Page 36 of 56 FirstFirst ... 262728293031323334353637383940414243444546 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 552

Thread: Bill Frank's story about brainwashing (thread merge)

  1. #351
    Silver Meritorious Patron Outethicsofficer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bill franks View Post
    I would prefer this to be associated with the subject of brainwashing as i believe that is the category it can be of most help to people. best, Bill Franks
    Hi Bill and welcome,

    Okay the first thing that comes to mind for me then is, with this knowledge at hand how does one go about undoing that brainwashing?

    James
    Rather the purpose is to make new scientologists.
    And that is what they are trying to fool libraries, businesses and schools into helping them do - spread Scientology and make new scientologists.

    Thanks to Lawrence Brennan for the above quote.

  2. #352
    Gottabrain
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic View Post
    I have become quite suspicious that "Bill Franks" is not the Bill Franks I knew.
    I was suspicious as well, Mystic.

    I asked Kerry Gleeson yesterday and he personally verified that the Bill Franks on FB is the real Bill Franks. The Bill Franks on FB is the same one that is on this Board right now and befriended me shortly after I asked him to from this forum.

    Kerry's website and contact details are easily verified - he's been a successful writer these years past. But Kerry does not wish to talk about Scn or get involved with any of this. He is 100% WOG now and therefore only keeps friends on his FB that are ex's who DON'T discuss Scn with him or on his FB.

    I believe that Bill Franks is new to forums, the board and the entire ex and Indy and Anonymous scene. It seems to me the first people that contacted Bill Franks were Independents from Marty's group, and these are people Bill knew personally so he trusts them and perhaps has been more mild in his comments or views of Scn because of this.

    I think he really is entirely new to the whole ex scene as well as to forums, Mystic. You knew him. Why don't you ask him to get on his FB and give him a personal rundown and history of who is who and where they are?

    Jesse Prince was in the same situation a year ago.

  3. #353
    Suspended animation ... I told you I was trouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    7,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic View Post
    Hi Bill, if it's really you. You knew me as Gordon Bell. Welcome to ESMB.


    Bill may have missed this post Dearest Myssy ... so I have quoted it now in the hope that he will see it when he next looks.





    "I like pigs. Cats look down on you; dogs look up to you; but pigs treat you like an equal."

    Sir Winston Churchill.




  4. #354
    Patron with Honors chuckbeatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by degraded being View Post
    Peer reviewing would not get beyond the stage of finding out that there was no real "research", that procedures were based on "how would a cult leader do this?", that the "therapy" was not designed to be therapeutic but to trap people etc etc etc. No serious 'peer' would want to waste their time peer reviewing a cult. The fact that it is "a religion", itself means that it is generally outside the realm of mainstream psychology. The "therapy" is sold (sorry, donated for) as "spiritual counselling".

    The only place it should be "peer reviewed" is in an enquiry leading to revoking all tax exemptions, revoking religious status, and prosecution for physical and psychological abuse, fraud, extortion, blackmail, and human trafficking.

    EDIT: Perhaps you meant that anyway? Peer reviewing scientology as a CULT and not as a therapy?
    (I just read your post about Prof Kent).
    I hadnlt honestly thought it out, since it's above my pay grade, because in America, I think the pressure was on LRH in the early 50s from the medical and psychiatric community that the Dianetics people were NOT qualified to be taking on citizens with real mental illnesses, and THAT is what I really wish would still be done.

    Hubbard's policies on acceptance of patients (preclears/parishioners) is so legally cleverly worded as to cover his ass, but in countries that don't recognize Scientology as a religion, well those countries with stronger qualified psych practitioner laws OUGHT to go after Scientology's therapy that is NOT peer reviewed.

    Agreed, of course the research is not there.

    In the US, with all sorts of quack treatments and mental practices going on left right and center, getting their coincidental placebo benefits by their well intentioned (and some who are absolutely just smooth quacks as well) practitioners, Scientology as a religious practice, because it gets into exorcism at the "upper levels" (OT 3-7 levels are high volume exorcism, which is a spiritual practice, the dead alien spirits that Xenu mass murdered and had implanted with the 36 and 1/2 days of mental crazy science fiction implants) Scientology at the upper levels is exorcism, a spiritual practice.

    So really it's a more complicated mess.

    We don't even have anyone in the media or scholars talking simply about Scientology.

    Scientology's not even simply defined.

