Anti Scientology cultist?

Discussion in 'MartyWorld' started by Veda, Sep 18, 2016.

View Users: View Users
  1. oneonewasaracecar

    oneonewasaracecar Gold Meritorious Patron

    Re: The Anti-Scientology Cult vs. Truth

    You make an interesting point. Labeling someone anti-anything does place the person in a negative light.

    Apart from helping them paint themselves as victims, I think you are suggesting it also implies that being a Scientologist is the norm and if you aren't that you are an Anti-Scientologist.

    If the USA was lasted invaded by Africans and they brought a minority of white slaves with them, Obama would have been the first white president. Why? Because in the USA it is 'normal' to be white. If someone appears not to be white, they are called black.

    Creating an artificial word which establishes Scientology as the norm and Anti-Scientologists as the 'other' is an obvious propaganda trick and one that you have highlighted.

    I'm not sure how effective it is, because the brand name of Scientology is so worthless, but they are trying.
     
  2. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    Re: The Anti-Scientology Cult vs. Truth

    “Rules for Radicals” is a good summary of this subject but it is all very old hat. These kinds of subversions are discussed in Sun Tsu’s “The Art of War” circa 500 BC which I believe is common knowledge to be on Davie’s reading list. I expect it would be required reading and second nature for any respectable OSA lieutenant.

    The definition of "anti" is conveniently vague and encompasses a very low threshold for establishing that something is against something. Just being cautious can be construed to be anti. People who have issues with Scientology are extremely diverse and have complicated and unique experiences. They are not clearly organized and don't have a definable leadership. It must be so frustrating for Scientology to not be able to solidify the description of people and groups who challenge it. LRH made it abundantly clear that he wanted anything remotely unaligned with Scientology to be classifiable in a negative context. Just by virtue of not being Scientology it was already "wog". Not Clear = aberrated. He considered humanity to be plagued with billions of highly confused invisible disembodied dead aliens so until you were purged of those, at great effort and expense, then you were still in some kind of dysfunctional category. If not his hypothesized new human, Homo-Novis, then what? Just unadvanced and mediocre? "Scientology is the only workable spiritual technology in the universe for all eternity" - then what does that make all the others?

    They're wholly proprietary terms: "Suppressive Person" and "PTS" come across as self serving and cultish and remind people of the Nazis calling Jews vermin. A Scientology Sec-Check reads like a list of things they are against or perceived to be against them - they are obsessed with "anti" and conflict.

    Everyone in the world is for or against something or trying to get to somewhere or from somewhere and whatever that is there is going to be somebody who is for or against it. As soon as you use "anti" you invite people to dial down into the details of just what exactly that means. I welcome that opportunity because once the issue is clarified it becomes self evident that Scientology is either only for Scientology or Anti-Everyone Else.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

    The rules[1]
    1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
    2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
    3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
    4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
    6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
    7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
    8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
    9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
    10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
    11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
    12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
    13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
     
  3. Churchill

    Churchill Gold Meritorious Patron

    I am a proud member of the ex-Scientology community.
    I am against Scientology, thus Anti-Scientology.

    The OSA program to create the pejorative meme, "Anti Scientology Cult" has succeeded only in uniting the words Scientology and Cult
    and is designed, I think, to stanch the hemorrhaging of membership from Scientology organizations.

    Just like the ridiculous idea that seeks to divide the anti-Scientology community into ex-Scientologists and never-ins, Scientology, ever obsessed with
    de-legitimizing a growing army of critics in the media and the popular culture only winds up proving the critics' points.

    OSA is too sleep deprived to be effective.

    Which reminds me, one of the best things about being an ex-Scientologist is getting 8 hours of sleep.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2016
  4. Hypatia

    Hypatia Pagan

    Still trying to figure out why the hell an ex member who escaped and hasn't rejoined the cult is talking about ex Scientology cultists. I know there are cliques among exes and activists but he's saying anti Scientology. He's not doing Freezone stuff, so wtf? Sounds like he's sucking up to or possibly working for DM.
     
  5. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    I've also been thinking along these lines lately. When I was in the SO things were a lot better in terms of membership and public opinion and we still put in a lot of 48 hours shifts. My personal best is 6 days no sleep. And lots of rice and beans and overcooked institutional food. The menu didn't improve until the Gross Income got back up. There were no bail outs for the crew from LRH's Luxembourgish accounts. I can't imagine that getting the GI back up is an option now so either these guys must be doing 80-130 hour weeks on a solid diet of rice and beans or the diminutive tyrant has broken down and is dipping into reserves out of desperation. Even if the SO complement were down to 2-3 thousand that's a lot of fixed expense. After years of that you really get burned out and run up against diminishing returns in productivity. Then as your team mates blow or route out it is very demoralizing because the people who are left have to take up the slack and do their jobs and the new recruits aren't as good. Rising up the ranks isn't really a very effective strategy for improving one's lot. The stress and punishment increases exponentially and there isn't much benefit in return. The other strategy is to become a cog like in Metropolis, doing the same thing year after year after year with little responsibility - furniture. In this kind of situation being a Security Guard seems inviting. You're too low on the org board to get tossed under the bus and you still get to boss a lot of other people around, carry guns, ride bikes, have dogs, chew tobacco.

