The Essays from my Exit Therapy

Share your personal experiences with others. We're not here to judge or criticise, but to share and support.

Moderator: Dorothy

Post Reply
User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

The Essays from my Exit Therapy

Post by Wieber » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:39 pm

My exit therapy notes extend to about 400 pages. What started as narrative turned to a series of essays. For a time I thought that those were not appropriate to this section of the message board. On reflection I think they are because they have been a part of the journey "out."

As such, I will post here the remainder of my notes over a period of time. I wrote those things a number of years ago. I have changed since then and looking back I find I am not in full agreement with some of the things I wrote and some of them I find embarrassing now.

They may be of help to others, so I will post them with as little editing as possible. I will edit some of it, though, if I think doing so is warranted.

Since some of what I will be posting may stimulate debate, I ask that you take any extended debate into the section of this message board appropriate for that.

Do not expect any of the following to flow in an orderly fashion. I hope it will be of help to some, of use to some and entertaining from time to time.

If you are willing to bear with me on this I will start with the next post.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:40 pm

I got the books on sociopaths to check on my suspicion that Lafayette Ronald Hubbard was one of these types. I’m on chapter three of The Sociopath Next Door and I am convinced that he was. I have a feeling that all cult leaders fit this category. Should that prove to be the case then we have another tool that can be developed to free the victims of these organizations.

Chapter three of this book deals with how authority applied to individuals can bypass, disrupt or diminish one’s conscience so that one will then do things that under normal circumstances one would not do.

I could probably go through the various aspects of the Church of Scientology International and find the many ways that the application of many of the Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letters had the effect of subverting the consciences of staff members. However I am not interested right at the moment of going through this intellectual exercise.

Here’s where this book has helped me. To summarize, the war between authority and conscience usually finds authority to be the winner.

“Stanley Milgram, who demonstrated that at least six out of ten people will tend to obey to the bitter end an official-looking authority who is physically present, pointed out that people who disobey destructive authority suffer psychologically, too. Often a person who disobeys finds himself at odds with the social order, and may find it hard to shake the feeling that he has been faithless to someone or something to whom he pledged allegiance.”

The paragraph goes on and I will quote further but I want to break there to let that part take on its own importance before proceeding. Incidentally within the Church of Scientology International right after scrubbing for money the next most frequent activity is having people sign a large quantity and variety of documents agreeing to and pledging to a great number of different things. This even extends out to the so called wog world, where sub organizations that are ostensibly directed toward social betterment get people who are not scientologists to sign pledges and agreements.

For those of us who have a conscience there is a considerable internal price to pay for going back on, reneging or disavowing an agreement or contract that we have signed. However, one should consider that the source of that document was a sociopath, and that the intent behind having us sign was to invoke that sense of guilt and remorse, and thus use our own internal moral sense against us. Once we have signed such a document the sociopath at the source of it has won his or her game whether we adhere to the terms of the document or not.

“Obedience is passive, and it is only the disobedient one who must bear the “burden of his action,” to use Milgram’s words. If courage is acting according to one’s conscience despite pain or fear, then strength is the ability to keep conscience awake and in force despite the demands of authorities to do otherwise.

“And strength is important, because in championing the various causes of conscience, the odds are against us.”
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:23 am

Thinking about what I just wrote it occurs to me that the Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter known by the title, “Keeping Scientology Working” is a document that establishes and asserts Lafayette Ronald Hubbard’s authority over every aspect of an individual. Another document dealing with “ethics” in the Church of Scientology International makes it a high crime to not apply “Keeping Scientology Working.” One who does not apply “Keeping Scientology Working” will be declared as a suppressive person by the authorities in the Church of Scientology International. The Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, “Keeping Scientology Working,” is the first document on every single course that the Church of Scientology International offers.

The intent and application of this document in essence makes Lafayette Ronald Hubbard the soul authority on all knowledge and activity in one’s life. For the dedicated scientologist this may be regarded as a good thing. However such absolute surrender to authority in this case subverts and bypasses one’s own ability to think for himself or herself and subverts and bypasses the action and strength of one’s own conscience.

