Aliens, Culture Control & the End of Dream's End

[sunny]

Never say never, but it would be a huge departure from form and policy if he was. Yet I regard your intuition way highly enough to ask: Really? Why so?

As you say, it's just an intuition. Mainstream coverage of Theremy's deaths likely sent millions to teh google and DE was likely on the first page at that time, at least, with his alternative explanations of their deaths and bringing attention to the fact that TD was accusing CO$ of harrassment.

[nathan28]

Never say never, but it would be a huge departure from form and policy if he was. Yet I regard your intuition way highly enough to ask: Really? Why so?

As you say, it's just an intuition. Mainstream coverage of Theremy's deaths likely sent millions to teh google and DE was likely on the first page at that time, at least, with his alternative explanations of their deaths and bringing attention to the fact that TD was accusing CO$ of harrassment.

Additionally doesn't Operation Clambake, which doesn't do any investigation, just publishing, get hit by CoS pretty hard regularly? I don't know enough about the particulars of "fair-gaming". C2W, how would it be a departure from form? I thought fair-gaming was anything goes so long as you get a successful "dead agent"?

[sunny]

C2W, how would it be a departure from form? I thought fair-gaming was anything goes so long as you get a successful "dead agent"?

Thank you nathan, I meant to ask that question myself.

[American Dream]

I'd like to add a little context to the ideas about Scientology "fair gaming" and/or generic "gaslighting" on the Internet:

This kind of stuff has a long history in methods of social control and individual behavior modification. The Cyber-world simply adds a few new twists. Among them are that any perps had easy access to a personal and psychological profile of Dream's End, based on the archive of his postings here, and maybe elsewhere too. Add to that DE's obvious passion about these issues- both a strength and a weakness in my view, and the fact that long hours on the Internet do inevitably induce an altered state of consciousness, such that the use of mind-altering substances is not needed beyond that to induce a sort of "drugged" state.

Also, I'm imagining that having the presence of multiple online agents, be they "real" or fabricated, would provide the perps with much more information about what "works" or not. All at little or no cost to the project.

[nathan28]

On the last 20' of part 3 of Century of Self:

1. Fritz Perls is a ghoulish necromancer, not the hero my high school psychology teacher made him out to be (duh).

2. SRI didn't directly "inject" things into the mainstream, though people in that mileau were at the helm of the avant-garde that did. Rather, SRI served directly in a "consultant" role that just was wiling to explore an unexploited avenue.

More generally, if it weren't for the global distribution chains that came out of Vietnam and for the growing variety of production allowed by the computerized control of industry, then no amount of SRI hoodoo could have saved the consumer-side economy. Is that fair?

3. Fuck you, baby boomers, for all your Reaganite bullshit and willingly playing the victim in the biggest con of all time


Does #2 have anything to do with MC? Because it's the only thing I can see coming out of it. And that seems backwards, because it's almost like the MC project proceded the refined marketing techniques of SRI and was contemporaneous with the less sophisticated Bernays-era stuff.

In other words, I'm still trying to draw a line between SRI and MC and having some trouble. Clearly Perls, Erhard et al. have got some connection to it, but I can't discern how indirect.

As another comment, the "grey" alien is a very gnome-like, earthy, incomplete figure that you'd expect if you were fucking with the sub-conscious (as in, "under the conscious").

I'd like to add a little context to the ideas about Scientology "fair gaming" and/or generic "gaslighting" on the Internet:

This kind of stuff has a long history in methods of social control and individual behavior modification. The Cyber-world simply adds a few new twists. Among them are that any perps had easy access to a personal and psychological profile of Dream's End, based on the archive of his postings here, and maybe elsewhere too. Add to that DE's obvious passion about these issues- both a strength and a weakness in my view, and the fact that long hours on the Internet do inevitably induce an altered state of consciousness, such that the use of mind-altering substances is not needed beyond that to induce a sort of "drugged" state.

Also, I'm imagining that having the presence of multiple online agents, be they "real" or fabricated, would provide the perps with much more information about what "works" or not. All at little or no cost to the project.

I'll get back to my original point--why the hell is someone patrolling around as EiAE Eve stiil? The strange loop is already set up.

Then again, I'm behind a computer 10-15 hours a day, so I can understand that the amount of effort involved in maintenance wouldn't be at all taxing for a desk jockey.

[Col. Quisp]

What in the heck are you talking about?

[chiggerbit]

OP ED said:

wanna hear a funny story?

http://lucyhawkins.blogspot.com/2008/05 ... masks.html

Monday, 26 May 2008
Maybe it's just my love for masks..





[/img]http://data.tumblr.com/D9QEnuQFo56ywryiXyiApXQP_500.jpg[img]





Which is interesting because, down in the comments here, same site, different enty and subject, we see....

http://lucyhawkins.blogspot.com/2008/05 ... skell.html

1 comments:
et in Arcadia ego Eve said...
I like Anna's work. I understand it. One time I had the unique opportunity to debate one of Anna's loudest critics. That girl had no business criticizing Anna. None.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And jelously is transparent.

26 May 2008 15:50

(Sorry for my chopping this up--no skill i posting photos)

[bubblefunk]

Blog-in-Waiting? Eve's one "follower":

http://gnusimiandualism.blogspot.com/

http://www.blogger.com/profile/07255761016469536281

[LilyPatToo]

OP ED said:

eventually i walk over to the window of the garage door, looks out on my driveway.

there is some dude [speculative] standing in my driveway. about say, 40 yrds away, near the street. in a robe and cloak. with a strange mask on. looks like an elephant.

just fucking staring at my house.

Are you aware of the "aliens" fitting that description who made an appearance in Iran and Italy way back in October of 1954? I found them in my copy of (first edition) UFOs and the National Security State (by Richard M. Dolan):

In Teheran at 2:30 a. m. on October 12, a man on the second floor of his house saw a luminous, white object hover about 50 feet from his window. Lights shone from various parts of the craft and the witness clearly saw a small figure inside the craft, dressed in black and wearing a mask with a hose. (page 142/first edition)

And:

On November 8th in the town of Monza, a crowd of 150 people investigated a light coming from a stadium. The people saw three figures in light-colored clothing and transparent helmets, standing near a disc-shaped craft on three legs. The beings made guttural sounds among themselves; one had a dark face and a hose or trunk coming up to his face. The craft left upward silently. (page 145/first edition)

I also remember reading an article online that asked whether these "aliens" were wearing gas masks and the tube from the mouth/nose area looked like an elephant's trunk from a distance. Still looking for that bookmark, but haven't been able to find it.

With the number of "alien abduction" witnesses who've reported aerosol sprays being used on them, I'm actually surprised that the number of "aliens with trunks" isn't much higher. [Note: I now put quotation marks around the word alien when used in the context of abductions, since I have a strong suspicion that many of them are being done by human covert ops types. Not all, but many.]

LilyPat

[chiggerbit]

**

[bubblefunk]

World gone mad!

[Perelandra]

I'll get back to my original point--why the hell is someone patrolling around as EiAE Eve stiil?

Yeah, what nat said.

I don't know c2w, I think sometimes otherwise "normal" people can have very creepy senses of humor.

Like I said to OE, I'd be wearing a damn tiny camera on a chain around my neck. Maybe a bug too.

[Wombaticus Rex]

More generally, if it weren't for the global distribution chains that came out of Vietnam and for the growing variety of production allowed by the computerized control of industry, then no amount of SRI hoodoo could have saved the consumer-side economy. Is that fair?

I'd say that's pretty dead-on, yeah.

[compared2what?]

Never say never, but it would be a huge departure from form and policy if he was. Yet I regard your intuition way highly enough to ask: Really? Why so?

As you say, it's just an intuition. Mainstream coverage of Theremy's deaths likely sent millions to teh google and DE was likely on the first page at that time, at least, with his alternative explanations of their deaths and bringing attention to the fact that TD was accusing CO$ of harrassment.

Additionally doesn't Operation Clambake, which doesn't do any investigation, just publishing, get hit by CoS pretty hard regularly? I don't know enough about the particulars of "fair-gaming". C2W, how would it be a departure from form? I thought fair-gaming was anything goes so long as you get a successful "dead agent"?

Well...First of all, you really can't ever count anything out with them. So I'm sure there are exceptions to the general rule.

But fwiw,, the general rule is:

The church only seriously fucks with non-(ex-)Scientologists whom it regards as specifically dedicated to seriously fucking with them -- ie, Andreas Heldal-Lund, Paulette Cooper, Keith Henson, Bob Minton, Richard Behar, various and sundry career employees of the federal government, et cetera.

I'm assuming that DE didn't get in touch with them about what he was writing, though. If he did, then that would be a different story.

[compared2what?]

I started this as an addendum to the last post, but it got so out of control that I'm just going to park it here for the moment.

What I was aiming for is an explication of the context from which fair-gaming and dead-agenting arise, and how that relates to the signs by which it's sometimes possible to know them. But I'm not sure that I succeeded in expressing anything close to that, or even anything comprehensible. However, you guys know how to just not read an incomprehensible post, right? I encourage you to do that, if appropriate.

If not, what I came up with was:

ON EDIT: Sorry. I don't always remember to put in the part that makes it make a little sense.

Dead-agenting, as such, originated in a 1974 policy letter from Hubbard about handling the press, and it's still fundamentally a PR strategy. It advocates an "attack the attacker" doctrine, and it can include dark ops or very-very-dark ops, as it did with Paulette Cooper. But one of the main points of it is to be ostentatiously, unremittingly aggressive wrt counterpropaganda, leafleting, and a mind-numbingly infinite series of lawsuits that it will fully pre-intimidate all the putative attackers yet to come, as well as slay the enemy you have at hand. And insofar as the media are very reluctant (not to say scared shitless) about doing exposes of Scientology, it's very effective.

The fair game policy was originally conceived in 1967 as a way of dealing with SPs, who were ex-members pretty much by definition at that point. And it's still...Well, officially, it's no longer church policy. But let's say for the sake of argument that it were. From the Scientological point-of-view, it would still be justified on its original terms, under which it's a not only a religious obligation, but the highest moral imperative and truest good that an OT can do for humanity.

So (and we're still in our little hypothetical world where fair game was never actually suspended in practice), even though the two policies employ very similar and to a certain extent identical tactics, and also even though they might be used in conjunction with one another, to a believer they'd be categorically different from one another, as distinguished by their differing objectives. The Cos is a very, very goal-oriented outfit, and they pretty much never do anything that doesn't have at least one institutional objective.

And since they're also a tightly controlled cult, most of what they do is dual-purpose and quite a bit of it is triple. However -- and here's where it gets tricky -- no one other than top leadership is in a position to be consciously aware of the whole picture. And it's highly debatable whether they are, imo. I doubt that there's a single person on earth or any other planet who has the tools to determine what David Miscavige is and isn't consciously aware of, not excluding David Miscavige himself.

In any event. The stated objectives -- ie, respectively, PR and saving the world -- aren't necessarily the primary objectives, and sometimes they're not even among the true objectives, which are always, invariably and solely some combination of:

(1) Getting an enormous financial return on zero investment;

(2) Making sure that the members of the org are terrified, sleep-deprived, undernourished and overworked enough that (owing to their belief that all their pain and misfortune is empirical proof of their spiritual inadequacy and viciousness) they'll do anything to advance their standing on the Bridge to Total Freedom both out of faith and the wish for a snack; and

(3) Achieving total world domination, about which they are now much more serious than they were in 1969 and 1974.

One of the consequences of their being so litigious is that there's a huge body of data on their methods, tendencies, habits and other signature attributes, although it's not as easily accessible as it might be if it weren't distributed in tiny little pieces throughout thousands of pages of court records. But since comprehensive knowledge isn't necessary (or even desirable) when all you want is a clearer picture of how one incident went down, that's not a prohibitive disadvantage. And with a little time and some basic search skills, it's usually possible to find some helpfully informative precedents and patterns, if there are any. I don't know of any that meet the criteria for the playing of DE, but I haven't ever looked for any. And even if there were none to be found, it's still not out of the question.

But it would be a truer answer to the question about form and policy that I answered before than the one I gave to say:

It's very unlike them to do something that has no pay-off to speak of that I can figure. And it's even more unlike them to let their operatives have that much independence, especially on the internet, where who knows what kind of entheta they might meet. And that they might even be capable of imagining an op that had so much potential to be fun and empowering in execution is so extremely unlike anything I know about them that while it still might be the case I would then have to ask myself: Where's the Scientology I used to know? What made it lose that happy glow?

If that makes any sense.