I'd say it begins as persuasion, with a very light touch. "Nothing in scn is true except what you yourself have experienced." Who can argue with that? But then more loyalty and effort is demanded, and the acceptance of increasingly bizarre beliefs. With the Manson family for example, it was all peace and love at first, then Manson began talking about the upcoming race war and how the family would escape by hiding in a bottomless hole in the desert. I think you can see the parallel in scn from ideas that are easy to accept (you are a spiritual being, etc.) to ideas that are much more bizarre (evil psychs, Xenu, etc.). Any resistance to these ideas is met by harangues re-emphasizing their importance, threats of punishment or actual punishment. Think WC'ing or ethics handling. Think WC'ing isn't brainwashing? You will start looking up words you actually already understand because study tech says all disagreement comes from MU's. You will convince yourself you have MU's and convince yourself you've cleared them and now understand the material, because you want to escape the tedium of endless WC'ing. And you do this without even realizing it. What are the lower conditions but punishment? I never saw the conditions from liability on down as anything but. But instead of calling the lower conditions punishment, Hubbard calls them "ethics." Because that sounds better than "punishment." By using a milder term he puts a better face on it, hopes to get us to accept it. And I think that's what Alanzo is doing here too. He wants us to abandon the negative term "brainwashing" and accept the positive term "loyalty." He wants us to see scn in a more positive light for some reason. I don't know why. Even after we left scn, it took many of us years to gradually come to a realization of just how wrong it was. Would it benefit us now to see scn in a more positive light? Is scn just some poor little minority religion that we should stop treating so mean? Sorry, I don't think so.