A glimpse of the horror

Today I was reading An OT 7’s story.

What amazes me is how far Scientologists goes to get the tech. You go in session when demanded and you cannot leave. Read Greg Barnes session on May 1, 1999 within the OT 7’s story to get the picture, if you don't have one of your own.

I haven’t experienced anything quite as horrible, but I recognize the scene so well. I cannot count the number of times I have been sitting in session, in an interview, at the registrar and thought:
NOW... RIGHT NOW .... I SHOULD LEAVE RIGHT NOW!
Without doing it. You just sit there in the chair and you keep holding the cans, you keep answering questions.

It is so weird looking back at it. The wish to believe that you are being helped, while knowing that you are not. The knowledge that you should get up and leave the room right now, but somehow you don’t.

It's just so weird.......

Sarah

Sarah,

Thank you for this link. Did you turn up anything on what the underlying situation with the NOTS auditors was?

I am curious because the previous year, THE only NOTS auditor had left AOLA in Los Angeles.

But this explains something basic. I had a conversation that centered on something having CHANGED on upper levels that I could only induce by the obvious change in the way people behaved during and after the auditing. It had actually started in 1981, so if you do find anything regarding the background, I'd appreciate knowing what it was.

Lucretia

No, the situation with NOTS auditors is somewhat over my head (I have never been audited on NOTS), but I saw that Virginia (I believe that's the Virginia who wrote the OT 7's story) posts at ars so you might be able to get in com with her.

To me the story was a story of how far Scientologists will go to get the tech. Those people took a lot of shit before leaving. They kept coming back for more again and again before finally realizing they weren't duplicated.

And off course it is the story of how the Church changes the tech to fit their need for money. OT 7's do pay for their 6 month checks.
And BTW the Barnes' and McClaughry's likely paid for all the auditing and sec checking they got while protesting the squirrel tech.

Sarah

Actually, I always was helped by the tech. Every time.

I just wasn't helped by all the indoctrination and bullying that sometimes accompanied it.

It seems to me you have a narrow definition of tech.

Indoctrination and bullying is part of the tech as I see it. The tech of how to handle people critical to CoS by declaring them SP's and disconnecting from them is one part of tech that comes to mind.

But your viewpoint does explain why (some) people come back for more even when they are being invalidated and bullied.
These people want to stay connected to the part of the tech that helped in the past. And cannot believe that the same hand that help is the same hand that will beat you up (at least mentally) if you don't comply.

Sarah

Sarah,
I also see the indoctrination and bullying as part & parcel of the tech, since they are rooted in LRH's written policies, "advises," etc.

This was especially true in my experience with a Registrar who, while bullying, often cited passages from the many LRH books lined up on shelves behind him.

The tech (red on white) refers to practices and procedures, such as auditing. Very little of it refers to other things. Yes, some does, but it's a very small percentage.

The examples you gave are mainly from policy.

I had not previously SAID what my views on Scn policy are.

Would you like to hear them *now*?

Here goes.

Some of it needs revision,and in some cases, deletion.

Indoctrination is also verbal. Like in the deifying of Hubbard and also of Miscavige who, even according to the church's particular scriptures, is a manager and nothing more.

I assure you, I am quite aware of the indoctrination, where it occurs, where it does not, and the scope of it.

Sarah,

I agree with you that indoctrination and bullying are part of scientology "tech," the red-on-white tech precisely. Some examples:

> training scientologists to bully others by using what is called "Tone 40 Intention"

> sec checking, once called "integrity processing," also known as "false purpose auditing"

> the idea that underlying every desire to leave a group or situation is an "overt" against that group or situation

> the idea that underlying every disagreement with something LRH wrote or said is a misunderstood word, and that once that MU is found and cleared up, the disagreement will disappear

These are only a few of many examples of the bullying aspects of the so-called "tech."

As to the aspects of indoctrination, ALL of scientology training is a process of indoctrination, as students of scientology are taught to accept a system of thought uncritically, which is the very definition of indoctrination.

In all scientology "training," any questioning or criticism of Hubbard's "tech" -- his theories, ideas, or techniques contained in the books, lectures, or red-on-white technical bulletins -- is systematically eradicated.

That is indoctrination. It is built into the subject and enforced on scientology courses with study tech. One cannot practice or experience scientology "tech" without indoctrination.

Fluff,

I see. I don't made that distinction. Admin Tech is also Tech to me.

Sarah

Yeah, you are right Olska.
Indoctrination is built into all of Scientology.

Sarah

Hi, Sarah,

Even if it comes to that- if we're just looking at all Scn/Hubbardite stuff in toto- it's a relatively small percentage of stuff that's harmful or abusive. Most of the stuff's about trying to codify physical or theta universe phenomena.

But big things come in little packages. So one can have a small amount of policy or whatever contain a really bad idea and it can have far reaching consequences. On that, I think, we can agree.

Hi Fluff

Yes, we can agree on that

Sarah