“And, in TC’s case, he believes himself to be a savior to people wherever he goes, whether he’s making a movie - he has to save the day, or he drives by an accident, and is the only one who can save them because he’s a Scientologist.
“But how to convey his message is a matter of choice. He uses way too much force than is necessary, he uses beratement and threats of job loss for not complying. He verbally pummels the people instead of using compassion and intention.
"This was dramatized every day in the Sea Org, with seniors showing their total inability to contain their anger and frustration, unable to communicate effectively using reason with the right words and intention.
“Instead, throwing their emotional garbage into their delivery of the message - reduce the people, fill them with fear, make them feel they must comply or they would be punished.
"Acting like a tyrant is a choice, especially with his savior complex, while getting people to believe he’s doing them a favor. But that’s Scientology."
I'd tried every approach in trying to convince people of whatever it is I believe [in my case - reality...the stuff I'm saying is just collected data, not even open for debate, unless the data collection sources themselves are wrong, which no one is saying, i.e., "93% of Black people murdered are murdered by other Black people."
At Indigo, was I berating the staff when I calmly asserted my right not to wear a mask?
No.
Did it work?
No.
My brother said to write on the mask "90-year-old woman Nancy Russell chooses to be euthanized out of fear of further lockdowns."
But why do I need to make an emotional argument to convince someone of something that's my right anyway?
It's like saying I need to calmly explain to a criminal that I won't let them into my home, and if they use force, I will either defend myself using force, or call the police to use force. IMO, this goes without saying.
Although I have no idea what the correct approach is. As far as I can tell, I'm watching sheep to the slaughter right now.
In a real crisis, you don't have 50% of the population not believe it. Evidence of a real crisis would be everywhere. We would all know people who died. We would all know people who became seriously ill. A real crisis doesn't require the news to remind us daily that it exists.
So I have very little hope here.
My optimistic outlook, if you can call it that, is that people will just gradually keep working and keep breaking curfews and lockdown orders to a point where the police are unable to do anything about it, because they don't have the resources to maintain control. Which they don't - if everyone stopped caring tomorrow, police would have no ability to control the population, and people would continue to die at epic rates...
PEOPLE ARE DYING BY THE 0.00001's!! I'M GETTING SCARED!!
...
But if we fail to prevent the spread of lockdowns, global communism could very well take place.
I feel this is just a giant compliance test by the global elite. They want to see how much power they have over the population. But the power they have is ultimately based on psychological acceptance of that power more than actual power...even in North Korea, the entire population could technically overwhelm the government. That's a desperate example, as the NK communist government is HUGELY powerful...but in the West, it's not a close call: the people have way more power than the elites.
But humans are like wildebeests. A lion will go kill a wildebeest while the rest of the herd just looks on, not having a clue what's even happening. Meanwhile, if they worked as a team, they could gore and tear apart every lion in Africa, as wildebeests outnumber lions at least 50 to 1.
It's depressing watching this, but people don't seem to be giving up much fight, even as it dawns on more and more people that COVID is not that lethal.
