News & Politics

Rant

Scientology: Passive Confrontation

Posted 30 months ago|29 comments|746 views
Written by
DeanFox
England
What members of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology believe is passive confrontation isn't confrontation at all; at best it is ignoring what ever it is they are meant to be confronting.

I've already covered the "TRs" (Training Routines) and how they suppress critical thinking while members of the organisation calling itself "The church of scientology" believe it is teaching them how to confront things passively.

Basically the various TR exercises condition the subject to go in to a disassociated state, where the brain goes in to quiet mode, when confronted with extreme stimuli like someone really getting in your face shouting abuse, maybe even making threatening gestures.

During this passive state scientologists are aware of the stimuli but they experience it as though it were happening to someone else, or in the distance, or as though they were observing it from outside their body or a number of other ways descriptive of them being isolated from the stimulii.

This scientologists believe is great because it means they are confronting the aggressive behaviour directed at them passively; they remain, they believe, in control and are unaffected by it. The "out of body" feelings some experience are also quite profound leading them to believe they may really have experienced something quite metaphysical.

In reality their brain has been conditioned to not respond at all to the stimuli, instead becoming completely passive. Indeed through repetition the brain will learn to readily go in to this state when confronted with aggression.

In this passive state the brain is not responding to the alert signals coming from the limbic system (freeze, flight or fight). This means it is turned off to danger both physical and mental; the brain goes in to suggestive mode during which all manner of suggestions can be put in to it. As already stated in another rant the TRs employed liberally within the organisation calling itself the church of scientology are a form of hypnosis technique.

So what is passive confrontation if it isn't ignoring you're meant to be confronting like members of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology do?

Passive confrontation, dubbed "Gandhi Tech" by Anonymous critics of the organisation, isn't about ignoring the baiting by the organisations' handlers, who try to heckle and goad protesters in to responding aggressively, is keeping your cool and making your points heard calmly. It's about doing what you can to be heard within the law while others are trying to get you to break the law.

It's about not getting side tracked in to defending yourself or debating some fine nuance of meaning rather than making the points that need to be made; "keeping on target" as Anonymous critics would say.

It's about calling out the organisation's detractors for what they are an attempt to distract from people addressing the real issues regarding the cult.

Passive confrontation isn't as easy as becoming disassociated from what is happening like members of the organisation do during TR exercises because you cannot allow that to happen. You not only have to be aware but also be responsive so you don't get caught out. It's about taking on the chin (metaphorically) and saying "No U".

Anonymous critics of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology passively confront the organisation on a daily basis.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
JustKent
JustKent
Sweden
30 months ago: What a load of hogwash.
Where did you get these ideas from?
30 months ago: You have to be more specific, Kent. Are you referring to the first or second portion of the Rant? Because the "Gandhi Tech" Anonymous uses is based off of, well, Mahatma Gandhi's methodology and the very core, basic, simple principles of educated discussion.

The first portion, Scientology's concept of "passive confrontation" derives its source from a science fiction writer who routinely lied about his past and stole all the material for his pseudo science, Dianetics, from disproven and generally ignored psychiatric theories developed by others. I'm guessing THAT is what you were referring to as hogwash, and I'm quite inclined to agree.
JustKent
JustKent
Sweden
30 months ago: You obviously have never studied L.Ron Hubbards books and done his courses first hand. If you had you would not be saying what you are saying. You say these things as an expert. That is like a "Wine Expert" who has never tasted wine.
I have been connected to Dianetics and Scientology since 1975. I have read most books and listened to many lectures by Ron. I have worked in various related organizations and churches, I have used the Dianetics theraphy successfully on many people and I have received theraphy to great personal gains.
So I think I know what I am talking about.
I do not know what makes you use this forum to attack some people who do a lot more good than bad. Maybe you or someone you know had a bad experience with someone in Scientology. I know I have had run ins at times. But I make the differentiation between a single individual and a subject.
I could fill a book with the positive experiences and wins I have had, but only a booklet with negative experiences and those would have to do with specific individuals, not the subject as such.
Tell me something that is perfect in all ways. You maybe?
30 months ago: That's funny, because Paulette Cooper was able to fill a book, an ACTUAL BOOK, with negative experiences dealing with the entire Church of Scientology organization. And then there's the reams and reams of court documents from multiple countries detailing repeated fraud, abuse of the legal system, harassment, practicing medicine without a license, etc.