To the degree that one agrees to and applies this one Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, one gives up his or her own personal freedom to the Church of Scientology International and surrenders oneself as a slave to an organization that reflects and embodies the sociopathic personality of its originator.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:26 am

I am preparing another posting. In reading it over I discover that I was still using scientologese at the time. Someone reading it, even a former scientologist, may not notice it, but I assure you that it is there in the syntax, sentence structure and choice or words.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:30 am

I have formulated a theory. The following is all speculation.

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard was a sociopath.

From his viewpoint as a sociopath that which holds others back in life is their conscience. A person’s conscience will cause him or her to think rather than to act. A person’s conscience may direct them to an action that may not be in their own personal best interest. A person’s conscience could act like “the reactive mind.” A person’s conscience could be construed to be a “held down seven.”

From the viewpoint of a psychopath the entire theoretical basis behind and at the core of Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health would obtain. Starting from that and moving on throughout the writings of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard the entire purpose of Dianetics and Scientology is to get rid of one’s conscience.

If that were true consider this flaw.

What happens when you put two sociopaths together? Do they consult with each other as to their goals and aspirations and then align themselves to work together? My guess is probably not. My guess is that when you get two sociopaths together in a group, that they will work against each other and at cross purposes to each other. To keep them in line and directed toward a common goal you would need something like a very harsh system of punishments and rewards. You would need to be able to threaten them, dominate them and overbear upon them in order for them to work to your ends.

It would take a sociopath to understand that this is what would be required. A sociopath would probably thrive in such an environment. A person with a conscience would probably be absolutely miserable.

What happens when you put two people who have a conscience together? They would probably come to an understanding of each other’s needs, goals, and purposes and so on and then work towards helping each other achieve those things. This would probably happen of its own accord with very little or no outside influence.

If a sociopath were to create and direct an organization, what would such an organization look like?

If a sociopath examined what was going on in the world what would he determine was the basic reason for people’s existence and what they were doing?

An organization permeated with the personality of a sociopath would necessarily tear itself to pieces. An executive who was a sociopath would easily conclude that the main game of his underlings would be to get him. After all what game would he play in that position?

One can assume that the upper strata of management of such an organization must therefore consist to a large degree of individuals who are sociopaths or who have been conditioned to act as sociopaths. The policies and directives of that organization would tend to favour the advancement of such personalities.

In such an organization, the so called “third party law” would be extremely effective. If one were interested in bringing such an organization down one effective way to further that objective would be to stoke the flames of internecine conflict. One would assume that such conflict must already exist but that it is held in check under extreme exertion of control.

One could see that such an organization would respond violently and with extreme prejudice to slight provocation and criticism from external sources.

One possible form of attack on such an organization would be to select a particular high level officer in the second or third ranks of that organization and then to direct high praise very publicly in that person’s direction. If I am anywhere near right about this, very soon after such a thing occurred the leader of that organization would make an all out attack on that individual.

A number of outcomes are possible. All of them would be detrimental to the organization as a whole. If the attack failed and the person so attacked was also a sociopath the ensuing battle would be nasty, with much collateral damage. If the attack succeeded the organization would be left with a hole near the top and the restructuring, positioning, posing and authority grabbing would make extremely entertaining comedy indeed. Again collateral damage would be high.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

Don Carlo
Posts: 11728
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am

Post by Don Carlo » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:11 am

Your writing is fine, Wieber. It's not jargon-filled and self-deluded like many Scientologists.

It would be excellent theater to have a palace coup at CoS, but it would probably happen when Miscavige was in police custody. I agree that the other high level officials could be just as bad as Miscavige, and indeed might add new cruelties and criminalities to the scene.

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:51 am

The Church of Scientology International produced a series of books some time back that dealt with the various aspects of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard’s life. The titles were all “Ron, the <something>” as in “Ron, the Adventurer,” “Ron, the Writer,” “Ron, the Explorer” and so on. These books were soft cover, high gloss, high-end with lots of pictures from Lafayette Ronald Hubbard’s life. They had text that described his life, experiences and achievements.

If you want the truth about this person’s life there are two books the Church of Scientology International does not want you to read. They are, “L. Rob Hubbard, Messiah or Madman,” and "Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard." You probably cannot get your hands on these books. However the full text of them is available on the Internet.

