Cruise on Birth Control

Ronan

The Force is Strong With This One
The following statement from the article is missrepresentation by the media of Scientology. There Is no such 7 day silence statement in Scientology or denial of medical care.

"The doctrine stresses newborns cannot be poked or prodded for medical tests or spoken to for seven days."

The media As the signs team well know is very suppressive. The Sun that this article has been quoted from is newspaper known for
titilation and contraversy. Just look down the left hand of the page to see a list of sex based banners beside the "news report". Hardly indicates an Ethical/Reliable information source.
 
IF the rumours are true Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise have conceived their baby without sexual intercourse to preserve Katie's virginity and bring the new Jesus (ehm ehm) into this world.

I'd be most curious at what are the real facts about silent birth then ?
Would you care to provide us some insight about it ?


“The baby should not be bathed or chilled but should be wrapped somewhat tightly in a warm blanket, very soft, and then left alone for a day or so,” Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard wrote in Dec. 20, 1958, bulletin titled “Processing a New Mother.”
 
Oh my, so when people cut the little boy's skin off his penis during circumcision- everything is all right, but when parents try to protect their baby in it's most vulnerable period - there comes a loud fuss from mass media. Why I am not surprised?

Real facts behind silent birth are simple - scios try to prevent as much birth and post birth traumas as possible. That's all.
 
I remember reading somewhere that Scientology founder L.Ron Hubbard was in his early years very much
influenced by the writings and teachings of A. Crowley. Although this same source did not indicate that he was
a Golden Dawn member. Both Cults display common factors such as a systematic dehumanization of things
which are natural and loving. Giving a baby a soft blanket and leaving the baby alone for a day or so? Being
deprived of a mothers voice and closeness? Bond with a warm blanket? and finally, Processing a New Mother. Tom gets weirder and weirder with his couch jumping antics, half baked lectures on psychology and a symbolic virgin birth. Maybe it’s the cold fish he keeps company with.
 
I don't think that circumcision is okay anyway.
Why would you remove some part of your body that's there at birth ??!!

I don't trust anything coming out of Scientology because it all seemed so...cultish.

Silent birth does not convince me as something that needs to be done to alleviate any stress to the baby.
Although I agree that some calm atmosphere would be better I really don't think that by leaving the baby alone, even for a day is a very good idea.

I am for the Birth bonding, where you hold your baby as much as possible to comfort him, especially at birth where, as you said it they are the most vulnerable.

"Birth bonding. The way baby and parents get started with one another helps the early attachment unfold. The days and weeks after birth are a sensitive period in which mothers and babies are uniquely primed to want to be close to one another. A close attachment after birth and beyond allows the natural, biological attachment-promoting behaviors of the infant and the intuitive, biological, caregiving qualities of the mother to come together. Both members of this biological pair get off to the right start at a time when the infant is most needy and the mother is most ready to nurture"
 
When my younger brother was born in a US hospital the doctor tried to pressure my father to agree to have his son circumcised. My father declined, and the doctor told him he was risking his son's health because of possible infections if he did not perform the operation. My father spoke English with a heavy accent, and the doctor treated him like an ignorant yokel implying he was going to go ahead with the operation anyway, until my father threatened to sue, and then he relented.

So I agree this it sounds a bit hypocrytical for an establishment to promote one form of mutilation and ridicule another form. But that does not mean that preventing an infant from much needed close human contact in its most vulnerable moments is not mutilation. It is psychic mutilation because the brain is starved for life affirming stimuli as it rapidly forms connections. Denying a child a life-affirming hard-wiring through close contact (a common need of all mammals) in those moments when the brain sets neural foundations that last a life-time, amounts to criminal negligence of the baby's needs (IMO).

Hubbard was an alientated individual obsessed with aliens bent on alienating others. But it is the right of free adults to do as they please as long as they do not hurt others. Here, however, a helpless baby is hurt IMO. My opinion aside, the situation amounts to a belief of the parents and they have a right to it and how to apply it on their baby since there is no official scientific evidence that this tactic is detrimental to the baby's health, just as there is no evidence that circucision is detrimental to the baby's health either.

So even though I really couldn't care less about Tom, Katie and the rest of the CoS celebrity gang's antics, having them ridiculed doesn't bother me too much either. Besides it was Cruise who wanted all the publicity in the first place, spending a lot of his time with his foot in his public mouth.
 
Heh anyone seen the south park episode on scientology? It's funny. Isaac Hayes (does chef's voice) resigned from the show because of it (he's a scientologist).

They did a really good episode last week (it was the new one) where they killed him off b/c a creepy child-molesting club brainwashed him. The Super-Adventure Club went around the world to exotic places to have sex with the children they find there. Further, they believed that children have "murlocks" which can be transferred to adults upon having sex with them resulting in immortality for the adult. It was hilarious.
 
j0da said:
Oh my, so when people cut the little boy's skin off his penis during circumcision- everything is all right, but when parents try to protect their baby in it's most vulnerable period - there comes a loud fuss from mass media. Why I am not surprised?

