In article<hegq3togto1o7c0c4lie93kf1ussu63tv7@4ax.com>, Stacy Brooks <stacybrooks@lisatrust.net> writes:

>The Attention Fix
>Scientology as a Figment of Narcissism
>
>by Eldon M. Braun

This essay is by far the best quality of all entries, except that it is not directly about the subject set. >
>NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER
>
>Narcissism was first defined simplistically in 1898 by the Fabian
>physician-psychologist Havelock Ellis as autoeroticism.
>In 1914, Freud said
>that in certain cases--notably among "perverts and homosexuals"-- libidinal
>self-centeredness stems from the child's feeling that caretakers cannot be
>depended upon to provide love reliably. These children "give up" as far as
>trusting and investing in others as love-objects. Through their eyes, the
>condition was seen as a masturbation-in-the mirror fixation, reminiscent of
>the original Greek myth of Narcissus.

There have been a number of attempts to understand extreme authoritarians such as Stalin. Erich Fromm and Hannah Arendt, writing after WWII, used this concept of narcissism and also extremes of the 'anal' personality trait; some elements of paranoid behaviour are also useful, or attempts to identify an a-social psychopathic type. I'm not sure any of them give a complete picture.

>The concept of Narcissism as a pathology was expanded by Karen Horney in the
>late 1930s, when she integrated the Freudian "drive" construct with emerging
>theories of developmental psychology. As one of three basic personality
>traits, along with Aggressive and Perfectionist, the Narcissist was depicted
>as a grandiose, glad-handing showoff, intent on displaying an impressive
>image to the world. As it turns out, there was a hidden, darker side of the
>narcissistic personality yet to be revealed

Sure sounds like Ron Hubbard, or Ron Reagan, or any number of others.

>"Such children develop to become adults WHO ARE NOT SURE THAT THEY DO EXIST
>(lack a sense of self-continuity) or that they are worth anything (lack of
>self-worth, or self-esteem). They suffer depressions, as neurotics do. But
>the source of these depressions is existential (a gnawing sensation of
>emptiness) as opposed to the "guilty-conscious" depressions of neurotics.
>Such depressions... are interrupted by rages because things are not going
>their way,

Depression is often merely aggression turned inwards.

>"They are individuals whose disorders can be understood and treated only by
>taking into consideration the formative experiences in childhood of the total
>body-mind-self and its self-object environment -- for instance, the
>experiences of joy of the total self feeling confirmed, which leads to pride,
>self-esteem, zest, and initiative; or the experiences of shame, loss of
>vitality, deadness, and depression of the self who does not have the feeling
>of being included, welcomed, and enjoyed."
>
>Only during the past decade has pathological Narcissism been fully examined,
>defined and recognized. Today, the most popular Narcissism site on the web
>gets 1,000 hits per day. Most of the popular books on the topic were
>published within the past few years. Is this just another Disorder of the
>Month? Apparently not. It appears that Narcissistic Personality Disorder
>(NPD) went largely unrecognized for decades because it is so elusive.
>Everyone's psyche contains at least a little incipient Narcissism. Desire for
>self-esteem and recognition are natural components of human nature.

Exactly: many people see the most basic drive of all being a sense of self-worth, derived from the recognition of others in a more or less direct way.... for the social person in a very direct way, for the creative person perhaps from selected others or in more direct ways but still very much present.

>In a way,
>narcissism is a distorted projection of the American Dream. Nobody likes to
>acknowledge a sense of accomplishment (even a false one) as a form of mental
>illness -- least of all the Narcissist himself. Frankly, I myself find
>writing this an unsettling task.

Hmmm. Great and exceptional people are not always the healthiest and best adjusted people; the latter tend to centre themselves more among family and friends than worldly achievement.

>"A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
>admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in
>a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
>1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements
>and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate
>achievements)
>2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance,
>beauty, or ideal love
>3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood
>by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or
>institutions)
>4. requires excessive admiration
>5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially
>favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
>6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to
>achieve his or her own ends
>7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and
>needs of others
>8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or
>her
>9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes"

