It's been said Scientology founder Ron Hubbard was not truly the "source" of anything in Dianetics and Scientology. There's an extensive body of evidence to support the claim Hubbard plagiarized hundreds of ideas from many people, many subjects and in many ways.
Lots of good articles about plausible links to establish plagiarism by Hubbard from a variety of authors like Jon Atack exist. A simple examination of works on hypnosis and by occultists like Crowley and the book OAHSPE demonstrate a case for establishing plagiarism as a routine practice by Hubbard.
Additionally there's been a longstanding history of Hubbard taking ideas from people in his immediate vicinity and claiming them as his own. Books and policies at one point had attribution including contributions by other people but that was eventually removed and the sole source myth has been grown.
A history of having aides read books and articles has been reported. Hubbard allegedly had several associates read about various subjects and report the main points back to Hubbard in a very concise and heavily abridged version. Cliff notes type synopsis at best, sometimes oversimplifying something.
Hubbard then took the ideas he just pilfered and integrated them into Scientology. He took for example the idea that watching T.V. contributed to making people feel disconnected emotionally from life and repackaged it into his own pseudoscience fraud of Scientology. No real evidence of a scientific nature is produced of course, but it served Hubbard's purpose to discourage T.V. watching by Scientology cult members, particularly staff and Sea Org members. Why ? Because he could emphasize a kind of isolation and information control by censorship of communication he didn't create or approve. No T.V. equals no pesky alternative views coming into the cult from T.V. shows.
Another interesting example is possible. In the most frequently referenced policy in Scientology Hubbard used an idea that may have had its origins in psychotherapy. In KSW, Keeping Scientology Working, Hubbard referred to having auditors in Scientology follow his techniques exactly as Hubbard required.
Hubbard claimed the techniques are of paramount importance and no deviation is acceptable. He gave an alleged example of an auditor that reportedly got great results but had poor technique.
He explained that the auditor actually did poorly and was not being properly observed or corrected regarding errors.
Hubbard's point was there are no outstanding individuals who have talent in Scientology auditing, there is only adherence to orthodoxy and that guarantees results, nothing else.
Now, to be perfectly clear I don't believe auditing works to benefit human beings. I don't believe Hubbard was sincere in his claims in KSW. I believe he was trying to create a product of propaganda to control people via lying.
But I think I may have discovered what Hubbard meant to emulate. I recently ran into a description of studies of psychoanalysis. The study claimed an examination of various types of analysis and looked at therapists who adhered to various styles or had no model they stuck to and looked at how the therapists communicated to their patients.
The study found that loyalty to no school or philosophy of psychoanalysis was more successful than the practice in general.
It didn't matter which model a therapist used or if they even adhered to one model at all. Other factors affected the results far more.
If Hubbard ran into that study or a similar one and an aide explained it to him Hubbard could have easily seen he could reverse the findings (switching adherence to doctrine as fundamental to success rather than irrelevant as the real study found regarding psychoanalysis) and applied it to Scientology and rather than pretending it involved a study claim it was an anecdote or series of anecdotes, so it couldn't be falsified.
I think finding individual examples of ways Hubbard could plausibly have cooked up Scientology propaganda is informative, obviously for ex Scientologists seeking recovery, but furthermore to inform us how lies of a variety of types are constructed and used.
WARNING : for any seeking recovery or any info on beneficial mental health practices , I do not have any formal education on this subject and in fact have no college education at all .
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Sunday, April 15, 2018
Scientology's Secret To Overcoming Criticism
Scientology cult founder Ronald Hubbard had faced quite a bit of well deserved criticism regarding himself as a liar and conman and Scientology as a fraud. He learned a basic technique many conmen have used for millennia to overcome criticism and doubts regarding both their character and their products they are selling.
I ran into an explanation of it under the name "offensive defensive technique" some years ago. The basic description I was given is that a conman in his initial presentation and sometimes subsequent presentations launches a preemptive strike against doubts and criticism. The example I was given is one from real life and recent history.
In the 1980s several NFL players were conned by unscrupulous financial investors. A common con was for a man with a nice expensive suit and nice well decorated and furnished office and a professional looking secretary would meet the NFL players one at a time and use any successful sales as references to get other clients. He would speak like a lawyer on T.V. and use terms you might hear on shows about the law and finance. But just sprinkle in just enough to seem highly educated.
Now here's the thing. The advisor would tell the player he needs to be careful with his money and do his homework because lots of people will try to take his money. This puts the idea that conmen are out there ready to rip him off which prompts the player to be wary regarding investment advisors.
The player then has the threat of being conned front and center and the advisor as a potential threat OR trusted friend is presented. It's a binary choice and it's extremely difficult to insult someone by saying "you are right, YOU might be a lowlife scumbag looking to rip me off, I better leave right now and investigate you !" It's a totally socially taboo activity to leave upon arrival as a guest and to do so because you think the host might be a criminal looking to defraud you. You need advice and the first advice this person gave you is certainly true, but here's the catch - you immediately feel like either trusting this guy regarding conning you or not trusting him and you have to immediately reject him or not.
Most people - if they don't reject the advisor - set the decision to accept him and brush aside the idea of him conning you and then support that decision by staying around to listen to him as if he's a desirable advisor. We often stick with a first impression and in this case the impression includes rejecting or accepting the advisor regarding the subject of trust is integrated into the first impression.
See, the advisor gets to set the stage to get accepted by the client and have the client see the expensive clothes, big office and secretary without knowing he has no authentic credentials as a financial advisor and no appropriate education or references and that he rented the office for just a month to impress you and that his secretary is in on the con and perhaps even his expensive car is rented.
Similarly Hubbard knew that if someone is trying or open to trying Scientology he has the best chance he will ever get to take on the subject of fraud in Scientology head on on his terms and to warn the person about "other guys" that are out to con them, but of course not him.
By getting the subject to on the spot proceed with Scientology and feel it is their own choice they also feel they decided for themselves that Scientology isn't a fraud. That's the con.
The cult expert Margaret Singer spent decades learning about cults and interviewed over four thousand cult members and wrote the book Cults In Our Midst and here are some clues that helped me understand how this works.
"Now, when you engage in cooperative activity with peers in an environment that you do not realize is artificially constructed, you do not perceive your interactions to be coerced." ( page 76 )
"In other words, you will think that you came upon the belief and behaviors yourself." ( page 76 )
"Peer pressure is very important to this process:
If you say it in front of others, you'll do it.
Once you do it, you'll think it.
Once you think it (in an environment you do not perceive to be coercive ), you'll believe that you thought it yourself." ( page 76 )
Hubbard convinced people he didn't influence them by repeatedly bringing up other people and practices as frauds and covert attempts to persuade people. That way he could get people to think they decided he wasn't a fraud and to go back to that impression in the future whenever the subject is brought up so they consider it a settled issue and keep rejecting the possibility Hubbard and Scientology are frauds.
Additionally the offensive defensive technique has another advantage - it rapidly removes people who reject you. They immediately are put in the position of rejecting you or continuing. In the most studied and important reference in Scientology "Keeping Scientology Working" Hubbard advised to have them quit fast if they are going to quit ! That way you get two advantages. You aren't wasting time on people who won't give you money and you remove them from the Scientology organization so they aren't introducing uncertainty into the group. Having a group that is one hundred percent in agreement with your program makes obedience to authority far easier to achieve as conformity, especially unanimous conformity, strongly encourages following the leader and sticking with the crowd as well. When the whole crowd is in lockstep it seems especially seductive.
Richard Feynman. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.
Mark Twain -
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again!
Here are several of my most popular posts to describe Scientology.
I ran into an explanation of it under the name "offensive defensive technique" some years ago. The basic description I was given is that a conman in his initial presentation and sometimes subsequent presentations launches a preemptive strike against doubts and criticism. The example I was given is one from real life and recent history.
In the 1980s several NFL players were conned by unscrupulous financial investors. A common con was for a man with a nice expensive suit and nice well decorated and furnished office and a professional looking secretary would meet the NFL players one at a time and use any successful sales as references to get other clients. He would speak like a lawyer on T.V. and use terms you might hear on shows about the law and finance. But just sprinkle in just enough to seem highly educated.
Now here's the thing. The advisor would tell the player he needs to be careful with his money and do his homework because lots of people will try to take his money. This puts the idea that conmen are out there ready to rip him off which prompts the player to be wary regarding investment advisors.