    What kind of person would put up with that and how effective could they really be at anything? Their ability to think rationally has already been discounted by virtue of being there. So many competent people I knew got the hell out of there long ago.

    Don't be a Pro-Scientology Putz.
     
  6. oneonewasaracecar

    oneonewasaracecar Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thieves have the best locks.
    Hackers always look over their shoulder when they type a password.
    Colombian drug lords jump out of any car that won't start.

    People always see their enemies through a mirror.

    So what are we to make of the term Anti-Scientology Cultist? Is it an admission of guilt?
     
  7. Ackerland

    Ackerland Patron with Honors

    Re: The Anti-Scientology Cult vs. Truth

    So does Ex for some, so does critic for some.

    Exactly.
     
  8. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    Alanzo seems also to have struck this note recently, in a comment on Mike Rinder's site. Alanzo is fed up with never-in critics who (according to him) just look down on anyone who was ever in Scientology. These outsiders can never appreciate the great things that Scientologists did experience.

    My own interest in Scientology has faded over the past year, simply because the story seems to be winding up. You folks here are all still great, but that's kind of the thing. You're articulate enough that after a certain amount of lurking and discussing, one can get a pretty good picture of what Scientology was like. And part of that picture is the "was". The interesting stuff is all in the past now, it seems.

    And as the novelty of Scientology has worn off, I have to admit there's been a certain amount of disillusionment for me. It's almost a sort of ghostly-thin never-in imitation of the ex's experience of becoming disillusioned with Scientology as a religion: the never-in experience of becoming disillusioned with Scientology-watching as a hobby. I certainly don't believe that Rathbun or Alanzo know or care in the slightest about me in particular, but if I think of them as being annoyed by people like me, then in return I feel a little bit as though someone with whom I had an interesting chat at a party is now upset that I don't want to date them.

    I found their accounts of Scientology interesting, because I didn't know anything about Scientology. If I thought they were naive for getting involved in the first place, I was impressed at how they managed to pull themselves out. But the only way I can understand their apparent anger now is to suppose that they mistook the nature of my interest. I understood that they had been sincere and well-intentioned, but I never saw them as heroes. I accepted that some of their experiences in Scientology were important parts of their lives, but I never saw those experiences as extraordinary. People who spent young decades in Scientology may have had experiences that I've never had—but they've also missed experiences that I did have. Most people have important experiences in their twenties.

    So perhaps Alanzo is right. I'm a never-in, so I'll never get it. Here's the thing, though.

    As long as we were hanging on their words to hear their fascinating insights about Scientology, Alanzo and Rathbun loved us never-in critics. They didn't mind how much we despised Scientology, when we were gasping at their revelations of how despicable Scientology was. After all those revelations, though, Scientology just looks tawdry now. And that's not the fault of the never-in critics.
     
  9. Hypatia

    Hypatia Pagan

    I've always liked your posts!

    As far as never been in critics looking down on ex members, while I never got that feeling from your posts, I have seen posts (generally on comment sections on online articles) where some jackass would say that anyone who got into Scio was stupid or something like that. That's very annoying.
     
  10. lotus

    lotus autonomous rebellous

    I consider my motives, why I got involved in Scientology were good. Although, the quest in finding a sort of ''Truth'' and a sort of Path to get the knowledge were those of an immature human being looking to be lectured, teached, guided by a guru..

    Anyway, After I left, the next decades would be a realizatin on how much I had been stupid



    Stupidity has a few definition:

    : not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things

    : not sensible or logical

    : not able to think normally because you are drunk, tired, etc. (mine: brainswashed..fooled...)

    Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary


    Full Definition of stupid

    1
    : slow of mind : obtuseb : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner lacking intelligence or reason : brutish
    2
    : dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid <still stupid from the sedative>
    3
    : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless <a stupid decision>

    4
    : lacking interest or point <a stupid event>b : vexatious, exasperating <the stupid car won't start>



    I still think I have been stupid (in giving up self-determinism and making self-appreciation and decisions) and I consider that many I knew have have been, and that many still are , since they don't give up to the $cn koolaid, the non-sense, so they make wrong decisions about it, about their own life , people they love and about people who warn them ...each day...