The one title of the so called “Ron series” that would have had truth and that could have made a difference and that they didn’t produce is “Ron, the Sociopath.” Having read most of “The Sociopath Next Door” and looking at the information on Lafayette Ronald Hubbard in the aforementioned two books as well as comments and statements he himself has made in his copious writings I am convinced that he was a sociopath. He was a man who did not have a conscience.

Having reached that conclusion all doubts about the veracity, workability, or truth in dianetics and scientology go poof. I am talking here about the questions that nag many people who have left the cult. The questions that haunt one after leaving have to do with the benefits and gains one feels he/she has achieved while in. One is plagued by the suspicion that there was some truth in the subject matter and that the activities of the organization were of some benefit to society as a whole. That suspicion paradoxically niggles at one by way of his or her conscience.

Within the body of work that is called scientology, which includes, the books, the Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letters, the Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins, and the lectures, there may be material that was not originated by Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. A sociopath would have no problem, difficulty or remorse with taking the work of another and proffering it with his own by-line.

As a matter of fact there is evidence that this was done. Robert Vaughn Young, now deceased, was a high ranking sea org member who performed editorial service of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard’s fictional output. For these books Young wrote introductions, forwards, and linking material for which he took no credit but which were included in the published works as having been originated by Lafayette Ronald Hubbard himself.

I speculate that any of the material in scientology that allegedly produced benefit may have originated from sources other than “Source.” Lafayette Ronald Hubbard would have had no problem putting his signature to the work of others.

(Note: L. Ron Hubbard is often referred to by scientologists as "Source." This may have been a practice initiated by him.)
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:57 am

Having reached the conclusion that Lafayette Ronald Hubbard was a sociopath the question arises, “are all the originators of cults sociopaths?” One of the distinguishing characteristics of cults, organizations that use coercive persuasion, is a charismatic leader. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the sociopath is charismatic charming behavior.

This speculation includes and extends to all those who manifest abusive behavior in their relationships. One such example of this is the abusive relationship, where one spouse abuses another. It has been remarked by ex cult members and is discussed in Steven Hassan’s book, Combatting Cult Mind Control, that the characteristics of an abusive relationship resemble and mirror those of organized cults. In fact abusive relationships have been termed, “the cult of one.”

One of the disturbing aspects of a sociopath is that such a person can have a desire for political authority. Such a person is motivated by his or her own self aggrandizement and by a strong desire to win. At the same time such a person is unfettered by any shame, moral, scruple or shred of conscience. It is likely that such a person would have a much greater ability in convincing an electorate to vote for him or her than his or her opponent, restricted in his or her actions by the presence of a conscience.

There are political leaders in history that can be easily identified as likely being sociopaths. Examples include Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Julius Caesar, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, and probably Alexander the Great. There are others that may not be so obvious.

On a smaller scale there are likely to be and have been many opinion leaders throughout society who were sociopaths. This characteristic occurs in all strata of society. One of the types of person who is a sociopath is motivated solely to win and hold authority over others. Although the ratio of occurrence of this characteristic is only four percent of the population the ratio of its occurrence among society’s leaders is probably higher than that.

Having a sociopath in the position of a societal leader: a politician, priest, teacher, principal, police chief, newspaper editor, business executive, or military officer, to name a few, could be and very likely has been devastating to society as a whole. It behooves those of us who have a conscience, and I sincerely hope I am one of them, to examine the traditions, customs and behavior of our society through the filter of the knowledge of the phenomenon of the sociopathic opinion leader who has had an influence on the functioning of society.

“Oh pshaw and fiddle sticks,” you may say. Not too long ago on this continent we had a society that condoned and practiced slavery. There were extensive laws issued by the legislators to govern this practice. Not too long ago, women, an entire half of the population, were legally regarded as material possessions and not as people. Not too long ago every principal of every public school was issued a strap or tawse as part of his standard equipment, the purpose of which was to inflict extreme pain on students that were otherwise hard to handle. Only recently have the issues of child abuse and spousal abuse come to light and attempts being made to deal with them. Never mind the obvious, the terrorist activities that plague our consciousness as well as our consciences. Contrary to the attitude that these things “can’t happen here,” those things did happen right here and continue to happen.