John Duignan, also able to write a book. Jon Atack, also able to write a book. Marc Headley, ALSO ABLE TO WRITE A BOOK. All of them, negative.

Over 500 documented individuals have spoken out publicly against the Church of Scientology, all former members, many highly trained auditors or OTs or members of staff or placed within positions in the Sea Org. ALL with negative experiences. Lots of negative experiences.

I don't care how much good the Church of Scientology has done, the organization and its leaders have committed crimes. In the United States, we operate under the rule of law. Those who break the law are held accountable and brought to justice. You want to rid the world of criminals? Start with your own organization before trying to clear the planet.

As a wise leader once told me, "If you can't take care of yourself, how can you be expected to take care of others?"

Also, DeanFox has an extensive history with Scientology and its study and is probably just as (if not MORE SO) educated about it as YOU. Ergo, your premise is REJECTED.
30 months ago: For the record, I tried to read Dianetics. I stopped after I realized he had the writing skills of a chimp with a cancerous brain tumor. My exposure to the text not only failed to reverse any of my convictions, but rather reinforced them that this was not correct science. I approached it with as open a mind as was possible, held the concepts, theories, and premises as potentially acceptable, but they failed to meet an important criterion of science.

REALITY. Namely that delightful part where Hubbard rejects drugged rape as an engram implanted as a fetus, caused by sex during the pregnancy. Here, let me QUOTE IT.
"Although it occasionally occurs that people are raped after being drugged, the largest
number of such assertions are merely an aspect of the key-in mechanism" DMSMH, Chapter IX, fourth page in, first full paragraph, fifth and sixth line. That's write, Hubbard is saying "most rapes are just imagined by the victim".

Oh, and should we continue on about how his entire view point towards other cultures in that same book is completely eurocentric? Written entirely from an Anglo POV with no regard for other cultures or their values.
JustKent
JustKent
Sweden
30 months ago: Dear Anonomous,

I am sorry to hear that you struggled with Dianetics and I agree that it is not written in the easiest of language, it appears that it was written with the medical profession in mind. Maybe if you had followed the advice on how to stydy in the beginning of the book, and looked up all words you did not fully understand, you would have gotten a better understanding.

Now, It is clear to me that you thrive on this discussion. Me, I feel like I am wasting my time, so this will be my last post on this subject.

Just a few points.

for the 500 disaffected people there are many thousands that are doing Scientology willingly and happily. Would they be there if they got nothing out of it.

If Scn was as bad as you claim, how come it is still growing faster than ever and is here over 59 years later. In my experience a real scam does not last very long.

If L. Ron Hubbards methods did not work, how come when schools start using his study method, grades go up? How come Narconon has one of the best success rates in drug rehab? How come when Crimonon starts delivering courses to prisoners, those prisoners have a much lower re-offending rate?

As for you. I am sure you will have some great smart Alec comments to fill this column with still. I wish you good luck in you mission. I guess you "Gotta stand up for something". I think it is a bit sad that you base your fervour on such a flimsy foundation and mainly rely on other peoples stories.
(I have read a lot of horrible things about Muslims, but all muslims I know have been nice decent and hospitable people. Pity you do not know any Scientologists)
How come you are hiding behind that cloak of Anonymity, by the way. Do you think the Church of Scientolgy will come and harass you? I think they don't care much what you think or say.

Enjoy our life.
30 months ago: Just let me get this straight,
I can't be an expert in anything unless I have direct exposure to it.
So I can't be an expert on space exploration unless I have been to space?
I can't be an expert on 18th century literature unless I have lived in the 18th century?
I can't be an expert on prehistoric man unless I was one?

