Subject: Re: More (or less) of My Beliefs (was Re: Ease Off?) From: David Mayo Date: 1996/05/30 Message-Id: <4oj90a$d19@light.lightlink.com> Sender: electra@light.lightlink.com Organization: Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway v2.4 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wed, 29 May 1996 11:59:43 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote: >In article <31ABF1F0.2E8B@arcadis.be>, Bernie writes: >>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote: >>> David Mayo writes: >>> : E.Fisher wrote: [ p & m ] >>> : : ~~~~~~~~~ >>> : : [that David Mayo still has some cult characteristics] >>> : >>> : I do not think that I am cultishly inclined but I would=20 >>> : like to know of any cultish characteristic that you have=20 >>> : perceived in me so that I can correct it. I am asking=20 >>> : sincerely and would really want to know. As I have stated=20 >>> : earlier, I happen to like the book, The True Believer, >>> : by Eric ... >>> [Hoffer] =20 >>> : .....as it very accurately lists and >>> : describes the main characteristics of cults. I studied it=20 >>> : while setting up the CNC - AAC and tried to avoid making=20 >>> : the errors of my predecessors. > > It may be that Elizabeth uses the word "cult" simply of=20 > the beliefs --- or feels that the behaviours are inherent > in the beliefs. Perhaps she will answer on that? I do not think she has any idea of what my beliefs or practices are but condemns them out of hand --yet, I said before, she is one of the *mildest* and more sensible of the "critics" on this subject. > >>I would have been interested if someone answered the questions=20 >>of DM. Seems that nor ef nor you can satisfy my curiosity=20 >>here. I thought you guys were specialists in mind control. Me, too. >> >I said in my post that I was tired and ill, and not capable >of doing the matter justice in the present article but >would attempt to do so in a leter one. I've noticed quite a lot of other posts from you in the last couple of days, on several threads, so I suggest that you rest up and recover. I'd not like to see you prolong the illness. (I do not for a moment think that you just made an excuse while you wait for Larry to get back from vacation ... ) > > >The "Church" of Scientology carries out a lot of unacceptable >ACTIONS which maliciously harm others. We should reach out >and stop this, with protests and publicity, with changes in >the law, until it is no longer possible to BE the "Church" of >Scientology carrying out those actions, it can either reform >or crash I don't care which (I happen to think it will crash >rather than stop harming others but, hey, that's the choice=20 >of the people in it). Now you are parroting some of my posts, yet you decry my beliefs and practices? > >own adult choice, I don't think you get anywhere having laws >against silly religions, the cure is worse than the disease... I agree with the part about laws but not with your remark about "silly religions" since that term infers that beliefs different than your own are silly --which I think *is* a silly belief! Unless you mean that all religions are a bit silly (including yours and mine) and then I might agree with you. Speaking of disease, I think prejudice and bias are the disease whether we are discussing Scientology(tm) or a.r.s. > [...] >>> >>> This may be an unwellcome thing for you, as the person who=20 >>> helped develop and extend much of it, but many of us here=20 >>> think the tech You say that I helped develop and extend much of it? Where did you get that idea from? (Don't tell me it was FACTnet!) >>> (a) doesn't work >> >>I think that the tech doesn=92t work in that it doesn=92t deliver=20 >>the "total freedom" it promises. These type of promises are a=20 What I was saying in 1983. >>scam and a control mechanism. However, some parts of the tech=20 >>are interesting, and I can understand that people who know a=20 >>lot about it are trying to save what could be saved. I can=20 >>also understand how people who don=92t know anything about it,=20 >>or only via hearsay, are lumping together the bad and good=20 >>parts in it and then lumping also the cultic mind control=20 >>mechanism contained in the tech while they are at it. This is=20 >>perfectly human, albeit not very bright. This is super simplistic "all good or all bad" thinking common in lazy minds. >> >I don't believe the communication course helps you communicate, I think the communication course does help to improve communication in some ways and worsens communication in other ways. The net result is unpredictable. >that a clear is more able, I lectured and wrote articles stating that from about 1984 forward. > that an OT-superghostie can affect=20 >any material thing outside his own body so that others would=20 >objectively check it with instruments, etc, etc. Doesn't work. Same for that from even earlier. > >>The tech is based on a mixture of falsehoods and truths. Mind=20 >>control mechanisms are tangled in between too. I have been saying that from the early 1980s, too. Unlike most others, I didn't stop there, I went on to try to sort out which was true and which was false. Most people getting out of the cult are not up to that and find it easier to throw in the towel and limply say it was all bad.