Title: Planting the seeds of Questioning....
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:47:26 GMT

   I received this e-mail, with a question from a person who prefers
   to remain anonymous, and I'm answering it, because I think it does
   cut to the heart of a crucial issue:

> Hello Kim,
> I read with interest some points you recently made on ars, viz.:
> The fact that I choose not to pulverise the run-of
> the-mill, outer layer of the onion skin, Scientologists, who, in my
> opinion, are unwitting dupes, being used and bled dry, but unable to
> see it, is because I was one of those people myself, and when I was,
> taunts and insults didn't get very far with me, just confirmed in my
> mind Hubbard's teaching that "all critics are suppressive", and
> alienated me further from the "wog" world.
> I agree with you here. It is very easy to taunt low level members for
> their beliefs (I have been guilty of this myself). After a period
> of study, however, it becomes clear that this course of action is
> counterproductive. In my role as a critic, I think I have 3 jobs:
> 1) Inform the general (non-Scn) public as to the nature and beliefs of
> the CoS (this I do with relish)
> 2) In conversations with low-level members (like your typical
> body-router), try to plant the seed that may eventually cause them to
> blow.
> 3) In encounters with known upper-level Scn's, attempt to distract their
> energy and focus (towards you, and away from whatever else they'd be
> doing to "clear the planet.")  If these encounters take place before an
> audience of lower level members, goal (2) can be furthered, as they
> perhaps see that "OT powers" arent everything there cracked up to be in a
> confrontation with a mere Wog...
> So my question to you as an ex member is this:
> How can goal (2) best be furthered? What is the kind of information I
> could impart to a body-router on the street to make them begin to doubt,
> and perhaps eventually blow?
> Please feel free to post this request (anonymously) to ars, along with
> your reply, if you feel it would be of general interest there.
> Thank you

   This is a question/topic that I think has come up quite often,
   over the years. I can only tell you what worked for me, and there
   may be several people who disagree with the points I make here.
   What "worked" for me may well not work on several people, with
   different character traits, and so please don't take what I say
   here to be a blueprint for everyone - unlike Hubbard, I do not
   believe all humans can be compressed into the same boxes, and
   "handled" like identical clones. This is what Hubbard's
   Scientology does - it assumes that every single person on the
   planet can be "handled" in the same way. One Bridge. No allowance
   for individuality. So all I can do is tell you about worked for
   me, and throw it into the collective pool, where others may
   interject completely different perspectives.

   I think it is a subject worth re-looking at, every now and then,
   for those who do have an interest in it. (Sorry, this is
   unavoidably long).

* Courtesy & respect:

   In the first place, what threw me, was when I encountered critics
   who were not fitting of Hubbard's definition of "critics =
   suppressives". An example: after I had decided to go back, during
   one of my flip-flops in my first year out, a person wrote to me,
   and said "you have had the opportunity to make an informed
   decision, and I respect your right to make that decision to go
   back." That blew me away. This person was one of Scientology's
   labelled "enemies", yet he could respect my right to make my own
   decision. That made a deep impression on me. No-one likes to be
   patronised, treated as if they're some kind of freak, stupid, etc,
   and simple courtesy, and respect, can go a long way towards jarring
   that simplistic teaching that "all critics are bigots, rude, evil
   suppressives, anti-survival", and so on. Of course, be prepared,
   because some Scientologists have learned to immunise themself
   from this, by labelling it "1.1" covert hostility, so your
   courtesy just might provoke a surprisingly hostile reaction from
   them. Just don't be surprised by it, and keep your cool.

   (Note: in a place like a.r.s, where some Scientologists are
    deliberately provocative, pushing buttons, twisting things,
    inflaming hatred, and so on, obviously this becomes almost
    impossible to practice, but keeping a cool head yourself, and
    being above the taunts and "button pushes" will earn you their
    respect. If you fall for their bait, and explode, they consider
    you to be just another "wog" on which the tech works - they
    can make you angry, therefore they have power over you, in their

*  Analogies:

    Another poster on a.r.s asked me what it felt like to be part of
    an organisation that was just like George Orwell's "1984". I had
    read the book several years before. It got me thinking, because
    I hadn't drawn the comparison before. I hauled out the book,
    and re-read it, because I wanted to understand that posters'
    frame of reference, why were they making such an odious
    comparison? Of course, as I read through it, what flagged for me
    was the similarity to Hubbards "ethics" system of confessions,
    guilt, handlings, liability forumulas, and thought correction.
    The similarity on that aspect was just too damn uncanny to

*  Racism

    I live in South Africa, where racism has been an abhorrent evil,
    which still needs coming to terms with, and which has scarred
    the nation's psyche very, very deeply. It will take several
    decades for any form of recovery to occur. People on a.r.s
    pointed me to some of Hubbard's racist words, the fact that
    he singled out Black South Africans as having the most "mass",
    which would show up on an e-meter, and so on. This, of course,
    was a big one for me, it may not be for others.

