On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 06:41:43 -0500, "Alec" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Atarax88 wrote in article
>My response to your post is testimony to "second phenomenon"-- anger on
>reading someone's non-sensical writing because it has intentional "Greek"
>ON a word for word basis, I'll point out what the hell you're talking
>about that I don't follow.
Atarax 88 makes much sense, and I'm grateful he/she had whatever good
sense to arrive here. Atarax will certainly respond to your queries,
but maybe this will help.
>I think i remember "Poodle" refers to Miscavige--is this correct?
Yes. But the arsccwdne is the sole authorirty for its etymology.
>>increasing micromanagement from the top
>So what exactly is micromanagement? It's not in my huge Random House
In Scientologese: "hands on," "bypass and handle," or the Commodore
stirring the soup. In common usage, top management getting involved
personally with the details of an organization or sector, rather than
issuing broad targets or goals and leaving the details to lower level
managers and the people on the posts which per the org board are
assigned to deal with those details
>>>In the past, OSA was able to control "entheta" in the convential > news
>>Yes, there was better PRAC before.
>PRAC....Is that maybe the past tense of prick? Or possibly an alternating
>current version of PR?
P[ublic] R[elations] A[rea] C[ontrol] - the control of an area so that
an organization's business is unimpeded by external events; e.g.,
getting the LA City Council and LAPD on your payroll, and intimidating
the LA Times, so that the LA orgs and operations aren't bothered by
> I go to anecdote,
>"I go to anecdote" Atarax, that sounds prissy.
It's the way he/she writes. It's his/her literature.
>>seldom have a I met another
>>Scieno in for a while who was not conversant with the
>>critical or controversial literature,
>Is this a choice between "critical" and "controversial" lit?--or are you
>simply referring to all the Hubbard lit?
I think Atarax is making a distinction between "critical" or
"controversial" in terms of degree and according to viewpoint. Scn
PR's, by way of related example, are drilled to acknowledge that "oh,
yes, we're a controversial church," but to attack anything "critical"
as unfounded or the ravings of apostates under the control of the
criminal psychs. Attarax may be a PR person.
>> in the heyday utter the word "Malko" at graduation
>> I don't think the main income
>>sources for the CoS, historically, have really been deeply
>>affected by controversial literature, as they have
>>historically been accessing it yet were still on board.
>Atarax, How does smug, counter-intention for "Malko" translate into, "the
>main income sources for the CoS have not been deeply affected by
I don't think Atarax is translating one thing into the other. He/she
is saying that Scns knew that there was critical literature, had read
some of it, knew some key names such as Malko; and that the appearance
or existence of these critical books, or magazine articles, were not
an observable factor in Scn income shifts or fluctuations.
I believe that these critical works have been a major factor in the
education of the public, and in freeing countless people from the
cult. I believe they act as a source of strength for anyone inside
daring to contemplate leaving, and support the decision to leave once
the person does.
I believe their cumulative effect will be a big factor in the ultimate
crash of the enterprise.
>>My thesis, and I admit its not solid, but I prefer it still, is that
>>the more Poodle and crew could manage to be in touch
>>with what was going on in the field, the more sour it was
>>for the income sources, instead of just the staff. If some
>>major event freed up the time and energy for the top
>>dogs to do this, that may well be the better account.
>I'm actually proud of myself here--I think I understand you to be saying,
>[paraphrased], "With top mgt. putting their socio-path perception onto
>what the workers are doing, they are causing the work to be an overt
>product--(by the contagion of aberration due to their SPness affecting
>negatively affecting the otherwise good products of social personalities.
>In other words, top mangagement are Merchants of Chaos.
A lot of what happens in Scientology has to do with intention.
Auditors are generally well-intentioned. They really want their
"technology" to help people. People sense that and want that, and the
rich ones pay big bucks to get that well-intentioned auditor to ask
them questions and listen to their answers. The intention at the top
is to use auditing to control people, gather intelligence and make a
pile of money so that these people at the top can continue to get away
with what thy're getting away with: lying, cheating, stealing,
bullying. If the intention at the top moves too far down into the
auditor ranks, the people wanting auditing and the people buying it
pick this up (because it becomes overwhelmingly obvious, as opposed to
just being obvious to anyone who has the courage to look) and these
people don't see they're being helped, and they leave or drop off
The same is true on PR lines, although PR, Intelligence, Legal and
Finance, have always been the areas where the top micromanaged
practically everything anyway. But a PR in Des Moines, if the top was
consumed with "handling" the IRS (and perhaps now Germany) might be
left to go about his routines, which might consist of regular good
roads stories to the media, organize a group of auditors to go into a
prison, get someone to take Way to Happiness booklets into local
schools, get someone else to send What is Scientology books to State
legislators, and so forth. If top management decides to get into the
scene, because, e.g., Des Moines GI is down, then the PR could find
himself handling the fallout from a lawsuit brought by the declared
reg or fielding questions from the media about some person locked up
for a week. Or he could find himself called to Int for retraining,
and some thuglike DM clone installed in his place to really screw
things up. The good PR before that in Des Moines was largely
generated by the good intentions and honest efforts of the low level
staffer. The top, being utterly malintentioned, will create flaps and
>>> They can no longer enjoy being
>>> out of the limelight. I've seen no indications of any recent
>>> "thriving" but the CofS, and all indications are that its
>>> membership peaked in the 70's, and has been on a decline
>>> ever since Miscavige's coup in the 80's.
>>In itself a better support for the INTERNAL than the EXTERNAL causation.
>>The same trend continues, and
>>when the causal factor intensifies the effect intensifies.
Out here, however, external causation is all there is. It could be
said that Russian communism collapsed because of internal problems and
its faulty totalitarian management system; but the critical outside
media (which got through the iron curtain as did Malko the entheta
curtain) and the knowledge that there were places outside where
thought was free gave courage and strength to the ultimate internal
rejection of that system.
>>I don't make my friends or throw my praise in authoritarian circles;
>>neither do I towards anarchistic and petulantly defiant
>>and disrespectful ones, which see their power in their ability to defeat
>>the pettiness of social order, and laugh at respect for
>>religion, as I suspect they would laugh at everything seemingly
>>old and venerated, though flawed.
>>I have to wonder if ARS
>>understands there's more to life than being a netasshole, or if that
>>epiphany will ever come to most of them, as Bill the Crook's epiphany
>>it's not enough to have vision, you must have integrity to lead surely
>>come to him. In real life, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with
>>the vast bulk of ARS's historic core. I consider them mostly the devil
>>one must tolerate walking alongside until one gets to the other side of
>>the bridge. I disdain to pretend any higher regard.
But here, Atarax, you have erred in your assessment. ARS is not an
entity which "understands." ARS is demonstrably, as opposed to the
entity Scientology wherein there is arguably a common group mind, a
group of individuals with their own minds and understandings. So each
person who participates in ARS, analogous to each person who
participates in the global postal system, has his own understanding,
including whether there's more to life than being a netasshole. I
would bet that close to 100 percent of ARS's participants would affirm
that there's more to life; and the rest would deny it because it's so
obvious. I would also bet that most of ARS's participants are not
netassholes at all. But I suppose all of this is too obvious, and
should be, in order to maintain my anarchist's badge, flatly denied.
If ARS's historic core, whoever they are, is the devil with whom you
must tolerate walking alongside until you get to the other end of the
bridge, let me ask:
who with whom you walk this bridge is not the devil?
where oh where is this bridge on which we find ourselves fellow
(ref: old, venerated religion) if your fellow travelers really are the
devil, then for God's sake why tolerate them; and if they really
aren't the devil, then for God's sake why tolerate them ?
>I guess the gist of this post is:
>"Things are bad". "They are that way due to the anxious meddlings of a
>suppressive top management"
>Is this what you are trying to say, Atarax? I can't help but feel some
>inner pride at figuring out your meaning, yet I have a dread that you will
>tell me I missed by miles. Consider the magnitude of difference in my
>short two sentences above and your pile of eloquence in this post.
>I want to know what you have to say, and I'm having trouble doing it. I
>feel improper ignoring you. Do you feel improper in posting Greek for us
>Atarax, I feel a responsiblity to read what a former Scientologist has
>posted about [whatever it is you are posting about]. I can't fulfil that
>responsibility when you compete with Shakespeare for this year's Pulitzer.
>Relax, Shakespeare's dead. You are a shoo-in.
Alec. Now I get to say it, relax. Atarax is actually pretty clear,
although unnecessarily disdainful of the little people.