    It's talk therapy at the lower levels, and it's exorcism at the upper levels.

    It really needs a couple of focused books, that really settle simply, some focused simple explanations of what it is, in simple neutral language, and then it can be dissected for what it is.

    To me, the biggest "con" LRH has pulled, is the word game he's got Scientology locked into perpetuating, of what Scientology is.

    They don't call themselves exorcists, but they do a hell of a lot of exorcism on OT levels 3-7!!

    Peer review I meant, of their lower level talk therapy levels, like all the talk therapy that make up the bottom half of the Bridge to Clear.

    I'm thinking squirrely type of peer review, like some psychotherapists borrowing and changing any of the lower bridge up to Clear, sort of like how Serge Gerbode did with his Traumatic Incident Reduction therapy he delivers.

    That to me is what I meant about "peer review" and I meant MORE like what Serge did, but for the Grades 0-4, the before Clear talk therapy stuff.

    The upper levels OT 3-7 exorcism of the dead space aliens that supposedly infest all of us, no one in the licensed psychotherapy field is gonna touch or try to peer review the commands and practices for contacting body thetans and running Incident 1 and 2 on body thetans and on body thetan clusters, that's NOT needed to be peer reviewed. That's obviously a spiritual practice, as ludicrous as that practice is to the average man on the street.

    So to clarify, I meant peer review sort of like how Serge Gerbode did with engram running, which I believe he's adopted in some form, in his Traumatic Incident Reduction psychotherapy practice.

    I'm for squirreling any "good" out of Hubbard's lower level talk therapy, that's the best I can see in Hubbard's works.

    I don't buy Hubbard's bridge as sacrosanct, and the only way out for mankind, etc, etc.

    body thetan removal, the OT 3-7 high volume exorcism of the dead space alien souls, that's religious stuff, so let the Scientologists sort out how to deliver that to themselves, if they want to do it.
    Chuck Beatty
    ex Sea Org (1975-2003)
    412-260-1170
    chuckbeatty77@aol.com

    "I think a lot of my father's stuff doesn't work. So I false report whenever I need to. Personally, I think my father's crazy."
    - Quentin Hubbard Class 12 Scientologist, statement to Dennis Erlich
    http://www.lermanet.com/exit/quentincoroner.htm

  5. Thanks ClearEyed says "thank you" for this post
  6. #355
    Crusader lkwdblds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Orange Country, CA
    Posts
    6,354

    Default Good Points

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn View Post
    Even at 8% of normal wages, how much of that labor goes to keeping up the illusion, how much of it goes to satisfying the paranoia of upper management, and how much of it actually goes to generating income?

    I don't foresee Scientology suddenly dying off they have too many assets for that, but it will slowly wither away.

    The damage has been done, now that Scientology has been fully exposed nobody in the media is willing to look the other way anymore or make excuses for it to satisfy it's handful of past-their-prime celebrities.
    You make good points. I agree with all you say above.
    Lakey
    "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you've earned but not greed to want to take someone else's money."
    -Thomas Sowell

  7. #356
    Patron
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    12

    Default Amen

    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    AnonyMary and Ladybird, I so appreciate and like your posts here. Thank you.

    Chuck Norris, I have to wonder why you spend time here if you believe that the only people interested in Scn. are looking for a freak show? You seem to be a regular poster here. Reminiscing about any good times we had in the "church" back in the day is at least slightly more theta inducing than bashing people who don't yet have your level of "knowledge" about the "truth". That is the kind of rant that would keep myself, and I'm sure others, away from this blog. You have a perfect right to say whatever you want but I still have to wonder, in light of your comments, why you come here and post.
    Please feel free to enlighten me. I don't get it.
    Marcy Pearlman Sorensen
    Thank You Marcy!
    I recently discovered the "ignore list" feature this sites' software has, so that one can block out certain posters if you tire of their rantings and vitriol. It has been a blessing and made the thread very much more enjoyable.

    I have a very good understanding why certain individuals lace every single post with demeaning comments about either Hubbard or the Tech. Really, I get why you do that.

    But that doesn't make it any less annoying when I come here intent on learning or hearing the viewpoints of those who were/are involved in the subject. I come here occasionally for entertainment, education and community. Not for the constant battering about Hubbard and the "tech" put forth by some.

    When I caught wind of Bill Franks posting, I wanted very much to hear what he had to say. Like most others, I want the whole story to come out.