Real facts behind silent birth are simple - scios try to prevent as much birth and post birth traumas as possible. That's all.
I agree. I think we need more information on this before any of us jump to conclusions. I am strongly - even vehemently - against circumcision. I think it is an extreme form of child abuse/mutilation and people ought to be arrested who do it.

I also have had five babies and have learned a lot by experience. I also read every baby book I could get my hands on when I was pregnant with my first child. The book that I found to convey the most sensible information was Erik Erikson's "Childhood and Society."

I learned very quickly that the best thing for a newborn was to reproduce, as far as possible, the conditions of the womb and only gradually "introduce" the outside world. A baby, in the womb, is pretty much "tightly wrapped" and the EXTERNAL temperature for that baby is at least 98.6 F. So, I swaddled my babies and kept them very warm for the first month or so. The baby is also used to hearing the mother's heart beat, so I kept the baby right next to me as much of the time as possible. The baby is also used to only muffled sounds, so I thought it was reasonable to keep the sound level as low as possible, only gradually introducing "outside noises."

In other words, without jumping to conclusions about what is quoted by LRH above, it sounds like - to some extent - we are on the same page. What now seems to be at issue is the way the news article presented the "neonatal advice" of LRH. Was it accurate? What did it really mean?

If he means that the baby should be "left alone" in the sense of not being manhandled and tortured by doctors and nurses, I have to agree completely. But I don't agree on complete silence or that the baby ought not to be held a LOT. The baby hears voices and music and all kinds of things while in the womb. Mostly the baby hears mother's voice in a "liquid" and immediate way. So all of that ought to be reproduced. The baby ought not to be in complete silence. And the mother and father ought to definitely talk to the baby in low tones and do it a LOT in the first week.

Also, I'm not too sure that a totally "silent" birth is optimal either. As I said, the baby hears a lot of things while in the womb, so natural sounds ought to be present, though efforts ought to be made to make them low and soothing.
 
Child raising and the mistakes I've made - Well here in Turkiye circumcision of boys is customary but it is not done when they are babies but later on usually when they have started school and a social gathering is organized to celebrate. But it is very traumatizing. I remember my older son, he was a first grader, 6,5 yrs old, and he was fighting in the hospital to get off the table. They had to call me in, I felt so bad when I saw the blood I felt like fainting and had to leave the room. He was locally anesthesized but he still insists that he felt everything. And he cried nonstop for about an hour afterwards while I begged the doctor for a painkiller and then he went to sleep till morning. Freud spoke of castration anxiety which might have some truth in it . My other son was about 1,5 yrs old and he did not cry and does not remember the incident but when he saw his brother crying, he started crying also.
 
I think that it could be a nice example how things get distorted in the media and hearsay. It's really a long time since Scientology materials leaked into the internet and anyone who would really want to verify all the biased whos, whats, whens and hows would be able to do so. It requires some web searching finesse though, but it can be learned here:

http://www.searchlores.org/

Making things short, here is HCO BULLETIN OF 20 DECEMBER 1958...

PROCESSING A NEW MOTHER


The handling of a woman during and after pregnancy has a specific successful drill which should be generally known. This is not an attempt to give all the known data concerning pregnancy, delivery and child care. I will someday summarize all these. At this time I wish to give you only the processes and general use.

First, a woman should not be processed on engrams after the early months. Therefore a pregnant woman should be processed toward clear early and well. In other words she should be gotten into good shape soon in the pregnancy. Old Expanded Gita on babies, husbands, wives, bodies is definitely indicated.

After the sixth month only havingness and general Scientology processes can be run without injuring the baby—no engrams.

Next, the delivery itself should carry as little anaesthetic as possible, be as calm and no-talk as possible and the baby should not be bathed or chilled but should be wrapped somewhat tightly in a warm blanket, very soft, and then left alone for a day or so.

At once after delivery the woman should have simple havingness run—”Look around here and find something you have”—preferably by the husband. One hour of this at once, one more hour same day, two hours following day, all havingness and havingness only should be run.

After two days run the following:

“Invent something worse than—a delivery” (flatten it), “. . . a baby” (flatten it), “. . . a doctor” (flatten it), “. . . a nurse” (flatten it), “. . . a delivery room” (flatten it), “. . . a mother” (flatten it), “. . . a husband” (flatten it), “. . . an abdomen” (flatten it), “. . . a womb” (flatten it).

This should be done in next many days following the delivery. This and more factual havingness (all 3 commands) should straighten up the mother. It would be well if the six buttons and inventing were cleared away in early pregnancy so the post pregnancy processes will run easily. She shouldn’t face a new processing idea in the first few days after delivery, so if the processes are early prepared, all will be well.

On the baby, perhaps the best thing is no processing for three days. Then talk to the baby, tell the newcomer he or she is welcome, then make friends. Various things can be done—touch assist is best. Even the birth engram can be run but that’s a little adventurous in a lot of cases.

The most to know about the baby is not to tire him or her unduly for a week or two, feed a protein formula if mother not breast feeding. This formula is most like human milk. I picked it up in Roman days and have used it since—15 ounces of barley water, 10 ounces of homogenized milk, 3 ounces Karo syrup (this can be multiplied by any number according to the number of bottles desired but the ratio remains the same). Evaporated or condensed milk and heavy sugar make fat not bone. Protein is the thing that heals and makes strong growth. Modern hospital formulas and patent mixes for babies are not just bad, they are criminal.