    :confused2:

    It might have happened, once or twice, I read some never-in who tought that we are all stupid (idiots deprived of intelligence) to have been involved in that cult...This I don't concour. Most of $cientologists are intelligent, knowledgeable, able, talented people who are sunk in a cult who deprive them (slowly but surely) of their critical thinking which conduct them (me) to adopt stupid beliefs, stupid behavior and to make stupid decisions.

    edit: My major stupidity is to have believe that someone else knew some mystical life secrets that I was deprived of...lol)


    Only MHO though! :wink2:
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2016
  11. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    It is important to remember that this cult was built to indoctrinate, and I mean that in the worst way. Many, many hours went into this by Lafayette. This isn't just a guru cult, but one built powered by Satan, drugs, heavy drinking, all on top of mental illness. Never consider that he didn't have time on his hands to build this cult brainwashing/indoctrination system. Stupid people didn't fall into this trap, open-minded people did. Just look at the boom of activity in the 1970s. People are taking LSD, doing yoga, finding out what their mantra was, having a free dinner with Hare Krishna people that were drumming and dancing on the street -- checking things out was cool back then. It had nothing to do with stupidity, but open-mindedness. The cult cashed-in big on this mode of culture at the time.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2016
  12. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    Still trying to decide if you are being facetious.
     
  13. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    I was there!
     
  14. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    If you can remember it...then you weren't there. :coolwink:

     
  15. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    My memory is atypically good. And yes, I remember the '60s!
     
  16. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    OK, OK,... I've made the same point many times myself. Its just that as I go down my own litany of "Open Minded" things that culminated in my getting into Scientology I seem to have more and more difficulty distinguishing between what point I was open minded and just plain stupid.

    TheOriginalForestGump
     
  17. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

    IMHO, open-minded is when one actually got involved, and feeling stupid is in hindsight. There may be crossovers, of course. But as we know, it's hard AF to leave, as it was intended to be. Thus, the feeling stupid overlap.
     
  18. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    :thumbsup:
    And... even hindsight is not always 20/20.
    BTW, this is one sub theme in the movie "Ground Hog Day" (starring Bill Murray).
     
  19. Innominate Dude

    Innominate Dude No Longer Around

    The alternative to being "anti-" something is to be "pro-", but then you must articulate what values you are seeking to promote or exemplify. This is problematic from the days of a.r.s. forward because much of the "cult of the anti-cult", as the admirable intellect of Bernie styled it, is really about seeking excuses to act and think like a 13 year old engaged in a schoolyard taunting match.

    Pro- free speech? A.r.s. liked to fly its colors in that way. Also, Andreas tried to make Operation Clambake about this, but it was largely HIS fortitude in keeping his eye on that prize that accomplished anything of the sort. The majority of regular denizens of Clambake were simply rehashing a.r.s. juvenile style thought and argument and demonstrating that in both a.r.s. and Clambake the task is to be the most outrageous acting-out or dramatizing person. Genuinely useful critical dialogue was invariably drowned out by juvenile acting-out in both forums. Clambake failed to be a genuinely CRITICAL community as evidenced by how easily nonsense about minute electric potentials associated with the e-meter somehow overpower the very stout electrochemical potency of the human body and produce addiction. This happened despite at least a few people in Clambake having the background to know better, yet it took an embarassing retraction by a media organ to finally show this silly notion has no traction except among select "true believers" of the cult of the anti-cult. Apparently you can stand up for free speech as what you are "pro-" about, but at the expense of rational and productive discourse that you'd want from a critical community, or else be glaringly shown a liar by the threads you willingly join.

    Pro- decency? Much of the cult of the anti-cult is about providing frequent and shocking enough verbal indecency as its main battle tactic. A few civilly speaking and informed people in places the ex-scientologist might go manage to provide extremely valuable critical information, to great and good effect. But civilly speaking, critically thinking people and the cult of the anti-cult are mutually exclusive things. One would not be so prone to fall prey to the Mirror Image Rule that Bernie so aptly illustrated if one simply resolved to not "deliberate" like an obnoxious and smugly self-assured 13 year old. This allure is too much to resist for the "COTAC" though, and trying to define itself as pro-decency is a losing game for it.

    I could continue to list all sorts of potential "pro-" principles about which COTAC could organize itself and present itself to the world as based upon. Unfortunately too much in the way of contradicting verbiage and other conduct by the COTAC defeats almost all such attempts. They must be anti-, as they cannot conform to desirable "pro-" principles in their actual conduct.

    I really don't understand how from the mid-90s when I first started to monitor a.r.s. to the mid-teens some 20 years later, the old game of "Yousa not march in lock-step with us, so yousa OSA: yousa bad!!!!" still gets played with gusto.

    What's so funny about wanting GENUINE critical deliberation, EVIDENCE that consists of more than luridly described speculations that often passes for "evidence" with the COTAC, and the ability to act in a social environment not dominated by seemingly 13 year old smug taunters who set the standard for the milleu? Why must someone be thought to be sucking up to DM or a false flag operator to simply desire these things???
     
  20. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Is it? I can think of many alternatives, one being "I'm not in the least interested." If you had said "The opposite . . ." I would not have bothered to post.

    Paul
     

Share This Page