    Unfortunately the haters will not be deterred by your query Marcy. I strongly recommend the "ignore list". PM me if you need help finding it.

  8. #357
    Gottabrain
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chuckbeatty View Post
    ...Agreed, of course the research is not there.

    ...So really it's a more complicated mess.

    It's talk therapy at the lower levels, and it's exorcism at the upper levels....
    I like the exorcism concept Very true.

    Chuck, I see your point. But dissecting Scn as itself for any therapeutic value is a painfully arduous task. I don't think it's worth it. I think it's better to let the various spinoffs achieve their own momentum, because besides all the control aspects of it and the fact it is untested, the stated Bridge results aren't achieved. Scn doesn't target specific mental illnesses or other problems with specific procedures. It's all a general "feel better" sort of thing, so doesn't lend itself to scientific review. Those of us who have studied other therapy methods have found some of the concepts or procedures helpful here and there, but most are not.

    If this is really something you want, then I suggest you take a methodical approach to it from the other direction. Rather than going through all the materials as such, why not start with a specific benefit that you feel is attainable in whole or in part by some part of Scn tech and work it against similar proven therapies and find if it increases benefit or results in that area?

  9. #358
    Gold Meritorious Sponsor HelluvaHoax!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    21,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vertley View Post
    Unfortunately the haters will not be deterred by your query Marcy.

    What exactly defines a "hater"?

    Would you consider Paulette Cooper a hater?

    How about the relatives of Lisa McPherson?

    What about "disconnected" family members who cannot talk to their children?

    I have yet to see someone actually define that term so it has any useful meaning.

    What do you say?
    ________________________

    Scientology literally saved my life! Without Ron's books I would have frozen to death!!! (see avatar)

    Scientology in one word? HelluvaHoax!

    I never felt as free as when I freed myself from "Total Freedom".

    For offended Scientologists reading this blasphemy about L. Ron Hubbard---my apologies for talking about real life without lying to you, like Scientology, with goo-goo theta-talk. I know you don't have a floating needle right now. You're not supposed to.

  10. #359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vertley View Post
    Thank You Marcy!
    I recently discovered the "ignore list" feature this sites' software has, so that one can block out certain posters if you tire of their rantings and vitriol. It has been a blessing and made the thread very much more enjoyable.

    I have a very good understanding why certain individuals lace every single post with demeaning comments about either Hubbard or the Tech. Really, I get why you do that.

    But that doesn't make it any less annoying when I come here intent on learning or hearing the viewpoints of those who were/are involved in the subject. I come here occasionally for entertainment, education and community. Not for the constant battering about Hubbard and the "tech" put forth by some.

    When I caught wind of Bill Franks posting, I wanted very much to hear what he had to say. Like most others, I want the whole story to come out.

    Unfortunately the haters will not be deterred by your query Marcy. I strongly recommend the "ignore list". PM me if you need help finding it.
    I certainly hope I am on your "Ignore list". Yes, take every opportunity to expose the hubbard thing and his "tech" for what it is. To do otherwise would be lacking indeed.

  11. #360
    Crusader ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marcabian Institute of Psychiatry
    Posts
    6,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HelluvaHoax! View Post
    What exactly defines a "hater"?

    Would you consider Paulette Cooper a hater?

    How about the relatives of Lisa McPherson?

    What about "disconnected" family members who cannot talk to their children?

    I have yet to see someone actually define that term so it has any useful meaning.

    What do you say?
    A hater is anyone who isn't here to hold hands and singing Kumbaya while they participate in the 12 Step Cult Members Anonymous meeting
    Yes lurkers you are not alone, everyone thinks Scientology is creepy, it's not just you

    http://www.mediacurves.com/Religion/...logy/Index.cfm

Page 36 of 56 FirstFirst ... 262728293031323334353637383940414243444546 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hubbard Explains Brainwashing
    By AnonKat in forum L Ron Hubbard
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29th July 2013, 06:35 PM
  2. Brainwashing (Long)
    By Ogsonofgroo in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25th April 2010, 01:52 PM
  3. Scientology Brainwashing Tape
    By AnonKat in forum Chanology and Anonymous videos (Scientology-related)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st March 2010, 02:17 PM
  4. Brainwashing
    By UkAnony in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 19th October 2008, 02:43 AM
  5. Brainwashing Manual Parallels
    By Veda in forum Great Web Sites and Links
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14th June 2008, 10:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •