Bernie's biased journalism page about Cooper shows to me that CoS must have broken Cooper's spirit in order to make her sign something that hurt other Scientology critics and left them vulnerable. Diane Richardson feels betrayed, and rightly so. Cooper is in a post-traumatic daze and Richardson is on a revenge mission/research project. I can't sort out who should "win" this depressing argument.

This next page a.r.s. attacks is another reason for me to remain anonymous and not to make "friends" OR "enemies" with prominent critics. They can get in a fight with another critic and force me to take sides. If my ex-friend is angry at me, he or she may post on a.r.s. a distortion of what I have said, forcing me to defend myself by accusing my ex-friend of lying. I might get my entire family's problems laid out for all of a.r.s. to see. Others on a.r.s. would take sides and I could end up being abused by half the usenet group. Worst of all, if CoS can get any dirt on them at all, CoS can turn them against me and I could end up in court.

I just stay out of these mudfights, cause you get dirty. And, in order to fight effectively, you have to know everybody's previous posts, allies, ex-allies, enemies, and (if possible) life story. You have to stay in a.r.s. for weeks to defend your position. And, years later, you have to jump in whenever your arch-enemy appears (or is mentioned) and hurl mud. I have better things to do.

Thanks, Umike. I was posting while you were posting. It's all clear now. The catfights on a.r.s. are not a nest of bigots.

They are a Soap Opera.

Great reading, keep it coming. So very revealing to witness how Bernie slithers out of even half-way approaching the kind of analysis DC is conducting here. Why? Because he can't.

I compare the a.r.s. catfights to soap opera in terms of betrayed relationships, near-blind loyalty, near-blind hatred, and venomous insults. The Scientology defenders in these fights use more scorn and accusations of bigotry, while the Scientology critics use more dark humor and vulgarity. But both sides are equally hostile. They are not stepping back, listening to the other side's message (under the bile), and being rational adults. What rarely happens is that someone says, "I was wrong." What would be rarer would be the other side saying, "you did have some good points" instead of "you're damn right you were wrong."

I respect the news and ideas that a.r.s. brings, and read it daily. Critics like Dr. David Touretsky are smart to just post their news and leave. Many discussions are thoughtful and humorous AS LONG AS they stay away from the loaded topics about controversial critics and semi-critics. Then the thread blows out of control.

I don't post at all on a.r.s. It is a perilous place to make personal accusations or inaccurate statements. There are too many people who will verablly cut off your head.

I would post on a.r.s. if OCMB did not exist, but I'd have to check each fact before I wrote it down and I'd have to defend my posts constantly. I'd also remain anonymous, since people who disagree with me would bring up details about my personal life and family, and that would really piss me off. When I'm reading a.r.s., I skip right over the catfights; I also skip over the catfights that jump over onto OCMB from a.r.s. and those that arise here.

Bernie doesn't like the dynamics of a.r.s., but it's human nature for some people to get personal and to fight back. It's just statistics that any large group of internet people includes some trolls and jerks. Bernie labels it bigotry but it's more basic and complex than that. Every well-known AND open usenet group has unpleasant fights that purport to be over ideas, but are mostly personal feuds.

Bernie, come on OCMB and defend YOUR website. Please.

ARS became one of the most famous newsgroups in the world. The primary reason for that is the CoS tried desperatly to destroy it in every way imaginable.

Bob Minton also tried to control the content as well. Bob enlisted dozens of confederates to accomplish this to no avail. He truly believed he could quash criticism of him and the *LMT. He employed many of the same techniques scientology uses. Money talks and he was spreading it around like peanut butter.
He felt that he was justified in ruining someone thru elaborate smear campaigns because CoS did same. Rod Kellar silently endorsed this horror show.

I agree with most of what you say about ars Don.
Remaining anonymous isn't really an option. If the
hard core group of critics are suspicious of you they will
source your identity and publish it. Many,many decent people have been "outed".