So scientologists really can't be experts on Pyschology because no of them have practiced or experienced it then? If you have never been to a shrink, how can you say they don't work.
You never took psych meds so you don't really know how they effective they might be.
Scientology seems a bit hypocritcial to me. Don't criticize us with out reading everything etc, but we KNOW the truth about those we criticize. (For example, the famous TC interview, which really pissed me off as a mother who battled post partum depression myself. He tried to say he was an expert about something he can never experience. It was insulting to say the least.)
Maybe Scientology should practice a little of what they preach.
30 months ago: "I am sorry to hear that you struggled with Dianetics".
I never said I struggled with Dianetics. Do you suffer from a learning disability? I ask only because your post is rife with spelling errors, while mine is not. I thought your memory was supposed to be flawless as a Clear, and yet you're unable to spot and correct simple typing errors before pushing a button. In addition, you aren't even able to read something without seeing words that do not exist. It would seem you have poor critical thinking skills and poor reading comprehension. You should contact someone who pursued study in the fields of education and has several degrees of recognition to that fact; Study Tech was developed by a man with no college degree.

I understood every single thing Hubbard was saying, and as a result I was able to understand that he is a CRAPPY WRITER, and A WORSE SCIENTIST. Do not assume that because I chose to stop reading it that I "struggled" with it. Instead I found that it was so full of idiotic drivel being passed off as reality that there was simply no point in finishing. You read it under the premise that the text is correct and infallible. That isn't science, that's blind belief. I read it under the premise the text must prove its statements and it repeatedly failed to do so, and that is science.

"for the 500 disaffected people there are many thousands that are doing Scientology willingly and happily. Would they be there if they got nothing out of it"
Since the Church of Scientology is a cult that uses coercion, brainwashing, and disconnection from the outside world to enforce conformity and loyalty from its non-public members then YES, they WOULD be there because they ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE.
30 months ago: "If Scn was as bad as you claim, how come it is still growing faster than ever and is here over 59 years later. In my experience a real scam does not last very long. "
How long was Madoff running that Ponzi scheme of his? Years? It's amazing what happens when you have an entire division devoted to SILENCING CRITICS so everyone is too afraid to do anything about it.
Where is the evidence to show membership is growing? None. The new members stat is in decline, current Orgs are empty, new ones are stuck in the limbo of halted construction as you wring more money from the few members left. You're sitting there making empty claims with nothing to back it up. That's what four years old do when they're caught lying, and I know you're no child so stop acting like one.


"If L. Ron Hubbards methods did not work, how come when schools start using his study method, grades go up? How come Narconon has one of the best success rates in drug rehab? How come when Crimonon starts delivering courses to prisoners, those prisoners have a much lower re-offending rate? "
How come there is not a SINGLE STUDY to support any of those claims but there are multiple studies that indicate the EXACT OPPOSITE? Why are you outright lying in a public forums? Why is it you feel the need to lie over and over when it comes to statistics?

"Do you think the Church of Scientolgy will come and harass you? I think they don't care much what you think or say. "
Then why have they repeatedly attempted to unmask me, attempted to have me arrested on false claims, and constantly taken my picture? Why do you continue to lie? What do you have to hide that you feel so compelled to be unethical and lie to people? Are you guilty of participation in these very crimes we accuse your managers of committing?

"Enjoy our life."
Thank you, I do. I enjoy my life quite immensely and am very happy and pleased with the whole thing.
30 months ago: Right on, JustKent. Narconon, Criminon, Study Tech - all good examples.
30 months ago: Oh hum, critics criticize, what can you expect? A part of this rave that makes me laugh is how clearly the author said, "I do not understand what 'confront' means, as used in Scientology". LOL And from that misunderstanding spins a fairy tale of falsehood.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
30 months ago: JustKent seems to have dismissed himself before he started. He's right about one thing it would be a waste of time addressing his points. Not only because he's no intention of posting again but also because they're just a regurgitation of points dealt with a long time ago.

Terryeo: you've defaulted to semantics again which as we've already established by your own examples is symptomatic of a) lack of real argument on your part and b) your programming and the double speak (double think) inflicted on you by the organisation calling itself the church of scientology.

