Unchanging Scientologists: How to treat?

TheSneakster

Well-known member
The steps on and off the Bridge:

1. Pre Scientologist ("wog")

2. "Raw meat" Scientologist

3. Scientologist

4. Independent Scientologist (optional)

5. Ex Scientologist

We've watched many pass through these stages? But what to do when someone is stalled?


How about laying aside one's arrogant presumption that it is any sort of job, duty, or right of anyone to change the beliefs of another through any means whatsoever ? There is no such thing as "deprogamming", @Veda - only re-programming to make someone conform to one's own beliefs and/or world view.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
How about laying aside one's arrogant presumption that it is any sort of job, duty, or right of anyone to change the beliefs of another through any means whatsoever ? There is no such thing as "deprogamming", @Veda - only re-programming to make someone conform to one's own beliefs and/or world view.

If one believes another is holding beliefs that are destructive to themselves and/or others certainly it IS within their right to attempt to change those beliefs using their First Amendment right of freedom of speech. This can take the form of persuasive tactics, exposing lies and false data, and via other means. As long as they're not using force or coercion I see nothing unethical about it. I wish someone successfully did it for me back when I first got involved with CoS.

Scientologists are all about changing the beliefs of others. No one could be converted into a Scientologist from a wog if their beliefs were not first changed.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
<snip>
There is no such thing as "deprogramming"
<snip>
If one is indoctrinated into a cult by means of lying about the claims of the founder, lying about his personal history, and also claims of the "technology", and someone educates that person, exposing the lies and fraudulent claims, I think "deprogramming" is an appropriate name for that. It's not about making them conform to your beliefs. It's about showing them that their beliefs are based upon lies & fraudulent claims.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
If one is indoctrinated into a cult by means of lying about the claims of the founder, lying about his personal history, and also claims of the "technology", and someone educates that person, exposing the lies and fraudulent claims, I think "deprogramming" is an appropriate name for that. It's not about making them conform to your beliefs. It's about showing them that their beliefs are based upon lies & fraudulent claims.
I have no issue with anyone presenting complete, accurate and unembellished verified true facts in an attempt to persuade anyone to drop their support for the corporate C of S and their institutionalized atrocities.

There exist an abundance of facts which meet all those qualifications about: Ron Hubbard, the official corporate Church of Scientology, David "Darth Midget" Miscavige and his Sea Ogre cult fanatics that it should never be necessary to alter, embellish or outright fabricate any false facts for this purpose. Half-Truths are Whole Lies.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
I have no issue with anyone presenting complete, accurate and unembellished verified true facts in an attempt to persuade anyone to drop their support for the corporate C of S and their institutionalized atrocities.

There exist an abundance of facts which meet all those qualifications about: Ron Hubbard, the official corporate Church of Scientology, David "Darth Midget" Miscavige and his Sea Ogre cult fanatics that it should never be necessary to alter, embellish or outright fabricate any false facts for this purpose. Half-Truths are Whole Lies.

It's not just the support for the corporate CoS and their abuses that is the problem for some people. It's common for Scientologists who leave the CoS to hold beliefs that don't serve them and were formed over many years while in the CoS when being indoctrinated with false data.
Just as one example, many Scientologists believe that auditing can handle any physical issue, such as cancer, and as a result, they discount the value of getting treatment in time, believing that their cancer will be fully handled with auditing. Many more examples can be provided for non-medical issues as well.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
The steps on and off the Bridge:

1. Pre Scientologist ("wog")

2. "Raw meat" Scientologist

3. Scientologist

4. Independent Scientologist (optional)

5. Ex Scientologist

We've watched many pass through these stages? But what to do when someone is stalled?


Be confrontational?



Be friendly?



Ignore?



?



I don't see a problem unless they are trying to recruit, ambulance chase, "KSW" or deliberately upset people trying to rid themselves of hubbard's crap. I have never seen Sneaks do any of those things but would openly confront him if he did.

He is polite, respectful and makes his points well which doesn't mean I agree with him re scientology because I don't.



:confused:
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
I don't see a problem unless they are trying to recruit, ambulance chase, "KSW" or deliberately upset people trying to rid themselves of hubbard's crap. I have never seen Sneaks do any of those things but would openly confront him if he did.

