You [Gadfly] said in your Post #1, "If someone were abusing me verbally or emotionally, which is unlikely because I simply don't attract or participate in such nonsense, I would walk away." I think a lot of what you said was about inter-personal relations, rather than entities. And I realize you weren't specifically speaking about scientology, but let me use that as an example.
Attraction:
I have had two different 'experts', who I really respect, suggest that I, "change my style" or "back off" from the bullies, and maybe they'd let up on harassment. In fact I had already tried backing off temporarily, and it works, but I couldn't live with myself. Shouldn't some people do their part to keep the bullies in line? Each protester (or blogger) does it in their own way. And I hear the more in-your-face people mention, however subtlety, that they 'attract' harassment from scientology because they've spoken out. I notice these types of comments from protesters all the time on ESMB. Yet however you want to spin it, I think preaching don't 'attract' attention is like saying, "Let George do it" -- let somebody else fight the battle.
I'm not as confident as you, that the Internet will solve all the ills that scientology inflicts. Their stated intention is clear -- they seek world domination, and right now, they have hundreds of beachheads (locations) in many countries, and unknown numbers of KSW people planted in society and governments. If you are right, then no problem. But what if you're wrong Gadfly, what if we're not doing enough? What if scientology takes over the world, a little bit at a time, because of our, "let George do it", inaction? What if it progresses past the point of no return?
Walking Away:
When scientology-OSA-PI's abuse people, it's a safe bet that somebody else is taking pictures, in hopes of capturing an illegal retaliation of the harassee on video. So you really don't have any choice but to walk away, unless you want to be badgered into breaking the law, and handing them video evidence on a silver platter. So I agree with your viewpoint; on walking away. The question is though, should they be let off scott free, with a let George do it approach. We 'hope' enough people will join the cause to put pressure on the bad guys, but what if it's not enough. Shouldn't some people 'attract' scientology's wrath, to intentionally p*** off the beast (again, and again, and again) -- and in so doing, advise others of the problem, and motivate some of them to do the same.
Cornpie, you bring up some good points.
First, the situation I was talking about was a very unique and specific context where a person willingly involves him or herself in a relationship with another person or group. There is extensive literature on abusive 2D relationships where one member stays in the relationship despite the verbal, emotional and mental abuse from the other. There is also some literature on the same phenomena in groups. There are similarities between the two; relationships with one other person and relationships with groups. What you are talking about is a freely entered upon confrontational, argumentative or adversarial relationship. In your first paragraph what you are talking about is deciding to enter into an "attack" type relationship. That is what it is and it is fine.
But it should be clear that what defines that relationships is the "adversarial" aspect. In a 2D relationship, what defines it to some degree are mutual goals and mutual interests, and the "abuse" is an aspect that wasn't originally anticipated or desired. The same is true for cults (and I use the term very loosely). In fact "abuse" happens in all sorts of groups, including businesses, clubs, political parties, fraternities, and so on. But, what differentiates all of these is that the person CHOOSES to be a member and to remain a member. These people choose to accept the abuse for whatever reason - and there are MANY reasons. That could be the topic of an interesting discussion - WHY each person stayed involved for so long past the point when he or she began noticing and experiencing abuse of some sort.
As an aside, I want to make it clear that I understand that KIDS in the Sea Org and Church did NOT have that choice to leave. Their situation was and is entirely different, in that they cannot do much about the suppression each of them was put into. They can't walk away. In Scientology-speak, as LRH defines it, a person is PTS to the degree that the person cannot do anything about the suppression he or she is undergoing. Kids were and are VERY suppressed, because they did not CHOOSE to enter into the Church organization from the mindset and attitude of a fully functioning adult with some degree of evolved emotional and mental factors. They were for all practical purposes FORCED to "join". That could take up an entire thread too, so I will leave it that for now. Back to what you said.