Arnie operates an irc chat channel,and in the evening many of these critics would plan posting strategies for the following day.
It may still go on to a lesser degree today.
Arnie insists that everyone follow one common edict. And that edict is "Never speak badly of or criticise a scientology critic in public" And many people complied for quite a while.

When the LMT unraveled, dissention became rampant, and all hell broke loose. Those that were viciously attacked by Minton and the cabal were smelling blood and sought revenge. Those who recieved Mintonbux were "outed" as sockpuppets. And it was shocking to find out some respected critics were doing his bidding for cash,airfare,trips and more.

It was these events that coloured ars for several years.
Now, it's business as usual for the herd of cats, in my estimation.

It is still like navigating thru a swamp. You need to know where you are going and who the perilous creatures are that dwell there.

Umike

*Lisa McPherson Trust

"Umike"...as long as I have been on IRC, since the year 2000 in August, I've yet to see Arnie post one thing as you say.

If you have proof, show it. Otherwise, quit lying.

You smell. Perhaps you are proud of this? Most dogs are.

Tory/Magoo!

Back in the day, I began get get suspicious of an organized
system of attempts to control ars content when I criticized Minton directly. The same 10-15 people would systematicly
attack me and my character in the most creative fashion.

I am pretty thick skinned but I got creeped out on one particular occasion. Detailed Postings were made describing my home and neighborhood in an attempt to intimidate me.

Indeed I had been "visited".


Tory my source of information is previous irc participants. I do not believe you were privy to much that went on. Most people were still very supicious of you. I will not mention their names although most are well known. I love dogs.

CoS itself is the infamous "third party" making trouble among the critics, first with the deal with Paulette Cooper, then making Minton switch sides. Every time they force a critic to cave in, they destroy friendships and cause lasting bitterness.

Tory wrote: "Umike"...as long as I have been on IRC, since the year 2000 in August, I've yet to see Arnie post one thing as you say.

If you have proof, show it. Otherwise, quit lying.


Lex (Sonja) wrote on 10-9-01: Latest reposts shows clearly what a sick hate group flukenet people really are.

...and please don't tell you had nothing to do with it. Private mails are
included
in these sick, sick posts. Hope you happy now, but i better leave, since god
knows
what other sick things you might have planned to do on me.

--
spt


Sonja obviouly distraught about irc attackers and their tactics. Her personal e mails were published to humiliate her along with vicious personal attacks.
"Flukenet" is Sonja's term for Arnies irc channel.

note: Sonja is a physically disabled woman from Europe.

I can post proof all day long Tory. Would you like some more. It's no problem.


Umike

Don Carlo wrote: CoS itself is the infamous "third party" making trouble among the critics, first with the deal with Paulette Cooper, then making Minton switch sides. Every time they force a critic to cave in, they destroy friendships and cause lasting bitterness.

Don. What you write is so very very true. And I am remiss for not mentioning this. The CoS certainly was underwriting some of the critic arguements. They are very clever.

Critics were absoutely using classic "Fair Game" and "Black PR" tactics to attack and intimidate one another. In some cases the CoS was pale in comparison.

No doubt they were laughing at the sideshow as the critic movement lost a lot of folks who couldnt stomach the horror show.

Waiting patiently for Torys justification of vicious attacks on Lex (Sonja)
generated by Arnies irc members.

Umike

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

Friedrich Nietzsche

The Minton betrayal critic cat-fight looks like a continuation of the Cooper-settlement cat-fight.
Some old players, some new players, same fury.

Just imagine if each player wrote a book on their arch-enemy citing every claimed lie, insult, and betrayal since the mid-1990s. Who would read such a tedious book? Sometimes you just have to let the past go.

a.r.s. started in 1991 and really took off in 1995, when CoS tried to close it down. In those days, critics thought CoS would collapse any minute and were anxious to speed up the process. CoS sympathizers felt personally attacked and overwhelmed. Other level-headed types tried to stop the fighting, to no avail. Now some of these fights from mid 1996, are seven years old.

Tory and Umike, please start a new thread for your interesting argument. That way it won't get lost, and I can get back to the Bernie topic.

MIND CONTROL is the new topic on the next Bernie page: http://bernie.cncfamily.com/lies.htm
I left in the full name of the address, even though the page is called Top Ten Anti-Scientology Myths. Myths=lies? Bernie, check your dictionary, please. You're baiting with a thoughtful word, "myths" and switching to a loaded and emotional word "lies"
The first two links: Scientology Kills, and Members restrained, have already been discussed.

The Third Myth is Victims of Mind Control (at last a new topic)

Bernie QUOTE: Scientology engages in mind-control at every level, say critics. It does not allow people to make an "informed decision" before joining, then, once in, submit them to a battery of mind-control and hypnotic techniques to turn them into robots and sock puppets at the beset of dangerous psychopaths. END QUOTE

(DC comment: The first sentence is a gross overgeneralization - "Critics" not "some critics." "Every level" not "some levels."

The second sentence shows a misunderstanding of hypnotism. I will discuss in the next post how much of auditing's "wins" come from hypnotism. Most critics would say that during and after auditing the Scientologist is NOT a zombie, NOT a "robot" NOT a "sock puppet." Rather, the person is simply willing to believe Hubbard more deeply, spend more money, and feel a little more superior to the "wog" world. After many Training Routines, they have become used to the hypnotic trance, think it is giving them pre-natal memories, and have "realized" that Hubbard invented a pipeline to "total freedom." All due to the scientifically proven power of hypnotism.

Many critics HAVE criticized the flat empty stare seen in some long-term Scientologists at Flag. It LOOKS over-controlled; some say the person is robotic. I disagree. I'd say by normal standards, the person is ACTING over-controlled and inappropriate. But I do acknowledge that the person is surrounded by other Scientologists and is trying to conform to THEIR ideas of proper human interaction. The person probably can act normally when returning to everyday life.

Bernie arguments that mind control does not exist within Scientology:

Bernie argument # 1, from here: Lawyers, judges, and some scholars won't accept "brainwashing" as a defense for kidnapping and deprogramming.
(DC reply: reasonable, but irrelevant. We are not advocating kidnapping; we are not in a court of law. We are verbally criticizing a cult that claims it is the "most ethical" yet has forced well-meaning, intelligent people to rip up their families. The rejection of the absolutist "Brainwashing" charge by some scholars DOES NOT MEAN that they claim hypnosis has no effect, or verbal coercion has no effect. They JUST want people to stop kidnapping and governments to stop armed assaults. Above all, they want everyday citizens to look at new religions respectfully and tolerate their legal activities.

Bernie argument # 2. Brainwashing = robots, and CoS people don't act robotic.
(DC reply - see above. Hypnosis is not necessary the Hollywood stereotype, and CoS has enough control to order a mother to disconnect from her child, a highly unnatural act.)

Bernie argument # 3: Criticizing cults can lead to tragedies like the Branch Davidians at Waco. Bernie Quote The atmosphere of irrational fear and phobia this (talk about deprogramming) creates, together with fanatical reactions of cultic groups themselves, can lead to mass tragedies such as Jonestown and Waco
(DC reply - public criticism is quite different than rolling tanks toward a building. There isn't a single regular CoS critic that advocates police/FBI violence to launch an armed assault on CoS buildings. Bernie is depending on Introvigne's alarmist and oversimplified theories, which don't distinguish between tanks and chat groups.

Bernie argument # 4: Some people in the world are unfair, mean and downright nasty to new religions.
(DC reply - I agree. Jerks exist, inside and outside the Internet. Operation Clambake's message board has tried to keep the conversation civil, and even that is difficult. A.R.S. is just too big and attracts too many fanatics on all sides. On the other hand, since it is a Usenet group, it will exist if Andreas dies or retires, and it will probably outlast floods, volcanoes, and moderate sized asteroids! Usenet is more rugged than the world wide web so with all its faults, we need to put up with the jerks so that we can always share information and ideas.)

