Now that Mike Rinder no longer "ridges" a the word 'brainwashed' maybe he should work on the "ridge" that prevents him from considering that he, too, may have been brainwashed. The first step a person can make to recovery from that condition is realizing they have it and confronting that fact.

If I could do it, I'm sure Mike could, too. I mean he was close to the top of scientology's organizing board while I spent most of my time as a scientology staff member either on the bottom or very near to it. To maintain your seniority and your altitude, Mike, you will have to read the books. Here's a link to the list:
http://www.worldcat.org./profiles/Wieber/lists/563909

I wonder if a single senior staff member left CoS voluntary. I know that some, including Pat Broeker, were thrown out. But I have never heard about voluntary departures.
By "senior staff member" I mean someone close to the VP level.

Indeed, Werner Erhard left the U.S. in 1991 after which EST was transformed into Landmark Education.
Landmark Education is different from Scientology though in that it does not claim to be a religion, but a secular "personal development" program.
The experiential leverage (the strong experiences they create) into which their hard-sell salesmanship is glued mostly emerges from digging up all of your life and deconstructing your being with a toolkit of repackaged sledgehammers of existential philosophy and the San Francisco interpretation of Zen.
In the Advanced Course though (the second major course people in Landmark take), there were quite a few elements that I later recognized as being a part of Scientology TRs, for example sitting in front of each other, knees touching and going through exercises, or standing facing each other staring into each other's eyes, etc.
Erhard was purportedly declared an S.P. and harassed with lawsuits for squirreling the tech - but I don't think it was so much a copyright issue than an effort to destroy Erhards competition in the market of "mind-reform self-improvement" programs (L.E. likes to call this transformation)
There is some interesting if abrasive philosophy in the Forum, and I don't doubt people have benefits of doing it, but you do absolutely need some strong grains of salt if you don't want to end up letting their rhetoric steer your interpersonal communication strategies into euphorically proselytizing Landmark to your friends and family in order to "enroll them" into the $Forum.
If you don't, you're definitely not playing the game! I mean, if you don't want an extraordinary life, fine! Run your Rackets on Landmark! You are just a Meaning Making Machine! lol.

I don't want to hijack the thread though, it was about how people believe who are in Scientology - I didn't really hear a good reply to that but I'd also like to hear one.

How do Scientologists actually deal with all the obvious deception, damage and outright evil that seems to emanate from the policies of their organization?

First I have a comment on how the TRs have migrated over to Dr. Phil's repertoire. On one episode of Oprah, Dr. Phil said that he had amalgamated a wide variety of techniques and he included EST on his list of sources. In another episode of Oprah, two people were put in a TRs position - seated facing each other with knees touching. Oprah called that a "dyad."

Now, "How do Scientologists actually deal with all the obvious deception, damage and outright evil that seems to emanate from the policies of their organization?"

Hubbard put a lot of things into scientology's materials to deal with this and make it happen. One of the things he did was to assign a variety of false reasons for things that are observed. An example of this is that people leave scientology because they have "overts and withholds." In another thread there was a revelation that Hubbard had written a confidential communication to someone telling them that one real reason why people leave scientology is financial difficulties.

Steven Hassan talks about thought stopping techniques that cults use. The techniques may vary but the intention is the same. Thought stopping techniques stop a cult member from looking at, considering or even thinking about the bad things they see their cult doing. Of course everyone of them has the equivalent of "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics."

Looking at what I've been writing and where my thoughts are going on this I can see there is no simple brief answer to the question. Books on cults have information in them that will provide clues to this.

People have an inner voice that throws up red flags on things. Cult members learn to ignore those red flags.

An example: When I was in scientology two staff members from scientology came to my house for a visit. My first thought was, "They're here to estimate what they can get from me." My immediate response to that was, "no, that's not right."

Cult members have multiple personality disorder. The dominant personality that they take on is the cult persona that is foisted on them. They also take on the personality of the cult leader. Steven Hassan suggests this in his books. I think experimentation would prove it to be correct. Anyway I have experienced this.

Along with having multiple personality disorder cult members get very good at compartmentalizing their experiences. It's like having a mind full of boxes and different things that are experienced get put into different boxes. Some of those boxes have "don't look at this again" on them. Then there are boxes that are only accessible by the appropriate personality within the cult member's collection of personalities.

Any cult member to whom the above is suggested will immediately gainsay it. Many ex cult members will also deny any of it. I put it to you that it is the way I say it is, but feel free to have your own opinion on the matter.

At any rate there's a partial answer for you, sconetale.

Broken ARC, I think, not broken bank, though both would be good reasons for getting out.

Hey Wieber, did I ever tell you that I did the whole series of Impact Trainings back in the early 90's? I worked directly with Hans and Sally Berger as "trainers". Impact is sort of a kinder, gentler grandchild of EST and dyads were used quite a lot.

Incidentally, I absolutely LOVED my Impact experience (and this is why I can relate to what occurs during the TRs). I had a lousy childhood laced with all kinds of abuse and mental illness with my parents, and never once did I receive any therapy or counseling for the resulting emotional baggage. Impact was the first time I ever took the opportunity to address that stuff. And address it I did! I busting through so much crap!!! But, for as much as I loved it, I could easily see that it was a money making machine designed to give people a certain kind of experience that would hook them into the next course, and the next course, and the next course. But the good thing about Impact was that (at least when I went through) there was a final course to graduate from and not an endless bridge. I took what I gained from Impact and moved on with my life.

I should add to my above comments.

The simple fact is that I was brainwashed. According to the academics, sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and other educated individuals "brainwashed" with its variants is not a proper term. So they call it thought reform, mind control, conversion, and so on but none of those terms cuts to it like "brainwashing" does.

I was brainwashed in scientology. It's a very hard thing to face.

People involved in scientology are so self righteously proud of their ability to confront but they cannot confront that. Aside from the indoctrination in scientology not to confront being brainwashed, outside of scientology there is a great deal of social stigma attached to the concept. The general opinion in society is that people who have been brainwashed are weak minded. Nevertheless it has to be faced or one cannot recover from it.

Hey Wieber, thanks for your reply!
Sometimes I wonder if the term "brainwashed" is not a little unfair toward the people who go through an experience like that.
I'm pretty sure people inside Scientology don't really feel "brainwashed" - I remember being in Landmark I did have a sense that something was skewed, but I still felt like I knew what I was doing to a sufficient degree. (Landmark has a way of promoting "being unreasonable" though for example).

But don't we always make decisions based on a simplified set of criteria, unable to see the true complexity of the entire world and to consider all the side effects of our actions? We are trusting in a reduced set of considerations while ignoring others constantly. Everything we do seems surrounded by ignorance of something else.
We can never know what we are not thinking right now.

The main difference seems to be that organizations like Scientology use these limitations of our way to operate in the world to make people do what they want them to do - give them money, bring more people in, submit to more manipulation, etc., by making sure the considerations they are basing their decisions on are part of a designed mind matrix. (?) "Buttons" are discovered and pushed... etc.
But there might of course be aspects of subconscious programming in Scientology that are more akin to e.g. Hypnosis or deepened "mind-reform" strategies that do reward the label "brainwash", that people submit to because they have come to trust or even become excited about a certain prospect.
In Reitman's writing about the Lisa McPherson case for example, it seems that Lisa had been subject to processes that have changed her attitude towards everyday actions quite substantially when she is being described as "robotic" or "unable to talk without crossing her eyes", etc.
I think that no organization should be allowed to practice techniques with outcomes such as this without open publication of the methods and empirical investigation of the effects.

But I always wonder if there is a fail safe strategy to detect situations in which freedom of thought is in danger of being subject to manipulation.
I guess the only way is being in communication with others and having strong ties to people outside.

What is your strategy for detecting manipulation?

Mental health professionals do not like the term “brainwashed” because it does not sound professional to them -- my cousin, who is a clinical psychologist, told me so. But she also said that this term correctly reflects the situation that the cult members face.

Why do people leave the cult? There is variety of reasons already discussed at this website. But I would like to add one more reason that defies rational explanation -- sometimes people have moments of truth when they see things clearly for apparently no reason. I observed such moment once, although it has nothing to do with the cults. As an undergraduate college student I had a night job as a porter at a nursing home. One of the patience whose room I was taking care of was diagnosed with senility. He was talking nonsense all of the times, it was impossible to communicate with him. But one evening he looked at me as if finally recognized me and said, ”This job is not for a young man like you, you should go to college to get some education”. I told him that I am a college student. We talked about my major, my post-college plans, etc. I had very little work to do that night, so we talked for about an hour. He was completely sane that day .

I think similar things happen to cult members when they somehow get in touch with reality and get a complete understanding of their unhealthy situation. What causes this realization I do not know, but I suspect that there is uncontrollable mental element in all of us that is beyond the reach of even the most mind-bending cults.

Few words about Dr. Phil -- he is not a real doctor but a quack who does not know what he is saying. I watched couple of his shows, and they look like a pseudo-scientific crap.

There is another aspect to scientology's indoctrination. Scientology has contracts and waivers that the organization gets people to read and sign.

When I was on staff in the seventies people who were public did not sign any agreements but they do now. Before anyone can take a major service (training or auditing) in scientology they have to watch Orientation and sign three documents of which each item is initialed as understood. One of those documents is referred to as the 'Lisa clause.' (I don't know what they do with that film since the primary actor in it has left scientology and is now considered to be a suppressive person.)

Staff members sign a contract that has a freeloader debt in it. That contract also makes Hubbard's policies binding as part of it.

People who are not on staff but who gather intelligence or do operations for scientology's office of special affairs (OSA) sign a promissory note that they will pay scientology hundreds of thousands of dollars if they every tell anyone else what they have done for OSA.

Mission holders sign an undated resignation before they get their franchise.

Accompanying all of those contracts and waivers is a verbal thing that goes on, despite the insistence that there is no hidden data line and that "if it isn't in writing it isn't true." The verbal background chatter contains things like, "scientology has never lost a court case" and "bad things happen to those who leave scientology."

None of scientology's contracts and waivers are legally enforceable but they don't tell that to the people who sign them.

A person goes in, signs the Lisa clause and they have given their permission to scientology to kidnap them, hold them incommunicado in an undisclosed location and administer the introspection rundown. That's always in the back of their mind.

A person joins staff, signs the contract and is routed onto a staff status course, so immediately they have a freeloader debt. Ask a scientology staff member what their freeloader debt would be right now if they were to leave. They will have a pretty good idea, although it will actually be higher than their estimate should they actually leave.

Almost everyone who is a staff member for scientology knows when their contract ends. Those who leave the org the day after their contract ends are treated as though they have "blown." That's another thing that isn't in writing but is in effect.

Although the documents have no legally enforceable power they are treated that way by the organization and those who sign them believe that they are enforceable and the thought of the consequences of those documents is always present in the minds of those who have signed them.

I really wish you would do some fact-checking before you post DLRH. Since you started posting on WWP and now OCMB, you seemingly want critics to perceive you as some sort of expert on Scientology because you spent some time in the Sea Org, but your posts don't add up. Lrn2research. Also, your cousin, the "clinical psychologist" is not an expert on all things related to psychology.. it's his/her perspective.

The APA has never used the term "brainwashing", but it has accepted the term "mind control" & "coercive persuasion" in arguments over the mental processing & indoctrination that occurs in cults. Margaret Singer, a clinical psychologist for decades and a friend of the original Cult Awareness Network, was often called upon to speak at APA Conferences & workshops about "brainwashing" in cults.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control

Dr. Phil is not a "quack". Because of controversy generated from his hugely successful TV show, he has made it clear that, although he received a PhD in clinical psychology from a Texas university in 1979, he is not a practicing or licensed psychologist. That disclosure is displayed to TV viewers every time an episode of his show airs. Dr. Phil has an advisory board of licensed mental health professionals that he consistently defers to on his shows. If you had bothered to do ANY research, you would have learned this for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_McGraw

http://www.drphil.com/articles/page/advisory_board/

http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/581 (Warning Signs of Cult Influence)

http://everydaypsychology.com/2008/01/i ... ogist.html (the complaint filed against Dr. Phil in 2008 with the California Board was dismissed).

FYI - your short spell in the Sea Org doesn't make you an expert which is why you were often called out on WWP for your bullshit. I suspect that's why you now post less on WWP & more on OCMB.

Smurf, I am not sure how to interpret your so called crticizm. As I said, the term "brainwashed" is not a professional term. It appears that you are saying the same thing, although you do not realize it.

I never said that I am an expert on Scientology, you took this issue too far. I know that some ex-Scientologists do not accept the idea of Hubbard having mild mental retadration, but, frankly, that does not bother me at all.

I can provide plenty of opinions about Dr. Phil, but I do not see how he could be taken seriously after saying to a mother that, because she was raped during her teenage years, she cannot have a normal communication with her daughter who was not conceived as the result of that rape (I saw that show and was it was quite shocking to me)
Dr. Phil also gave interview to a tabloid about his meeting with Brittney Spears' parents, which is a complete breach of medical ethics. You may have a different opinion about him, but he ertainly, looks like a quack to me.

A quack could have a medical degree, there is nothing new about that. For example, a quack with PhD in biology ( sorry, forgot his name) claimed that plants can feel pain, which was a sensational news at the time it was presented.

Just to put the whole issue of my Scientology expertise to the end -- so far I found three true experts on Scientology in this group -- Wieber, Caroline and Dorothy. My level of knowledge of Scientology does not come close to the level of their expertise.
However, I am getting plenty of assistance from my cousin, who helps me understand psychological aspects of life in a cult.

In general, there are several areas where the knowledge of Scientology comes in handy: 1. Hubbard’s works, which is the main body of Scientology 2. Abuses committed by CoS
3. Psychological effects of spending a prolonged period of time at CoS 4. CoS management polices, which is not its religious teachings but the Management Series and anything related the business of running a large organization.

Now I am going to overview my so-called expertise in this areas

1. I did not get very far on the Bridge, my highest achievement was Level 0. It would be ridiculous for me to claim that I am an expert on Hubbard’s teachings. I never made such claim, in fact, I stated in my WWP profile that I did not go beyond Level 0.
2. Other than saying that I know two cases of female Sea Org members who were forced into the marriages with the fellow Sea Org men, I do not have a first-hand account of the Church abuses. That disqualifies me from being an expert in this area, and I openly admit it. I never pretended to be an expert in this field.
3. I know a lot about psychological effects of Hubbard’s Tech on the Scientologists, and I cover this area in greater detail. I am not an expert in this field because I do not have a degree in Psychology or Psychiatry, which would classify me as such. But I am getting plenty of help from my cousin, who is a clinical psychologist. I am planning to write more articles on this topic
4. My MS in Financial Engineering qualifies me as an expert in this field. However, this topic is not of great interest to the ex-Scientologist; I covered it only briefly. I might write couple more posts regarding the Management Series, but nothing more than that.

Smurf blasted my Sea Org experience. That was funny because I was the first one to blast it, I called it “meaningless” in one of my WWP website posts.

I am going to describe my Sea Org work here to make sure no one thinks that it entitles me to a special treatment.
Before I joined OSA as a paralegal I completed Level 0. I have BS in Paralegal and was working as a paralegal for a law firm. Paralegals are far below lawyers -- they do not participate in lawsuits and do not go to the court. Their main function is to prepare materials for a trial.
OSA do not have professional paralegals. They would persuade anyone to join Sea Org and later train them as paralegal. As the result, their “paralegals” are so poorly trained that they can barely function; the OSA lawyers do much of the paralegal work.
I was the only professional paralegal in my department. My work load was enormous -- not only I had to prepare cases for trial, I had to correct my colleagues’ mistakes. As the result of my busy work schedule, I did not receive any auditing and did not attend a single Scientology course. At times it felt as if I was working for another law firm, albeit for a much lower salary. After 6 months of grueling work I got fed up with the arrangement and left Sea Org. Certainly, those 6 months as a Sea Org staffer do not qualify me as an authority on Sea Org.

Hubbard's management policies are part of Scientology's so called "religious teachings."

However, if you've bought into the idea that Scientology is a "religion," pick up your marbles and go home. Scientology has won.