>
>BASIC GOODNESS AS COVERUP
>
>Conventional wisdom and logic don't apply in the solitary, manipulative realm
>of the Narcissist. Ordinary mortals require a substantial reality adjustment
>in order to comprehend the behavior of an individual who lacks empathy or
>boundaries of common decency. Most of us automatically assume, as Hubbard
>said, that somewhere deep down at the core, people are basically good. (Well,
>maybe except for a few out and out psychopaths, such as serial killers; it
>takes a Hannibal Lector to make us doubt that basic assumption.)
>
>Assuming that a pathological Narcissist has any good intentions -- whatsoever
>-- is a big mistake. They aren't usually overt criminals, though they will
>certainly commit crimes if they find it expedient or happen to operate within
>a criminal peer group. But they would rather get their associates to do the
>dirty work. Another term used for borderline Narcissists in business
>environments is "Serial Bullies." Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Wall Street
>are a few of their favorite stomping grounds.
>
>Whatever his chosen venue or the extent of his pathology, the Narcissist
>lacks both moral scruples and a genuine sense of loyalty. The image these
>individuals present, and the attention supply they receive as feedback, are
>all that really matters. This unique agenda makes their motives alien to
>other people's comprehension, which in turn is their main protective device.
>It's a little like the Hubbardian concept of the Suppressive Person, but with
>a sicker twist.

Yes, I've met a few of these. We're talking about a-social or psychpathic people. They charge in, borrow a lot of money because they're special and they deserve it, then charge out again before repaying time; consequently they run through individual friends, or social circles, fairly quickly and have to keep moving on.

"Slash and burn socialisation". People who never thought about the REPEATED prisoner's dilemma (i.e. all take and no give based on bluster works once or twice but then people suss you out and you either get real or move on). This is the kind of behaviour the TRs teach, particularly Tone40: give orders as if you are entitled, once, and people instinctively comply. Just don't repeat it too often on the same people.

>AMORALITY IN ACTION
>
>If we consider LRH as a pathological Narcissist, the concepts of right and
>wrong would have been mainly irrelevant to him. Even his re-definition of
>ethics as "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" meant his
>own dynamics as he interpreted them. In actuality, he assigned himself
>absolute authority to determine what was right or wrong when he wrote the
>rules. And Scientologists bought his rationalization.
>
>Grandiosity, exploitation and dissembling come naturally for such
>individuals. Repeat: They have little or no empathy, and few if any
>boundaries.
>
>Just ask Sam Valknin, Ph.D. In 1999, he caught the attention of therapists
>and victims of Narcissists with a seminal book on the topic that is mainly
>autobiographical. Here is his description of how it came about:
>
>"'Malignant Self Love -- Narcissism Re-Visited' was written under extreme
>conditions of duress.
[........................]

>Some degree of Narcissism is a natural component of a normal Self. Everyone
>had fantasies of omniscience as a child, and presumably would not object to
>possessing a few superhuman powers. Heck, if nothing else, it would be easier
>to rearrange the furniture by levitating it. Hubbard's strategy plays
>perfectly on the latent narcissistic tendencies of his flock. "We, the Chosen
>Ones, Come Back through the Aeons as Mankind's Only Hope for Total Freedom on
>a Cleared Planet." And so forth. From outside the Scientology bubble, it's
>patent nonsense; but inside, it plays just fine.

Sure: it is an outright invitation to let go and give full play to a particular strand of abnormal behaviour latent in all, if reality is getting a bit much to deal with.

So is the average church sermon...

the "pitch" is obvious if you have read Eric Hoffer.

>NO RESPONSIBILITY
>
>The Narcissist will do virtually anything to evade being held accountable for
>his baser actions -- not because of guilt, but because it would reveal him
>as fallible and ordinary. History is rewritten and present time reality is
>restructured to avoid this possibility. Blame is shifted to others.

And here we fringe on the "paranoid displacement" (anything bad must come from outside me). There are plenty of examples of this in Hubbard.

>THE SUCCESSOR
>
>Narcissistic symptoms can very likely be acquired, and certainly reinforced,
>through association and emulation. You can't beat them so you join them. In
>cases where abuse is a factor, that might the only defense. It is well
>documented that Hubbard was increasingly abusive during his final years. As
>one of his few close associates, and his only direct link with the
>organization, David Miscavige must have been the brunt of a considerable
>amount. Mary Sue was already in jail, so it would be logical to assume LRH
>needed a substitute co-dependent.

It is difficult to know what motivates Miscavige. Again you should look to Hoffer, though. The fanatics pitch that "glory and achievement is nit in me but in {my juju}", whether he calls it god or nation or movement. My guess is that Miscavige's identity is sublimated through the movement rather than his personal self. Also he gets adulation from his subordinates.

>Miscavige is stuck with a shrinking organization that has run into trouble
>virtually everyplace it has tried to expand outside the US. By hook or crook
>or blackmail, Scientology has mustered unprecedented support from the US
>government, but that can't last forever. Germany, France, Spain and a number
>of other countries aren't buying the State Department's religious freedom
>arguments.

Yep.

>A MATTER OF TIME
>
>Slowly but inexorably, the power base of Scientology is eroding, along with
>any credibility that remains. Miscavige's only viable strategy at this
>juncture is to close down unprofitable organizations in the hinterlands and
>consolidate the church's operations toward its two main headquarters, Los
>Angeles and Clearwater.

It's pretty much happening anyway. It might be best use off resources to haul them back into only those places which are productive; but pride or doctrine may forbid this as an active strategy.

>Los Angeles may absorb an influx of Scientologists
>without much notice, but Clearwater is a small city. Public opinion of
>Scientology there is already low because of the Lisa McPherson scandal, a
>problem that won't go away. The presence of the Lisa McPherson Trust is a
>continual reminder of Scientology's bad repute and its hostile behavior
>toward critics. The Trust also provides a convenient refuge for anyone who
>gets a sudden urge to bolt.

Los Angeles and San Francisco have their pressures too: it's why the cult fears Henson so much.

>CRITICAL EFFICIENCY
>
>How to hasten the process? It appears that efforts to deride L. Ron Hubbard's
>technology and accomplishments have been mainly futile. Scientology loyalists
>and many ex-members still believe he had something worthwhile to say. The
>Founder is, in his own vernacular, a Wrong Target for attention. Efforts to
>analyze him (yes, including this essay) are only feeding him and his
>co-dependents the attention he craved. Any attention placed on LRH is
>probably diverted from the topic at hand. It is a distraction.
>
>Pickets conveying generalized anti-Scientology messages might harm
>Scientology economically by heading off potential new members at the pass,
>but such blanket criticism is likely have little effect on the faithful still
>inside other than galvanizing their loyalty.

I don't know... in WW2 we dropped high explosives, not cream buns, on the axis powers. You do not wear the enemy down by being nice to him

The key thing with pouring force or punishment onto an enemy is not that he will surrender in the middle of it -- at that time his resolve will be roused and he will feel angry about it -- but the effect of REPEATED trials. In the long term, he will run out of determination, and shout himself right out of rage. He will probably give up and desert or surrender AFTER repeated attacks, when the pressure lets up for a while. This seems to be the pattern with London org, and several others: rage during the attack, collapse when it lets up.

>The most viable target, and the most vulnerable one for critical assault on
>Scientology at this moment is a single individual: David Miscavige. He is
>already seen by former, departing and doubtful Scientologists as the
>squirrel, the Who of the situation. He is a mutually agreeable common enemy.
>His downfall after 18 years at the helm would surely cause considerable
>havoc.

Well, it's worth a try... each to their own methods.

>"The narcissist is a solipsist. He carries the whole universe in his mind. To
>him, nothing exists except himself. Meaningful others are his extensions,
>assimilated by him, internal objects -- not external ones. Thus, losing
>control of a significant other -- is equivalent to the loss of control of a
>limb, or of one's brain. It is terrifying. It is paradigm-shattering.
>Independent or disobedient people evoke in the narcissist the realization
>that something is wrong with his worldview, that he is not the centre of the
>world or its cause and that he cannot control what, to him, are internal
>representations.
>
>"To the narcissist, losing control means going insane."

This is like the borders-of-self model of paranoia.

>STEP #1: CRITICAL MASS
>
>If we assume David Miscavige does suffer from a high degree of Narcissistic
>Personality Disorder, Valknin has some advice. As a confirmed Narcissist, he
>might not be telling the full truth, but at least he is speaking from the
>horse's mouth. He explains that there are two ways to deal effectively with a
>Narcissist. The first is by diminishing his false sense of self-esteem
>through systematic, factual exposure, coupled with belittlement of the
>Narcissist's feigned abilities. This might be called "poison pill attention."
>One Scientology variation is called reverse processing. A webbed article that
>exemplifies this strategy perfectly is at:
>http://www.clever.net/webwerks/veritas/mailings/sw-2-1.htm.
>Certainly, moral qualms may arise. It isn't pleasant to contemplate purposely
>causing a psychotic break, particularly in a Scientologist who might be
>subjected to the Introspection Rundown like Lisa McPherson. Then again, we
>need to remember what we're dealing with and take into consideration Sam
>Valknin's advice that only a crisis can bring a Narcissist to a realization
>that all is not right with the world. It may be uncomfortable to think in
>such ruthless terms, but let's listen to the advice of an expert anyway:
>"It is very easy to break a narcissist -- even a well trained and prepared
>one....
>
>"Any statement or fact, which seems to contradict his inflated perception of
>his grandiose self. Any criticism, disagreement, exposure of fake
>achievements, belittling of "talents and skills" which the narcissist
>fantasizes that he possesses, any hint that he is subordinated, subjugated,
>controlled, owned or dependent upon a third party. Any positioning of the
>narcissist as average and common, indistinguishable from many others. Any
>intimation that the narcissist is weak, needy, dependent, deficient, slow,
>not intelligent, naive, gullible, susceptible, not in the know, manipulated,
>a victim.
>"The narcissist is likely to react with rage to all these and, in an effort
>to re-establish his fantastic grandiosity, he is likely to expose facts and
>stratagems he had no conscious intention of exposing....
>"Any insinuation, hint, intimation, or direct declaration that the narcissist
>is not special at all, that he is average, common, not even sufficiently
>idiosyncratic to warrant a fleeting interest will inflame the narcissist.