When you choose to enter into a confrontational situation, you cannot help but "attract" the same in return. Add to that the way Scientologists are trained to attack, belittle and "deal with" any and all critics, and of course, conflict will occur. But, you are an adult. You know the situation. You even know very well how "they" will react and respond back at you. This is NOT "abuse" in the normal sense of situations where a person CHOOSES to enter into a MUTUAL relationship with common goals and purposes. "Walking away" and "confronting an adversary" are mutually exclusive. If you choose to speak your mind, protest, be a witness in a court case against Scientology or loudly promote the Church's nasty behavior and deception, then you are choosing to enter into a situation where some sort of "abuse" may occur against you. Any person choosing to do that must realize that, accept that, deal with it, and continue on regardless. Words are only words anyway. Personally, I wouldn't consider it abuse if some Church member were rattling off my overts to me from my PC folder at some rally against the Church - but then, I don't respond to things so sensitively as many others do. Shit, do some TRs before you go to a rally to stabilize your viewpoint, and just don't let the "words" affect you. And yes, I am fully aware that the Church has and continues to do things against "critics" that very much HARM a person - maybe not physical harm, but harm as in examples like Paulette Cooper and Gabe Cevarez. Of course, spread the facts of this behavior. But, realize if and when you plan to take on the Church to THAT degree that you are in for the fight of your life. That factor alone dissuades many - and the Church plans and hopes for that. But, THAT aspect has now been examined, is part of court cases, and is INFORMATION available for any and all to view. THAT matters.
Of course people must act to keep the bullies in line. We all do it in different ways. Please realize that you have largely generalized comments I made about a very specific case of being involved "in the Church as a member". What you are talking about is NOT what I was talking about. But I will answer your questions, because obviously by your answers you are reading in a great deal that I never said in any way.
I never talked about the things you are talking about. I didn't say and never said "don't attract attention". I said that I don't often "attract or participate in such nonsense"; I NEVER said not to "attract attention". The fact that you made such a huge jump in meaning and context simply tells me that you need to pay a bit more attention to what is being discussed EXACTLY. But, I will forget about that because what you say has meaning and validity anyway, even if not as a direct response to what I was discussing. But first, to end what I was just clarifying, my point was that in normal human relations I simply don't find myself often in antagonistic, abusive or confrontational situations. First, largely by my awareness and behavior I can easily control the direction of communication to avoid any "entheta". Second, if I find myself in a potentially dangerous situation where I might be physically harmed, I deal with or get away. I don't "react" much to words or emotional escalation of others (like in Tone Scale games of ratcheted-up anger). I have trained myself over many years for "abuse" to pass over and through me. I just "don't do abuse". Maybe that is hard for me to explain and for you to understand. Or, in other words, ALL relationships take TWO. All conflicts take two. How one responds has a GREAT deal to do with how the "conflict" develops. I am talking about normal interpersonal relations. Where you have a trained antagonist, like an OSA-dupe, standing there yelling and trying to cave you in, that is somewhat different, but in the end, really, words are only words UNLESS YOU allow them to have MEANING FOR YOU.
Yes, of course, bring to light the abuses, nastiness and hypocrisy of the Church of Scientology. For instance, I posted the little essay on the Sea Org and Degraded Beings. I would guess that almost every member of the human population, who is able to read and understand simple concepts, can see how NUTS the author of that Flag Order was. And also how nuts someone must be who agrees with such idiocy. The statements made about an ex-Sea Org member being a "DB" are insane - and verifiable as being insane by direct observation. If one "member" reads that and makes a slight mental shift, then something has been done. I do what I do and others do what they. I happen to be good at observing interesting aspects of things, and at explaining these things in usually easy-to-understand terms. I "fight the battle" in my own way. I never said or meant to imply that we should all "sit and do nothing". If I ever say that, or cause that, then find me and shoot me as a Church OSA agent (loose analogy, no real violence intended). But, I think in my two posts alone I made sufficient arguments against certain negative aspects of the functioning of the Church of Scientology. Did I do nothing? Am I somehow letting others "fight the battle"? I never meant to imply that.