Since it is you Terryeo I will give you a proper response. See below:
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
30 months ago: Terryeo: A part of this rave that makes me laugh is how clearly the author said, "I do not understand what 'confront' means, as used in Scientology".

Thank you for acknowledging that I do know what "confront" means. You believe however that I don't know what 'confront' means as used in Scientology.

I see now that in the article I should have pointed out that in scientology the meaning of 'confront' is corrupted ever so slightly as part of the control mechanism. No matter, I shall endeavour to explain better now. See below:
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
30 months ago: The word confront has a number of contextual meanings which are broadly: to challenge; to oppose; meet face to face in competition; to compare directly.

The Etymology of the word is "COM" - together FRONTEM - forehead. ('butting heads' being a phrase also used to describe a confrontation.) The word dates back to the mid 1500's.

Confront means more than facing someone or meeting someone physically it conveys a challenge. If you read "I'm off to meet my neighbour" the possibilities are generally boundless - I might be having an affair with them or I might be going shopping with them or we might simply be meeting to have a chat - who knows? If you read "I am off to confront my neighbour." then you immediately think, hm - I wonder what the disagreement is?

OK, enough of the actual origin, meaning and use of the word confront - how has it been redefined by the organisation calling itself the church of scientology? See below:
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
30 months ago: The organisation calling itself the church of scientology tells members that confront means to face something, not avoid it, and to do so unflinchingly. The last bit is the first subtle corruption; the original meaning doesn't have the concept of unflinching.

This corruption gives members the aim of not flinching during confrontations; the ideal that a successful confrontation is one in which they have not flinched.

Then there is a corruption of one of the contextual meanings of the word "handle". "Handle" is generally understood by members of the organisation to mean to deal with while remaining unchanged, especially undeterred from the tenets of the organisation. Members are meant to handle confrontations, as well as SPs etc.

So the aim of a member presented with a confrontation is to a) not flinch and b) remain undeterred from the tenets of the organisation.

It's worth noting that members can go and aggressively confront when they handle a situation.

As discussed the idea of not flinching is introduced as a means to justify the TR exercises which condition the brain to go in to a "quiet" mode when confronted.

More below:
30 months ago: "A part of this rave that makes me laugh is how clearly the author said, "I do not understand what 'confront' means, as used in Scientology"."-TerryEO

At no time has the author said anything of this sort. You are blatantly making up quotes and attributing them to people. Terry, you quite clearly have a pathological need to lie. You have lied over and over again when it comes to what others have said in this and other rants and raves.

Terry, stop lying. It just shows how unethical Scientologists truly are.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
30 months ago: Hubbard was quite ingenious in twisting the meaning of confront. You can read a nice summation of the argument Hubbard presented here:

http://www.standardtraining.com/

Notice how quickly unflinching is introduced, then handle is introduced and how it all becomes about handling.

The last paragraph plays on the prevalent sentiments (fears) of the day, that the mere existence of nuclear weapons meant they would be used. For this reason it is quite compelling and still is. It is however double speak.

Despite what idealogical pacifists want and the organisation says war cannot be simply confronted and got rid of. Hubbard wasn't even a pacifist - though he was afraid of nuclear war - he just used compelling arguments that pandered to prevailing idealogical sentiments - "Fight war, not wars" - to win recruits.

As I have often said Hubbard was charismatic, knew his audience and sat comfortably on that border between genius and mad man. Sadly his actions were entirely self centred, but then he was largely a product of his upbringing - but here I digress too much in to memory.
30 months ago: Why are your orgs empty? It's that simple.

30 months ago: Is this an example of confront?

Tommy Davis, spokeperson for Scientology, admitting that there was years of abuse that was not stopped...

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/church-response.shtml
30 months ago: I understand, people here are thinking that confront means something like; Grind your teeth, force your body and eyes to face toward and onto the target you are confronting.

No, that is not what the word means and a dictionary might prove helpful, but, no one can force you to understand a meaning. That will always be an individual effort of will.
30 months ago: confront, verb:
To come face to face with, especially with defiance or hostility: I wish to confront my accuser in a court of law.
To bring face to face with: The defendant was confronted with incontrovertible evidence of guilt.
To come up against; encounter: confronted danger at every turn.