Then the next important thing for a baby is to know he or she is winning. Don’t expect him or her to do more than a baby can do. Grant beingness to a baby.

“You make that body lie in that cradle” is wonderful on babies up to six months.

Let the child see Mama and Daddy both at least once a day. Never quarrel or argue in front of a baby or a child—it destroys security.

Always treat mama and baby with courtesy and respect and they’ll thrive. After all, they have done something. They’re keeping the human race going.


L. RON HUBBARD

LRH: gn.rd
Copyright © 1958
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Of course, above material is made available, without profit or payment, for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

So, well, that's the whole advice. I can't verify what effects such an approach produces, whole bulletin clearly focuses on comforting a baby and mother as well, preventing traumas, and alleviating painful memories from the delivery. If anyone would like to go to extreme, and REALLY find out if it is worth trying one would have to contact several women and their kids who went through this, talk to them, check how are they doing, etc. But, that takes time and effort and not every one is ready to take it so far. In fact, one man is absolutely unable to check and verify EVERYTHING, and that's why we are networking, sharing knowledge and information. I hope I was of some help.
 
Thanks Joda.

It looks like it's a translated text from another language though so it is difficult to understand.

I am a bit disturbed by your attempt to prove that somehow this is a "good" thing and that we should check in depth the method.
True that I am biaised against scientology techniques/mentality so it's difficult for me to really take seriously what they say.

As for the avaibility of Scientology texts on the net I have the impression that they would not let something out if it wasn't harmless for them.
Am I wrong when I say that Scientology is working like a cult (military?) ? with steps, grades and so on ?
That's how they present themselves imho.


You know there is a Sicentology church right where I live and they are very close to the European institutions ( a big building in the same street),
Frankly it gives me the creeps as they are proabably lobbying people over there.

Sorry but I really don't trust them.
 
I'm not in any way trying to prove such approach is a "good thing", I'm only trying to show, that things are not necesarily as they seem. I've been studying the subject for three years now and I've been digging really deep. I've read official materials, underground materials, checked pros and cons, met scio practicioners from the "inside" of the church and from the "outside" as well. I've read transcripts from court cases, witness testimonials, scio-bashing pages, official pages and off-shoot pages. What I've learned from this research is NOTHING is black or white. Interesting point is - Hubbard's condition deteriorated in time, and in the end he was nothing more than a shade of a powerfull, lively person he used to be. Now let me ask you a question - why such fall down reminds me stories of other enlightened people, who in their last days wondered what did they do wrong, that their movement went astray? There is a lot of information on SOTT forum about similar phenomenon in cases of Ouspiensky and Gurdjieff - it makes you wonder, doesn't it? What power is able to derail, distort, disrupt and turn into the opposite every single big spiritual movement in the world? Christianity and Scientology are the most profound examples, but look for others too.

p.s. here is the preface from quite an informative book about a matter at hand:
http://www.metatech.org/scienterra_lkin/lkinscientology1preface.htm
 
Doesn't look like it's been derailed to me. While we are considering the fact that everything is not black and white, which is certainly an approach embraced here, consider the possibility that percieved confirmation of Scientology as 'beneficial' or 'positive' could be the aim of any force which caused LRH to 'deteriorate'. Consider also that he may have caused problems for himself by association with negative forces. We see many examples of such tactics through 'cosmic COINTELPRO', all is indeed not black and white.

The most logical solution to this is to study the fruits of the various trees in this forest of disinformation, 'by their fruits you shall know them'. What are the fruits of this Scientology?, it seems to me that at best it represents 'A influences' - it is not encouraging anything different to other organised religions, it is hierarchical, it encourages faith rather than work, it is an 'opposame'. At worst, as evidenced by the information in this thread (which remains ambiguous, it is too easy to jump to conclusions) it may be advocating ritualistic techniques of imprinting, as if scientologists had such an understanding of the developing child that they can optimise its early environment and experiences. What LRH is suggesting is counterintuitive from a biological point of view, much contact and experience between child and mother is surely integral to the bonding process. This bonding process may be the most important influence on the developing child's brain. Studies in rats show how important the oxytocin hormone, stimulated DIRECTLY by maternal contact, is in the formation of neural pathways which allow the animal to learn normally as an adult. Imagine how complex the process is in humans, with their colossal neural networks, I think LRH should have researched this and done some work.

But like I said, I don't think that's what Scientology is about, and I'm being very conservative with my words here.
 
Well maybe this will make you think about the CoS (same initials as the church of Satan but that may be a coincidence :D)

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/home.html
 
j0da said:
I think that it could be a nice example how things get distorted in the media and hearsay. It's really a long time since Scientology materials leaked into the internet and anyone who would really want to verify all the biased whos, whats, whens and hows would be able to do so. It requires some web searching finesse though, but it can be learned here:

http://www.searchlores.org/

Making things short, here is HCO BULLETIN OF 20 DECEMBER 1958...

PROCESSING A NEW MOTHER


The handling of a woman during and after pregnancy has a specific successful drill which should be generally known. This is not an attempt to give all the known data concerning pregnancy, delivery and child care. I will someday summarize all these. At this time I wish to give you only the processes and general use.
Anybody know how many children LRH raised successfully to adulthood with a minimum of hang-ups? I find it arrogant in the extreme for a man - I don't care who he is - to pronounce so all-knowingly on the processes of childbirth and motherhood. It is even more astonishing when you consider that this field is quite simply not LRH's area of expertise.

As I mentioned, the book I found most helpful in formulating my own ideas was Erik Erikson's "Childhood and Society." Yes, Erikson was a man, but he had some good scientific observational and deductive skills. He didn't try to say what was "right," he observerd and reported. The theme of the book is to try to analyze the character of a society, of how people relate to each other as human beings in adulthood, and to describe this as accurately as possible, and then to inquire into the generally accepted practices of each of these different societies regarding obstetrical, neonatal, and child care to see if there was a distinct relationship between how children are treated as babies (in overal social terms) and how they grow up.

As it happens, there were clear relationships and it gave me a lot of food for thought about what would be the optimal way to deal with a baby in order to provide the most "self-actualizing" foundation. I've written about this in Amazing Grace as follows:

As infants and toddlers, we all feel that we are the center of the Universe, that we are omnipotent and omniscient beings. In the beginning, we perceive our parents as merely "extensions" of ourselves in the sense that when we are uncomfortable in any way, these shadowy figures, the landscape of our universe, act on our behalf. Thus it is that, at the earliest stages of development, the "response of the universe" to our needs becomes our deepest belief about life itself - a belief inculcated before verbal skills are developed, and therefore, hardly amenable to psychiatric exploration in the ordinary sense.

If, when we are hungry or cold or too warm, or lonely and in need of touching and comfort, the Universe as mother responds immediately with the appropriate solution, our earliest and deepest sense of existence tells us that the Universe is safe, that it is good, that it is responsive to us. This becomes the fundamental platform from which we operate throughout our lives. We have learned that the Universe is safe, that it is good to us, that we can reach out or cry out and the Universe and all within it will provide.

When a child is treated, at the very earliest stages, as an "object" to be "molded and shaped" by regimentation, a dreadful crime against the essential self, at the deepest levels of being, is committed. A child who is left hungry because it is not the scheduled feeding time will be conditioned to believe the Universe does not provide nourishment in response to his cries. A child who is not picked up and comforted when he is frightened, startled, or simply lonely and in need of being touched, is conditioned to believe that there is no point in reaching out or interacting with the Universe in any way. So it is that a child raised according to the Cartesian "man as machine" model has no sense of safety or sufficiency.

An infant subjected to abrupt and arbitrary "schedules," promoted by parents who, convinced by "medical and psychiatric theories," believe they are doing the "right thing," end up producing intense injuries to the infant's tender, budding self-esteem. Such injuries can be severe and irreversible.

The empathic support of our Primary Objects, the parents, is crucial at these early stages. In its absence, our sense of self-worth and self-esteem in adulthood tends to fluctuate wildly between over-valuation of ourselves by regressing to the infantile narcissistic mode, or devaluation of ourselves as the helpless child slave of a sadistic, even if well-meaning, parent.

Such a child can grow up with a heavy sense of bitter disappointment and radical disillusionment with the Universe as a whole. They are often unable to accept self-limitations, disappointments, setbacks, failures, criticism or disillusionment with grace and tolerance. Their self-esteem is inconstant and negative. There is a tendency to believe everything that happens to them is the result of outside events, or that everything is their fault, in some way.
While I am sympathetic to CoS, in general, never having had any negative experiences regarding them or their members, and knowing how much slander has been heaped on us and wondering if similar slanders were heaped on them, I do find the LRH's "neo-natal" advice is not just bad, it could be damaging in the extreme. One naturally wonders why the followers of CoS don't do more "checking" on LRH's pronouncements the way we do research on stuff the C's say? I mean, sheesh! LRH was just a human being with the same problems everyone else is heir to, and additional problems such as associations with some shady characters, and even the possibility of being mind-controlled by the CIA or ONI or some other alphabet soup gang. So you would think that his followers would consider him just a guide, an advisor, an "elder brother," and not the voice of god, fer cryin' out loud!

Next, the delivery itself should carry as little anaesthetic as possible, be as calm and no-talk as possible and the baby should not be bathed or chilled but should be wrapped somewhat tightly in a warm blanket, very soft, and then left alone for a day or so.
Here he is partly right and partly wrong. As little anaesthesia and talking as possible seems to be reasonable and logical. But the bathing part is not necessarily a good idea. Observe Nature! Dogs, cats, horses - all clean their newborns immediately. There is a REASON for this, not the least of which is simple avoidance of any bacteria from the birth canal infecting the baby in some way. The touching and handling and warm water is part of the "you are here in a nice, safe, universe" introduction. It is soothing to the baby which has been accustomed to having all of it's parts in contact with liquid and skin while inside the womb. The warm water is especially soothing to the infants skin because the products of the birth process are irritants and media for growth for all kinds of nasty stuff.

