Wayne Whitney's Postings: Number 083 In The Collection

From wwhit71151@aol.com Sun Apr 13 07:52:12 1997
Subject: Re: Future pickets
Date: 13 Apr 1997 05:52:12 GMT
Message-ID: <19970413055100.BAA25702@ladder01.news.aol.com>

<<Now, what happens in their minds when people trick them? Put yourself in their shoes. You live down to their expectations. You prove Hubbard was right. You solidify their perceptions of reality. You don't create this cognitive dissonance. SPs are so and so and so. What happens when SPs are actually quite nice and friendly and helpful and human and honest?

Do you see my point?>>

Martin, let me see if I understand you correctly.

You're saying that because the London picketers didn't inform the staff of ALL their planned pickets (and the close proximity of the ‘announced’ picket) that this was using deception and was therefore being dishonest and that by being dishonest in this way the picketers were only reinforcing the members preconceived ideas of SPs (as tricksters, deceivers, backstabbers, etc). Your also saying that a better approach would be to be completely open and honest about EVERYTHING because then that would cause cognitive dissonance in the members minds and would therefore be more effective at getting more of them out of the cult.

Have I understood you correctly?


While I'm waiting for confirmation or corrections to my above understanding let me throw a few other related ( but somewhat random ) observations and conclusions into the ring for everyone's consideration.


If you could just see some of the E-mail I've received from Jeff Quiros (S.F. Org's OSA agent ) concerning my picketing and other activities you would see just HOW deep some staff members preconceived ideas of SPs and their paranoia can go. Because of this depth of involvement I don't think the risk of adding to this by a group using a little ‘misdirection‘ to acheive their aims can really do that much more to drive that member in any deeper.


When *I* picket I am quite sure that some staff and public see me as an SP and someone to rally around and that I am only reinforcing their LRH implanted beliefs. I'm willing to accept this fact because I also know that by being out there I'm able to reach so many others who haven't gotten sucked into the cult yet and I am able to effectively warn them away. It’s a judgment call on my part. I chose to ‘lose’ a few to educate the many.


When I first got involved in $cientology I was totally open and honest about everything. I thought the staff were trying to help me. They told me they were and so I believed them. At the time I felt they deserved my honesty. Besides, I thought it was to my advantage for my spiritual progress. In MOST circumstances being completely open can be a very beneficial thing. Unfortunately this willingness on my part ended up being exploited over and over again by this cult. This cult has demonstrated repeatedly, at least to me, that they will take what you tell them and use it against you. I learned a difficult lesson from this experience and one I take with me in ALL my pickets. It’s one reason I occasionally call them "clams", to remind myself who I’m usually dealing with out there, the member’s ‘cult personality’ NOT the REAL person.


I still believe that a person outright lying to achieve their goals is WRONG. By lying that person loses their integrity, their credibility and therefore their effectiveness. At the same time I've learned that by being completely open all the time you sometimes end up getting burned. From this I’ve had to make the distinction that ‘being honest’ DOES NOT equal ‘total openness’. From this observation I've come to the conclusion that ( as far as picketing is concerned ) being completely open may help convince some members to leave the cult but other members will just use that openness against you. In this ‘picketing environment’ sometimes a little misdirection can be a good (and therefore ethical ) thing -- if the person’s motives are to help others. Misdirection is NOT being dishonest -- unless there is lying involved. I believe the RESULTS of a person’s actions determine the rightness or wrongness of the MEANS they use to achieve them. This is what counts.


I've talked to hundreds of TOTAL strangers this past year while picketing, all trying to warn them about the dangers of $cientology. I’ve learned that being as candid as possible is the most effective way to reach people, even if this means having to appear like a fool for having been duped. This one guy I tried to warn expressed a sincere desire to help me in my attempt to warn others. Unfortunately with him I apparently shared a little too much information because he turned right around and used it all against me to scam me in return for all my efforts out there. He was brilliant, he played me like a fiddle. Once again a successful way I had learned to deal with life ended up working against me.

Because of this experience I, for one, have certainly become well aware of the juggling act between being open, honest, trying to be most effective AND protecting my own ass so I can continue to be the above three.

Because of all this I have concluded that I think a surprise picket is totally ethical (even if a little misdirection is involved), ESPECIALLY if the clams have used previous picket warnings to plan unethical counter-picket activities.

Wayne Whitney ( a guy who REALLY wished he had all the ‘right’ answers )