=20 (Makes them more popular in some circles, too.) >> >Dianetics can per LRH be scientifically verified. It is based >on the engram hypothesis. Experimental testing shows that the >engram hypothesis just ain't so. Any methods and techniques I discovered that while I was still a Scieno and started working on it, long before I heard of the tests between UCLA and HDRF. >based on it can at most blunder into the occasional >accidental success, and would get further quicker if they >looked into the real reasons for that success and pursued=20 >those instead. =20 That's true, too. > >I also have my doubts about auditting. Any of these=20 >'ability improvement' cults/organisations which=20 >descend from Dianetics are likely to attract the vulnerable, A bit too generalized for my liking --besides "descend from Dianetics(tm)" is too open to interpretation, it in turn, descended from Freud and others ... >including the undiagnosed mentally ill, whom they have >[LRH's claims in the Brainwashing Manual that there would >be a gtreat surge of healing when the mad were handed over >from doctors to ministers of (his) religion notwithstanding] >no power to help and whom they, having no medical qualifications, 1. >cannot properly detect or diagnose. "Talking through their >problems" with certain categories of mental patients >is the last thing you should do because it reinforcces >their preoccupations and it can and does literally hospitalise 2. >them: this happened through auditing in a case described >in the Anderson report. This too, is mixed fact and fiction. Your statement that I have numbered 1. above, is correct. Re your statement I numbered 2. above, I believe that the catastrophe of the "case described in the Anderson report" did not come about as reported - --by either side. The Scns lied to cover up what they had really done to her and the psychiatrists lied to get an easy kill on Scn. Some of the details are fuzzy since it was in around the early 1970s that I looked into that. IMO both sides behaved abominably. >> >>Most of Scientologists I know, and ex-Scientologists I know,=20 >>aren=92t nuts.=20 Most Scns and ex-Scns aren't nuts though some are. Some get worse after they leave and some get better. Some end up being even more rabidly fanatical than they were when they were in Scn. This is a very mixed bag. Probably because Scn attracted people from many levels of society. >>I don=92t have any indication that the tech per se=20 >>can be dangerous. The mind control mechanism mixed in the tech=20 >>can be dangerous and could drive people nuts. Even that, I=20 >>haven=92t seen yet. Actually I have. Not often, fortunately, but it has occurred, under extreme conditions. I do not know how that would correlate statistically with medical, psychiatric and psychological malpractice. >> >BZZZZZT! Not what I said. I did not say that everone who has >been subject any part of the tech is nuts. I said that=20 >certain parts of the tech --- and I meant the exorcism >of "spirit fleas" in OT3 and upwards --- is regularly=20 >observed to drive a small but significant proportion of >the chumps into a psychotic break. Regularly observed >by dennis erlich, I believe, who watched 'em being wheeled out >screaming and dumped into the introspection rundown so they'd >cool down enough to be thrown out without causing a stir. >Or did this not happen? It did not happen at Flag while I was there (up to Sep 1978). I suspect some exaggerations here. > >>> , and (c) many of the practices of >>> the tech are in fact control methods for the uthoritarian=20 >>> cult structure and it is very hard to truly separate the two=20 >>> and still have anything worthwhile left in the "tech" half=20 >>> of the division. My turn (cut and pasted from above) >BZZZZZT! (Anything is "very hard" depending on the ability of the person and their biases --biases generally being more limiting in my experience than ability -- just another of my beliefs.) >> >>I agree. But if someone is interested to separate the two, why=20 >>would you care? I could answer that, too, if necessary. >> >No, I am concerned WHETHER OR NOT it is possible to=20 >separate the two and -- if not -- whether there is >a severe problem in continuing beliefs which have >such properties. But that is for a separate posting. >[Note: I am not "not addressing DM's questions"; >just not addressing them (all) now. I'll be back, OK?]. You'll be back? That's the Sea Org motto! (You just blew your cover, St. Hippo.) > > =20 >--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug-- > X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ? In yet another instance of me recklessly throwing caution to the winds, has there ever been a satisfactory answer to that question? (Note that I didn't go "over the top" and ask if there had been a FACTual answer, I used the word "satisFACTory" advisedly but I do not think cryptically, perhaps more olFACTorarily.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMa0jgumCyCdNXuVZAQFOFwP/W7DOUa3ctS49tngvbGs77aBTuugt5Ke7 vlxgB7WvcE9QkT5jDg7gtGMsvl2Wrm7qRBx+kHQxHJ5jr0Dz4gGOv00FiEoqeiXZ GKkWluf440Nr9CARcGYXWOnDki0OApPd7VmpTnphGB0v8aRdwY0A+NiYfbvxAGbL o8Lb+UqCw3g=3D =3DhU1Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----