At once after delivery the woman should have simple havingness run—”Look around here and find something you have”—preferably by the husband. One hour of this at once, one more hour same day, two hours following day, all havingness and havingness only should be run.
This is nonsense. It is demeaning and smacks of treating a woman like an object or a half-wit. What I wanted after I had my babies was two things and two things only: the baby right next to me and rest. I wanted assurance that someone would make sure that the baby was alright when I slept, and that the baby was right there when I woke up. So this almost strikes me as an attempt to redirect the bonding process to external objects and away from the newborn infant. Subtle, but devastating.

After two days run the following:

“Invent something worse than—a delivery” (flatten it), “. . . a baby” (flatten it), “. . . a doctor” (flatten it), “. . . a nurse” (flatten it), “. . . a delivery room” (flatten it), “. . . a mother” (flatten it), “. . . a husband” (flatten it), “. . . an abdomen” (flatten it), “. . . a womb” (flatten it).

This should be done in next many days following the delivery. This and more factual havingness (all 3 commands) should straighten up the mother. It would be well if the six buttons and inventing were cleared away in early pregnancy so the post pregnancy processes will run easily. She shouldn’t face a new processing idea in the first few days after delivery, so if the processes are early prepared, all will be well.
More half-witted nonsense.

On the baby, perhaps the best thing is no processing for three days. Then talk to the baby, tell the newcomer he or she is welcome, then make friends. Various things can be done—touch assist is best. Even the birth engram can be run but that’s a little adventurous in a lot of cases.

The most to know about the baby is not to tire him or her unduly for a week or two, feed a protein formula if mother not breast feeding. This formula is most like human milk. I picked it up in Roman days and have used it since—15 ounces of barley water, 10 ounces of homogenized milk, 3 ounces Karo syrup (this can be multiplied by any number according to the number of bottles desired but the ratio remains the same). Evaporated or condensed milk and heavy sugar make fat not bone. Protein is the thing that heals and makes strong growth. Modern hospital formulas and patent mixes for babies are not just bad, they are criminal.

Then the next important thing for a baby is to know he or she is winning. Don’t expect him or her to do more than a baby can do. Grant beingness to a baby.

“You make that body lie in that cradle” is wonderful on babies up to six months.

Let the child see Mama and Daddy both at least once a day. Never quarrel or argue in front of a baby or a child—it destroys security.

Always treat mama and baby with courtesy and respect and they’ll thrive. After all, they have done something. They’re keeping the human race going.
Good god! LRH may have been a fine fellow, but his advice about neo-natal care is a menace to humanity!

First of all, notice again what Nature does. Newborn critters are cleaned up right away, put to nurse, and sleep next to mother almost constantly. Keep in mind that what is necessary immediately after birth is to help the "genetic body" of the infant to be as trauma free as possible. That is best done by re-creating the "womb conditiosn" as much as possible. That means movement, sound, closeness, snugness, almost constant contact with the mother, her warmth, touch, voice. What LRH is suggesting above is designed to create a psychopath or worse...

It is said that what LRH was trying to do was to find ways to help people get free of restrictive socio-cultural programming, what we often refer to as the "Predator's Mind." Don Juan said that the Predator's Mind is "baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now." As I wrote in The Wave:

But, what is this Predator's mind, exactly? It is the way our brains and nervous systems are set up - as delineated by our DNA - which includes certain early periods of Imprinting, which establishes our circuitry and thinking processes at an age and under conditions over which we have no control.

One of the main aspects of socio-cultural programming is what is called "imprinting." Human beings are born with certain basic behavior patterns built in their DNA. Just as a flower will follow a certain series of steps from the emergence of the seedling to the stage of producing a flower, human beings also develop certain characteristics only at certain times in their growth process. These sequences are something over which we have no control.

Konrad Lorenz illustrated this principle with his famous ducks. Ducks (and humans) are "programmed" at a certain time in their lives to "accept a mother" figure. If the proper mother figure is not there at that moment of "imprinting," whoever or whatever IS there will be the "mother image" in the mind of the duck. That is to say, when the appropriate (or inappropriate) object of need is presented to the duck at the correct time in its development, the object is labeled "mother" somewhere in the brain, and this label is next to impossible to erase.

Experiments were conducted with ducks which demonstrated that there is a critical age in hours at which a duckling is most responsive to "obtaining and labeling" a mother.

Similar studies were done with monkeys. These studies demonstrated that if a monkey has not received motherly stimulation before he is a certain number of weeks old, he will grow up to be cold, aloof, and unfriendly to his own offspring. The curious thing about the monkey experiments were that the sense of touch was more important than the feeding. A fuzzy surrogate with no milk was preferred over a wire surrogate with milk. This demonstrates a high level need for touching and caressing. It also suggests the "mode" of this imprint - sensory. Kinesthetic.

Evidence that there is a critical period for the "mother imprint" in the higher animals was emphasized in the monkey experiments. In one instance, the experimenter was not prepared for the arrival of a new baby monkey and had to create a makeshift "surrogate mother" using a ball for the head. This was provided to the baby, while the experimenter worked on a better model with a face. But, it was too late. The baby monkey had already bonded to the faceless mother and turned the face of the new model around so that it was blank. A mother with a face was simply not acceptable because the imprint had already been made.

Joseph Chilton Pearce writes:

Occasionally we hear of people found chained in attics and such places from infancy. Their world view is either scanty or different for they are always feeble minded at best. In 1951 a child was found in an Irish chicken-house, having somehow survived there with the chickens, since infancy. The ten-year old's long hair was matted with filth; he ate at the chicken trough; roosted with the flock; his fingernails had grown, fittingly, to semicircular claws; he made chicken-like noises, not surprisingly; he had no speech and showed no promise of learning any in the time he survived his rescue.

Forty years ago there was interest in two feral children found in India. They had apparently been raised by wolves. They were taken from an actual wolf den along with some cubs, the older wolves scattering or being killed. One of the children, Kamala they called her, survived for nine years. Only with difficulty was she taught table manners and such niceties as walking on the hind legs. Nevertheless she exhibited a growing awareness of the reward system of her new group, and displayed a strong drive toward such orientation. As with the chicken-child, however, she had missed the formative period of human infant development, and there was no easy or complete going back to retrace the steps. Kamala had formed according to the pattern eliciting response around her during her mirroring [imprinting] period. For her first two years of captivity - or rescue - she howled faithfully at ten, twelve, and three at night, as all Indian wolves do. She would also, in spite of precautions, manage to get at the chickens, rip them apart alive and eat them raw. Only when the new social reward system grew strong enough to outweigh the earlier rewards did she abandon her early training. [The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, 1971]
We are all Kamala. We are all divine children raised by wolves.

But how can this be?

We are all programmed. Our programs are written in the circuits of our brains by those around us in our formative years, just as their programs were written during their formative years, and so on back into the mists of time. Each generation just adding a few more lines of code.

It is our ideas that shape our children. We provide what we may consider to be the ideal environment for the child, but our own programming determines what we may consider to be the "proper environment." Once we have provided the environment, we then want our children to like it, to approve of it, to agree with us that it is "right." And our ideas come from our culture. And our culture is created by... what? A Control System?

There is considerable evidence that "agreement" is also "in the genes." There seems to be a genetic drive toward communion with others, for speech and preferences and disposition. As newly born human beings, it seems we come into the world with intent to be in agreement with others. But the details of how we go about being "agreeable" is related to the imprints we receive at the various stages of childhood development.

Everyone carries in their genes, it seems, deep archetypes that are very much like a database program just waiting for someone to input data. The thing is, this database is only open to input for a limited period of time, and whatever data is entered during that time determines how all other data will be evaluated forever after. It will produce over and over again the same response to any set of stimuli that have one or more items that have been organized by the database. Anything that is not found in the database is "discarded." If the database is not utilized and no data is entered during the period of "readiness," or imprinting, that possibility goes dormant and diminishes.

The higher thinking functions, laid over the deep level archetype database, can be viewed as a kind of software that is linked to the database, and must constantly check with it in order to operate. You could think of it as a word processing program with a fixed dictionary and set of templates, and you can only write in it according to the templates, and you can only use the words that are in the already fixed dictionary. Since our brains are genetically designed to accept imprint conditioning on its circuits at certain crucial points in neurological development, these critical periods are known as times of Imprint Vulnerability. The imprint establishes the limits or parameters within which all subsequent conditioning and learning will occur. Each successive imprint further complicates the matter, especially if some of these programs are not compatible with others.

Different schools of thought describe these circuits as "stages of development." Some of the earliest work in these concepts has passed into our culture to such an extent that they have become slang terms such as "Oh, he's just anal-rententive," with very little actual understanding of what is meant by such expressions.

It seems that, according to research, the "older" brain structures - those necessary for basic survival, such as the brain stem - are imprinted in the earliest stages of development, and that the "newer structures," such as the mid-brain and cortex develop "superimpositions" upon the more primitive imprints. However, the earlier parts of the brain and their imprints form the foundation for how later imprints are responded to and continue to function after the higher thinking modes are developed.

In other words, if you are traumatized as an infant at a crucial point of Imprint Receptivity, it doesn't matter if you grow up to be the President of the United States - you will still be ruled by the imprint. [...]

The first stage, or circuit, is the oral-passive-receptive, and is imprinted by what is perceived to be the mother or first mothering object. It can be conditioned by nourishment or threat, and is mostly concerned with bodily security. Trauma during this phase can cause an unconsciously motivated mechanical retreat from anything threatening to physical safety.

In recent times I have given a lot of thought to this particular circuit because of the matter of circumcision. Having come to the tentative idea that the whole Judeo-Christian monotheistic rant was a major control program, I came face to face with the question: how and why has it worked so well for so many thousands of years? More than that, how was it imposed in the first place?

