"You have zero effect"

[I told you I was trouble]

You know what's better than all this?

Just try to find a scientific study that validates brainwashing.

Report back.

We'll wait.

I wasn't brainwashed or hypnotised and have said so repeatedly ... there has been discussion on the subject (isn't that a positive thing?) but you are wrong to assume we have all agreed (like the ninnies and sheep you seem to believe we are) that it happened to us personally.

 

[Bill]

You know what's better than all this?

Just try to find a scientific study that validates brainwashing.

Report back.

We'll wait.

I don't know if "brainwashing" is a scientifically valid thing, but it sure looks like Hubbard modeled his "RPF" directly on China's "reeducation camps", so it seems he believed in it.

 

[Alanzo]

Could you please post the article above here instead of sending people to your blog? That way you may get some discussion happening.

DONE

The highbrow discussion so far on ESMB for this thread has been "TL;DR".

Proving that ESMB is not a great place for newbies to test out new ideas after the cult and engage in a multi-faceted environment where no ideology is enforced on anyone.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

DONE

I asked you to post it here (ie on this thread), you know ... so people can read it and perhaps comment.

I am not going to follow your links.

EDIT: Just found your new thread (which I assume is what I have asked you for).

Thanks, I'll read it.

 

[lotus]

I don't know if "brainwashing" is a scientifically valid thing, but it sure looks like Hubbard modeled his "RPF" directly on China's "reeducation camps", so it seems he believed in it.

I have been a witness of Flag RPF and it was exactly like China or Russian reeducation camp..but may be worse in some point as people were forced to sleep on the garage concrete floor.
They were literally made look like dead walking zombie...but no one would ever complain...( Some escape before going in the RPF as I did) other became submissive to all form of abuses. Sad!

Many here have said they have been RPFed.
It was a practice that emerged from the great mind of LRH to ensure slave work for free.

And it must being voice despite all attempts to transform abuses into myths.

 

[Alanzo]

I asked you to post it here (ie on this thread), you know ... so people can read it and perhaps comment.

I am not going to follow your links.

EDIT: Just found your new thread (which I assume is what I have asked you for).

Thanks, I'll read it.

OK.

Look, Trouble.

You are a lot of Trouble.

But I still love you.

 

[Caroline]

Hubbard totally believed in brainwashing.

OW tech, writing down OWs, comes straight out of Maoist Recondition camps as I have shown for 10 years on my blog.

But Hubbard also believed in Psychs from the Planet Farsec.

Just because Hubbard believed in it does not make it so.

Hi Alanzo. I think your argument is faulty. None of us can possibly know what Hubbard, or anyone, believes or believes in. We can know what Hubbard said at various times, including what he might have said he believed. We can also know that he was judicially declared a pathological liar. (Ref: Breckenridge Decision). We can make educated guesses about what he believed; we just can't know.

Hubbard also used what he called "self-hypnosis" to alter the beliefs he apparently did have. (The Admissions of L. Ron Hubbard) Some examples:

You can consciously banish any train of thought from your mind, any time, any song. You can recall words, speeches, whole books verbatim at will. You are not a victim of chance thoughts. You are in powerful and wise conscious control of all your thinking. You are a master without limits. Your brain has no limits, consciously, unconsciously or psychically. You can perform any mental trick or stunt consciously of which you have ever heard. You are in perfect poise, balance and control of your brain.

Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler.

There was one error in that book and you have psychically willed it into nothing. It was the electronic theory of the workings of the human mind. Human, material minds do work this way and you were right. Your own mind does not work this way. You have great spiritual strength. Your mind is not material. It does not react like any human mind. Whatever is fed to your mind can be sorted out. You can forget at will. Men’s facts fed to you need not affect your thought if they are a part of the lives and mores and morals of men. Your thought processes do not warp on facts which are fed to you. You can receive sense messages and remember them but you need not add them into your own thought processes.

You use the minds of men. They do not use your mind or affect it in any way.

We can also know what Hubbard said, for example, about brainwashing. I found it very helpful to study that material critically.

Here is my "Scientology and Brainwashing" collection.

 

[Alanzo]

Hi Alanzo. I think your argument is faulty. None of us can possibly know what Hubbard, or anyone, believes or believes in. We can know what Hubbard said at various times, including what he might have said he believed. We can also know that he was judicially declared a pathological liar. (Ref: Breckenridge Decision). We can make educated guesses about what he believed; we just can't know.

Hubbard also used what he called "self-hypnosis" to alter the beliefs he apparently did have. (The Admissions of L. Ron Hubbard) Some examples:



We can also know what Hubbard said, for example, about brainwashing. I found it very helpful to study that material critically.

Here is my "Scientology and Brainwashing" collection.

Good points.

Thanks for weighing in, Caroline!

 

[Veda]

The term "brainwashed" is sometimes used informally, for example, in 1967, presidential contender George Romney traveled to Vietnam. Later he said he had been "brainwashed by the generals" who were in charge of explaining the situation in Vietnam and showing him around. They had misled him into believing things that weren't true.

The term "brainwash" was the invention of a newspaper reporter in 1950. It's slang, and has a variety of meanings.

Its use really annoys cults. They go crazy over it.

 

[Gib]

Hi Alanzo. I think your argument is faulty. None of us can possibly know what Hubbard, or anyone, believes or believes in. We can know what Hubbard said at various times, including what he might have said he believed. We can also know that he was judicially declared a pathological liar. (Ref: Breckenridge Decision). We can make educated guesses about what he believed; we just can't know.

Hubbard also used what he called "self-hypnosis" to alter the beliefs he apparently did have. (The Admissions of L. Ron Hubbard) Some examples:



We can also know what Hubbard said, for example, about brainwashing. I found it very helpful to study that material critically.

Here is my "Scientology and Brainwashing" collection.

I think hubbard's use of the word brainwashing was rhetoric, in that hubbard figured out how to un brainwash people thru his dianetics and scientology. And that is his rhetoric, or persuasion.

First get people to agree you were brainwashed, and then solve the problem.

 

[AryaZ]

With all that said what would you think of the wild wild west guns blazing at Ex's/critics/whistle blowers crusade waged here as a newbie/lurker?

While I've been out of the church since 2012 (just after the Debbie Cook email) I'm a "newbie" to this forum.

However I do remember what is was like when I first ventured out onto the internet. I visited numerous forums (including this one) finally landing on Marty's blog. At the time the discussion and blog posts were about
the Ideal Org scam, alteration of the tech, the hole, DM and other "out tech/off policy" subjects. So I related to Marty's blog, whereas I assumed the other forums were comprised of anonymous guys and a club of old-time exes who would frequently suspect newbies.

It seemed that from 2011 to 2014 Scientologist were leaving the church daily and telling their stories on Marty's blog. After Monique dropped the suit, I rarely kept up with the happenings in the Ex-Scientology world, except for reading a few post here and there.

Fast forward to what I see now on ESMB as a "newbie":
Similarly to when I was in the church, I see if you dare to critique and question certain former high ranking Sea Org members like Mike Rinder and Karen De La Carrier, you will be attacked and labeled a troll or OSA by some who feel loyal to them. In the church people were ordered to sec checking, labeled SP's, Plants or PTS for voicing disagreement with upper management. It didn't matter in the church whether the questioning or cririque was valid or not, it was considered counter intention to command intention.

In the church you learned not to voice or even think "critical thoughts" about so called "upstats" who we later found out were not so upstat after all. It was all smoke and mirrors.

The members who are ranting and ranting to Emma about Alanzo --due to some grudge from years ago--remind me of old stuck-in-their-ways-codgers, who are basically threatening to take their marbles and go home and trying to use peer pressure to influence anyone who'd entertain the possible validity of Alanzo's opinions, critiques and challenging of the powers that be.

SAD.

 

[lotus]

I like when the records are straight
Nobody here is against criticizing any critics or proeminent former top management exec.

This is false

I am member here for over for 9 years and have read decent people had decent discussions about critics ,for example Rathbun and Rinder. I participated and have never seen anyone being muzzled, intimidated, smeared, or whatever, for questioning those critics..whatever their opinion was.. A good example is Tony Ortega some are fans some not, another example was Debbie Cook. Concerning Marty as well as Rinder, some were opened to give them a chance while some don't trust either of them. Each one their own opinion. ( especially when some members had their personnal experience with them)

Regarding those topics, there was many very enlightening discussions with other exes who, for example could add in bringing their own experience with the guys..but in no way with an intent to smear, defame or even push an agenda.

What is happening here, is the result of a guy trying to stir shit with insults, smearing, lies, false accusations, and yes, most decent people don't like it because it doesn't fit with a discussion. If ESMB has become the right place for such behavior, it is not the right community (people) to push one's belief and agenda. The community is made of wise and mature people, not kids in a kindergarten. People make their own mind and are very reluctant to be enforced whatever and usually base their discussion on facts, instead on false premises or wrong assumptions.