Of course, also, if you get loud past a certain point and the Church considers that you are becoming too much of a problem, then you may get the investigators coming after you and other unsavory attention placed upon you. Again, "abuse" in that regard is not what I was talking about. But, on what you are saying, well it is part of the reality of dealing with Scientology. THAT is what they do. They attack people per LRH policy. They send out investigators to harass. They make it tough to want to continue against them. They even lie and put together phony scenarios to entrap people and to make people look bad. They have no back off on doing just about anything to "win". But, this behavior is becoming more and more documented on the Internet and in legal cases all across the world. There is a LARGE mountain of similar data, describing the unsavory activities of the Church, building in court files and on the Internet. Luckily, many people look down on such behavior. The Church behaves in certain ways that most of the population finds unsavory, underhanded and nasty. THAT is what it is, and that can only work against them - no matter whether they see that and no matter what they PR to others around them.
I never said that the "Internet" alone will solve the problem of Scientology. It is a segment of what is working against Scientology. There is no doubt that the protests of Anonymous would be MUCH LESS effective and meaningful if it weren't for their display all across the world on the Internet. The Internet IS a large factor, enabling the communication of facts and information about the REAL BEHAVIOR by Church staff and members over years and years. THAT can and will work against them.
Oh, please realize that while I may seem to disagree with you about certain things and clarify other things, I AM responding to you with time and care, because I think the points are valuable. We AGREE - the Church has aspects that should NOT be tolerated in any decent society. But, for me, they have many aspects that they should be free to express however they choose in a free society. It isn't all or none. Personally I want to see the abuses stop. The disconnection, the contrived situations to harm and silence (Paulette Cooper, Gabe Cevarez), the use of PIs, noisy investigations, misrepresentation of facts, oppressive work conditions, the use of the legal system to overwhelm critics, and others I am surely missing. But realize, I do not and will not ever agree to shut up some group because someone doesn't like them. Even the "poor work conditions" probably cannot ever be legally stopped, because people ARE "free" to involve themselves in whatever manner they want with whatever groups they want. They can CHOOSE to receive a pay of $50 per week, and eat rice and beans for weeks. That IS their free choice. I would NEVER want to take that choice away from anyone. If a Buddhist ascetic wants to sit on a dirt path begging for alms, as part of a certain Buddhist community, THAT is their right and I will never support anyone desiring to tell others what they can or cannot freely choose to do. But the nasty shit, and there is much of it, YES, that must be brought to the attention of all people and stopped.
Onto another thing you said. About Scientology "taking over the world". First WHAT does that even mean? As an example, and I suppose I should start an entire thread for this, what does it mean to "clear the planet"? This is a CONCEPT often mentioned by Church folks. But, what does it really mean? This is another interesting (and oppressive) factor about how the Church functions in real life. Members of the Church are not allowed to discuss almost anything about Scientology outside of the courseroom or the Qual division. If you start having a discussion about "what it means to clear the planet", or what "ARC" means, or what it means to "be able to mock up illusions that others can see", somebody will sooner or later give you that brutal TR 0 look and loudly attack you with, "THAT IS VERBAL DATA" - "KNOCK IT OFF". That whole area of activity, about "stopping verbal data" has interesting consequences. Simply, members are largely forbidden from discussing a tremendous amount of ideas and concepts. This behavior can easily be observed. THAT also would make a great discussion, how the application of "verbal data" stops such an immense amount of "free discussion". Anyway, what does that relate to what I am talking about?
First, a little more background data. Imagine asking each Church member to sit down and write an essay, "What does it mean to Clear the Planet". They might write this essay as part of some course, or as part of a Success Story, BUT nobody will EVER tabulate the results and/or compare the responses. Why not? Because in truth, the IDEA of "clearing the planet" has no specific meaning outside the MANY individual, wildly different interpretations by individual members. Like so many SLOGANS and ideological notions, it is a VAGUE CONCEPT that can have EMOTIONAL ENERGY attached to it as a way to influence, affect and manipulate groups of people. Again, LRH was no dummy, whatever else he may have been. Like many concepts in Scientology, and this is true in more ways than most are aware in ALL aspects of life, these concepts survive at very LOFTY levels of abstraction and have very UNCLEAR and VARIED meaning for people. It is a trick to tell someone that you can know what something means by "clearing the words", because as in this case, the IDEA will mean something different to every person who tries to describe it. That is partially why Scientology is set up so that members cannot discuss so many things. Then many would discover that there IS such a huge difference in meaning from person to person. Keep it vague and emotional - that is part of the trickery. Of course, the real problem comes down to defining the word "clearing". What does THAT mean to each person? But, it is an analogy, and analogies always have a widespread difference in personal meaning. "Clearing" refers to the action of supposedly clearing away "held-down-sevens" in individual "reactive minds". Whatever THAT means! So, the concept of "clearing the planet" itself is some weird transference of an idea relating to a single person to the world as a whole. Of course, this goes on all of the time in human thinking, where IDEAS often have little to do with any possible real thing or event or relationship. In fact, it goes on everywhere about everything, including modern "science".
Sorry, I need to include a little diversion to further explain what I just said. The content of the minds of most people is "mush" - vague ideas relating in varying degrees to other vague ideas, wrapped up in endless metaphors and analogies, confusing various levels of abstraction, that in the end creates a personal MENTAL WORLD very very far removed from any observable anythings. This is the usual and common state of the mind of almost any human being on Earth. Your mental world is a CREATED THING. YOU create it. Most people have little awareness of the functioning of their own intellectual minds, much less any actual control over it. I am talking ONLY about the intellect here. Thinking in concepts and ideas. "Thinking" happens to you; you don't "think". I suspect that few of the readers will agree with this - but then, you also probably "think" way too much. Scientology is just one example of the entire panaroma of life where this weird, but entirely common thinking goes on - it is the Church's observable nasty and harmful behavior that is the issue for me.
So, really, when it comes down to it, "clearing the planet" has very little REAL meaning. There are as many meanings as there are people who take the concept seriously. Fundamentally, it is a SLOGAN, attached to emotional energy, that is used by Church manipulators (knowingly or unknowingly) at events and other group activities to drum up participation and action to support the group. Now, onto, "taking over the world". What does THAT mean? I know the Church has some intention to do so, but what does that mean in REAL behavior, activity and terms? A way to get some handle on this is to look at other ideologies and movements that have attempted to "take over the world". I will only brush on a few.
Christianity tried. Fundamentally, early Christianity involved a group of concepts about what was believed, and how and why all others should accept and follow those ideas (Scientology has a similarity in that Church members also feel that they "have the truth" and that everyone else should accept and follow the truth" - if only because on some stupid level the members believe that everyone else would benefit and be happier by doing so). First, as have all other attempts, it failed. There are now many different versions and interpretations of Christianity. There is no longer any single "Christianity" to "take over the world". There are reasons for why Christianity failed in "taking over", many of these reasons separate from the fact that some or many of the ideas themselves were flawed.
Reason One: Everything changes into something else. Everything alters. Nothing stays the same, including IDEAS, and the groups based on those ideas. Even IDEAS change and evolve. In a sense, nothing stays the same, so despite all attempts to "keep Scientology" as LRH originally envisioned it, it has been changing and it will continue to evolve into new altered versions of itself. THAT factor acts to cause any movement to fail, if in the end solely by virtue of the fact that the "something" no longer exists as originally envisioned. What "survived" and expanded has morphed into something else. This is very true for Christianity, and for many other movements. True, for most movements, and subjects, it is because the subject "grows" and learns from experience. This is not possible in Scientology because of the way it is set up. LRH worked hard to prevent it from being "added to". In a certain regard, its inability to "mold" itself to new conditions may work very much against it. In a sense it can't "evolve" in accordance with external forces (this is just another one of those analogies that will mean something different to each reader).
Communism, envisioned by Marx and Engels tried to take over the world. Part of the philosophy involved the idea of "spreading". It had an evangelizing "aspect", though the idea was more like "accept it or else". Communism also morphed into different versions of its original self, with different authors adding to it. It contained the notion that "our ideas are so legitimate and true, that eventually people will accept our views because it results in better societies and happier people". Of course, that didn't pan out quite as expected. Now, Scientology has a built-in mechanism to try to prevent morphing into something else - but it is doing so anyway to some degree. How that is happening is too much to start discussing here, but it IS happening, though not as much as it would have naturally if Hubbard hadn't foreseen and tried to prevent such alteration. Also though, while I think the ideas of evolution by modern biologists are largely ludicrous, and while to me the ideas of modern neo-Darwinist thought take more the form of a "doctrine" in a religious sense with little observable verification, there is a sort of "survival" reason why groups change into other forms. They do so TO SURVIVE. If Christianity didn't respond to the forces against it, such as occurred during and after the Age of Reason, and didn't temper its attitudes, and become something else from a theoretical and practical behavioral aspect, they would have DIED completely. Christianity as existed in the 12th century cannot exist today in the western world. It would have ceased to exist IF it had not had changed in certain regards. This is all easily explainable and observable. Groups often change otherwise these groups would FAIL completely. Again, much could be explained with many examples how that has been so through history. That brings us to the next point.
Reason Two: Factors eventually conspire in the environment AGAINST any group that is trying to "take over the world". There can never and will never be enough people who fanatically agree to a level where they are willing to accept all the negatives with the real or imagined positives of probably ANY ideology. There are simply too many negatives to actual real Scientology behavior and life. Even in entirely suppressed populations, where nearly all information has been controlled and facts hidden, people still have consistently revolted against the tyranny. In open societies, as we have in many parts of the world, where information is free to accrue itself, it would be quite impossible for Scientology to "take over the world". Another aspect of this is that Scientology "works" as a group because the INSIDE reality is entirely CLOSED. The Church leaders control all information (PR) inside the Church. Members are controlled to willingly refuse to look at any and all criticism - or else suffer the consequences of heavy ethics and/or expulsion. There is no way that I see where this same sort of CLOSED ultra-controlled operation of the Church of Scientology could ever transfer to the outside world at large. There are too many safeguards built into existing government constitutions to allow any such thing from happening. And while you CAN fool some of the people some of the time, it is quite impossible to fool all of the people all of the time.
But, really, again, what does it mean for "Scientology to take over the world". I think I may start another thread on THAT, because there are many interesting ways to envision THAT possibility. For instance, how would disconnection work in a world "controlled by Scientology"? The local Scientology baker wouldn't sell you bread. The Scientology taxi driver would refuse to pick you up. The local school would refuse to enroll any children of SP parents (unless they disconnected of course). Heck, how would all the "good and ethical" people (the people living by Scientology principles) even recognize the many declared SPs? There would have to be a system of recognition developed. Maybe they could put little symbols on their shirts, like the Nazis did to Jews. Then, the SPs could be easily spotted and the "good" people could refuse to support them in any way. Then the SPs could and would all "die out", because nobody would or could support them in ANY way. What amazing compassion for ones fellow man! (sarcasm) When it comes down to it, the idea of transferring Scientology internal org life to the real world truly is probably entirely impossible. You can now sleep better at night! But, really, do the THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. Think about and write down exactly how Scientology principles would be enacted in a real society. In some cases it gets very Nazi-like.
HINT: Whenever you want to think in abstractions, such as the idea involved in the phrase, "Scientology taking over the world", do yourself an intellectual favor, and bring the idea down to observable reality from the flimsy clouds of mental abstraction. MAKE UP EXAMPLES. And make up more examples. And then make up more! Understanding the reality and possible reality of things is in the specifics and in actual events. Generalities are the bane of human thought. LRH was right about that. There is a severe problem with thinking and talking in generalities (besides the fact that supposed SPs do it). He was right about lots of things. He was also right (because he stole a legitimate idea from the theories of General Semantics by Alfred Korzybski) that sanity is gauged by the ability to DIFFERENTIATE. (Note: Much of the "Data Series" comes from the theories of General Semantics. But, LRH screws up with his interpretation of that too. That is good, because all Church INT evaluations are based on the Data Series, and since the Data Series has major problems, that the leaders don't see or ackowledge, the results of their "evals" will generally be ineffective.)
But it is easy to use the things he was right about against those things that he was wrong about, and that the Church is wrong about.
One final comment. Planting people in businesses and governments to obtain special favor for the Church organization is VERY different than planting Church members and adherents who will somehow get local and federal governments to adopt and run their own organizations with Scientology principles. The gulf between the two is immense.
____________
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
You are a gadfly indeed!
Shhhh! Please, don't tell anyone Vinaire; please, keep the secret a SECRET!