He is polite, respectful and makes his points well which doesn't mean I agree with him re scientology because I don't.



:confused:
Dox or STFU!

Just kidding, Trouble.

My assessment is just the opposite. After years of being here and on ESMB I've yet to see any display of respect or politeness. What I've seen is accusations and vitriol - most of the time it's him interjecting when he was never included or invited.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Dox or STFU!

Just kidding, Trouble.

My assessment is just the opposite. After years of being here and on ESMB I've yet to see any display of respect or politeness. What I've seen is accusations and vitriol - most of the time it's him interjecting when he was never included or invited.

Well yeah, he definitely gives back whatever gets handed out to him and rightly so, but he also lets things go and moves on and I value that possibly because I've known people in the past who clung to past grievances (often embellished) as if their lives depended on them and it's like trying to communicate to a brick wall.

None of us are perfect (well, apart from me obviously).

:unsure:
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Well yeah, he definitely gives back whatever gets handed out to him and rightly so, but he also lets things go and moves on and I value that possibly because I've known people in the past who clung to past grievances (often embellished) as if their lives depended on them and it's like trying to communicate to a brick wall.

None of us are perfect (well, apart from me obviously).

:unsure:
Once again I see him getting what he hands out. Petulant outbursts.

There's something seriously off with this guy. He dives off the deep end, over reacts and creates his own enemies with his own friction.

But like Bullbait says it's explained as stupidity

Occam's Razor...
 

Veda

Well-known member
I just love reverse processing attempts. Reckon maybe I'm better trained on the subject you are abusing then you are, buddy. :neener:

Would you kindly just FOAD ?
_____________


Link to original Fair Game Law of March 1965 advocating first degree murder and arson.

Link to original Fair Game Law

Fair Game continued but went from being semi-confidential to being confidential​


From The Responsibility of Leaders, a.k.a. the Bolivar PL from two years later:

"[The powers asks] 'What are those dead bodies doing at the door?' And if you [the subordinate] are clever, you never let it be known HE [the power] killed them - that weakens you and also hurts the power source. 'Well, boss about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will suppose you did it. She, over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn't like me.' 'Well,' he'll say if he really is a power, 'Why are you bothering me with it if it's done and you did it? Where's my blue ink?...' always push power in the direction of anyone on whose power you depend. It may be more money for the power, or more ease, or a snarling defense of the power to a critic, or even a dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark, or the glorious blaze of an enemy camp as a birthday surprise... Real powers are developed by tight conspiracies of this kind... And if they are right and also manage their man[B/] [the power] and keep him from collapsing through overwork, bad temper or bad data, a kind of juggernaut builds up."

I didn't realize, as I gazed upon the enormous Grade Chart, with Total Freedom at the top, that Scientology was operated as a "tight conspiracy," with a "pink legs" philosophy.

It would have been extremely bewildering if I had.

*​

To digress slightly, here's another perspective on Scientology of the same time period.

During the 1960s, Franklin Jones had been an auditor at the New York Org, and then done the OT levels at the Advanced Organization in Los Angeles.

In his first book, The Knee of Listening, 1971 edition, chapter 12: The search for release from the mind: Scientology, he described Scientology at length.

Below is an small except relevant to this discussion.

_____________________________________Begin quote__________________________________________​

Scientology made use of a peculiar technique called "auditing." A trained person sat with you and, by careful use of a pattern of direct questioning, sought to remove the force which certain key experiences in your past had on your daily life. My friend had experienced great benefits from this method, and he had been led to re-experience his birth, the violence of which he felt had determined a kind of nervous and aloof quality in him all his life. Now he felt particularly "cleared" of the force of that experience and all kind of other reactions that he had retained as unconscious controls on his behavior.

Scientology sought by these means to relieve a person from the machinery of memory and unconscious reactivity so that he could eventually attain a state called "clear." In the state of "clear" the reactive or unconscious mind was supposed to be entirely eliminated as a force...