I puzzled over this for weeks. I thought about several things that Friedrich Nietzsche had said that struck me like thunderbolts of truth once I was able to really step back and look at the matter:

The Jews are the most remarkable nation of world history because, faced with the question of being or not being, they preferred, with a perfectly uncanny conviction, being at any price; the price they had to pay was the radical falsification of all nature, all naturalness, all reality, the entire inner world as well as the outer, They defined themselves counter to all those conditions under which a nation was previously able to live, was permitted to live; they made of themselves an antithesis of natural conditions - they inverted religion, religious worship, morality, history, psychology, one after the other, in an irreparable way into the contradiction of their natural values.

...Christianity has waged a deadly war against the higher type of man. It has put a ban on all his fundamental instincts. It has distilled evil out of these instincts. It makes the strong and efficient man its typical outcast man. It has taken the part of the weak and the low; it has made an ideal out of its antagonism to the very instincts which tend to preserve life and well-being... It has taught men to regard their highest impulses as sinful - as temptations.

...What is Jewish, what is Christian morality? Chance robbed of its innocence; unhappiness polluted with the idea of "sin;" well-being represented as a danger, as a "temptation," a physiological disorder produced by the canker worm of conscience. [The Anti-Christ, 1888]
But, that's not to say that Nietzsche was any paragon himself, with his mysogynistic, misanthropic rants! He was, in fact declared insane in 1888.

Revolt against the whole civilized environment in which he was born is the keynote to Nietzsche's literary career. [Britannica, 11th ed.]
Nevertheless, he had a point about Judaism and Christianity (and any and all other monotheistic, dominator religions.) So, there I was, pondering this and trying to figure out HOW and WHY people could be so completely taken in by this utter nonsense? How can educated members of the human race, in this day and age, with all the resources of knowledge and awareness available to those who have the desire and energy to search for truth, possibly buy into such myths?

It just staggered my mind to think about it.

I went back in my thinking to the whole Jehovah-I AM deal; the Moses story and all that; and went over the details as they are presented in the Bible for clues. And I came up against that most interesting demand of that crafty Lizard, Jehovah/Yahweh: circumcision - on the 8th day, no less.

What better way to ensure a deep, subconscious, distrust of women - not to mention an overwhelming terror at the very mention of the pain and suffering that might ensue from breaking the monotheistic covenant - than whacking a guy's pee-pee when he is interested only in being warm, cozy, and filling his tummy with warm, sweet milk from mother?!

Whoah! Talk about your basic abyssal cunning there!

The first "circuit" is concerned with what is safe and what is not safe. In our society, money is one of the primary items that is intimately tied to survival and biological security. Money represents survival. In addition to that, people who have been traumatized during the imprinting phase of the first circuit tend to view other people in an abstract way. It is "us and them." They also tend to be very easily threatened by disapproval of any sort because disapproval suggests the idea of extinction or loss of food supply. And, finally, those who have been negatively imprinted at this stage tend to have a chronic muscular armoring that prevents proper, relaxed breathing; they are "up tight."

One of the main characteristics of people who are heavily controlled by this circuit, or are "stuck" in this "oral phases," is that when they sense danger of any sort, whether actual or conceptual, all mental activity comes to a halt. Such people are chronically anxious and dependent - mostly on religion. They are not able to really understand what other people are feeling or what can happen in the future in regard to relationships, given a certain present situation. They only understand what is happening "now," and they can only feel what THEY feel. They cannot accurately grasp what others feel because they relate to others only as sensory objects.

And, how many men are circumcised? A LOT, I can tell you. And, besides the Jews, for years, the AMA advocated and urged circumcision of American babies for "hygienic" reasons. Hmmm...

As a side note, trauma or failure to bond at this oral phase tends to also lead to weight issues - either overweight or underweight.

The expression of healthy growth through this phase is the ability to retain the state of consciousness of the "natural child" who feels safe in the world no matter what they encounter. [...]

The second stage, or circuit, the famous "anal phase," is concerned with keeping or letting go of experiences in interactions with others. The second circuit determines how an individual will expand their identity to include others. The drive of the second phase is to interact with other selves. It is this drive that either brings about the congregation of groups, or results in paranoid withdrawal from anyone who is "different." Trauma in the formation of this circuit (generally from 12 months to 24 months) can result in a lack of social feeling, a tendency to manipulate and exploit others for one's own gain, and cruelty to others whether conscious or unconscious. This is generally a result of a feeling of non-acceptance, that one is missing out on something that others have, the need for approval from others and basic lack of self-esteem.

It is during this phase that the "matrix" forms as a "semantic universe" of verbal structures. Language is conceptual, as we have discussed previously, and is one of the things that distinguishes 3rd density from 2nd density. Our concepts are a sort of "framework of perception" that we learn as we learn words. As we are learning our language, things such as "hot" and "cold," we are also learning that one thing is "good" or another is "bad." We can either handle things freely because they are "good," or "don't touch" because they are "bad." There is, in this phase, a tremendous drive in a child to "create order." This drive is aimed at grouping, identifying, correlating and naming everything. And, as this is being done, there is a constant check with the parents and others interacting with the child as to whether this is "bad" or "good" or "real" or "not real." What the child is doing is defining not only himself, but his entire world. It is at this stage that most of our complex belief systems are formed. Everything that surrounds him is raw material for the child. The Matrix is created by the guiding actions and responses from the other minds around him. The matrix is, in reality, a gigantic conditioning system. And we insert our children into it through our own actions. [...]

