ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Would *you* ever go back?

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Magoo, Jan 15, 2008.

View Users: View Users
  1. George Glass

    George Glass Patron


    I see: The assumption of a more soothing personal narrative that puts its beholder in a more understandable position than a more perceptively neutral narrative that would indicate two parties to be equally responsible for whatever hard feelings were endured afterward.

    Robert J. Lifton made notice of such phenomena occurring in his interviews for Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China. Some of the subjects he interviewed would subconsciously re-frame certain events in which they found themselves to be unacceptably overwhelmed to suit a more "heroic" perception of self. The authorities in China, similarly, would re-frame certain events to suit the "Communist" narrative.

    In your case, for instance, facing a barrage of negative criticism oriented towards Scientology, you might be seeking a narrative which suits your position that Scientology isn't so much to blame as the individual who has found themselves in conflict with Scientology. By subtly scapegoating the individual, who, in all actuality, really is responsible for their own experiences, is it possible that you've found a more soothing narrative that justifies your position and experiences?

    Such mechanisms seem to negate any argument contrary to whatever belief has been fostered by any individual. The wife complaining of the alcoholic husband might be coaxed into considering her own behavior to be damaging; her behavior to be the cause of his drinking. The husband of the sexually addicted wife might be persuaded to think her infidelity a result of his constant attempts to ensure her fidelity; her promiscuity the result of his "short-comings". By turning the ground someone stands on in their individual perception, to a metaphorical quick sand, one invariably assumes a position of power, and unless the actual truth of the matter is known, claims that assail the integrity of a hypothetical abuser seem rendered moot.

    In essence, what you have said is that wherever an individual goes, they are bound to find themselves in conflict with one or more people because that would be the outcome of any interaction that individual would have. Certainly, there are individuals who actually do find themselves in conflict with almost anyone and everyone they come into contact with. Such deductions are reinforced by my own experiences in customer service. Dysfunctional individuals fail to see their role in the adversity of their experience and, invariably, wind up calling the customer complaint hotline to report the experience.

    It is, however, not the fault of those who provide service, particularly when it can be established that 99.9% of all other customers don't have a problem with the service that has been provided. The more fortunate have an understanding of what is to be expected of their transaction and are therefore prone to leaving having had a beneficial experience. Conversely, 99.9 percent of people who leave Scientology seem to do so on "bad" terms. They have complained so bitterly about their experience that multiple websites disputing the validity of Scientology have been established. Entire message boards on the internet have found enumerable amounts of people with horror stories told of mistreatment administered by other Scientologists.

    For all of this, it may be assumed by your characterization of them, that such mistreatment is the fault of anyone who claims to be maltreated. You have erected a logical teeter-totter that fosters the notion that the Church of Scientology is the victim of its consumer's dysfunction, rather than the perpetrator. You're certainly not the only one to do this, either. Tom Cruise has his own "neutral" proxies to promote similar conclusions that Scientology critics are guilty of religious intolerance; their fevered accusations, the result of ignorance akin to that of Hitler's henchmen against the Jewish people.
  2. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    I've seen Rawl post a number of very astute decent posts that show a good measure of skepticism and willingness to look. Rawl shouldn't be treated like some Ron Bot. It's not cool at all.
  3. Colleen K. Peltomaa

    Colleen K. Peltomaa Silver Meritorious Patron

    Don't know what Rawl's purpose is here. My primary purpose is to help to keep people moving on right past the Church of Scientology, or at least going in with their eyes wide open, not wide shut.
  4. George Glass

    George Glass Patron

    I'm not sure if that remark was directed at me (solely or inclusive of those who may have issued their own caustic replies), or not, but I want to clarify that my reply in post 81 was only meant to illustrate the logic I deduced taking place in Rawl's argument. It wasn't meant to attack him or her, personally, in spite of whatever beliefs Rawl holds.

    I completely agree that this forum is no place for ad hominem attacks. My reply was only dedicated to the dissection of Rawl's argument while framing that dissection as neutrally as possible, in part so that no hard feelings may be derived that are either for or against anyone. My own limited understanding of Rawl suggests that he or she is a very, very bright individual who certainly should not be underestimated, let alone insulted.
  5. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    I agree, George.

    Colleen- your purpose is a great one. I do think so. I don't know if Rawl has the same one or not. But if Rawl doesn't have the same purpose, that doesn't necessarily constitute a problem for you or anyone else, IMHO.

    There are a lot of people who post here all with different experiences, opinions and purposes.

    I've been reading Rawl's posts (on another forum) for a good long time. Rawl is different from, say, whoever that church member was who was here a couple or so months ago or the OSA types one sees here and there on other forums.

    Some ex CofS members are ex CofS members because they came to forums like this one.

    If Rawl flames anyone or is mean to them or derides or degrades their past experiences that they relate- then would be the time to express anger or annoyance. Right now, Rawl is being courteous, plus has a long track record of talking to ex members and others of critical inclination politely and with willingness to think about what they're saying.
  6. Magoo

    Magoo Gold Meritorious Patron

    "He said, She said-no substance really"? Scientology (C of S) breaks up families, like mine, a VERY real example. That wasn't due to anything other than Scientology declaring me an "SP" (Without ANY Comm Ev, I might add)--and now my husband of 27 years not only divorced me, without ever really discussing the issues, he refuses to talk with me. That's not some spat--that's DUE to Scientology, period.

    The damage that I suffer from isn't just 'A spat" nor was it before Scientology. It occurred when they insisted that *I* get off of my medication
    for Epilepsy and I had numerous Grand Mal Seizures, in their "Churches"---
    and only my Mom saved me. Years later, when they TRIED to throw me off the Flag Land Base----I insisted my folders be sent to RTC as I was quite sure THEY (the top Tech people) had MU's on medicine, and I was sick to death of dealing with it.