I speculate that those without conscience in leadership positions would promote a lack of conscience in others. Over time attitudes and behaviors associated with this characteristic could become a part of society, accepted and practiced without question.

Having said all that, I personally think that as a society we are improving. We could do better but I think we have done remarkably well.

I think that the first thing that needs to be done in this regard is to make the information on sociopathy widely available. The ninety-six percent of us that are the potential victims of the other four percent need to be able to identify and then deal with that four percent. It would be easy to engage in punitive action toward them. I am not advocating that. Perhaps more knowledge about the condition may lead to a means to alleviate it for the benefit of those who have the condition as well as for society as a whole.

My hope for what would come out of this information being more widely known is that as people of conscience we would then act better toward each other than we do now. My hope is that as a whole we would examine the traditions, practices and behaviors in society in light of this information and then recreate our behavior in light of that information.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:06 am

Among the many things about people that bug me there’s this one: the tendency for people to trivialize the pain and anguish of others. Very closely associated with this is the tendency for people to assign evil they see in themselves to others.

I think this is an attempt to make the world a less threatening place, but I think it stems from a long tradition of undetected sociopathic activity going on at leadership points throughout history. Of course a sociopath will naturally trivialize the pain and suffering of others. He has no feelings of shame or guilt. Of course a sociopath will assign the evil seen in him to others.

People tend to look up to, revere, and emulate those in positions of authority. You get this kind of thing happening over long periods when sociopaths hold leadership positions and this kind of thing becomes normal behavior throughout society and then stays that way.

Speaking of cults, and history, I am suspicious that Pharaoh Akhenaten of the Amarna period in ancient Egypt was a cult leader. As far as is known he was the originator of a monotheistic religion, in which only one god was worshipped. His wife was Nefertiti and his son was Tut Ankhamen who was murdered when he was about seventeen years old. Tut Ankhamen was Tut Ankhaten until some time after his father’s death.

The one god was named Aten. Taking the name Akhenaten closely associated the Pharaoh with that one god and put him in a singular position of influence over those under his rule. In effect it made him a very charismatic leader.

I speculate on this because after he died, those who followed made a great effort to erase him from history. Many of his images had his face chiseled off. Ankhaten meant something like “the living embodiment of Aten,” which did not go down well with those officials who remained after Akhenaten’s death so his name was changed.

I believe it is unfortunate that we do not have very complete or accurate records of this period or similar ones when there was a leader I suspect was a sociopath.

There are two responses that tend to occur under these circumstances, neither of which is of any instructive value for those who come later. One is the complete and utter destruction of anything to do with the sociopathic leader. This leaves us in the dark about the personality and the associated customs, behaviors and traditions stemming from their leadership. The other is the apotheosis of the individual in question. This makes of him a kind of deity figure that whitewashes his near evil actions and blinds the society that follows as to that leader. This helps to fix the customs, behaviors and traditions established by and because of that personality.

One such individual that has been considerably whitewashed by history and story is King Richard the Lion Heart. Don’t take my word for the following. Go look it up in the history books. When he first arrived in the Holy Land he had his army lay siege to a city. They defeated the garrison there. Richard did not wish to wait for reinforcements, and did not have sufficient personnel to leave a garrison of his own to occupy the city. So he ordered his army to execute every man woman and child in the city. This task took twelve days with the killing going on from dawn to dusk every day.

Now how did that get glossed over? Why didn’t my high school history teacher relate that one to us? Why wasn’t it in our medieval history book? Why do dedicated members of the church of scientology international get so violently upset whenever anyone tells the truth about L. R. Hubbard?
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

opter
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:17 am

Post by opter » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:30 am

Wieber

Excellent posts. Very well written and make lots of sense.

Opter

toml
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 3:59 pm
Location: Paris, France

Great stuff

Post by toml » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:26 am

Thanks Wieber

As always, your posts are thoughtfull and thought-provoking.

Keep 'em coming.

TomL
OCMB is a place to discuss CoS and not fights among critics.
Andreas Heldal-Lund

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:17 pm

The following isn't mine. I copied it from a web page I found when looking for information on sociopaths. I copied it to preserve it because as valuable as the Internet is for finding information it does shift and change over time.

Profile of a Sociopath
A number of mind-controlling cult leaders may exhibit many of the behavioral characteristics of a sociopath--an outstanding ability to charm and seduce followers. Since they appear apparently normal, they are not easily recognizable as deviant or disturbed. Although only a trained professional can make a diagnosis of whether or not someone is a sociopath, it is important to be able to recognize the personality type in order to avoid further abuse. These traits also apply to a one-on-one cultic relationship.

Glibness/Superficial Charm
Language can be used without effort by them to confuse and convince their audience. Captivating storytellers that exude self-confidence, they can spin a web that intrigues others. Since they are persuasive, they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or emotionally.

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Craves adulation and attendance. Must be the center of attention with their own fantasies as the "spokesman for God," "enlightened," "leader of humankind," etc. Creates an us-versus-them mentality

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion, it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love
While they talk about "God's love" they are unable to give or receive it. Since they do not believe in the genuineness of their followers' love, they are very harsh in testing it from their devotees and expect them to feel guilt for their failings. Expects unconditional surrender.

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge, yet testing the beliefs of their followers with bizarre rules, punishments and behaviors. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Their skills are used to exploit, abuse and exert power. Since the follower cannot believe their leader would callously hurt them, they rationalize the behavior as necessary for their (or the group's) own "good" and deny the abuse. When devotees become aware of the exploitation it feels like a "spiritual rape" to them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. The followers only see them as near perfect.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blame their followers or others outside their group. Blame reinforces passivity and obedience and produces guilt, shame, terror and conformity in the followers.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Totalist leaders frequently practice promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. This is usually kept hidden from all but the inner circle. Stringent sexual control of their followers, such as forced breakups and divorces, removal of children from parents, rules for dating, etc.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future. Many groups claim as their goal world-domination or other utopian promises. Great contrast between the leader's opulent lifestyle and the followers' impoverishment. Support by gifts and donations from the followers who are pressured to give through fear and guilt. Highly sensitive to their own pain and health.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image and that of the group as needed to avoid prosecution and to increase income and to recruit a range of members. Is able to adapt or relocate as needed to preserve the group. Can resurface later with a new name, a new front group and a new twist on the scam.

Other Related Qualities:
1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare. In the 1830's this disorder was called "moral insanity." By 1900 it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has been termed "antisocial personality disorder." Without Conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us by Robert D. Hare.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:29 pm

In the following excerpt I must have started something and didn't go anywhere with it. Reading it over now I'm having a hard time figuring out what was going on with me at the time.

I am reading Cults in our Midst by Margaret Thaler Singer. Early in the book she says that due to litigation she is not allowed to mention the name of one of the groups she mentioned in an earlier edition of the book. Scientology is in the index so it isn’t them. The Mormons aren’t in the index so it must be them.

“What?” you say. “The Mormons aren’t a cult!”

Yeah. You go right on thinking that mate.

Never mind that. I’m going to go through an exercise based on some material in that book. The nature of this should be self evident as the exercise unfolds.

1. Keep the person unaware of what is going on and how she or he is being changed a step at a time.

The first step is contact. I spent four years on the street doing this even though I hated doing it. Ninety-nine percent of the people that are “in” are there because somebody got to them, not because they came in on their own. Scientology’s main outreach is by individuals who are “in” going out and making one-on-one contact with others.

Scientology sends individuals out on the street and into high traffic flow environments to make one-on-one contact.

1. “Hi.” Run away. “How would you like to do a free stress test?” Run away.

No, don’t answer, “What’s that?” or any other question. Run away.

“Just sit right here and I’ll show you how it works.” Run away. Don’t say anything, just get away.

2. “Hi.” Run away. “Have you ever seen this book?” Run away.

3. “Hi. I’m doing a survey.”

4. “Hi. I’d like to tell you about the abuses of psychiatry.”

5. “Hi. How would you like to do a free personality test?”

The person approaching you is usually very friendly, cheerful and good natured. At least they try to look that way. I wasn’t always nice like that, but more often than not put on that front.

When you are first being contacted, the Scientologist contacting you can appear to be the friendliest, most understanding, cheerful, good natured, empathetic, nicest person just this side of Jesus Christ that you have ever met.