*  Discontent

    In a lot of cases, many Scientologists are quietly dissatisfied
    with their lot. They've been "regged" too often, they've had
    a bad ethics handling, there's been some in-fighting, and someone
    KR'd them....but they don't say it, because that would mean
    more ethics. Some in Scientology are NOT dissatisfied - those
    tend to be the ones who are doing the exploiting, and profiting
    very nicely themselves, out of this. Others are the exploited,
    and being profited from. If the person is a staff member, there
    is a FAR greater likelihood of simmering discontent, since they
    get messed around FAR more than the "public", who simply buy.
    If you are talking to the person, you can ask them about this
    one. They might not respond, if they are well-drilled in "SP
    tech", but you never know, they might. Loyalty demands
    that they not forward an "enemy line" in public, but often,
    it is simmering there, beneath the surface of even their own

* Tactics of Scientology

  For me, I really had trouble with reconciling the tactics applied  by
Scientology to the notion of spiritual freedom. The litigation,  the Fair
Game of specific targeted individuals, the willingness	to "hurt in a just
cause" did not rest well for me. This side of the  CoS had not been apparant
to me, before I encountered the internet - I had  only seen videos at
"Events" of some vague, far off "SP's" who had been  "defeated", with
pictures of people from CAN wearing prison numbers - none of  which meant
anything to me, since we didn't even know what "CAN" was over  here. However,
many just don't care about that aspect. Their justification is	- "well,
Scientology is the ONLY way to "salvation" for humanity, and so  only evil
people with crimes will criticize Scientology, and since  they are evil, the
ends justifies the means."  They key to  unlocking that one for me, which I
did personally, with no input  from others, was the eventual realisation that
there was a core  lie there : that Scientology is the ONLY way to
"salvation".  This is the pivot upon which the whole organisation revolves: 
their members believe this so very, very deeply - Scientology is  spiritual
freedom. This is a VERY tricky area, because people have  the right to
freedom of belief, and that right should NOT be  trampled upon, irrespective
of what our own beliefs are.

* Don't mock

   Because of what I said above, mocking the beliefs of
   Scientologists simply pushes them further into it. It confirms
   all that Hubbard said about the "wog" world. It's a delicate
   area, because in many cases, well-intentioned people have locked
   onto the more positive of Hubbard's writings. I don't know a way
   around this one yet, but I do know that I only personally achieved
   liberation when I realised that there is a wealth of spiritual
   knowledge and wisdom out there that Hubbard never even came close to.
   But that, thankfully, is private, I don't have reges, auditors and
   C/S's prying into my life any more. You could mention how their
   spiritual well-being is really in the hands of the C/S's and
   auditors, and this conflicts with the right to self-determinism.

* Lies and contradictions

   And of course, the most obvious of all, is the lies and
   contradictions that exist within Scientology. Here, you
   need to have a good supply, well referenced, and be sure
   of your facts. Some examples (I don't have references to
   hand): Scientology claims they do not use fair game any more,
   but if you read the SP tech, and policies on "How to handle
   Black PR", you have the principles of Fair game. Affidavits
   from the many, many people that have spoken out (make
   sure they're credible, first), obvious PR lies - its best to use
   those in your own environment - here, the claim that "2 million
   black children were taught to read in South Africa" by Scientology
   is the most obvious one. There is an element of truth (as always)
   in it, since Education Alive over here have done some study tech
   courses, which they SOLD to some schools, but these children
   were ALREADY literate, and they were by no means 2 million,
   or some people in South Africa might have noticed. That type
   of thing.

* Its their decision

   And finally, it really is their decision whether they choose to be
   in Scientology, or not. If they choose to stay, respect that.
   It's their choice. If they decide to leave, being there, and being
   a friend to them can help *enormously* as they make the transition
   (which is severe in some cases, minor in others)...but that's a
   whole other topic.

This is long enough, I hope that helps you a bit, and possibly some
others will chip in with their views as well (along with the
requisite flames  :-)    )

goback to ars1 goto persecution page
goback to ars2 goto lies page
go to judges goto main index page