American Heritage Dictionary-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confront

First defition, which means the most commonly accepted-"especially with defiance or hostility." That means to actively oppose them, not just sit there like a meat puppet and go into a trance. The purpose of those TRs is so you CAN NOT confront, and no matter how many facts or examples of proof are heaped upon you they just go in one ear and out the other without you ever critically examining them.

You only respond to triggers you've been trained to latch onto, responding with preprogrammed, canned answers designed to distract from any actual intelligent argument or debate.

You are the living proof that what we say is true, Terry, every time you open your mouth. You ignore the arguments, launch ad hominem attacks, and debate semantics.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
30 months ago: Terryeo: "...understand, people here are thinking that confront means something like; Grind your teeth, force your body and eyes to face toward and onto the target you are confronting."

No Terryeo, nothing in this thread suggests that. Anonymous Voice is pretty accurate with his assessment above.

I will add though that confront need not be aggressive but that the TRs do not teach one how to passively confront anything.

Here's an example of a beneficial passive confrontation.

You cannot make your loan repayments, the lenders keep sending you letters demanding payment. You can ignore the letters or you can confront you financial problems and handling it. The TRs might teach you how to ignore the letters and not be phased by them but it does nothing to help you get on the phone or go in to the bank and say look, I have a problem and we need to talk to resolve it (fact most banks / lenders would rather resolve issues like this than chase around because it works out better for them as well as you - often results in reduced interest / loan freezing etc). TRs don't even help with filing for bankruptcy.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
30 months ago: The spokes person for the organisation calling itself the church of scientology Tommy Davis demonstrated the organisations' version of aggressive confront (in the TRs one of the "TR twins" gets to do the "bull baiting" to which the other is not meant to respond) in the now infamous video of Tommy Davis V John Sweeney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwTDvfjcUJUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwTDvfjcUJU

Anonymous protesters confront this kind of aggressive confrontation and worse on a daily basis with passive confrontation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geVVLnahmuE

Notice how Anonymous protesters, despite all the hassle, do not a) loose it or b) Ignore it. They engage it and they carry on regardless.
30 months ago: Dear DeanFox,
Never heard of this "confront things passively".
Are you sure you didn't go into a "disassociated state"?
The problem you have is that you are unable to "confront" and so you have to "alter" what you "think" you have "observed".
You definitely need some good TRs!!!
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
30 months ago: FrankG, you clearly didn't go to the Terryeo school of "understanding" since it was he, though not he alone, who stated TRs teach you how to confront things passively.

The concept seems plausible, if you can be calm during a confrontation you can handle it better. Which is true if you have a standard understanding of "confront" and "handle".

>>The problem you have is that you are unable to "confront" and so you have to "alter" what you "think" you have "observed".<<

Above you're demonstrate the typical group think style of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology. It's too text book though so I have to wonder if you're simply a damn good troll.
30 months ago: Dear DeanFox,
If I am right you are the one who wrote the first post against Scientology and, to be more specific, against the TRs!
So you are the first "troll" on the list!
See, you made up judgements against Scientology that show clearly that you don't understand Scientology.
That could be caused by
1- Never actully studied Scientology.
2- Evil intentions.
3- Inability to observe.
4- Confusing Scientology with something else.
5- Earlier crimes against religions.

I suggest you to discover "who you really are" and to start to take more responsability for what you say!
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
30 months ago: For you to be correct, Dean must have said something that is demonstratably untrue.
What did he say that is innacurate or false?
30 months ago: "I suggest you to discover "who you really are" and to start to take more responsability for what you say!"

Wow, what a misguided hypocrite.

You are blaming this guy for not taking responsibility for his actions. But YOU believe in a religion where the source of your problems come from brainwashed space ghosts that attach themselves to your spirit!

You would rather blame alien ghosts for your problems rather than taking responsiblity for your own problems.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
30 months ago: FrankG: now you're obviously trolling, too obvious to take seriously.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.