Speaking of Jesus Christ, here’s what L. Hubbard has to say about him, “For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR.”

Marcab is the name of a star. You can look it up in any star chart or star atlas. L. Hubbard used the name of that star to name the society he claims that all people on earth are prisoners of here on earth.

Just to show how thoroughly brainwashed I am, right now I am feeling pangs of guilt from putting those things down here.

So first a Scientology agent contacts a wog, a raw meat, a non-scientologist. I really hate using that term, Scientologist, as it applies to people. I never felt comfortable calling myself a Scientologist – ever. I don’t like using the term regarding others even if they are in. In my view, with the exception of a handful of individuals everyone acting as an agent for that organization is doing so under the influence of the mind control regimen being applied to them.

The primary objective is to get you to read the book, “Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health.” Don’t. Run away. The reason for this is because if you cannot read, Scientology cannot use you. There is “no verbal tech.”

The next step is some kind of introductory thingie. This is usually a relatively cheap course. When I started it was $50. I think it is now around $120 or something. I don’t know exactly and I don’t intend to ask. This could also be a lecture, a series of seminars or a “book one” co-audit.

Somewhere along the line you do Training Routines or book one auditing, both of which utilize hypnotism techniques, induce a euphoric state through trance and make you very suggestible.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:33 pm

I didn’t like the one-on-one recruitment promotional technique. I thought getting the word out would be more effective with better advertising and promotion. As a result I had at least two things going against me. I didn’t like the job. I was not very good at what I was doing. Additionally I didn’t like studying in the course room and the executive director, divisional secretary and departmental director all did their level best to see I didn’t get onto course.

Looking back those are all good things. Of all the people I brought in, which I estimate to be about 5,000, as far as I know, one stayed.

Looking back in the light of what I have found out from Steve Hassan’s books and the part of Margaret Singer’s book that I am reading, I have to conclude that the one-on-one recruitment program must be a necessary part of the initial stages of the persuasive coercion done by the organization.

This is called dissemination technology or dissem tech. There are bulletins, lectures, and policy on this. Essentially this technology was not used on me when I went in and I never learned it, even though I did ask.

Essentially the method of this is to get into communication with the mark, um I mean . . . The proper term for a person who is being approached is raw public or in the case of a field staff member, a selectee. One starts be getting into communication with the person. Then you get friendly with them and gain their confidence sufficiently so that when you invade their privacy they will answer.

What you are looking for is the thing that is ruining that person’s life. There may be nothing ruining that person’s life, but you will find something or create something that is.

You may finally ask, “What is ruining your life?” You do this in such a friendly concerned caring manner that the person tells you. Whatever this person says is ruining their life the next thing you say is, “Scientology can help you with that.”

Then with some hard sell applied to the person with the knowledge of what is ruining their life you can get them into the first stage of Scientology where the hypnotic trance can be induced and the person can be made very suggestible.

“Well, yes, $200 is a lot of money, but that is ruining your life isn’t it? You do want to get that handled, don’t you?” (Nod the head. Nod the head.) “We want you to get on course right away so you can start to handle that now. Why wait? Now is the time.”

Everything in Scientology is urgent and has to be done or handled NOW!!!!!
Right now, you may be thinking, ‘Those bastards!’ But here’s the thing. The people who are doing the disseminating, bringing people in, selling them things and getting their money are just as in the dark as to the mechanism of what they are doing as the people they are doing it to.

Most who get out and realize what they have been a party to, are very much ashamed, regretful and sorry for what they have done to other people and the misery, destruction, pain and suffering that they have unwittingly put others through. That may be one of the factors that makes it so hard to get out and this would be especially so if you were good at what you do.

At the same time, most who get out also realize that those who are still in and those who have done to them, were just as in the dark as they were and so tend to be highly forgiving of those left behind and in.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10221
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:39 pm

In my last posting on this thread I made a comment about nodding the head.

This is a technique from Big League Sales Closing Techniques.

The sales person while they are doing their pitch and dealing with the prospect (or in the case of scientology, the financial victim) they are to nod their head continually.

Nodding of the head communicates "yes" to the customer, so that when you ask for 'the close' they will say "yes."
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Your story from inside Scientology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests