Soup Nazi

Wow. Little Hitler Youth brats. No doubt about it.

Teenage girls as a group can be catty and ruthless. Hence the believability of the movie “Mean Girls”. I think some of it is a reaction to being socialized to a role that is more subservient historically and generally, and where praise or worth is often primarily limited to physical attributes. Women are not given the same exposure to team situations, they compete with each other for status, and they are not given many examples of handling power gracefully (not to mention, power is perceived differently coming from women than men). Any society where that happens, it’s kind of a sad result. This kind of magnifies that tendency I think, to abuse it, especially when given too young. That old adage about “absolute power corrupts” comes to mind.

Donald Trump, whom I think we can all agree has a reputation as a demanding, very critical boss and determined to be the alpha male always and everywhere, also had an unusual number of female executives for the times, and for the business that he was in.

I think that it’s partly an openness to talent. It’s partly a self-confidence or sense of masculine entitlement so enormous that women can’t be perceived as threats. And I think it’s also perhaps true that women (in those times, in that business) were so grateful for the promotions that they would remain steadfastly loyal, and tolerate his maddening ways, long after male executives would probably have exploded and quit, or become perceived as threats or disloyal and been fired.

I believe that women can often teach lessons to men when it comes to to-the-end loyalty.

“He was a flawed man, but the tech works!”

Haha, thanks Gsix; that comment of your brought up a few laughs. That’s one “argument” that I can’t even remember the amount of times that I’ve heard it; “I know that he was a flawed man but the tech works”.

You know I tried again and again in countless times to try to get the Indies to understand the inherent contradictions of that assertion of theirs. I patiently wrote a few rather long articles meticulouly going point after point on how exactly LRH contradicted himselt left and right policy after policy, HCOB after HCOB, and how so many of his writings were a DIRECT violation of many of the Human Rights that he “defended” in many of such writings. I did it in a very friendly manner, you know, sort of a “Good Roads Good Weather” way, but I was NEVER EVER able to get them to accept anything. Not even a variation of their assertion towards something more responsible like, “I know that many of LRH’s writings are wrong and violate many Human Rights and shouldn’t be applied at all. We are really sorry for that, but there are auditing procedures that work for us, and we believe that they should not be just thrown off”. Not even something like that which is a LOT more acceptable than their robotic and usual claim that you mentioned.

And I not only tried to do that publicly; I ALSO attempted to do it privately with MANY of them through email lines trying to get to a common point of sanity and responsibility for the sake of those separated families that LRH’s policies – in a UNADULTERATED form – had hurt so much. But not even privately was I able to change their minds not even in the tiniest way. And right there was when I decided that they were a LOST cause. The ONLY exception that I found was the people at DROR Israel. I don’t agree that there is ANY real value in Scn as it is just TOO booby-trapped. But at least they don’t practice it from a cultic viewpoint. The sound like real people instead of ronbots.

“I’ll just pick up on one point above. I’d never heard of ‘cognitive dissonance’ before so I looked it up. My own simplified definition was equal but opposing mental viewpoint. So I had the general concept but really didn’t relate to it personally. But one day on a blog about two years ago, pow! – long fall blowdown – laughter.”

🙂 A great feeling to realize that, isn’t it?

“I should continue my intellectual and spiritual pursuits – BUT – I can’t trust anyone
I’m not saying I never studied anything after scn, but I never ‘dove into anything’, so to speak. Currently I’m happy to look into and get overview on the many subjects which come up on the blogs.”

That’s great, Richard! Like you, I only trust my own evaluation and instincts. That’s always the safest way to accumulate knowledge and wisdom. Scn was enough of a lesson so as to not repeat the same errors over again.

Coincidentally, one manifestation that I observe in many ex-Scientologists is just that; a sort of fear or “carefulness” to study other subjects, especially the ones related to spirituality and healing therapies. And that’s TOTALLY understandable after such an incredible bad experience with “know-best” Mr. delusional LRH.

Just study anything through the filters of power of choice over data, and from a position of self-esteem and self-confidence never believing that any one “authority” is better or more capable than you are. Better err in the direction of arrogance and self-righteouness, than in the direction of amazement and/or a “propitiative” admiration for any “authority”. I never make the mistake of thinking that anyone is smarter than me. I know, it sounds rather arrogant, but it works for me just fine. 🙂

Thanks, OSD. Covert hostility can be useful tone level sometimes, with certain people.

Experience taught me NEVER to show anger or antagonism as re ANY issue with ANY Scientologists, most particularly staff or SO, because they’d call it “misemotion” (which it wasn’t) and as such use it as a “hook” to keep the comm cycle going. i do believe that staff and SO were trained to pressure, to press and press and press and press so that one would collapse in apathy to make it stop or explode with exasperation at the fucking nerve of them, and, of course, it was the latter, then one would have to get “handled” in Ethics and the thing would never end…anyway, thru bitter experiences sustained in being my spontaneous self I learned to never show them anything below 2.5 (boredom) and instead I’d drive the angry feelings down and mock up a creditable 3.0 conservative tone level. But it wasn’t a true 3.0 so it would piss them off. And I’m glad, because they sure annoyed the shit out of me.

I’ll just pick up on one point above. I’d never heard of “cognitive dissonance” before so I looked it up. My own simplified definition was equal but opposing mental viewpoint. So I had the general concept but really didn’t relate to it personally. But one day on a blog about two years ago, pow! – long fall blowdown – laughter.

I should continue my intellectual and spiritual pursuits – BUT – I can’t trust anyone

I’m not saying I never studied anything after scn, but I never “dove into anything”, so to speak. Currently I’m happy to look into and get overview on the many subjects which come up on the blogs.

So do I! Makes me want to write my own letter:

“Dear Sharon,

You’re fooling no one and fighting a losing battle. Scientology is steadily shrinking and the Freewinds stats are in the toilet and of this you are fully aware. Only the threat of disconnection keep your silly OTs from throwing your stupid, bullying comm into their round file.

Much love,
Aqua”

Form over substance, strictly. “Give’em the old razzle-dazzle” with language. Simple, declarative sentences would be the most powerful way to communicate good news or great news. But there is no good news, only bad news, or, at best, no news, nothing to tell. So couch the nothingness in verbiage, make it real flowery and fancy-like. Sad! 🙂