Let's take this step by step: CAN we take down Miscavige's narcissism.

Mockery -- Grady's "public buggery" articles etc -- seems to be particularly effective, and why he particularly hates Grady.

OTOH we cannot easily remove the consoling ass-kissing by his subordinates, from our position outside.

>
>"Add to this a negation of the narcissist's sense of entitlement and the
>combustion is inevitable. Tell the narcissist that he does not deserve the
>best treatment, that his needs are not everyone's priority, that he is
>boring, that his needs can be catered to by an average practitioner (medical
>doctor, accountant, lawyer, psychiatrist), that he and his motives are
>transparent and can be easily gauged, that he will do what he is told, that
>his temper tantrums will not be tolerated, that no special concessions will
>be made to accommodate his inflated sense of self, etc. and the narcissist
>will lose control."
>(from Sam Valknin's Narcissism FAQs at
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6297/faq78.html)
>This tactic of derogation is already employed to some extent along with
>others, but all have been applied more or less randomly. The point here is
>to reallocate resources for the actions likely to be most effective. Perhaps
>it's time to narrow the focus of the spotlight beam and direct it on the
>central character in the drama. Pin him in a pool of light, and ask him to
>perform a soliloquy. He pretty much made a fool of himself when he appeared
>on national TV several years back. Put his face and name on picket signs that
>highlight his incompetence. If possible, drag him into court. He didn't fare
>so well in the legal arena during his few appearances, as evidenced by his
>flustered statements during a 1990 deposition, where he evasively clammed up
>when asked simple, innocuous questions about his background:

This may SOUND as if the person interrogated is cowed or stupid, but it can also be a deceitful tactic for just wasting the limited time of deposition by playing dumb.

>A related tactic might be to undermine the confidence of the individuals
>Miscavige depends on most for his highest quality of narcissistic supply --
>his closest obedient associates, and particularly Scientology celebrities.

How?

>Here there are many unexplored possibilities. For starters, one would target
>Miscavige's incompetent promotional efforts -- rather than L. Ron Hubbard's
>lousy book -- as the real Why for the Battlefield Earth fiasco. Such a rumor
>might well turn out to be true anyway, and would surely raise doubts even in
>the gullible mind of John Travolta. At least it's worth a shot.

Worth a try, but I don't think it would succeed.

>
>If the theory presented here is at least partly correct, Miscavige will react
>predictably -- with narcissistic rage -- and will help destroy himself. Most
>likely, he will have a little help from within the Scientology organization.
>They have always loved a scapegoat when the going got rough.
>
>David Miscavige may well be ready and waiting for his own sacrifice, and for
>the inescapable realization that he actually doesn't posses much of a Self,
>if any. Focusing on his evident foibles and frailty -- his mundane,
>mistake-prone mediocrity -- is probably the fastest way to hasten his
>downfall and the subsequent precipitous decline of the malignant organization
>he controls.

Also, what do you expect to happen when you "cave in" such a person?

First rage, then self-destruction... or complete collapse into bizarre delusions and overt insanity. This is what happens to the paranoid when his paranoid delusions stop working effectively, and life collapses around him. With not very good prognosis: if the person has deeply embedded personality traits then even emerging from the outright delusory phase may not repair his behaviour or bring a change of heart. >
>STEP #2: SHUNNING HUBBARD

Hubbard is not alive -- he has been converted to fish shit. Nothing you do can affect him any more.

                                            |~/           |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P |      Woof Woof, Glug Glug               ||____________||      0  | P
O |   Who Drowned the Judge's Dog?          | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O |         answers on                  *---|_______________  @__o0  | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk  2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC  BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F