The player then has the threat of being conned front and center and the advisor as a potential threat OR trusted friend is presented. It's a binary choice and it's extremely difficult to insult someone by saying "you are right, YOU might be a lowlife scumbag looking to rip me off, I better leave right now and investigate you !" It's a totally socially taboo activity to leave upon arrival as a guest and to do so because you think the host might be a criminal looking to defraud you. You need advice and the first advice this person gave you is certainly true, but here's the catch - you immediately feel like either trusting this guy regarding conning you or not trusting him and you have to immediately reject him or not.
Most people - if they don't reject the advisor - set the decision to accept him and brush aside the idea of him conning you and then support that decision by staying around to listen to him as if he's a desirable advisor. We often stick with a first impression and in this case the impression includes rejecting or accepting the advisor regarding the subject of trust is integrated into the first impression.
See, the advisor gets to set the stage to get accepted by the client and have the client see the expensive clothes, big office and secretary without knowing he has no authentic credentials as a financial advisor and no appropriate education or references and that he rented the office for just a month to impress you and that his secretary is in on the con and perhaps even his expensive car is rented.
Similarly Hubbard knew that if someone is trying or open to trying Scientology he has the best chance he will ever get to take on the subject of fraud in Scientology head on on his terms and to warn the person about "other guys" that are out to con them, but of course not him.
By getting the subject to on the spot proceed with Scientology and feel it is their own choice they also feel they decided for themselves that Scientology isn't a fraud. That's the con.
The cult expert Margaret Singer spent decades learning about cults and interviewed over four thousand cult members and wrote the book Cults In Our Midst and here are some clues that helped me understand how this works.
"Now, when you engage in cooperative activity with peers in an environment that you do not realize is artificially constructed, you do not perceive your interactions to be coerced." ( page 76 )
"In other words, you will think that you came upon the belief and behaviors yourself." ( page 76 )
"Peer pressure is very important to this process:
If you say it in front of others, you'll do it.
Once you do it, you'll think it.
Once you think it (in an environment you do not perceive to be coercive ), you'll believe that you thought it yourself." ( page 76 )
Hubbard convinced people he didn't influence them by repeatedly bringing up other people and practices as frauds and covert attempts to persuade people. That way he could get people to think they decided he wasn't a fraud and to go back to that impression in the future whenever the subject is brought up so they consider it a settled issue and keep rejecting the possibility Hubbard and Scientology are frauds.
Additionally the offensive defensive technique has another advantage - it rapidly removes people who reject you. They immediately are put in the position of rejecting you or continuing. In the most studied and important reference in Scientology "Keeping Scientology Working" Hubbard advised to have them quit fast if they are going to quit ! That way you get two advantages. You aren't wasting time on people who won't give you money and you remove them from the Scientology organization so they aren't introducing uncertainty into the group. Having a group that is one hundred percent in agreement with your program makes obedience to authority far easier to achieve as conformity, especially unanimous conformity, strongly encourages following the leader and sticking with the crowd as well. When the whole crowd is in lockstep it seems especially seductive.
Richard Feynman. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.
Mark Twain -
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again!
Here are several of my most popular posts to describe Scientology.
Insidious Enslavement: Study Technology
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Basic Introduction To Hypnosis In Scientology
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Pissed It's Not Your Fault !
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
The Critical Factor
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
The Secret Of Scientology part 1 Control Via Contradiction
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Burning Down Hell - How Commands Are Hidden, Varied And Repeated To Control You As Hypnotic Implants
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Humbling Simplicity
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Propaganda By Reversal Of Meaning
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Scientology's Parallel In Nature - Malignant Narcissism
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Saturday, April 14, 2018
Levers and Lifeblood
In leaving cults some things have been successful and some unsuccessful. And in persisting as a cult critic some things have helped critics while others crush them.
Jon Atack has helped several hundred people to leave Scientology. Margaret Singer has interviewed over four thousand cult members. Steven Hassan has probably helped hundreds regarding cults as well.
I could list probably a few dozen other of the most successful exit counseling experts and point out a common practice they have that leads to helping people to recognize manipulation and withdraw from harmful groups and relationships.