Why your friend? has so much problems here, (teice) with so many people, may be the right question to ask.
(apparently on other sites too)

How do you know what happened here, years ago since you were not member , neither reading???

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I like when the records are straight
Nobody here is against criticizing any critics or proeminent former top management exec.

This is false

All those 9 years it happened and decent people had decent discussions about ,for example Rathbun and Rinder. I participated and baver seen anyone being muzzled, intimidated, smeared,
or whatever, taken some were opened to give them a chance to or love the have changed and other who, for example didn't entrust Marty.

There was many very enlightening discussions with other exe who, for example could add in bringing their own experience with the guys..but in no way with an intent to smear or even push an agenda.

What is happening here, is the result of a guy trying to stir shit with insults, smearing, lies, false accusations, and yes, most decent people don't like it because it doesn't fit with a discussion. If ESMB has become the right place for such behavior, it is not the right community to push one's belief and agenda. The community is made of wise and mature people, not kids in a kindergarten. People make their own mind and are very reluctant to be enforced whatever and usually base their discussion on facts, instead on false premises or assumptions.

Why your friend has so much problem here may be the right question to ask.

How do you know what happened years ago since you were not there ???

Pologise! (youuuuuuu ... stuck in your ways old codger)!

 

[Gib]

While I've been out of the church since 2012 (just after the Debbie Cook email) I'm a "newbie" to this forum.

However I do remember what is was like when I first ventured out onto the internet. I visited numerous forums (including this one) finally landing on Marty's blog. At the time the discussion and blog posts were about
the Ideal Org scam, alteration of the tech, the hole, DM and other "out tech/off policy" subjects. So I related to Marty's blog, whereas I assumed the other forums were comprised of anonymous guys and a club of old-time exes who would frequently suspect newbies.

It seemed that from 2011 to 2014 Scientologist were leaving the church daily and telling their stories on Marty's blog. After Monique dropped the suit, I rarely kept up with the happenings in the Ex-Scientology world, except for reading a few post here and there.

Fast forward to what I see now on ESMB as a "newbie":
Similarly to when I was in the church, I see if you dare to critique and question certain former high ranking Sea Org members like Mike Rinder and Karen De La Carrier, you will be attacked and labeled a troll or OSA by some who feel loyal to them. In the church people were ordered to sec checking, labeled SP's, Plants or PTS for voicing disagreement with upper management. It didn't matter in the church whether the questioning or cririque was valid or not, it was considered counter intention to command intention.

In the church you learned not to voice or even think "critical thoughts" about so called "upstats" who we later found out were not so upstat after all. It was all smoke and mirrors.

The members who are ranting and ranting to Emma about Alanzo --due to some grudge from years ago--remind me of old stuck-in-their-ways-codgers, who are basically threatening to take their marbles and go home and trying to use peer pressure to influence anyone who'd entertain the possible validity of Alanzo's opinions, critiques and challenging of the powers that be.

SAD.

I was in the same boat as you after receiving the debbie cook email. And I visited ESMB, Marty's blog, OCMB, and everything available at the time in 2012 and coming forward. I read a lot.

Doesn't matter what anybody says in the long run. The only thing that matters is whether hubbard's religion could produce a clear or OT.

 

[lotus]

Pologise! (youuuuuuu ... stuck in your ways old codger)!

No pologise!
Yes codger and proud!

 

[Free Being Me]

While I've been out of the church since 2012 (just after the Debbie Cook email) I'm a "newbie" to this forum.

However I do remember what is was like when I first ventured out onto the internet. I visited numerous forums (including this one) finally landing on Marty's blog. At the time the discussion and blog posts were about
the Ideal Org scam, alteration of the tech, the hole, DM and other "out tech/off policy" subjects. So I related to Marty's blog, whereas I assumed the other forums were comprised of anonymous guys and a club of old-time exes who would frequently suspect newbies.

It seemed that from 2011 to 2014 Scientologist were leaving the church daily and telling their stories on Marty's blog. After Monique dropped the suit, I rarely kept up with the happenings in the Ex-Scientology world, except for reading a few post here and there.

Fast forward to what I see now on ESMB as a "newbie":
Similarly to when I was in the church, I see if you dare to critique and question certain former high ranking Sea Org members like Mike Rinder and Karen De La Carrier, you will be attacked and labeled a troll or OSA by some who feel loyal to them. In the church people were ordered to sec checking, labeled SP's, Plants or PTS for voicing disagreement with upper management. It didn't matter in the church whether the questioning or cririque was valid or not, it was considered counter intention to command intention.