But when I actually performed the Clearing and O.T. levels I found that they continued to deal only with the content of the mind. And that content was continually identified with the peculiar cosmic politics favored by Ron Hubbard. Thus I felt that these levels never dealt with the fundamental problem of the mind itself, prior to any content. In fact. they only led people deeper and deeper into a fanciful, paranoiac dilemma in which they were indoctrinated into the mentality of a cosmic political holocaust.

...It was only on the upper levels, when the activity of auditing had degenerated into exercises of pure nonsense, that I realized what I had in fact led myself into...

I saw that Scientology was actually a political entity created along the lines of a fanciful interpretation of history. Its goals were political, not spiritual. Thus, its leading concern was power, not wisdom or realization.



____________________________________________End of quote__________________________________________​


Abusing? It would be more correct to say USING.

"FOAD" is very much in accordance with the Fair Game Law, and also the 1967 Bolivar PL.
 

TheSneakster

Well-known member
@Veda It just hit me that you asked "how to treat ?".

Are you a qualified mental health professional with a state license, psychology certification and completed internship ?

Is anyone else who is commenting on this thread ?

If not, then you may not be handing out "treatment" for perceived mental health issues which you aren't even qualified to diagnose. Furthermore, under California law, you may not be handing out "treatment" to anyone without their informed consent.

Also, qualified mental health professionals use their right name in public communications.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Well-known member
I've known two people in England (both tech-trained) who left the CofS, went out and practised as auditors in the independent field and then, for some reason, rejoined the CofS. They were both adults aged over 50 and IMO knew what they were doing.

You have to let people live their own lives. OK, it's easy from the vantage point of this board to say that they swallowed the Kool-Aid and a little more acquaintanceship with what is posted here, or with what Jon Atack is saying, would have made them see the light; but are any of us really in a position to know what is in the best interests of another person? As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
 

marra

Well-known member
It seems to me that there is a lack of information from independent scientologists as to why they still use the word "scientology" to describe what they are doing. I am not criticising anyone here, simply trying to understand this situation.

I have seen indies criticise Hubbard yet still use the tech he supposedly created and still call it scientology even if they only use parts of it and discard other parts, which would not be an official definition of "scientology" when I was still involved with the CofS.

Maybe it is this lack of understanding on the part of us ex scientologists that sometimes leads to friction with indies?
 

Karakorum

I tried to be a good cop in the wrong police force
The steps on and off the Bridge:

1. Pre Scientologist ("wog")

2. "Raw meat" Scientologist

3. Scientologist

4. Independent Scientologist (optional)

5. Ex Scientologist

We've watched many pass through these stages? But what to do when someone is stalled?

You forgot several crucial stages:
  • Mentally-out but physically-in" 2nd gen scientologist.
  • Sleep-deprived zombie SO scientologist (hey, I was one for such a long time!)
  • Drunk and bitter scientologist (usually after completing an expensive course that did absolutely nothing)
  • Dirt-broke scientologist with all cards maxed out and several outstanding loans.
  • Old and ill scientologist that has just been offloaded.
  • Psychotic and suicidal scientologist (straight out of the Ls)
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
@Veda It just hit me that you asked "how to treat ?".

Are you a qualified mental health professional with a state license, psychology certification and completed internship ?

Is anyone else who is commenting on this thread ?

If not, then you may not be handing out "treatment" for perceived mental health issues which you aren't even qualified to diagnose. Furthermore, under California law, you may not be handing out "treatment" to anyone without their informed consent.

Also, qualified mental health professionals use their right name in public communications.

I suspect that Veda didn't use the word "treat" with the same definition you are using. :no:

(I just realized I copy/pasted the definition of treatment instead of treat, but you get the idea)
treatment.png


Even if he HAD been using definition #3 it's kind of ironic that you as a Scientologist would object to it. Scientologists routinely provide mental health treatment to others when way less than 1% of them are qualified mental health professionals with a state license, psychology certification and completed internship
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
I've known two people in England (both tech-trained) who left the CofS, went out and practiced as auditors in the independent field and then, for some reason, rejoined the CofS. They were both adults aged over 50 and IMO knew what they were doing.

You have to let people live their own lives. OK, it's easy from the vantage point of this board to say that they swallowed the Kool-Aid..."
If you were in the process of making a large investment and I was aware that the individual managing whatever fund or business you were about to invest in was a serial felon, previously convicted of defrauding investors on multiple occasions, would you prefer that I told you about that?
Or should I just let you live your life without interfering? :unsure:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
It seems to me that there is a lack of information from independent scientologists as to why they still use the word "scientology" to describe what they are doing. I am not criticising anyone here, simply trying to understand this situation. I have seen indies criticise Hubbard yet still use the tech he supposedly created and still call it scientology even if they only use parts of it and discard other parts, which would not be an official definition of "scientology" when I was still involved with the CofS. Maybe it is this lack of understanding on the part of us ex scientologists that sometimes leads to friction with indies?
..

Here is the part I always found incomprehensible about indies. . .

They advocate for "the tech" and give credit/praise to L. Ron Hubbard for whatever parts of the tech they practice.

However, they refuse to confront or acknowledge the simple fact that they are honoring, promoting routing people to and (in their words) "flowing power" to:

  • an infamously corrupt world class conman that has been mercilessly debunked for decades.
  • an avariciously cruel charlatan ("hey smoke more cigarettes and your cancer will erase!")
  • a sociopathic thug that "fair games", attacks and terrorizes anyone who interferes with his criminal fraud rackets that sell non-existent magical supernatural powers and "eternity".
  • a vengeful madman who if he were alive today would target the same indie praising him for destruction or even death—because they committed many "high crimes" against his "church" and "technology" by "squirreling".
I have asked Indies about that and they one-for-one avoid the obvious. Wait, what's the opposite of "obnosis" we need to create a new word, LOL.

I have asked many a question like this: Do you realize that if Ron were alive today he would do everything in his power to wreck you financially, destroy your career and family and order an endless wave of fair game goons to terrorize and "utterly ruin" you because you are an indie--which is the same as a suppressive squirrel? Do you realize that Hubbard even was so psychotic that he ordered some squirrels to be killed with R245, simply because they embarrassed him by revealing to others the ridiculous hoax he sells called OT III?

I'd be surprised if an indie scientologist didn't jump on this post with a their "false data stripping" tech, "acceptable truth" gimmick, "reporters' TRs", "dead agent drill" and TR-L. Whatever it takes to prevent anyone from "besmirching the good name of L. Ron Hubbard". Or at the very least "besmirching" the "workable tech" Dr. Hubbard humbly gifted to mankind.


CUT TO: NEW YORK CITY

Two lifelong friends (a Scientologist and a Wog) are walking in the "Little Italy" section of Manhattan.

INDIE MINDY BLOWDOWN (sister of Billy)
Hey I'm getting hungry how about you?

WOG FRIEND
Yeah, I'm starved!

INDIE MINDY BLOWDOWN
I've got a fantastic idea! Let's go to that 5 star Italian
restaurant over on Mulberry Street across from Milano Bakery.

WOG FRIEND
I heard on the news that dozens of people got food poisoning there
and ended up in the hospital and seventeen of them already died!

INDIE MINDY BLOWDOWN
What are you so worried about? I'm an Indie Scientologist so I'll
be able to help you order only the items on the menu
that won't make you sick or kill you.

WOG FRIEND
You're joking right? I would never eat at that
Italian "industry of death" restaurant!

INDIE MINDY BLOWDOWN
I would never joke about something as serious
as food poisoning. Ron doesn't allow joking. Besides, stop
being such a religious bigot who spews hate speech about Italians!


.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
It seems to me that there is a lack of information from independent scientologists as to why they still use the word "scientology" to describe what they are doing. I am not criticising anyone here, simply trying to understand this situation.

I have seen indies criticise Hubbard yet still use the tech he supposedly created and still call it scientology even if they only use parts of it and discard other parts, which would not be an official definition of "scientology" when I was still involved with the CofS.

Maybe it is this lack of understanding on the part of us ex scientologists that sometimes leads to friction with indies?
For many it's an identity thing. They were called "Scientologists" by someone they admired, and were "validated" for being "Scientologists" and, sometimes, "love bombed"; they were told they were part of an "elite," and were "Big Beings," because they are "Scientologists,"and it stuck.