They often use a model of influence based on the eight criteria for thought reform by Robert Jay Lifton or one very similar like that of Margaret Singer from her book Cults In Our Midst or the BITE model by Steven Hassan. A key component in all these models is addressing what Lifton called mystical manipulation- making something normal appear magical, miraculous, wondrous, profound.
To natives in far off jungles and remote islands planes can inspire awe. Similarly hypnotic practices used covertly can seem awesome to people unaware that a practice hundreds or thousands of years old and used by millions of people who never learn the secrets of life is being used to manipulate their minds with their own imagination and psychological nature. No magic required.
I was aware of negative behavior by Scientologists and failures of the organization for decades and even unfair treatment to a degree but needed the key component of realizing the pleasant worry free states I experienced in Scientology were not in fact proof of enlightenment and transcendence over human nature but were a kind of induced euphoria and it is created by attention fixation, contradictions aka paradox or confusion, mimicry, repetition, guided vivid imagery, sublime writing and other techniques over and over in different settings by different people from different groups and cultures with different beliefs.
I like thousands of people before me benefited from learning the basic techniques and concepts used in hypnosis and the phenomena that accompany them accurately described much of my own experience in Scientology. Hypnosis is not a perfect practice without flaws as a subject or good enough to be called a science, but the metaphors for mental processes it contains have been used thousands and thousands of times to help people realize the seemingly miraculous and supernatural and sublime wonders they thought they experienced in many situations were in fact misrepresented manipulation and nothing more. No miracles or deep truths required.
The reframing of my euphoric feeling from the definition Scientology cult founder Ronald Hubbard gave it as proof of his technology to just another con, based on the psychological vulnerabilities people through trial and error discovered methods we call hypnosis to exploit, was the lever I needed to break free from his lies. Until I achieved that I kept coming back to Scientology, thinking it had results nothing else did.
Jon Atack delivered the lever fortunately by feeding bits of information out in tiny doses in his Scientology Mythbusting articles at The Underground Bunker and his essential articles regarding Scientology manipulation Never Believe a Hypnotist and Hubbard and the Occult (All available free online).
He delivered both the most barebones description of hypnosis and influence so I could comprehend and digest it and a collection of Hubbard quotes outlining his contradictions and concepts regarding hypnosis. Hubbard in equal turns emphasized Dianetics AND Scientology were based on hypnosis and denied it, claimed it was always occurring in auditing and indoctrination in Scientology and denied it and above all described idea and idea from the subject of hypnosis in vivid detail, despite claiming it was not in Scientology.
One thing is certain regarding anything a person says. They have to have information to say it. Hubbard described ideas from hypnosis, probably hundreds of very specific ideas, in extreme detail over and over. He must have KNOWN the ideas in order to be able to say them ! Given that, he must have known about the fact that hundreds of his practices had origins or counterparts in the subject of hypnosis !
I have recently discovered that certain activities get little support by society and particularly financial support and prestige. Many people help hundreds of people to leave cults and recover and get little or no pay. Almost all who do this work have other jobs or are academics or therapists. I personally have written over three hundred posts at Mockingbird's Nest and thousands of comments and many thousands of Facebook posts and not yet received a dime for any of this. I fortunately work a full time job and am able to do this. Not everyone has this luxury.
I have been sustained by the benefit from getting my ideas out and having to more fully form them to write them for others and get feedback regarding what isn't clear or gaps in reasoning or evidence or what is left out, which I wouldn't see by just thinking about things without sharing them. That's a huge benefit. But not everything .
I recall recently seeing a comedian getting interviewed who described struggling for years. He didn't make a lot of money or get really famous for many years. He told a story about getting a minor compliment from an established comedian , something like you have talent or your stuff is good, that he said sustained him for a year.
Think about that. Imagine you are doing open mic nights and not getting paid and bombing maybe fifty to eighty percent of the time as you learn your craft and one night a Steven Wright or Lewis Black says you have talent or good material, and you never see them again and that moment is your boost of positive interaction you live off for a year to keep going and then perhaps you get another from Sarah Silverman or Chris Rock or you get a spot on a late night T.V. show or a comedy special or a college tour that pays several thousand dollars. The point is all the work seems worth it for just a bit of positive encouragement, especially from the right sources.
In writing about cults you get encouragement in different ways from different people. I started out posting at ESMB the ex Scientologist message board about four years ago.
