http://www.google.com/groups?selm=cb01gv0mgb7qbu94m143ibvn4kjopj5lk7%
404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Caroline Letkeman letter to U.S.
President,
Federal Departments andQ
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:56:51 +0200
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 467
Message-ID: <cb01gv0mgb7qbu94m143ibvn4kjopj5lk7@4ax.com>
References: <jcrrfvonelu7cfkj5bnmbs8k188gng9m6m@4ax.com> <
2CBUD8D437801.4246990741@anonymous.poster>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.16.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.132.63.81
X-Original-Trace: 30 Jun 2003 14:56:55 -0400, 80.132.63.81
On 29 Jun 2003 15:11:34 -0000, Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header
(Cerridwen) wrote:
>
>
>
>"Gerry Armstrong" <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
message
>news:jcrrfvonelu7cfkj5bnmbs8k188gng9m6m@4ax.com...
>
>
>>
>> The beautiful beast confronting the Miscavige regime from inside
>> Caroline's signature is a black panther, chosen for its significance
>> to the Scientology cultists.
>
>
>Good Grief!
Eek, an exclamation mark!
>
>Scientologists give very little significance to the black panther
>mechanism. In others words, they don't care at all about it.
Now how on earth do you know this "fact?" You represent that 8
million
customers, give or take the usual 7.9 or so?
They care enough about it to have included it in every printing of
_Dianetics the ["]Modern["] ["]Science["] of ["]
Mental
Health["]_.
They care enough to have the definition in their "Tech"
dictionary.
In
fact, I believe that more space in this dictionary is devoted to the
black panther mechanism than any other Scientology or Dianetics term.
The "dynamics" get a little more space, but when you divide by eight
each gets a whole lot less. And if you multiplied the space allocated
for the "black panther mechanism" by eight, it would have about
fifteen pages.
See, http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/black-panther.html
They care enough about the "black panther mechanism" to put it in
_What Is Scientology?_
I'm sorry but I missed the order that limited posting to a.r.s. to
only parts of Scientology that Scientologists give great significance
to, and prohibits what they don't care at all about it. A reference
would be helpful.
>
>Yes, I know it is part of "the tech" but honestly, I can
>not recall one instance of discussing the black panther
>mechanism with a Scientologist in the last 30 years.
No kidding! You'd get the poor Scientologist sent to "ethics" if
you
lured him or her into discussing the "tech."
>
>All that symbolism only has significance to you and Caroline.
I'd really like to know, all what symbolism? Hubbard's black panther
symbolism? It must have had significance to him? But really, all what
symbolism? How can you presume to claim that Hubbard's symbolism has
no significance to Scientologists? It's your "scripture," not ours!
And how can you presume to speak for all the opponents of your cult
too?
Did you know that the black panther mechanism has been discussed many
times before right here on a.r.s.? Oops.
I really like this comment by Ex SO in his thread entitled "AN HOUR IN
THE LIFE AT OSA INT."
[Quote]
I could have tried to write my post in plain English but it is very
awkward to try that after so many years of speaking in Scientology
terminology. If I used the phrase Black Panther Mechanism,
Scientologists know what I am talking about. To try to state the
same concept in English requires defining it. It's so much easier
to just say Black Panther Mechanism.
And by the way, OSA uses mechanism one on its enemies.
[End Quote]
Message-ID: <7a0850$s4v@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1
Funny, the black panther mechanism has plenty of significance to
Ex-SO, and he seems to think it has signifance to OSA, and widely to
Scientologists. I must say his data are more credible than yours on
this subject. Aren't you employing mechanism one, too?
Here's a neat one Tigger posted, quoting someone from Operation
Clambake in a thread entitled "LATEST "PROFIT" NEWS FROM
PAT GREENWAY"
[Quote]
"The parable of the black panther* is appropriate here. Let us suppose
that a particular black-tempered black panther is sitting on the
stairs and that a man named Gus is sitting in the living room. Gus
wants to go to bed. But there is the black panther. The problem is to
get upstairs.
There are five things that Gus can do about this panther.
(1) he can go attack the black panther;
(2) he can run out of the house and flee the black panther;
(3) he can use the back stairs and avoid the black panther;
(4) he can neglect the black panther; and
(5) he can succumb to the black panther.
These are the five mechanisms: attack, flee, avoid, neglect, or
succumb.
*In Dianetics considerable slang has been developed by patients and
Dianeticists and they call a neglect of the problem the "black panther
mechanism." One supposes this stems from the ridiculousness of biting
black panthers.--LRH"
Source:
Pg. 218 Dianetics - 50th Anniversary Edition
Book Two Chapter 9 Keying in the Engrams
[End Quote]
Message-ID: <27350-3B848943-33@storefull-211.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Here's a beauty! Double Eek!! In a post from Jeff Jacobsen that he
titled....... you won't believe this....."Hubbard and the Black
Panther Mechanism."
[Quote]
L. Ron Hubbard stated that the analytical mind handles problems in
5 ways - attacking, avoiding, falling back from, succumbing, or
neglecting (The Analytical Mind, 1950, in Astounding Science Fiction).
Since avoiding, falling back from, succumbing and neglecting are
hardly "handling" you could say he only held out one real method,
attack. Hubbard later wrote about this as the Black Panther mechanism
in the book Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health. How do you
handle a Black Panther in your way? One of those 5 methods.
Gandhi had a method to handle problems, such as getting rid of the
British control of his country. He looked at the British as wayward
brethren who simply needed to be shown the error of their ways. In
other words, he didn't use Hubbard's methods. He befriended the Black
Panther. He embraced it.
I think it's very telling that Hubbard never thought of embracing
the Black Panther. That's why Scientology now utilizes dead agenting,
noisy investigations, and other attack methods against their perceived
problems. Attack is the only true method of handling a problem in
Scientology. "Always attack, never defend." I don't believe you can
find compassion and love in Scientology either in their actions or
in Hubbard's writings. No embracing or befriending there.
Gandhi, on the other hand, taught that all that was needed was to
show the Black Panther the error of its ways and treat it kindly. In
fact, you see that the pain in Gandhi Tech is borne by the aggrieved,
not directed toward the aggressor. Gandhi Tech is a method to expose
the bad side by putting them in a situation where they will reveal
their true nature. It is done in a peaceful, caring way.
You wonder why the tone scale doesn't have love in it? Because
love never entered Hubbard's heart or mind. Hubbard Tech is "attack"
while Gandhi Tech is "love." I wonder which is stronger?
[End Quote]
Message-ID: <3b5b8d42.182512618@news.primenet.com>
I checked around to see if you had attacked Jeff or any of the other
posters for whom the black panther mechanism might have had some
significance, but couldn't find any attacks at all by anyone. Caroline
and I should feel special, I suppose. But I didn't check real hard.
You can, of course, do a google check and still give these other folks
a good tongue lashing for also being the only people to find some
significance in the mechanism.
But did you realize that not only have there been discussions on
a.r.s., but there have been another few dozen discussions involving
the black panther mechanism on alt.clearing.technology too? And all
within the last 30 years. Here's a significant one, posted by Homer
Wilson Smith, an essay by Da Professor, entitled ..... don't avoid
this...."The Black Panther Mechanism: A Dangerous Omission."
[Quote]
From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 1 - May 1991
The Black Panther Mechanism: A Dangerous Omission
By DA PROFESSOR, USA
[[FOOTNOTE]]From "The Heretic", Issue 12, May 31, 1987. Earlier
in
the
history of "The Heretic" policy was that all authors used
pseudonyms.
This was possibly because active free scientologists in the USA were
more subject to attacks and embarrassemnts from the church than has
been the case in Scandinavia. Ed. [[I later found out that it was to
avoid people prejudging the article because they knew (good or bad)
about the author. Ant 3.sept.94]]
One possible explanation for the Church's persistent world view of US
vs. THEM, borne out by continual attacks, etc. when TRs and ARC would
handle most situations, can be found in the Tech Dictionary under
"Black Panther Mechanism," which outlines the possible methods for
coping with the environment.
Anything that prevents Gus from getting upstairs can, by this
definition, only be handled by attack, flee, avoid, neglect or
succumb. While this certainly is quite an improvement over the psych's
"fight or flight" response, it still is missing vital viewpoints.
The selection of "a particularly black-tempered black panther" as
a
model and placing him in the artificial environment of a home obscures
other options. Just in case the Gentle Reader might try to think up
any other option, the definition goes on to say: "All actions can be
seen to fall within these courses." Where some see only problems,
others see solutions or opportunities.
I propose a new name and definition.
"The Grey Wolf Options": There are several ways in which a human
being
reacts toward a possible source of danger. Let us suppose that a man
named Sam and a grey wolf inhabit the same wood. Both people and
wolves are prettty dangerous critters and they compete for food and
cave space.
How can Sam resolve this situation?
1. he could _attack_ the grey wolf,
2. he could _flee_ from the grey wolf,
3. he could stay in parts of the wood to _avoid _the grey wolf,
4. he could _neglect_ the grey wolf,
5. he could _succumb_ to the grey wolf, or
6. he could _cooperate_ with the grey wolf.
Recognizing that the problem is not the wolf, that the problem is
staying alive in the woods, and that _the wolf shares the problem_,
allows the man and the wolf to form an alliance. The wolf brings his
intelligence, keen sense of smell and swiftness to the bargain. Sam
adds his intelligence, thumb, "ability to use tools" and fire.
Together, they survive much better than either could alone. Indeed,
over time, what could just as easily have been Sam's worst enemy,
turns into "man's best friend." This blind spot on cooperation is
clearer in the definition of ally in the "Tech Dictionary."
According to these definitions, an ally is someone who helps you when
you are weak (and _we_ are never weak, are we?), and is someone whose
beingness takes over the PC. In other words, that with which you ally,
you alloy. An ally is something found in reactive engrams, not in
analytical thought.
So now, what can or should be done about this? Perhaps an auditing
rundown or series of drills could be developed to bolster the being's
ability to recognize situations where cooperation is appropriate and
to exercise that option.
A model Grey Wolf process might start off with word clearing on the
above definition. This could be followed by having the PC spot times
when cooperation could have occured, should have occured, would have
occurred or did occur (a "coulda, shoulda, woulda" rundown). R3R any
reading items in order of read.
Perhaps this could be played against the CDEINR scale, the Know-to-
Mystery Scale or the Prepcheck Buttons. Another possibility would be
to have the PC spot the shared problem on the coulda, shoulda, woulda
rundown. This kills the wrong targeting on the grey wolf terminal.
This, of course, is only a rough outline. I invite you to generate and
test other rundowns that smooth over a PC's handling of his
environment.
[End Quote]
Message-ID: <anmdvk$8dk$1@emerald.lightlink.com>
But it gets worse. Did you know that the black panther mechanism is
also quoted or discussed on a number of web sites?
Check this out.
[Quote]
Hubbard also coined a term "the Black Panther mechanism" (ref:
DMSMH,
pg.147). He defines the 5 ways "in which a human reacts toward a
source of danger". They are: 1) attack 2) flee 3) avoid 4) neglect 5)
succumb. Usually the Scientologists ATTACK. That's what Hubbard taught
should be done to handle psychs, the press, the government, the
police, the medicos, the bankers, the media, and others viewed as SPs.
If an attack cannot be successfully launched, the next most employed
mechanism is #3 - avoidance.
[End Quote]
http://warrior.offlines.org/1997-0531b.html
Even Freezoners discuss the black panther mechanism on Freezone sites.
[Quote]
Naturally, when a Scientologist sees that the organization to which he
belongs no longer deserves his support, he is going to consider that
he has no other alternatives than to either contiue under protest, or
to leave Scientology forever. If he is a tech person, he might
possibly seek refuge in the tech division, because of course, the tech
was always sane, even though the management wasn't. Now we can say
that this is no longer the case. The tech has been deliberately
altered, and it is no longer possible to hide oneself from this fact.
It is very similar to the Black Panther mechanism. Closing your eyes
and saying that it is not there is just no longer possible.
[End Quote]
http://www.freezone.org/reports/e_otc_01.htm
Oh, I was just reminded that DMSMH is required reading on at least the
following courses:
Book One Course
Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course
Hubbard Dianetics C/S Course
New Era Dianetics Course
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
Solo Course
New Era Dianetics for OTs Course
and although I haven't done it, isn't it also on the OT 6 Course?
Are course students permitted to flee, avoid or neglect the black
panther mechanism material of these courses because they don't care at
all about it? Or can they attack it? Or do they just succumb? Ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha.
Let's discuss this now that you're out. Can you sit comfortably and
discuss it?
>The fact that Caroline spends time dreaming up things like
>putting black panthers in her signature in an effort to
>send a message to "the Scientology cultists" is kooky.
Actually, isn't it really your dreaming this up as an issue, by which
you can attack Caroline, that's kooky? Or worse?
I would bet that you spent more time dreaming up this attack and all
the little fibs necessary to carry it off than Caroline spent dreamng
up beastifying her beautiful signature. I think her beast sitgnatures
are pretty cool. And I think you're really reaching for material to
attack her.
>
>I wish you two would get your heads out of the occult
I'd bet this is just a throwaway line based on a lie to get in a
little attack.
But I'll challenge you on the point anyway. You make the statement of
fact that we have our heads in the occult. What evidence do you have?
If you see something occult in what we've done, or in our use of the
panther image, or in our reference to Hubbard's black panther
mechanism, then surely you must see that you had your own head in the
occult. So, as you had your head in the occult, tell us what you saw
there that leads you to the conclusion that we had our heads in the
occult.
>and
>stop looking for deep hidden significances that only the two of
>you can see.
What evidence do you have that we are looking here for deep hidden
significances?
Why do you issue an order for us to stop doing what we're not doing?
And why do you have to base it on a lie?
> You guys do a great join of DAing yourself
>by posting this bizarre stuff.
What bizarre stuff? Like Hubbard's black panther mechanism?
Or like claiming that Scientologists don't care at all about material
in DMSMH, or in WIS, or in the Tech Dictionary, or what's on their
checksheets?
> And you make serious critics
>who do a lot of work look kooky because they get lumped
>in with you.
Isn't that nice. You lie about Scientologists not caring at all about
Hubbard's black panther mechanism, and you lie about Caroline and I
having our heads in the occult, so you can get down to this cheap
black PR attack. Who or what also attacks credible opponents of the
Scientology cult? F
>
>Webbing the C of S's heinous policies like "Battle Tactics"
>is GOOD.
>
>A symbol of a black panther in your signature is Wacky.
What is wacky is your calling that photograph a symbol, and attacking
it. Whose purposes are you serving? LF
>
>Oh, and by the way, please be sure to include this response on
>your OSA GOON SQUAD page.
Yes, and if you're going to "plonk" me, just ask youself, which
mechanism is that? LFBD
And finally, for those who care to see for themselves what's all the
hubbub Cerridwen is generating about Caroline's signature, of all
things, the black panther edition is at the end of this letter:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/finding-von-stauffenberg.html
The signatures in the beast series were inspired by the
Scientologists' policy and practice of degrading the image of good
people, including Caroline and me, "to beast level."
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/pl-battle-tactics-reiss-87.html#20
The beast series started with Caroline's June 6 letter to David
Miscavige
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/letkeman-ltr-miscavige-2003-06-
06.html
Previously we had run a flora/fauna theme series on our What's New
Page as what was new in nature began to appear here in Germany this
spring.
See, e.g., http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/clover.jpg
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/bee-wht-flwrs.jpg
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/magnolia.jpg
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/orchids.jpg
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/2chicks.jpg
Most of our images from our What's New Page are available here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/fun/old-news.html
The first beast signature was a tiger, which also has significant
significance, despite what Cerridwen might say, to Scientologists.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/sig-cl-beast-l.jpg
The beast in the next signature has great significance to the
Americans, to whom, of course, we are looking for help against
Scientology's beastifications and predations.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/sig-cl-beast1-l.jpg
We took a day off from beastification on June 25, the day after
asparagus season ends in Germany.
"What's New? No more spargel, that's what's new!"
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/2003-spargel.jpg
Caroline's signature, as I mentioned above, I believe, is very
beautiful and lends itself to further beautification and fun. Here's
one we played with a bit on the Proof of Service for my Answer in
Armstrong VII.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/armstrong-answer-cv021632.html
Here are a couple of others:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/sig-cl-annie.jpg
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/images/sig-cl-ribbon.jpg
And here is a beast of another signature. Guess what? F/N
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/new.html
Gerry
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org