For others, it's a business that caters to people disillusioned with the Organization, but who still want to "do their Bridge," so they're told they can get real, pure, "LRH tech" from an alternate (non CofS) person or group. Usually this person or group will represent themselves as being "real Scientologists."

Long ago, when I spent a year auditing outside, and in defiance of, the Organization, I never regarded myself as a Scientologist, and there were others who also did not that use that label. But that was the mid 1980s.

By the 2000s, with the advent of the Marty Rathbun/Mike Rinder era of "Independent Scientology, the irony of labeling oneself as a "Scientologist" seemed to be less apparent to recent escapees from corporate Scientology; yet, in time, most, perhaps all, realized the silliness of using the label and stopped doing it.


But it took some time.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
By the 2000s, with the advent of the Marty Rathbun/Mike Rinder era of "Independent Scientology, the irony of labeling oneself as a "Scientologist" seemed to be less apparent to recent escapees from corporate Scientology; yet, in time, most, perhaps all, realized the silliness of using the label and stopped doing it.


If I had to make a list of the "TOP 100 MOST ANNOYING THINGS ABOUT INDEPENDENT SCIENTOLOGISTS" here are just a few that would appear near the top of the list (in no particular order):

- - ULTRA CRINGEY LOGO: That "indie" logo, which uses the infinity sign ("8") for double duty, also serving as the "S" in Scientology. But the other word ("Independent") doesn't begin with the the letter "S" so it makes no graphic sense at all. And putting the earth globe above the letter "S" is even worse. Is that supposed to be a dot over a lowercase letter "i"? I am guessing the "8" is also supposed to be read as the "I" in the word Independent. God, this stuff is really awful. You know a logo is pitifully bad when HCO has to issue a Non-Enturbulation order on the graphic artist because so many people are spinning in from trying to think about what it's supposed to mean.​
- - ULTRA CRINGEY SONG: Don't make me replay Captain Bill's "GALACTIC PATROL" song or force you to clay demo the lyrics "We all live only to die, in our ships out in the sky".​
- - ULTRA CRINGEY DOUBT FORMULAS: Remember when Indies arrived fresh-faced at Marty Rathbun's blogsite and tried to prove their bona fides by writing up and publishing their "DOUBT FORMULA"? It was a vital part of the initiation ritual in order to gain credibility and acceptance into the elite world of big "sector-salvaging" beings—who were not only salvaging this sector of the universe, they were double-tasking and also salvaging beings that Ron's Church of Scientology totally screwed up and implanted as well!​
- - ULTRA CRINGEY BLAMING OF EVERYONE & EVERYTHING OTHER THAN L. RON HUBBARD: To be a card-carrying Ideal Indie Scientologist you must be able to look at people in the eye and explain how David Miscavige (an SP) is more powerful than the most powerful OT that ever lived (LRH) without laughing.​
- - ULTRA CRINGEY KSW POLICY: Where every individual Indie Scientologist is picking and choosing which tech is good and which tech is bad and junking any part of Hubbard's work they personally decide is crap. But at the same time each Indie is claiming that their version of Scientology is the only real and true version, they are all simultaneously claiming that they are applying KSW, which forbids anyone from altering even one punctuation point of Hubbard's "scripture" lest they be guilty of sabotaging the Bridge and condemning all beings to a living hell for the rest of "eternity".​
- - ULTRA CRINGEY NON-ANSWERS TO SIMPLE QUESTIONS: Ask an indie about OT III and which parts of it are true and which parts of it are bullshit. You've never seen anything as bizarre as an indie trying to tiptoe barefoot thru the blazing hot "wall of fire". One of the greatest non-answers ever given was by the former KING OF THE INDIES, Marty Rathbun when he gave a radio interview and was asked about Xenu and BTs. He replied that the entire OT III level was not really a level or true, but it was really an "allegory". However, Rathbun was not able to explain why the money he charged people to do OT III was not allegorical money.​

There are at least another 99 super cringey things about Indie Scientology that come to mind, but I think I'd better stop here before they call an indie com ev on me and then issue an indie declare. LOL.

.
 
Last edited:
Top