Brilliant new Freezone Website.
- Thread starter Terril park
- Start date
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
And there's no *right* to not be considered a fuckwitted bully, nitpicker or just all round jerk, either, though it appears that some may think so. This forum and the internet is not an axe handle and being rejected, lampooned or mocked by the recipient of such communication is not being suppressed.
Hubbard indoctrinated us, as scientologists, to consider criticism and disagreement as "suppression" and an indicator of "hate", "bank", overts and suppressive characteristics.
In real life, "wogs" may or may or may not feel hurt by disagreement. Unfortunately they often do harbour resentment over criticism. But in interpersonal communication, generally there is actually no black and white, right or wrong, agreed upon in the "wog" world.
Old Ronnie capitalised on the hurt that disagreement can naturally cause, by labelling it as "suppressive" and making the critic wrong and the criticised right. It was one of the victim techniques that he used to make men his "slaves" as he set himself up as the explainer and solution for one's hurt. (PTS/SP tech and "reality"/"invalidation"). He converted complicated grey areas of interpersonal relationships to a simplistic polarity. Doing this, he was using his stable datum/confusion tech to control his slaves thinking and reactions.
Hubbard was a great believer in the confusion/stable datum tech, he just ommitted to point out to us how much he used it in a reverse black-tech way to replace our confusions with his simplistic ideas in order to control our thinking and behaviour and beliefs. The cunning sod!
Unfortunately Scn trained us to see things as very black or white, "theta" or "suppressive". This often takes some time to recover from. Criticism of scientology is a direct challenge to Hubbard's hypnotic brainwashing and an opportunity to let go of the simplistic dichotomous ideas he fixed in us.
Scientologists cannot help but see criticism as "hate", "bank" and "suppressive" because they are "stable datum" implanted scientologists. I was one once!
Makes me feel very sorry for scientology dupes like Miscavige, Rathbun, Cruise and Travolta.
Last edited:
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard indoctrinated us, as scientologists, to consider criticism and disagreement as "suppression" and an indicator of "hate", "bank", overts and suppressive characteristics.
In real life, "wogs" may or may or may not feel hurt by disagreement. Unfortunately they often do harbour resentment over criticism. But in interpersonal communication, generally there is actually no black and white, right or wrong, agreed upon in the "wog" world.
Old Ronnie capitalised on the hurt that disagreement can naturally cause, by labelling it as "suppressive" and making the critic wrong and the criticised right. It was one of the victim techniques that he used to make men his "slaves" as he set himself up as the explainer and solution for one's hurt. (PTS/SP tech and "reality"/"invalidation"). He converted complicated grey areas of interpersonal relationships to a simplistic polarity. Doing this, he was using his stable datum/confusion tech to control his slaves thinking and reactions.
Hubbard was a great believer in the confusion/stable datum tech, he just ommitted to point out to us how much he used it in a reverse black-tech way to replace our confusions with his simplistic ideas in order to control our thinking and behaviour and beliefs. The cunning sod!
Unfortunately Scn trained us to see things as very black or white, "theta" or "suppressive". This often takes some time to recover from. Criticism of scientology is a direct challenge to Hubbard's hypnotic brainwashing and an opportunity to let go of the simplistic dichotomous ideas he fixed in us.
Scientologists cannot help but see criticism as "hate", "bank" and "suppressive" because they are "stable datum" implanted scientologists. I was one once!
Sorry (since you're bringing me in to this), but that's cobblers. I've made it quite clear in my posts on ESMB that I have serious doubts about the OT levels - I've even quoted geologists who examined the OT3 "data" and said the sequence of events as laid down in the materials is impossible. So how does any of what you've said apply to me, or to Fluff either since she's also renounced her former status as a Scientologist?
Also, find anywhere in my posts where I've said that people who disagree with or oppose Scn are motivated by hate, by a desire to suppress or that they have overts. You won't find it anywhere, because that has never been my opinion.
What I'm protesting here is the exact opposite - it's the Scn in toto rejectors who are closed minded and think in black and white. They simply can't accept that if an auditing session leads to a big win (and I've been lucky enough to experience some like that) something good might have happened, and that at least some of that could be down to Ron's Tech (which of course plenty of other people had a hand in developing). Nope, the whole thing is a total crock of s**te and people like me who see some good in it are poor deluded fools who'll maybe wake up one day and can it all if we're lucky.
Sorry, but I'm not buying.
Last edited:
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Yes, that's a huge generalization about "Scientologists" and I believe it's meant to include non CofS Scn'ists. However, as I've explained to Lionheart many times, it's not true of everyone. Mark Baker, Terril and many other non CofS Scn'ists I know have no problem with Scn criticism at all. I didn't either, when I was a Scn'ist. In fact, I made many friends amongst the critical community and did so long before ESMB was even a glint in Emma's eye. I'd never have been able to do that (and I was a Scn'ist then, first CofS, then FZ, then indie) had I felt that criticism of Scn was wrong or bad. I've talked to quite a few Free zoners and other Scn'ists about criticism of Scn. Some of the most scathing criticism I've heard about/against Scn came from some of those individuals, in fact.
So consider this: Lionheart has repeatedly expressed dismay about people answering back when attacked, then alleging that THOSE people are the ones doing the attacking. Anyone can see the comments that were initiated and how personalized and negative they are. They're right there. So evidently, those comments, in the minds of certain people are considered to be so truthful and objective, that the ad hom, personalized and rude aspects melt away like an ice cube on a hot sidewalk in August. Because they're ok. They're right. Those people needed to have that stuff said to them. So if those people say anything other than yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir, then that person is attacking. Because that person is wrong and is resisting the corrections so generously offered by these other critics. (we're ALL critics on this forum) So it totally works out. It's not what's said, it's to whom it was said and did the bitch or bastard need a lesson and if they resist, well, it's like resisting arrest. Not allowed to do that.
It is rather self serving, isn't it. And then we add conspiracy charges, additional accusations and so on- but, hey, that's ok. That person needed it.
That's something criminals say when they're caught pursuant to their theft, mayhem, rapine, whatever - the bitch deserved it. Or like the guy with his hand in my purse "No reason to make a federal case out of it." And because I made a big deal of it, he said if he ever caught me walking around on some street where he was, he'd beat the crap out of me. Because, see, it was ok that he had his hand in my purse. He needed to do what was there and it was not ok to answer back.
So consider this: Lionheart has repeatedly expressed dismay about people answering back when attacked, then alleging that THOSE people are the ones doing the attacking. Anyone can see the comments that were initiated and how personalized and negative they are. They're right there. So evidently, those comments, in the minds of certain people are considered to be so truthful and objective, that the ad hom, personalized and rude aspects melt away like an ice cube on a hot sidewalk in August. Because they're ok. They're right. Those people needed to have that stuff said to them. So if those people say anything other than yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir, then that person is attacking. Because that person is wrong and is resisting the corrections so generously offered by these other critics. (we're ALL critics on this forum) So it totally works out. It's not what's said, it's to whom it was said and did the bitch or bastard need a lesson and if they resist, well, it's like resisting arrest. Not allowed to do that.
It is rather self serving, isn't it. And then we add conspiracy charges, additional accusations and so on- but, hey, that's ok. That person needed it.
That's something criminals say when they're caught pursuant to their theft, mayhem, rapine, whatever - the bitch deserved it. Or like the guy with his hand in my purse "No reason to make a federal case out of it." And because I made a big deal of it, he said if he ever caught me walking around on some street where he was, he'd beat the crap out of me. Because, see, it was ok that he had his hand in my purse. He needed to do what was there and it was not ok to answer back.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
It's very easy to turn your words against you. I'm enjoying it immensely.
Similar threads