I got a lot of encouragement and around three or four hundred thousand views of threads I started there. Within a few months it was virtually a full time job for me. I read books on cults and psychology and hypnosis and threw posts up like wild. Sometimes several a day.
I was initially untangling from Scientology and working out my ideas in my posts. They were rough and almost stream of consciousness style, think it, write it, think the thought and write it simultaneously with no editing. Rough stuff.
I benefited from getting the ideas out and the feedback from the audience served as the editing process, if that makes sense. Through about a year that worked quite well for me.
There of course came diminishing returns on exiting Scientology. After throwing off literally hundreds of terms and ideas from Scientology and reframing much of life a kind of settling into a new identity and mindset occurred. I wasn't the same personality as before but I was not entirely unsure who I was anymore either. Thousands of Scientology beliefs were replaced with new and different ones, and I was getting accustomed to both the recovery process and the changes. I was getting used to having my own ideas and not Hubbard's.
I still put in a lot of work to understand cults and the larger subjects of influence and psychology but was not a wildly changing work in progress anymore. I get changes now but they are less extreme and dramatic.
I realized that at some point what has been sustaining me after the initial year or two of exiting the cult and fiercely fighting to discover and throw off the effects of Scientology has been several things. I have gotten encouragement and positive acknowledgement from others. Jon Atack in an email called me a serious student. Now if Jon Atack is anything he is precise. He doesn't use hyperbole or false compliments. In fact he frequently corrects minor errors in conversation or interviews. He is a stickler for accuracy and his habits as a student are astounding. He really does a top notch job in studying a variety of subjects and is the top expert on Scientology in the world.
So when he calls someone a serious student it is a meaningful statement.
Positive encouragement like that can sustain a person for months or years. I have also been fortunate enough to get positive encouragement from others who have accomplished a lot regarding Scientology or cults in general like Hana Whitfield and Steven Hassan and Rick Alan Ross and Tory Christman and Chris Shelton and Daniel Shaw. To people that seriously follow Scientology or literature regarding cults these people are well known and to people who don't they are strangers, but trust me they all have put significant time and effort into their work. They are dedicated and accomplished in their own specialties.
But now probably the best encouragement I get is from individual people one at a time. People who usually are only known to their family and friends without any celebrity whatsoever. People who have a family member that lives and dies in Scientology as one example then tell me that my blog helped them to understand the feelings and thoughts their spouse had while in Scientology. Or people that left Scientology and had lingering unresolved issues regarding not understanding what happened to them in the Scientology course room while doing the Scientology indoctrination techniques and how they actually were harming them. Having someone tell you they are on the fence about going back in the course room then having them read a few posts and decide they will never go back is extremely rewarding. As is having someone who was out for decades say they read everything they could but didn't get details on what happened to them until they read a post. And sometimes I must confess a post that I think is great and will get lots of feedback gets nothing and one I am not thrilled by gets enormous positive results. Sometimes it is something I just put out to answer a question or complete a thought I started somewhere else and didn't feel particularly enthused about but felt obligated to write.
You never know what will help who or how many. I know some of the people who read these posts think about starting blogs or YouTube channels or podcasts or doing interviews with people who already have those things. If you feel it is right for you I strongly encourage it. You don't know how much you could help other people. Sometimes Scientologists attack blogs or Facebook pages and I just post links to my blog and ask them to read it. For some that results in them no longer attacking. I hope some actually read my posts, verify the information I post as in quotes from Hubbard I use and ideas from various subjects I refer to and actually leave Scientology.
That would be one of the absolute best things possible for a communication to a Scientologist to achieve. Being the lever someone uses to change course with their own freely made decision can be the lifeblood that sustains you. I know it often is for me.
Jon Atack has helped several hundred people to leave Scientology. Margaret Singer has interviewed over four thousand cult members. Steven Hassan has probably helped hundreds regarding cults as well.
I could list probably a few dozen other of the most successful exit counseling experts and point out a common practice they have that leads to helping people to recognize manipulation and withdraw from harmful groups and relationships.
They often use a model of influence based on the eight criteria for thought reform by Robert Jay Lifton or one very similar like that of Margaret Singer from her book Cults In Our Midst or the BITE model by Steven Hassan. A key component in all these models is addressing what Lifton called mystical manipulation- making something normal appear magical, miraculous, wondrous, profound.
