfectly! Thx! Love it!

 

[Helena Handbasket]

IMO, yes it is; provided that the 'cog' isn't one the person auditing you has any stake in (anything to do with Xenu, for example), I think cognitions are a good thing. In other words, it has to be genuinely your cognition and not one you've been conditioned to have.

Scott Peck in his book "People of the Lie" describes a case of someone who came to her therapist with a fear of spiders (arachnophobia) and who had a possessive and controlling mother who would somehow always find an excuse to make her daughter stay late during her visits even when the daughter had a work assignment she needed to be up early for the next day.

At one point, the daughter had the insight (which I think is as valid a word as 'cognition' that her mother was like a spider herself and, although that wasn't the end of it, she began to get better from that point on. I think that insight was a necessary stage in her progress.

I've read that sometimes a family member has a vested interest in another family member NOT getting better through therapy. The in-therapy person has a role in the family where they serve as the victim in some way and therapy threatens to take them out of that role. So the other family member does NOT want them to have success in therapy.

In some cases, they get better through therapy, and as soon as they get home again, they get worse. The solution of course is for them to get the **** out of the toxic environment and the sooner the better.

Helena

 

[Enthetan]

This gives a me a chill even now. Stalin's era was frightening. The only reason we are able to call the holocaust 'the' holocaust is that he became unwell before he was able to kill even more Jews than Hitler.

There have been other holocausts.

The mass killing of upwards of 1.5 million Christians by Muslim Turks, beginning in 1915, served as a model for Hitler's later program. He figured that if the Turks could get away with it, then he could too.

The Ukrainian genocide of the 1930's killed up to 7.5 million.

And then there's the systematic eradication of Christians in Muslim lands that has been happening in the last few decades.