In the church you learned not to voice or even think "critical thoughts" about so called "upstats" who we later found out were not so upstat after all. It was all smoke and mirrors.

The members who are ranting and ranting to Emma about Alanzo --due to some grudge from years ago--remind me of old stuck-in-their-ways-codgers, who are basically threatening to take their marbles and go home and trying to use peer pressure to influence anyone who'd entertain the possible validity of Alanzo's opinions, critiques and challenging of the powers that be.

SAD.

Thanks for your post and sharing a bit of your story. Yes it's liberating being out of $cientology! I have to disagree with you regarding the "possible validity" part of your post. So far all I've seen by a certain party are fallacies with broad generalities about Ex's worded in red herring/strawman arguments. That and freedumb magazine thought-stopping cliches to paint Ex's in the worst possible light as a supporting argument.

Ex's/critics/whistle blowers aren't perfect. I don't think anyone ever claimed they are so I see no point in the constant ire projected onto them here recently.

I will say this since we're all being "critical" and the like. Funny how the people that DM would like neutralized (Ex's/critics/whistle blowers) just happen to be the very same people ever-so-coincidentally "critically" scrutinized here at ESMB. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

 

[lotus]

deleted - wrong thread

Sheila,

I thought you would have better arguments to support your premise.

 

[Caroline]

I think hubbard's use of the word brainwashing was rhetoric, in that hubbard figured out how to un brainwash people thru his dianetics and scientology. And that is his rhetoric, or persuasion.

First get people to agree you were brainwashed, and then solve the problem.

Hm. Made me think of the Dissemination formula, where the disseminator gets the prospect to cough up a "ruin" and then sells him Scientology as the solution, no matter what the supposed "ruin" is. What a scam.

Hubbard was quite clear in All About Radiation about what he intended be understood as brainwashing:

Brainwashing is a very simple mechanism. One gets a person to agree that something might be a certain way and then drives him by introverting him and through self-criticism to the possibility that it is that way. Only then does a man believe that the erroneous fact is a truth. By a gradient scale of hammering, pounding and torture, brainwashers are able to make people believe that these people saw and did things which they never did do. But its effectiveness is minor as Russia does not know enough about the human mind.

Elsewhere, we know Hubbard was familiar with Edward Hunter's Brain-Washing in Red China, in which the author goes into considerable detail about the Chinese "criticism sessions." It's a fascinating and very informative book. You can read it here: https://archive.org/details/Brain-
Washing_in_Red_China_Edward_Hunter

This Hubbard definition of brainwashing is quite similar to his definition of "Black Dianetics." (Main references) It is also very similar to how Dr. Natalie Feinstein described gaslighting in the Aftermath episode that aired on August 26, 2019:

[01:00:34.393]

LR: We have a question for the, the doctor. When, when someone's been assaulted but everyone around them is saying that this is your fault. What emotional toll does that take on a person?

[Screen: Dr. Natalie Feinblatt
Licensed Psychologist]

NF: It essentially makes you start to question your own sanity. You know, cuz there's this divide between your authentic self. Like you said, you knew in your core what happened. But when literally there's just an echo chamber around you of denial or you know, ah gaslighting. Like maybe something happened but not that. Or whatever, it makes you start to even question if you're perceiving reality correctly. It makes you feel insane to a degree, you know?

And it divorces you from your own trust in your core self and your own intuition. It divorces you from it when you're stuck in that ah, dysfunctional system for so long. Absolutely.

LR: Yes.

We all, if we're being honest, have to admit that Hubbard got us to see and do things we never saw or did. Planet Farsec comes to mind... How about the Xenu incident? Or the Coffee Grinder? Or the Coitus Chain, Cousin?

 

[lotus]

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Yes!
The stars were brilliantly aligned with the Aftermath finale - the abuses.
And major lawsuits , one involving Misscavitch
And depositions to FBI ( possibly criminal investigations)
Also Marty getting out of retreat with an open letter

Ah well..coincidences!

Will there be cake for us??

 

[Free Being Me]

Yes!
The stars were brilliantly aligned with the Aftermath finale - the abuses.
And major lawsuits , one involving Misscavitch
And depositions to FBI ( possibly criminal investigations)
Aslo Marty getting out of retreat with an open letter

Ah well..coincidences!

Will there be cake for us??

Cake and coincidences! Sounds like a pearl-clutching parlor game.