To natives in far off jungles and remote islands planes can inspire awe. Similarly hypnotic practices used covertly can seem awesome to people unaware that a practice hundreds or thousands of years old and used by millions of people who never learn the secrets of life is being used to manipulate their minds with their own imagination and psychological nature. No magic required.
I was aware of negative behavior by Scientologists and failures of the organization for decades and even unfair treatment to a degree but needed the key component of realizing the pleasant worry free states I experienced in Scientology were not in fact proof of enlightenment and transcendence over human nature but were a kind of induced euphoria and it is created by attention fixation, contradictions aka paradox or confusion, mimicry, repetition, guided vivid imagery, sublime writing and other techniques over and over in different settings by different people from different groups and cultures with different beliefs.
I like thousands of people before me benefited from learning the basic techniques and concepts used in hypnosis and the phenomena that accompany them accurately described much of my own experience in Scientology. Hypnosis is not a perfect practice without flaws as a subject or good enough to be called a science, but the metaphors for mental processes it contains have been used thousands and thousands of times to help people realize the seemingly miraculous and supernatural and sublime wonders they thought they experienced in many situations were in fact misrepresented manipulation and nothing more. No miracles or deep truths required.
The reframing of my euphoric feeling from the definition Scientology cult founder Ronald Hubbard gave it as proof of his technology to just another con, based on the psychological vulnerabilities people through trial and error discovered methods we call hypnosis to exploit, was the lever I needed to break free from his lies. Until I achieved that I kept coming back to Scientology, thinking it had results nothing else did.
Jon Atack delivered the lever fortunately by feeding bits of information out in tiny doses in his Scientology Mythbusting articles at The Underground Bunker and his essential articles regarding Scientology manipulation Never Believe a Hypnotist and Hubbard and the Occult (All available free online).
He delivered both the most barebones description of hypnosis and influence so I could comprehend and digest it and a collection of Hubbard quotes outlining his contradictions and concepts regarding hypnosis. Hubbard in equal turns emphasized Dianetics AND Scientology were based on hypnosis and denied it, claimed it was always occurring in auditing and indoctrination in Scientology and denied it and above all described idea and idea from the subject of hypnosis in vivid detail, despite claiming it was not in Scientology.
One thing is certain regarding anything a person says. They have to have information to say it. Hubbard described ideas from hypnosis, probably hundreds of very specific ideas, in extreme detail over and over. He must have KNOWN the ideas in order to be able to say them ! Given that, he must have known about the fact that hundreds of his practices had origins or counterparts in the subject of hypnosis !
I have recently discovered that certain activities get little support by society and particularly financial support and prestige. Many people help hundreds of people to leave cults and recover and get little or no pay. Almost all who do this work have other jobs or are academics or therapists. I personally have written over three hundred posts at Mockingbird's Nest and thousands of comments and many thousands of Facebook posts and not yet received a dime for any of this. I fortunately work a full time job and am able to do this. Not everyone has this luxury.
I have been sustained by the benefit from getting my ideas out and having to more fully form them to write them for others and get feedback regarding what isn't clear or gaps in reasoning or evidence or what is left out, which I wouldn't see by just thinking about things without sharing them. That's a huge benefit. But not everything .
I recall recently seeing a comedian getting interviewed who described struggling for years. He didn't make a lot of money or get really famous for many years. He told a story about getting a minor compliment from an established comedian , something like you have talent or your stuff is good, that he said sustained him for a year.
Think about that. Imagine you are doing open mic nights and not getting paid and bombing maybe fifty to eighty percent of the time as you learn your craft and one night a Steven Wright or Lewis Black says you have talent or good material, and you never see them again and that moment is your boost of positive interaction you live off for a year to keep going and then perhaps you get another from Sarah Silverman or Chris Rock or you get a spot on a late night T.V. show or a comedy special or a college tour that pays several thousand dollars. The point is all the work seems worth it for just a bit of positive encouragement, especially from the right sources.
In writing about cults you get encouragement in different ways from different people. I started out posting at ESMB the ex Scientologist message board about four years ago.
I got a lot of encouragement and around three or four hundred thousand views of threads I started there. Within a few months it was virtually a full time job for me. I read books on cults and psychology and hypnosis and threw posts up like wild. Sometimes several a day.
I was initially untangling from Scientology and working out my ideas in my posts. They were rough and almost stream of consciousness style, think it, write it, think the thought and write it simultaneously with no editing. Rough stuff.
I benefited from getting the ideas out and the feedback from the audience served as the editing process, if that makes sense. Through about a year that worked quite well for me.
There of course came diminishing returns on exiting Scientology. After throwing off literally hundreds of terms and ideas from Scientology and reframing much of life a kind of settling into a new identity and mindset occurred. I wasn't the same personality as before but I was not entirely unsure who I was anymore either. Thousands of Scientology beliefs were replaced with new and different ones, and I was getting accustomed to both the recovery process and the changes. I was getting used to having my own ideas and not Hubbard's.
I still put in a lot of work to understand cults and the larger subjects of influence and psychology but was not a wildly changing work in progress anymore. I get changes now but they are less extreme and dramatic.
I realized that at some point what has been sustaining me after the initial year or two of exiting the cult and fiercely fighting to discover and throw off the effects of Scientology has been several things. I have gotten encouragement and positive acknowledgement from others. Jon Atack in an email called me a serious student. Now if Jon Atack is anything he is precise. He doesn't use hyperbole or false compliments. In fact he frequently corrects minor errors in conversation or interviews. He is a stickler for accuracy and his habits as a student are astounding. He really does a top notch job in studying a variety of subjects and is the top expert on Scientology in the world.
So when he calls someone a serious student it is a meaningful statement.
Positive encouragement like that can sustain a person for months or years. I have also been fortunate enough to get positive encouragement from others who have accomplished a lot regarding Scientology or cults in general like Hana Whitfield and Steven Hassan and Rick Alan Ross and Tory Christman and Chris Shelton and Daniel Shaw. To people that seriously follow Scientology or literature regarding cults these people are well known and to people who don't they are strangers, but trust me they all have put significant time and effort into their work. They are dedicated and accomplished in their own specialties.
But now probably the best encouragement I get is from individual people one at a time. People who usually are only known to their family and friends without any celebrity whatsoever. People who have a family member that lives and dies in Scientology as one example then tell me that my blog helped them to understand the feelings and thoughts their spouse had while in Scientology. Or people that left Scientology and had lingering unresolved issues regarding not understanding what happened to them in the Scientology course room while doing the Scientology indoctrination techniques and how they actually were harming them. Having someone tell you they are on the fence about going back in the course room then having them read a few posts and decide they will never go back is extremely rewarding. As is having someone who was out for decades say they read everything they could but didn't get details on what happened to them until they read a post. And sometimes I must confess a post that I think is great and will get lots of feedback gets nothing and one I am not thrilled by gets enormous positive results. Sometimes it is something I just put out to answer a question or complete a thought I started somewhere else and didn't feel particularly enthused about but felt obligated to write.
You never know what will help who or how many. I know some of the people who read these posts think about starting blogs or YouTube channels or podcasts or doing interviews with people who already have those things. If you feel it is right for you I strongly encourage it. You don't know how much you could help other people. Sometimes Scientologists attack blogs or Facebook pages and I just post links to my blog and ask them to read it. For some that results in them no longer attacking. I hope some actually read my posts, verify the information I post as in quotes from Hubbard I use and ideas from various subjects I refer to and actually leave Scientology.
That would be one of the absolute best things possible for a communication to a Scientologist to achieve. Being the lever someone uses to change course with their own freely made decision can be the lifeblood that sustains you. I know it often is for me.
Here's a collection of posts that describes the relevant ideas and subjects I reference in Levers and Lifeblood.
Insidious Enslavement: Study Technology
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Basic Introduction To Hypnosis In Scientology
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Pissed It's Not Your Fault !
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
The Critical Factor
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
The Secret Of Scientology part 1 Control Via Contradiction
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Burning Down Hell - How Commands Are Hidden, Varied And Repeated To Control You As Hypnotic Implants
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Humbling Simplicity
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Propaganda By Reversal Of Meaning
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
Scientology's Parallel In Nature - Malignant Narcissism
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...
http://mbnest.blogspot.com/...