Bernie argument # 5: There is a slippery slope from kidnappers/deprogrammers
to people who verbally support kidnapping
to people who want legal restrictions on totalistic cults
to people who mention "mind control" when they criticize CoS.
However, Bernie DOES acknowledge a few "moderate critics" who are not moral monsters. The rest of us critics, presumably, are worthy of contempt.
(DC reply -Bernie is unfair not to distinguish among levels of fanaticism among CoS critics)

Bernie's argument # 6: Some critics on a.r.s are inept at arguing about mind control, and don't stay nice and rational.
(DC comment: True. This was the HARDEST topic on Bernie's website. I had to read a lot of legal and academic papers, fights with critics, and realize that they weren't necessary "cult apologists." I even changed my mind about CESNUR being propaganda - there are some good essays there. I started criticizing various scholars, then realized it was irrelevant. Judges and the American Psychology Association have made their conclusion, and that settles it. But then I went back to Touretsky's website and read posts there about the Training Routines, and it occured to me that the scholars are silent about hypnosis-linked-to-fraud. Bernie is making the anti-mind-control conclusions far more sweeping than the scholars intended. Bernie should have created her website with all the arguments, and invited the critics to read them BEFORE getting into catfights with them.)

Conclusion: Bernie flat-out contradicts herself on the mind control issue:
He had started out SOOOO reasonable:}
BERNIE QUOTE: I do have to agree with the proposition that, at the end of the day, Scientology is a "mind-control cult", of sort. Scientology is exclusive and absolute and does divide the world in a them/us situation. It is intolerant of dissent and criticism and the belief that Scientology is the last hope of humanity is induced through a mixture of constant repetition, authority, fear, guilt and faith leap. The fact that its technique does not achieve the lasting result claimed is covered up in a network of justifications, of which Scientology's war with the outside society and its harassment of critics are just a part. Despite the fact that I disagree with the cult mind-control theory taken literally, it did help me, as a metaphor, to realize the particular cultic illusion I was in...

(DC comment: Then Bernie plays games with the words "metaphors" and "myths" )

Now exactly WHAT does he mean by "mind control as metaphor?"
First Bernie appears to acknowledge CoS mind control as REAL paranoia, real "us versus them" real deception. WHERE is the metaphor? I think he is talking about the word "THEORY" not the word "METAPHOR." He's been assuming those Sociology scholars speak normal English!
It's like he wants to have it both ways. If someone confronts her with a CoS mind-control technique, she'll acknowledge that "theoretically" there is mind control but it's not "REAL" because scholars say there is no mind control and the word "mind control" might lead to rolling tanks and mass suicide.

Okay, Bernie, get this. Scholars different from YOUR scholars have said for over a CENTURY that hypnotism is not just a theory, but has scientifically proven effects on the brain.)

BERNIE: Contrary to what anticultists have claimed for years, cult Mind-control, taken literally, simply does not exist. It has been thoroughly debunked by scholars back in the 80s, to the point that it isn't much of an issue anymore in academic milieus.

(DC reply: Again, the scholars struck a blow against kidnapping-deprogramming. They pointed out that attacking mind control means attacking ANY religion and many groups, including, say, the Marines. But the Methodists and the Marines are not breaking laws. Gang leaders use use rituals and group bonding to mind-control their members into committing crimes. This is breaking the law. What the scholars say is that, BY ITSELF, highly influencing somebody is legal. The scholars did NOT say that CoS can legally use mind control to defraud and extort from its members.)

Conclusion: Bernie has a misunderstood word, confusing "metaphor" with "theory." He has overstated quotes by scholars to sweep away all charges of "mind control" as a "MYTH" (which he discusses on a webpage called lies.) Bernie has some valid and interesting points, but his scholars' studies are silent on on the central role hypnotism plays in auditing and training routines. They also ignore coercion-to-get-the-public-member-to-go-into-debt, and coercion-to-commit-fraud-and-extortion, which is rife in the most cult-like part of CoS, the Sea Org.

More on Bernie’s brainwashing points:

I agree that the kidnapping-deprogramming advocates like Margaret Singer (author of “Cults in our Midst) were unscientific and sloppy and they lacked data to support their work in a court of law. Singer implied you can just “assume” a person in a cult is a victim of brainwashing, and therefore any action to “save” him is justified. The whole problem is that it’s impossible to DO a scientific study of “brainwashing, under real-world conditions, immersed in a totalistic cult. How would you get the cult or “new religious movement” to agree to the scientists running around with instruments and lab books? How do the scientists catch people leaving a cult? When is the right time to interview? When they are fresh out? When they’ve had a week to think it over? After they’ve read critical books?

The scholars who looked at the issue from a religious-freedom point of view saw immediate dangers in creating an official “brainwashing” verdict, predicting witch-hunts. The lawyers saw unprovability. Sociologists saw an attack on ANY group using persuasion. And kidnapping/deprogramming WAS frightening.

The argument spilled out into the Internet, with Diane Richardson, for one, trying to explain this viewpoint. Some critics attacked Diane, not quite understanding that Singer’s problem was “no scientific studies,” and having a controversial “pro-deprogramming” agenda. The critics assumed those accusing Singer were claiming there was NO coercion, no control, no intimidation in CoS.

Diane posted a lot of links to some reasoned and academic papers,claiming

1. “Classic” brainwashing (at least the Manchurian candidate-type) never really occurred.
2. There were often dirty motives behind accusations of mind control against unpopular religions.
3.Laws against cults were a danger to religious freedom.
4. Legally, you can’t defend deprogramming by using the brainwashing argument. The Fishman case is a legal precedent that means that those concerned with relatives in cults CANNOT kidnap and deprogram with impunity.

Some critics didn’t want to hear this. It seemed to give victory to CoS.
But Bernie, and his scholars, left something out…

Bernie and his scholars left out hypnotic techniques!

I chalk it up to ignorance. The professors don’t know much about hypnosis, which to an ivy-tower academic is tacky and non-academic. The lawyers know something about “selling” to a jury but putting someone in a suggestible state for religious indoctrination isn’t taught in law school. The religious-freedom advocates think all religions use the same techniques, like singing, praying, reading, preaching, so no religion could be more “hypnotic” than another – why that would be judgmental!

So if you leave hypnosis out of the picture, Bernie’s scholars make a good argument. But hypnosis DOES exist and BOY does Scientology use it.

QUOTE: The hypnotic techniques used in OT TR0 are sensory deprivation and stress, which produces an altered state of conciousness. In the Philadelphia Doctorate Course tapes, Hubbard says that closing your eyes puts you into a light hypnotic trance. So here, L Ron lies about training you to "confront". In fact, he is putting you into a trance - a trance that is built upon with "the gradient", and which becomes the basis for auditing. END QUOTE from

TR critique


Hubbard deliberately sought to control his followers:

HUBBARD QUOTE: We have learned the hard way that an individual from the public must never be asked to DECIDE or CHOOSE.

Examining experiences we have had, I finally saw there was a hidden datum we had not been aware of in our orgs and particularly in handling the public. I finally dug it up and here it is:

TO DECIDE ONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND.
Examining our big org chart, you can see quite plainly that Understanding is higher than the point of public entrance into processing.

Example: Mr. J is offered Particle A. He can accept it just because it is offered. He does not have to even perceive it or talk about it or recognize any condition. He needs to see only two things: (a) that it is being offered by somebody or something (source), and (b) that Particle A exists. All you have to do is show him where to obtain it and that it exists. This is acceptance without decision. Therefore he can have it. END OF HUBBARD QUOTE

DAVID TOURETSKY COMMENT: “Acceptance without decision” is mindless obedience. This is what Hubbard strives for in his followers. But he has to disguise his intentions, so he offers a cover story about how giving people choices is equivalent to confusing them.
The unstated premise in the above argument is that if one doesn't already know enough to choose A or B at the moment the choice is offered, then one cannot remedy the situation by asking intelligent questions. This is obviously nonsense.
[... extraneous portion deleted ...]


HUBBARD QUOTE The moral is very plain. Never ask anyone in the public or field to Decide or Choose.
Erase from our org patter "Which do you want, Mr. J?" Don't ask which course, or what pin or what book or which auditor or what door or what time he or she wants to start anything or which door or which road or which membership.

TOURETSKY COMMENT This type of domineering approach, associated especially with Scientology "registrars" (the people who sign folks up for new courses), turns many people off to Scientology even before they find out about Xenu and the murdered space aliens.

HUBBARD QUOTE: Cultivate totally on a staff a didactic but pleasant approach. "Your intensive starts..." "This is your next book...." "Your next course should be taken on..." "Go to the third door." "I see you're a pc. You go up to the second floor...."

Erase even the banal "What do you wish?" or "What can I do for you?"
as even that throws confusion into it.

[... additional examples deleted ...]

Just as you'd never ask a pc which command he wanted, you never ask the public individual to decide. END OF HUBBARD QUOTE

TOURETSKY COMMENT: “Which command he wanted” refers to auditing commands given to pre-clears (PCs). Auditors are expected to be in full control of their pre-clears at all time. This directive is consistent with Hubbard's view that “raw meat” public are not really people, but machines under the control of “circuits” driven by engrams. Basically, people are zombies, and one does not reason with a zombie; one is free to take whatever measures are necessary to control it until it can be woken up.

HUBBARD QUOTE: You can teach them anything, particularly the truth. But never ask them to decide… .L. Ron Hubbard, Founder
END QUOTE from
HCO PL 16 April 65RA

Bernie and his scholars pclaim that since most people LEAVE cults, there can't be mind control involved. But if the mind control is hypnosis, it makes perfect sense, since a minority of people are suggestible enough to be easily hypnotized (and to find the TR hypnotic routines fulfilling)
QUOTE:
...a small percentage of people (5 to 15 percent) have the hypnotic capacity sought by the stage hypnotist when he is looking for volunteers...

Most people (65 percent) are in the mid-range. Only those on the very upper end of the scale are capable of complete age regression; only they can totally re-experience events as if they were actually happening. However, when it comes to effective therapy results they are not necessarily more successful than those with a lesser capacity for hypnotic depth. Where you are on the scale tells you more about how your self-hypnotic experience will feel than how effective therapy can be.

You can draw some sense of your hypnotic capacity from the way you respond to a series of familiar situations. On the following 10-question test, score yourself on a scale of 0-3:

0 - Never 1 - Seldom 2 - Occasionally 3 - Often / Always

Questions
Score 0-3
1 Do you ever become so "involved" in a television program, movie or play that you lose awareness of where you are? ___
2 In the midst of a conversation, has the person you are talking to suddenly asked "Where have you gone?" ___
3 When reading or hearing about somebody else's experiences, do you get deeply involved? ___
4 Have you ever waited at a red light and suddenly realized that the person behind you had been honking his horn because the light has changed? ___
5 Have you ever been able to recall an experience so vividly that you honestly felt you were actually there? ___
6 Have you ever been deeply moved by an eloquent or poetic speaker? ___
7 Have you ever arrived home with an object that a salesperson convinced you was perfectly suited to you only to realize that you really didn't want it? ___
8 Did you ever glance at the clock while engrossed in a book to find that it's an hour later than you thought? ___
9 Do people complain they've told you about important things which you cannot remember? ___
10 Have you ever been physically hurt and only realized it later when you found a cut or bruise? ___

TOTAL ___

Scoring
20-30. If your score is between 20 and 30, you probably have a high hypnotic capacity. You would be the star of the show for stage hypnosis.

10-19. Scores from 10 to 19 indicate mid-range potential.

0-9. If you scored less than 10, you are likely to be at the lower-end of the hypnotic scale, but even so, if you answered any question with a two or a three, your potential is greater than your overall score suggests.
END QUOTE from Psychology Today article, link no longer exists.

I wonder what % of "raw meat" (new recruits) remain in CoS. If it is 5% to 15%, that would be some evidence that it is the hypnotizable who remain, while the remainder don't find any worthwhile effects.