    Sure enough, not only did the Tech Sec call me telling me they apologized for all the hassles I'd been subjected to, they also wrote a Senior C/S Int policy on Medicine, and CRAMMED/CORRECTED ALL Of the Tech terminals at Flag.

    So that wasn't just a riff----that was VERY much due to Scientology.
    (And let it be noted, a few months earlier than my arrival, another man with the same condition DIDN'T fight them, went off of his medicine and died there at FLAG--which was why they originally were trying to throw me off).

    Have you studied mind control at all, Rawl? I've spoken to academics who study cults, and they told me "the 2 worst cults are Scientology and the Moonies". Why? They both build in such HUGE Traps when you first get in,
    it's often impossible to get out. My 30 year friends, refusing to speak to me,
    and still "in" are a great example of this.

    I could go on, but those are just a few of the examples of it not just being
    a "riff" or like one. It's dead serious--and people need to LOOK, Read, talk,
    Learn both sides and make up their *own* minds. Oh yes, that's one more:
    Scientology TRYING To stop free speech. Again, one more thing showing how they TRY To control people, no matter what.

    My best to you,

  7. duddins

    duddins Patron Meritorious

    Dear Rawl,

    Having respect for your position, I don't want to come across as bitter or cross, but I ask you to please peer between the venting and complaints. Between all of the emotional insults and the voiced outrage.

    Please look beyond what is 'in our faces' here on the board.

    Take a look at who is on this message board.

    We were the auditors and C/S's.
    We were the Training Supervisors.
    We were the Reg's.
    We were the COs and EDs.
    We were the Ethics officers.
    We were the Watchdog committee, the OSA, the Guardian's office.
    We were the Commodores Messangers.
    We were the Church of Scientology.
    We were the Sea Org.

    Yes there are disgruntled souls out here. But, there are men and women out here that were at the right and left hand side of LRH for decades. People who were present when the tech was developed. Executives that ran orgs and continents. Not, failures...but successes at what they did. The hands that built missions and orgs and made it possible for you to enjoy the tech that you defend.

    Why do we no longer endorse the C of S?
    Why do we now doubt the tech?
    Why have we blown or left?
    Why do we discuss and listen to the experiences of others when we have heard it all before?
    Why do we comfort new members that come here needing to share their stories?

    Because we know something you have not learned yet.

    When you learn it for yourself, we will all be here for you.

  8. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Love your message, but, you forgot;

    We are also the wogs, whose planet has been chosen for 'Clearing' by a Cult we did not and would not choose. Even in full knowledge.

    Scientology can try all it wants to 'win' over the universe, but, it has *no* right to sneak up behind it and whack it over its unsuspecting if naive skull.

    No right whatsoever. And, given Scientology's own stated willingness to ignore the right of wogs to reject Scientology, Scientology deserves nothing more than a deep dank dungeon.

    The sooner the better.

  9. duddins

    duddins Patron Meritorious

    Got you there Zinj.......Being a happy little wog as I am, I certainly can see from this angle.
    I recently saw, in a nearby town, a window of an empty corner store....announcing that a Scientology Organization was to be opening there soon. My stomach sank and my heart felt heavy. I felt invaded.
  10. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    Duddins and Zinj - excellent posts!
  11. Magoo

    Magoo Gold Meritorious Patron

    Did you feel my post was the above? Just curious---I thought there were some good questions in my post for Rawl, that *I*'d like answered.
    You made some good points, Duddins.

    Let me know, ok?

    Thanks :)

  12. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Rawl has described himself as a member of the Church of Scientology, one who viewed the Tom Cruise video as a positive message encouraging him to become a more active member.

    How is acknowledging someone as a member of Scientology, after he has admitted as much, an insult?

    Yes, Scientology is a secretive subject, and Scientology uses devious and manipulative tactics - including on its own rank and file membership - and, yes, it's irritating to Scientology to be accurately described for what it is, but accurately describing Scientology is not an "insult."
  13. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    If I were a Scientologist, I too would consider being called a Scientologist an insult.

    The 'Church' apparently thinks so.

    To admit to being an active Scientologist is akin to admitting to being a hollow earther.

    One of the things I like about ESMB is that so many hollow-earthers are willing to *admit* to it, and, even, despite rules against 'Verbal Tech', *talk* about it.

    I like Rawls. It should post more.

  14. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Don't worry about it. After the dust settles you'll be able to see, in a nearby town, a window of an empty Scientology Organization instead.

  15. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    Great post, Duddins.
  16. duddins

    duddins Patron Meritorious

    No I did not think you were cross Tory......I stated that in my post because when I started writing...I sounded cross and bitter to myself, so I toned it down and made that statement.

    Even if you were cross, I am in no place to judge you! I get rather pissy myself! Besides I enjoy your passionate posts!!!! You have alot to say...and it is meaningful.

    I just hope that Rawl can see the forest....through all those trees.
  17. duddins

    duddins Patron Meritorious

    Ahhhhhhh...the vision.:cloud9:
  18. duddins

    duddins Patron Meritorious

    Thanks Fluf!!!
  19. Magoo

    Magoo Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thanks, Duddins--I appreciate that. :thankyou:

    And I still would like to hear from Rawl---I too hope he can see through
    the trees. :target: :)

    Off to snooze land ~~~

  20. Smitty

    Smitty Silver Meritorious Patron

    I agree.
    Helping your old friends get out would be the only valid reason to associate oneself with the wacko cult again.