Those with strong positive 2nd circuits imprints are able to "feel" for others in terms of a sense of concern or identity by association. They are willing to reach out and acknowledge the being of another.

However, due to the most common imprinting of our society, which is negative, most of this "reaching out" is in the context of "territory" that involve emotional con games, pecking order, rituals of domination or submission. It has been noted that a lot of people with negative 2nd circuit imprinting can be found in military or hierarchical organizations where there is constant striving to "please" someone in order to maintain or rise in status.

This second circuit is generally most powerfully imprinted by the nearest "alpha male" or the earliest perceived dominant male figure in a person's life. This circuit is also very often referred to as the "ego" because it mistakes itself for the whole self.

Individuals who are ruled by negative 2nd stage imprinting generally use a lot of "anal expressions" or language relating to excretory functions and parts of the body. They have inveterate "potty mouth."

Very often those with heavy imprints in the second stage are either very concerned about physical fitness and body structure as a mode of power or just simply power over others in general. They fear thinking and feel that the best response to a problem is to "frighten it away."

The reality structure of the 2nd circuit is the prevailing mode of modern society which is why most issues end in confrontations that bring out both bullying and cowardliness - hallmarks of 2nd circuit trauma.

The third circuit/stage is charmingly referred to as "phallic." Don't ask me why this term has been selected over all others but it has to do with the fact that the imprinting stage is associated with the child's discovery of his/her genitals and this period also seems to partly determine gender role identification as well as one's later attitudes toward the body and sex. It is also called the Oedipal or Electra stage.

This circuit continues to be imprinted and conditioned by symbol systems, i.e. words and concepts, however with subtle conceptual complications. The child is beginning to be able to understand complex symbolism and such things as "now" and "later" and "soon" and "never." These concepts are intimately connected to the ability to tolerate separation as well as to mourn if the idea of grief is introduced and demonstrated by a role model.

So, essentially, we find that the 3rd stage has to do primarily with time and spatial concepts - with what is the "real world" and what is not.

The part of the brain that is developing during this phase is the cerebellum and it is supposed to coordinate the "lower brain" functions with possible action. This part of the brain and its imprinting determines our ability to change and adapt. This is what makes us able to discriminate and compare with logic and comparative analysis. Its functions operate like a computer; it scans, categorizes and selects by cross-referencing and coding information. It is this part of the brain that makes us able to weigh choices and make decisions.

In most people, however, due to traumatic or too early potty training during the "anal phase," this part of the brain becomes the slave of the emotions of the second and first circuits. That doesn't mean that it cannot work and do its work well in terms of scanning, categorizing and coding information; but if there is trauma, depending on the severity, it can be very difficult for this part of the brain to function as the coordinator it was meant to be. The intellectual function can be scholarly as all get out, but there is no possibility of development of higher emotions. Such a condition can lead to a ruthless intellectual who tortures or kills others in the name of religion. These people have packaged their environment in terms of heavy sanctions; taboos, rules, laws, prohibitions, faith and dogmatism. Much of this will be unconscious and will pass as "common sense" or "common decency" or "it's right, and that's all there is to it!" Anyone who challenges such a person is a heretic, a traitor or a lunatic. They also use a lot of language that refers to sexual functions.

Those who are dominated by the 3rd circuit respond to problems by "reasoning" it out, even if their reason is being directed by the emotions of the 1st or 2nd circuits. When this is the case, they could be called a "third circuit robot" because they simply cannot break free of the emotional content of their rules and dogma. For such people, the rest of the nervous system has, for all intents and purposes, stopped growing.

There are two curious manifestations of this circuit. If the 1st and 2nd circuits are basically healthy, and the 3rd circuit is not traumatized in any notably serious way, but no effort to develop higher faculties is made, the "normal conscious mind" has two basic "tracks." The one is the desire to use the intellect to prove that much of human experience, even including the reality itself, is delusion or illusion. Everything is mysterious and hallucinatory. The second is to use the intellect to prove that nothing exists BUT the material world and anything mysterious is viewed as hallucination, coincidence or sloppy research!
Now, the above is based on serious research. What I want to point out is that dealing with an infant in the way prescribed by LRH is very dangerous experimentation on a being in a crucial stage of imprint vulnerability. What is done in the first weeks of life can almost NEVER be undone.

One wonders if he was "influenced" to create this "formula" for the very purpose of providing someone or something with an army of humans with a particular "imprint" in the first circuit similar to the very negative imprint of circumcision on the 8th day?

And speaking of formula, his idea of what to feed a baby is a complete concoction of poison. Cows milk is for cows. It is evil for human beings and so is corn syrup. It is MOST evil for people with type O blood. If anything at all must be given to the infant other than mother's milk, it should be raw goat's milk and a bit of honey.

So, all in all, LRH's attempts to create a better way are illogical, ignorant and a menace to the infant and probably the mother as well.

I feel very sorry for any mothers and babies subjected to this regimen. Might as well go back to being chattel of Yahweh if the words of this man are going to be the replacement... not much difference IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom